Sitting of 10 December 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Lithuania) Order 2001 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) Order 2001 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    DEATH OF A MEMBER
    Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Sir Raymond Powell, Member for Ogmore. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WORK AND PENSIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Information and Communications Technology
    1. Brian White: What plans he has to enable the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to use common IT communications.[19141]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Mr. Speaker, may I identify Government Front-Bench Members with your remarks about our colleague, Sir Ray Powell? As a former Chief Whip, may I add that Sir Ray will be very much missed on our side?
    We are bringing the Employment Service together with those parts of the Benefits Agency that support people of working age, to create Jobcentre Plus. The first 49 Jobcentre Plus pathfinders went live on 22 October. I am pleased to announce that the Brent Jobcentre Plus pathfinder, a group of four offices, opened this morning. That brings the total to 53. We plan progressively to extend that integration nation wide, beginning next year
    576
    We are investing to upgrade and replace the Department's outdated computer systems. We want to ensure that everyone, including people who use Jobcentre Plus, receives a modern service. The new and improved information technology that we are developing will allow us to capture the necessary information from people face to face or over the phone, instead of getting them to fill in multiple benefit claims forms. We will replace the main income support and jobseeker's allowance benefit processing systems and modernise the payments system, to improve the efficiency of the service that we provide.
    Brian White: The new deal worked because it had good IT support. One of the lessons of the state earnings-related pension scheme debacle was the failure to communicate with Department of Social Security offices. The permanent secretary said that we needed to bring it up to date. Given that major progress has been made, will the Minister confirm that it remains a key priority for the Government?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, I can confirm that. We want to ensure that all the new desktop infrastructure that we are rolling out into the Benefits Agency offices can run the major Employment Service systems. We are targeting the end of next year for having everything in place.
    Mr. David Willetts: Mr. Speaker, I associate Conservative Members with your remarks about the former Member for Ogmore. He was a character who brought a distinctive flavour to the House and we shall miss him.
    We agree with the Minister that it is important that the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service communicate with each other. The ONE project was supposed to be about that. Last week, the Department placed in the Library a copy of its evaluation of ONE. Does the Minister acknowledge its results? The conclusions state:
    "The evidence does not suggest that ONE has changed the probability of leaving benefit"
    either for jobseekers or
    "for sick or disabled claimants."
    Ministers say that they believe in evidence-based policy. Now that the Minister has the evidence, will he change the policy?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words about our former colleague, the Member for Ogmore, not least because Sir Ray Powell had dealings with his Opposition counterpart through the Whips Office. I agree that he will be sorely missed
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would change their policy. The answer is no. It is not fair of him to dip into the evaluation of the ONE pilot and partially quote from it. He missed out many of the evaluation's positive points about working across Departments and with stakeholders. Our actions are partly based on the evaluation, but events have moved on and we intend Jobcentre Plus and the IT that supports it to be focused on moving people from welfare to work.
    It was implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question that some of the equipment with which we have to work is 20 years old. I agree that it is long overdue for overhaul

    577
    and modernisation. It would be reasonable to pause and consider why the equipment was not upgraded and modernised in 18 years of Conservative Administrations.

    Winter Fuel Allowance (Wales)
    2. Mr. Huw Edwards: How many pensioners in Wales will receive the winter fuel allowance this winter.[19142]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Last winter in Wales, just over 600,000 people aged 60 and over received a winter fuel payment. A similar number will receive the payment this winter, and about 18,000 people will benefit in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the Government for their decision to increase the winter fuel allowance for the rest of this Parliament. Does he agree that this will be particularly welcome in Wales, where an awful lot of pensioners are really quite poor, and where more than 50 per cent. of women pensioners do not receive the full state pension because of disadvantages in the labour market when they were younger, or because of some of the disadvantages in the social security system? Does he agree that targeted measures such as the winter fuel allowance, the minimum income guarantee for pensioners and the pension credit will work in the interests of Wales' pensioners?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend's description of the history of a low-paying Wales is absolutely right. Before the universal benefit of the national minimum wage, Wales was the low-pay capital of Europe. From 2003, the pension credit will replace the current benefit, and two thirds of its recipients will be women. The state second pension, which commences in April next year, will right a wrong perpetrated many years ago when 2 million carers and 14 million low-paid workers—the majority of them women—were excluded. The Government are committed to righting the wrongs of previous Administrations and to ensuring that women get a retirement settlement.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many pensioners are still waiting for last year's payment or, indeed, payment from previous years?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must be related to Wales.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to emphasise that the winter fuel allowance is available not only to pensioners but to males and females over the age of 60? Will he also assure the House that sufficient attention will be given to publicising that fact throughout the country, so that all people over 60 are aware of their eligibility?
    Mr. McCartney: We are publicising that fact.[Interruption.] I notice that Conservative Members are denying that Wales is a country. As a Celt, I certainly do not do so.
    578
    There will be a £200 winter fuel allowance for each eligible household, worth £4 a week. The Chancellor made it clear in his statement that the payment will remain at £200 for the remainder of this Parliament. About 11.5 million pensioner households will benefit from the measure, this winter and beyond. That will be a significant factor in reducing fuel poverty among the elderly.

    Universal Bank
    3. Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the progress of the universal bank. [19143]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Steady progress is being made on the implementation of universal banking services, which are on schedule for introduction in April 2003.
    Dr. Cable: May I ask the Minister, in relation to the April 2003 launch, whether the Post Office card account will be ready at that time? Will he also tell the House how many of those card accounts he is planning to introduce?
    Mr. Darling: The card account is an integral part of the universal banking services. The number of such accounts is the subject of negotiations between the Post Office and its various partners, and it would not be right to air the content of those discussions on the Floor of the House, for obvious reasons.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when the universal bank was announced, it was intended to provide revenues to fill the black hole of £400 million in the finances of sub-post offices caused by the Government's decision to force people to have their benefit payments made into their bank accounts? Will he also confirm that, far from contributing revenues to make good that lost income, the universal bank will cost £180 million over its first five years? Will he, therefore, assure the House that neither he nor the universal bank will try to obtain revenues from the poorest of the poor by charging the bank's users, who will, by and large, be benefit recipients who previously had no bank account? Is it not monstrous that he should even think of getting money from such a source?
    Mr. Darling: I admire the right hon. Gentleman's gall. I thought that he might have wanted to refer to the benefit payment card, which I see has yet again been the subject of damning criticism by a Select Committee, and for which he was responsible. He says that people are being forced to move to automated credit transfer, but as a former Secretary of State for Social Security, he must be aware that about 40 per cent. of benefit and pension recipients already receive their money by ACT. In relation to child benefit, something like 57 per cent. of new applicants ask that the money be paid directly into a bank account. Because of that, we needed to put in place measures that would protect the position of the Post Office. The universal bank is designed to do just that.
    The right hon. Gentleman presided over a situation in which benefit card costs rocketed out of control and he came up with a product that was virtually obsolete before it was delivered; but I believe that the universal banking service provides the Post Office with the best opportunity to manage the change that is already taking place.

    Disability Discrimination Act
    4.Mr. Tom Clarke: If he will abolish the small firms' exemption from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.[19144]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We are committed to ending the exemption of small employers from the employment provisions of the DDA in October 2004.
    Mr. Clarke: I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent announcement. Has she evidence on whether small businesses agree with me that ending the exemption is a challenge and an opportunity for people with disabilities, or does she share the view of the Government who took the DDA through the House, who said that employing people with disabilities in small businesses represents an unacceptable burden?
    Maria Eagle: My right hon. Friend has a long and fine record in the House of supporting people with disabilities and promoting legislation to assist them. There is no evidence that small firms with under 15 employees consider the DDA a burden; and during recent research by the Disability Rights Commission on employers with fewer than 15 employees, two thirds said that they welcome and are in favour of the DDA. Hardly any expressed a negative opinion, so this is a measure whose time has come. We are determined that it will be properly implemented by October 2004.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Can the Minister advise the House of the cost of abolishing the exemption? If not, will she commit to publishing a full regulatory impact assessment before making any change?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. Had he been aware that the announcement was made in our response to the disability rights taskforce document "Towards Inclusion", he could have looked up the draft regulatory impact assessment in the back.
    Mr. Prisk: The cost?
    Maria Eagle: The cost is £3.92 per business, on average. The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to access employment require thought more than cash.

    New Deal (Eltham)
    5.Clive Efford: What assessment he has made of the impact of the new deal for young people in Eltham.[19145]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Since 1997, youth unemployment in Eltham has fallen by more than 40 per cent. and long-term youth unemployment has fallen by two thirds. The new deal for young people has
    580
    played an important part in that success. In Eltham, the programme has helped over 600 young people move from welfare to work.
    Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, particularly the figures on reduced youth unemployment in my community. The benefits that that has brought can be felt far and wide. May I highlight a problem with the new deal? Owing to its success, my local Employment Service says that there are not enough clients to fill the vacancies reported by potential employers. Will he encourage more unemployed people to take up the opportunity to go on the new deal before the statutory six months?
    Mr. Brown: We keep under review all the new deal schemes, which have different nuances in the rules relating to the target groups that they try to deal with, but even where the local labour market is tight—I can confirm that that is the case in my hon. Friend's constituency—there are still people who are disadvantaged and out of work, some for considerable periods. That is why we have introduced special new deals focused on the specific needs of those who find the labour market most intractable. I hope that, as the new deals roll out, some of those people are able to take advantage of the tight labour market he describes.
    Mr. Mark Field: Is not one problem, which applies in many areas of London and certainly in my constituency, that there is insufficient London weighting in a range of Government schemes? What has the Minister to say about London weighting for public sector jobs and the new deal as a whole?
    Mr. Brown: There is a range of issues relating to the special circumstances that pertain to the labour market across London. I am not convinced that London weighting is the sole solution to every shortfall in the labour market. Alongside communities that are prosperous and where the labour market is tight are pockets of real deprivation and long-term, intractable unemployment, where people are left out of the strong labour market in London. A close look at the jobs that are available shows that they are jobs that the long-term unemployed could do, with a bit of training, help and support. That is why the new generation of new deals are specifically focused on people for whom the labour market is the most intractable.

    Incapacity Benefit (Wythenshawe and Sale, East)
    6.Paul Goggins: How many people of working age in Wythenshawe and Sale, East are not in work and are claiming incapacity benefit.[19146]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Around 7,000 people in Wythenshawe and Sale, East are claiming incapacity benefit. Some of those people will participate in work trials, work placements and voluntary work. We are committed to giving people the help and support that they need to work, where they wish to do so. From next April, we are changing the incapacity benefit rules to help more people to try out work without fear of its affecting their benefit entitlement.

    581
    The House will also want to know that the Government have decided that random assignment will not be used as an evaluation tool for the new deal for disabled people.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Ah!
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, since this is a new announcement. I am pleased that it was an "Ah" of welcome, rather than an "Ah" of dismay. I shall set out our reasons more fully in response to questions tabled by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), but I wanted to take the first opportunity to tell the House.
    Paul Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and for his announcement. He will know that the figure he gave for my constituency is double the constituency average. I welcome the initiatives that he mentioned, and the work of the Wythenshawe action team, which helps to find jobs for people who, in the past, were left on the scrap heap. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems facing incapacity benefit claimants in my constituency is that they have no qualifications? What steps is he taking to help them to improve their skills, and thereby enhance their capacity to work?
    Mr. Brown: We have a range of training programmes for those who want to work. It is a feature not just of people on incapacity benefit but of the long-term unemployed more generally that 40 per cent. of those out of work for long periods have difficulty with basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. The Government have programmes in place to address those issues.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Minister confirm that the fastest growing group of people in Wythenshawe and Sale, East who claim incapacity benefit are those who pass the incapacity test but who fail the contributions test—what the Department calls credits—only cases? Does he accept that those people are genuinely disabled, unable to work but receive no money from the Government through this scheme? If Wythenshawe and Sale, East is typical of the country as a whole, does that worry him and does he plan to do anything about it?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot confirm that the hon. Gentleman's point about the individual constituency is correct, but as he knows it is a contributory benefit, so if the contributions have not been made the benefit is not available.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the males on incapacity benefit in Wythenshawe and Sale, East are like those on incapacity benefit in South Yorkshire, Scotland and South Wales? They are in receipt of compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and for vibration white finger. He will also be aware of their grievance that the examination procedures used in the common law system that awards disability benefit are different from those used by the Department. Will he consider referring the matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, so that it can advise him whether it
    582
    would be worth the Department's accepting the examination procedures that are used by the common law system?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking, because the purposes underpinning the two systems are different. He is correct about the communities that traditionally looked for their employment base to heavy industry or primary industry, such as coal mining, shipbuilding and steel. Those communities, especially the people who left work in their late 40s, 50s or 60s, often bear the scars of the industrial diseases that, to our great shame, went with those industries. I am thinking of pneumoconiosis, industrial deafness and tenosynovitis. My hon. Friend is right to describe such illnesses as terrible injuries, and to say that compensation should be paid.
    Mr. David Willetts: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) on his question. It is clear that there is great interest on both sides of the House in the situation in Wythenshawe and Sale, East. Will the Minister tell us whether that situation differs from the national trend? If it does not, that means that more people are claiming incapacity benefit now—that the figure has been rising, and is now at its highest for three years. It also means that the number of people who are economically inactive because of long-term sickness is greater than it was when the Government came to office.
    If the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is typical of that throughout the country, more people are claiming income support because they are disabled than when the Government came to office—200,000 more nation wide.
    Surely that evidence shows that the Government are failing to reform welfare. Instead, they have more disabled people on means-tested benefits. While we welcome the Minister's decision not to pursue his ill conceived idea of random assignment, what we need is evidence, carefully assembled and presented to the House. All too often, such evidence shows that the rhetoric about welfare reform is not supported by the reality.
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept that—but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the Government's decision not to proceed with random assignment, while gently taking issue with him and pointing out that it was not my "ill conceived idea", if that is how he wishes to describe it. [Laughter.] I should have thought that gentle humour was permitted in this place, Mr. Speaker.
    I cannot confirm that the position in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) is typical of national trends. The stock of incapacity benefit claimants there is probably higher than that in the country as a whole, and thus atypical. I can confirm, however, that the number of new claimants is declining, if demographic factors are taken into account.
    The issue is the stock of people claiming this benefit, having moved on from the previous similar benefit. Why are there so many of them? The answer is clear: as the hon. Gentleman knows, during the 1980s the policy of the then Conservative Government was to shift people off the employment register and on to the benefit that has been

    583
    succeeded by incapacity benefit. The Government must confront not just the question of flows, but the issue of stock. The reason the problem is as intractable as the hon. Gentleman says is that for 18 years his party failed to do anything about it.

    Lone Parents (North-East)
    7. Mr. Kevan Jones: If he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal for lone parents in the north-east.[19148]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): By the end of September, there had been nearly 17,000 participants in the new deal for lone parents in the north-east. Of those, nearly 2,000 had taken up education or training opportunities, and more than 8,000 had moved into work. Nationally, 118,000 lone parents have moved into work.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's answer will be very welcome in the north-east, but is he aware of the concern felt by organisations such as the Derwentside citizens advice bureau in Stanley, in my constituency? The CAB has complained that the scheme is not well advertised, and that therefore people are failing to take it up locally. Will my hon. Friend assure me that it will be better advertised locally, so that more people in North Durham can have access to what is a very worthwhile scheme?
    Malcolm Wicks: The best way for lone parents to find out about the scheme is to be invited for an interview with a new deal personal adviser. We have a rolling programme to ensure that that happens, and that all new claimants are invited in when their youngest child goes to school. We also have a programme enabling lone parents who have been on income support for some years to be invited in when their children are older. It is best to take part in a face-to-face interview to find out what is happening.
    It is good news that since the 1997 general election the proportion of lone parents on income support has gone down by 10 per cent in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is not welfare reform rhetoric. It is good reality.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: How many of the 2,000 lone parents in the north-east currently undertaking education and training will go on to obtain a job? How many would have found work anyway? What added value is the new deal bringing to lone parents in the north-east?
    Malcolm Wicks: I am surprised that this is a controversial matter in the House. I have already said that, in addition to the 2,000 who have gone into education or training, 8,000—49 per cent.—of those who had interviews have gone into work, so work is there. Some lone parents have fewer educational qualifications and skills than the population as a whole. That is why it is right and proper that sometimes we talk about welfare through education into work. I would have thought that that was welcomed.
    Mr. James Clappison: Is not the problem with the new deal in the north-east not just that it is not well advertised and is not giving added value, but that
    584
    there is an insufficient supply of good jobs for people to go into, particularly long-term jobs? As the Minister admits, only a minority are going into those jobs; the manufacturing sector in the north-east is shedding jobs at an alarming rate. Apparently, the new deal in the north-east is serving up jobs at McDonald's, something that Labour Members complained about when they were in opposition. Should not Labour Members, including the Minister, be worried that, notwithstanding the statistic that he has quoted, the claimant count is going up in the north-east? The Government's policies are a bad deal for the north-east. Would it not be better if Ministers in the Department persuaded their colleagues in the rest of the Government to stop piling burdens on business in the north-east and to allow businesses to get on with the job of creating employment?
    Malcolm Wicks: Not so much fast food as fast and sloppy rhetoric. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman rejoice in the fact that 8,000 lone mothers in the north-east are now in work as a result of the new deal? That is good news. Even in the most hard-pressed regions there are still job vacancies. That is why the skills and training agenda is so important. We are determined to enable everyone on income support, including lone parents, to have the best advice about training and job opportunities. That is what the new deal is about and it is what Jobcentre Plus is about.

    Jobs Transition Service
    8. Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: If he will make a statement about the work of the jobs transition service.[19149]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I announced on 28 November, we are strengthening and expanding the help we can offer people facing redundancy. The rapid response service is on track to be fully launched in April 2002 and will receive an additional £6 million over the next two years.
    Mr. Dhanda: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on measures such as the new deal and the jobs transition service, which in my constituency of Gloucester have reduced unemployment to 2 per cent., the lowest for a generation. Does he have any plans to visit Gloucester? If he has, I will take him to Action for a Fairer Gloucester, a local initiative that is working with the local authority and the Employment Service to help to reduce unemployment among the most vulnerable people in society, including people with disabilities and from ethnic minority backgrounds? Does he agree that by supporting initiatives such as Action for a Fairer Gloucester, we can not only reduce unemployment but tackle poverty and social exclusion?
    Mr. Darling: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is right to make the link between work and the fight against poverty. One of the reasons why child poverty trebled during the term of the last Conservative Government was that unemployment was very high. My hon. Friend makes the point that unemployment is at its lowest for some time in Gloucester, and I think that long-term youth unemployment in Gloucester is down by almost 70 per cent.

    585
    I do not know when I shall next visit Gloucester, but when I do I shall be only too pleased to look at the programmes to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. David Heath: The Secretary of State's announcement on the rapid reaction force was welcome, but given that it is predicated on the basis of major closures and redundancies, can he tell me what criteria will be used for the allocations? As he and I know, closures in smaller communities such as market towns can have a devastating effect on the local work force and economy. Such closures do not make the national headlines and are not seen as employment emergencies, but they need the sort of support that the agency will provide.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The purpose of the rapid response service is to enable us to send people from Jobcentre Plus or the Employment Service to those companies that announce large redundancies, simply because when a lot of people are involved it makes sense to send in advisers in advance to discuss training options for them. That programme has been successful so far. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is also important to help anyone who loses their job for whatever reason, and that is why we are improving the service we offer through Jobcentre Plus. We are making arrangements to convert the entire Employment Service and Benefits Agency estate so that Jobcentre Plus is available across the whole country. That will enable us to provide interviews and assistance which, together with the tax and benefit reforms we have introduced, will help anyone, no matter where, who is faced with losing their job.

    Partially Sighted People
    9. Linda Gilroy: What steps he is taking to assist people who are partially sighted to overcome barriers to employment.[19150]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We have in place a range of measures to help disabled people, including those who are partially sighted, to take up work. These include the access to work programme, the job introduction scheme, work preparation and workstep. In addition, the new deal is providing disabled people with more opportunities to move from benefits into work, while changes to the incapacity benefit rules are designed to provide work-focused help for sick and disabled people who wish to try to get back to work.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She is aware of the achievement of my constituent Mr. Andrew Shipp, who is the first visually impaired person to be admitted to associate membership of the British Institute of Professional Photography. His film "Courageous Plymouth" has been shown several times at the imperial war museum just across the Thames and he is determined to set up his own production company. Can my hon. Friend assure my constituent and the House that she and her Department will continue to bring down the barriers for people who face such challenges in obtaining employment?
    Maria Eagle: I congratulate Mr. Shipp on his fine achievement. I was browsing through the back catalogue
    586
    of the Plymouth Evening Herald online news recently—as one does—and noticed that we have not yet missed all opportunities to see Mr. Shipp's film. It will be shown again on 15 December, so anybody with 15 minutes to spare can nip over and have a look. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to ensure that people such as Mr. Shipp and other disabled people, who for too long have been excluded from the labour market and have had to face impossible barriers to fulfilling their potential, have proper opportunities. Programmes such as access to work are designed with exactly the sort of obstacles that Mr. Shipp has come across and has shown great signs of overcoming in mind. We will continue to consider ways in which we can help disabled people and others who face barriers to employment to overcome them.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that the issue of partial-sightedness not only affects entry to employment but attracts the danger of early retirement as sight begins to fail, and is therefore a significant social ill? In that connection—and I hope we would all agree with that assertion—will she take particular measures to ensure that the access to work programme is better publicised, better marketed and, if necessary, more appropriately resourced than it has been so far? Will she also publicise the work of the disability employment advisers and take another careful look at the workstep programme? There is no intrinsic problem in moving people into open employment, but many disabled people who have been in supported employment do not wish to feel that they will be forced out into the open labour market when that might not be appropriate for them.
    Maria Eagle: There is no question of those for whom the workstep programme—which replaced supported employment—is inappropriate being forced to progress into open employment. We aspire to ensure that those disabled people who are on the programme and can make progress into open employment have a chance to do so. One of the problems with the supported employment programme was that people did not progress, and there were fewer opportunities for those who could benefit from using the programme as a stepping stone. On the access to work programme and the other specialist disability programmes, we advertise the services that are available to disabled people and we do our best to ensure that people who may benefit from them are aware of what is required, necessary and available. Our disability employment advisers in the Employment Service do a very good job in ensuring that disabled people have access to these programmes to assist them into work. We intend to make sure that they continue to do so.
    Mr. David Miliband: Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary agencies have a particular role to play in helping those who are hard to place into work? Organisations such as the Shaw Trust in my constituency are making special efforts to help disabled people into work. Does the Department have any plans to extend the role of voluntary organisations in complementing the universal reach of the Employment Service?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to mention the Shaw Trust, and there are other examples around the country of voluntary organisations that have particular expertise in this area. He may know that the new deal

    587
    for disabled people—which went live in July across the country, out of its pilot phase—makes use of such organisations as job brokers to enable disabled people throughout the country to have a proper chance to be assisted into employment by agencies including the Employment Service, private sector organisations and voluntary organisations. This ensures that we can offer disabled people throughout the country a job-brokering service. Thus far, indications are that that is working very well.

    Unemployment (Young People)
    10. Mr. John Baron: If he will make a statement as to the effectiveness of the new deal in reducing unemployment among young people.[19151]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Up to September 2001, the new deal had helped over 333,000 people into work. Since 1997, youth unemployment has fallen by over 40 per cent., and long-term youth unemployment has been cut by almost three-quarters. Independent research has estimated that, without the new deal, long-term youth unemployment would have been about twice as high.
    Mr. Baron: Is the Secretary of State aware that the National Institute for Economic and Social Research has estimated that up to 70 per cent. of those who it is claimed the new deal has helped would have found work anyway? This means that over the last Parliament, there has been a cost of about £15,000 per job. Does the Secretary of State accept that this initiative is too expensive and that taxpayers' money could be spent more effectively on relieving poverty in this country? Will he reform this wasteful policy?
    Mr. Darling: No, I will not. What the hon. Gentleman says might have some credibility if he could point to anything that his party did during 18 years in power that provided a systematic attack on poverty or did anything to provide the number of measures that we have put in place to get people into work. During the Conservatives' time in office, unemployment was over 3 million for far too long. On the new deal, I should have thought that the fact that long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was down by 80 per cent. might cause him to reflect before speaking to the House this afternoon. The new deal and other measures are doing a great deal to get people into work. Until the hon. Gentleman's party comes up with an alternative policy that would begin to deal with some of the problems, I suggest that a period of reflection would do him some good.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that long-term youth unemployment in Hamilton has been reduced by 69 per cent. since 1997 because of the introduction of the new deal initiative? What steps are being taken to ensure that more employers and businesses participate in this scheme? Are statistics available, showing the benefits to young people in terms of education and training?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend represents a constituency that was devastated by the steel closures in the 1980s.
    588
    It is just one of many that has benefited through the new deal and other measures which are helping people to get back into work. Perhaps I should have made this point in response to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), but the cost of the new deal is about £4,000 a head. When we compare that with the cost of keeping someone unemployed, it is money very well spent.
    My hon. Friend also asked what we are doing to encourage more employers to become involved. Each new Jobcentre Plus office will have someone whose sole job it is to contact local employers, to make sure that we do far more than we have done in the past to match individuals with specific jobs. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that measure, because I think that it will be of great help, particularly in areas where, although we have reduced unemployment, a number of other people would still like to get into work.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency, out of the 522 people who left the new deal during the past 12 months, only 201 went on into unsubsidised employment? Is that not an indication that, whatever the merits of the new deal, it is not very effective at moving young people into full-time work? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly bear that in mind before delivering sanctimonious lectures to Conservative Members?
    Mr. Darling: But those 200 people would have been unemployed had it not been for the new deal. No one in the House would say that it is easy to get people into work, especially those who have been unemployed for a long time. However, independent research has shown that the new deal and other measures have done a great deal to get people into work who, but for the new deal, would have been unemployed, on the dole and costing billions of pounds in benefit. 1 believe that the measures that we have taken, which are built on a strong economy—including tax and benefit reforms and changes to the conditionality of receipt of unemployment benefit—have all combined to ensure that it is now more likely that we get people into work. If the hon. Gentleman is considering the alternative, which the Conservative party is flirting with—the Australian style of getting rid of all that help—he might want to reflect on the fact that the unemployment rate in this country is the lowest of that of any of our major competitors.
    Lawrie Quinn: Youth unemployment in my constituency was reduced by some 80 per cent. because of the new deal, but we still have pockets in rural areas. Is my right hon. Friend proposing to introduce any extra support to help with transportation problems in the most rural areas, where people have problems in getting to placements?
    Mr. Darling: Again, I believe that we can do more here. I am aware of cases in which the Employment Service has teamed up with employers some distance away from its catchment area and they have, through a variety of means, provided transport to get people from where they live to work. For example, people regularly travel from north London to Stansted airport, and measures have been put in place to make it easier for them to do so. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that people who are unemployed and live away from main

    589
    centres of employment face additional difficulties. That is one reason why we are introducing measures such as the step up programme to see what else we can do to ensure that people who have been disadvantaged in the past are given the same opportunities as everybody else.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State refers to research, but if he really cares about research, he will have looked at the report produced today by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, "Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion". It says about youth unemployment:
    "the unemployment rate amongst those aged 18 to 24 is still more than twice that for older workers and this gap has widened somewhat in recent years."
    That is the evidence about the Secretary of State's new deal. Despite his new deal, the gap between youth unemployment and unemployment for other groups has increased. The Government never take account of the evidence, when it starts coming in, about how their policies are not delivering what is promised.
    Is the Secretary of State still committed to reducing the gap in unemployment rates between young workers and the rest? If he is, why is the direction of change—the gap—getting wider? It is another example of the gap between rhetoric and reality.
    Mr. Darling: The reality is that the new deal has involved a huge reduction in youth unemployment that would not have taken place but for the new deal and other measures. The hon. Gentleman is always quoting selectively from reports. Clearly, he has had trouble sleeping in the past few days, to judge by the number of volumes of research that he has brought into the Chamber. Of course, he neglects to mention the fact that many of those reports have not yet picked up the full effects of the policies that we have introduced in the past two to three years, but the difference between us is that, during the past four years, we have begun to put in place measures that are producing a systematic reduction in long-term unemployment, not just for young people, but for older people as well. On top of that, we are introducing further measures to help those people who have been unemployed for extremely long periods, despite all the measures that have been put in place.
    I return to the same point: what are Conservative Members suggesting as the alternative? They do not have an alternative, other than the wholesale break-up and privatisation of the Employment Service, of the kind that we have seen in Australia, as well as in other countries. I believe that the measures that we are putting in place are making a huge difference to the number of unemployed people in this country and, year by year, there will be a steady improvement in the situation because of the reforms that we have introduced.

    Winter Fuel Allowance
    12. Mr. David Rendel: If he will make a statement on the progress made in paying backdated winter fuel payments to newly entitled men.[19153]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Following the extension of the winter fuel payment scheme to most people aged 60 and over, there have been around 1.2 million claims for the first three years of the
    590
    scheme. There are no time limits for claiming those backdated payments, and we continue to receive and pay claims. About 16,000 people will benefit from the winter fuel payment in the Newbury constituency this winter.
    Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister for the information about the Newbury constituency, but why has not the Department tracked down, perhaps using its very expensive new computer systems, those who are eligible but have not yet claimed, so that they could be sent an individual letter to their own homes telling them that the money is now due?
    Mr. McCartney: We have already paid more than 1 million claims for past winters, and we continue to advertise at all levels in the community in that regard. I cannot force someone to make a claim, but it is absolutely certain that if people make claims and are entitled to the money, they will be paid as quickly as possible. In addition, our home energy efficiency scheme has provided grants of up to £2,000 to heat the homes of up to 250,000 over-60s in the first two years, and 1 million low-income homes have also benefited from the tax changes under our affordable warmth programme. So, at every level, the Government are encouraging the people who are entitled to claim to do so.

    Employment (Deprived Areas)
    16. Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans he has to help people back into work in areas of acute social deprivation.[19157]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Our welfare-to-work initiatives are helping people into work in all parts of the country. The new deals have already helped well over 500,000 people into jobs. We have also introduced action teams for jobs and employment zones, which, between them, have helped more than 32,000 people into work in the most deprived areas. Through Jobcentre Plus, we will work closely with local partnerships and other agencies to ensure our services focus appropriately on areas of acute social deprivation. On 28 November, we also announced the introduction of step up, and one of the pilot schemes for that programme will be run in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He said that one of the step up pilot schemes would be run in Coventry. Can he assure me that not only young people but people over 50 will benefit from that scheme? He is probably aware of the many debates in the House about ageism, and I hope that he will give me an assurance on the over-50s.
    Mr. Brown: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The scheme is aimed at the long-term unemployed, at people who have found the labour market intractable and even at people who have previously been on one of the Government's schemes. We want to prevent churning, which is why the new scheme will provide intensive work with those who have found the labour market intractable, with a view to getting them into permanent employment.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is the Minister aware not only that his policies are not working,

    591
    but that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State, said, it is revealed in the report published today that more families are classified as very poor now than in the last full year of the Conservative Government? In the light of that, will he urge the Secretary of State to apologise to Conservative Social Security Ministers in previous Parliaments, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), for his outrageous attack on our successful policies?
    Mr. Brown: That is the first time I have heard the hon. Gentleman use the word "apologise", although I accept that he has been out of this place for some time. The Conservative party has a lot to apologise for. It could start by apologising to the 3 million unemployed and to those who were told in the 1980s that there was no place for them in the economy of this country and who had to be shifted on to incapacity benefit to get them off the unemployment register. If we extended beyond them the list of those who are due an apology from the Conservative party, it would be a long list.
    No one on the Government Benches owes an apology—certainly not to the poor and the dispossessed, whom we are setting out proactively to help. They include the long-term unemployed, whom we are determined to help back into the labour market and keep there.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the reports on the disturbances in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford earlier this year will identify unemployment in areas of social deprivation as one of the problems. Recognising that unemployment is a problem in areas of deprivation and poverty, will the Government look again at possible ways of tackling the problem, particularly where there is perceived unfairness of job opportunities between the different groups?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes some good points, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks. I hope that the step up pilot in his constituency will go some way to addressing the problems, particularly as they relate to the long-term unemployed and to his constituents who have already been through Government programmes. However, we need to keep a close eye on how the pilots work and to pay attention to the reports, which will be published tomorrow, so that we see what more we can do. As my hon. Friend suggested, some pretty intractable issues lie behind the difficulties that his constituents have faced.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    17. Mr. Mark Hoban: What assessment his Department has made of the estimated cost to businesses of implementing stakeholder pensions.[19158]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): A regulatory impact assessment was published last year setting out the likely costs to business of the stakeholder pension schemes regulatory framework. A copy will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Hoban: Is it not disgraceful that a Minister does not know how much businesses have spent on
    592
    implementing a policy that the Financial Times described as unsustainable and as unlikely to survive? What would the right hon. Gentleman do to resolve the crisis of this flagship policy with its appallingly low take-up rate among the target group of moderate to low income earners?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is certainly a weary Willy. It is quite clear that both Front-Bench and Back-Bench Conservatives are totally opposed to providing pension provision to that group of workers who currently do not have such provision.
    Far from being a failure, from a standing start and in a matter of months, just over 500,000 stakeholder pensions have been sold, and 285,000 employers have been designated. When I last stood at the Dispatch Box at Question Time, I said that it was likely that only two thirds of employees would have designated schemes by 8 October, but three quarters of them have done that. We are working with employers to maximise the numbers involved.
    The overall level of pension provision this year shows that the value of new pension sales rose by 9 per cent. and regular premium business rose by 50 per cent. The Government are supporting the pension market and supporting the large proportion of workers who, if it had been left to the Tory party, would not have had a pension at all.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent report produced by the National Association of Pension Funds which shows that new entrants to pensions are increasingly offered money purchase schemes rather than final salary schemes? Moreover, it shows that employers' contributions to money purchase schemes are only just over half the contributions to final salary schemes. The implication is that people now in their 20s or 30s will have substantially less pension when they retire than their counterparts who retire now. Is that not inconsistent with Government pension policy?
    Mr. McCartney: The policy that my hon. Friend mentions has been going on for 30 years, but it is interesting to note the sustained growth in the amounts contributed to state pensions. The figure has risen from £37 billion in 1994 to £69 billion last year. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), there has been a sustained increase in pension sales and in the investment going into pensions. The issue is to make sure that we have pension products that provide for all aspects of people's pensions, and that is why the second state pension has been introduced. Some 14 million low-paid workers benefit by an average of £32 a week and 2 million people with disabilities are also helped. Women carers are benefiting for the first time. A large proportion of workers who were outside the stakeholder pension are now inside the pension marketplace. The Government have a sustained programme in place, and it is important that my hon. Friend supports the Bill to introduce a second state pension because that will help many pensioners who would have lost out under the Tories.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the House of Commons Commission is due to meet today. In view of the extraordinary circumstances regarding the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, could you ask your colleagues on the Commission to circulate the minutes of those meetings to hon. Members as quickly as possible? I have yet to see one outside reference in favour of the decision not to renew the contract of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is a serious and disturbing situation and, I have to say, it is the House of Commons that seems to be in the dock, not Mrs. Filkin.
Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware of the sensitivity of this matter, both for the House and the Chairman of the House of Commons Commission, so I shall not trespass on that. However, would it be possible for a member of the Government or a representative of the Commission to say what action they propose to take on the allegations in the Sunday Mirror yesterday that for 48 hours Ministers and others briefed against the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? It is up to the House to protect someone who is here on behalf of hon. Members and the public, and it is important that we discover what has been going on, who has been doing it and who is going to stop it. I do not want to attack the Prime Minister, but if Ministers are doing that, someone should be able to stop them.
On a personal note, when I get told by journalists that people in authority outside the House are saying that I leaked a letter, which I did not do, on Tuesday, I take that
594
not as a particular attack on me, but as a further attack on the Commissioner. I hope that those attacks will stop as well.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) knows that the Commission meets in private. However, I reiterate what I said last week: I have asked the Commissioner to put her allegations to me in writing, so that I have an opportunity to investigate. I am awaiting word from Mrs. Filkin on that matter.
David Winnick: Can I ask about the minutes?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked about minutes and then went on to make a statement. That was unworthy of him. Making a statement has nothing to do with a point of order. I can tell him that the Commission meets in private and minutes will not be issued. He knows that.
Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for reminding the House about the contents of last week's statement. Since then, a fresh series of whisperings have taken place which continue the campaign that the Leader of the House has known about since August, when it was referred to in the Financial Times. Did either he or the Commission act on that public notice of such whisperings? Do they intend to take direct action about the allegations in the Sunday Mirror or against Ministers on what has been going on since your statement last week as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Speaker does not respond to press reports. If he did, he would be here all day.

Orders of the Day

  Tax Credits Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.33 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government have made clear their commitment to increasing and improving the support available to families, to making work pay and to tackling poverty. That means providing financial help for all families with children, recognising the costs and responsibilities that come with parenthood, targeting help on those who need it most to help to achieve our long-term goal of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it within a generation, and reforming the tax and benefits system to make sure that work pays.
  During the last Parliament, we moved to tackle those problems on a number of fronts, and we worked within the constraints of the system that we inherited, trying to ensure that we maximised benefits to those in greatest need. We introduced the working families tax credit, which currently benefits nearly 1.3 million families, and the children's tax credit, which is a tax cut of up to £520 a year for around 5 million families. The introduction of new tax credits, as our next step, will allow us to make further progress in achieving our aims.
  We will rationalise and streamline our systems of support to deliver more effective help to families with children and to working households. The Bill replaces numerous strands of support with two new targeted tax credits: the child tax credit to tackle child poverty and provide targeted support to parents, and the working tax credit to improve work incentives, tackle in-work poverty and remove barriers to work. We are not changing our objectives£they are the right objectives£but we are changing the way in which we deliver them. Our aim is to provide a seamless stream of support to parents, who will be able to apply at one point, the Inland Revenue.
  Our reforms so far have been successful, but they do not go far enough. Existing forms of support can be divisive: support for children depends on whether the parents are in work; some people drop through the gaps in support; measures such as the children's tax credit can reach only taxpayers; and support for workers with disabilities focuses on their disability rather than on their working. Existing forms of support are inflexible. The working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, beneficial as they have been, are fixed awards that cannot usually respond to changing circumstances. Existing forms of support overlap and can be an awkward fit with the tax system, increasing the hassle of applying for them and creating confusion for claimants.
  We are now introducing a single inclusive credit to support families with children: one framework for income-related support for children that will reduce stigma, smooth the transition into work and broaden the scope of support. We are also introducing an inclusive credit for those in work, with the emphasis on work, so that workers with disabilities and households facing in-work poverty are within the single framework.
  The new tax credits will be able to adjust to reflect changes as they happen —for example, when a child is born or when parents start or stop using paid child care.
  596
  They will be able to respond to changes in family income, so that support is better targeted, providing extra support when it is needed and helping people to stay in work. They will be a better fit with the tax system, improving transparency and fairness and making it easier for people, when they apply for their tax credits, to use the information that they already get for tax. Tax credits will be based on annual income before income tax and national insurance are deducted.
  This is a substantial change, and the Government have engaged in detailed and wide-ranging consultation with organisations outside the House that have the expertise to help us to develop and improve the system. The consultation document, published in July, received more than 170 written responses. A series of consultation meetings were held around the United Kingdom to discuss the issues, and many other formal and informal meetings with a range of groups also took place. The consultation has been widely welcomed. For instance, NCH Action for Children said:
  "We would like to thank the Revenue and Treasury for the very genuine efforts you have made to inform and engage organisations like the NCH in this consultation process—not only on paper but also through your programme of events."
  The Disability Alliance said:
  "We would like to place on record our appreciation of the extent and openness of the consultation."
  Mr. David Ruffley: If the consultation was so wonderful, why did the Institute for Fiscal Studies say of the consultation document:
  "Although it invited views on key issues, it provided no quantitative evidence on which one might base a sensible response"?
  What is the Paymaster General's answer to that?
  Dawn Primarolo: The Bill provides a framework for bringing together a range of benefits and support for families. The thresholds and tapers to which the Institute for Fiscal Studies referred will be made clear in the Budget statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Today, the House is considering the framework for delivering those benefits and whether those payments are clearer, more effective and more helpful for those who will receive them.
  Mr. Steve Webb: May I develop that point? Two people in a couple who are both on average earnings would get the full children's tax credit, but under joint assessment they might get nothing, the full amount or something in between. I sense that the Paymaster General's response to them is, "Wait and see". Can she give them any more reassurance today or will they have to wait until next year to find out whether they get all the £500 or nothing?
  Dawn Primarolo: I can reassure individuals and families that the Government are committed to continue reforms that will benefit them. Unlike the previous Government, we continue to take serious steps to tackle poverty, particularly children's poverty. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have repeatedly said, thresholds and tapers will be announced in the 2002 Budget. The hon. Gentleman is an acknowledged expert on those matters. I hope that even he would agree that the framework that

  597
  we are putting in place will be more transparent, easier to understand and more effective in delivering support to families. That is what we are deciding today.
  Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend knows that people who successfully claim those tax credits are extremely grateful. But is she also aware that take-up is significantly lower in London because of housing costs and the way in which the housing benefit system works? Will she look at circumstances in London to ensure that work can be made to pay for single mothers and poor families, via the tax credit system, just as it does in the rest of the country?
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I assure her that we will look closely at take-up by the most vulnerable people in our communities and the crucial interaction between the threshold, tapers and other benefits, such as housing benefit and council tax benefit.
  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, in its submission for today's debate, said that measures that have already been introduced have made a significant impact on the lives of many people, including CAB clients. It said that the working families tax credit has proved extremely popular and that it is readily apparent that large numbers of lone parents, for example, have started working and are receiving it. The arrangements in the Bill seek to build on that success in the course of delivering our objectives.
  Mr. David Kidney: This being carers' rights day, may I ask whether, in response to the consultation, carers' representatives have been in touch to find out whether the employment tax credit that benefits disabled workers could also benefit carers?
  Dawn Primarolo: Yes, the Carers National Association has participated in the consultation process. Discussion continues between the Inland Revenue and associations representing carers to take forward their objectives, particularly to establish an agreed definition of carers and how that may become part of tax credit payments in the future. I know that the association has been fair and direct in its comments, but achieving such a definition will be difficult. It is important that the definition is correct and allows carers to benefit. The Government have made a commitment to take that forward.
  There will be continuing dialogue with interested groups as the Bill goes through the House and supporting legislation is drawn up. Many points raised in the consultation responses will be picked up again during those discussions, the definition of carers being but one.
  In the light of the views expressed in the consultation process, we have decided that child maintenance payments will not be treated as income for the purposes of the new tax credit. The disregard of child maintenance has been a successful feature of the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, helping lone parents move into work. We are continuing that approach in the new tax credits—a decision that has been widely welcomed.
  598
  Building on reforms in the system must take account of the progress that has already been made. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has been constructive in its engagement in the process. It stated:
  "We recognise the substantial progress that has been made in the past four years with the introduction of a range of policies aimed at increasing the incomes of people both in and out of work."
  By the mid-1990s, the United Kingdom had the highest rate of relative poverty in the European Union and the highest proportion of children living in workless households. Personal tax and benefit changes introduced since 1997 have ensured that there are now 1.2 million fewer children in relative poverty than there would otherwise have been. From April 2002, increases in the rate of child benefit, which is vital to families but was frozen by the previous Administration, will be worth £15.75 for the first child, and £10.55 for subsequent children. That represents a 26 per cent. rise in real terms for the first child. Compare that with the actions of the previous Government, who froze child benefit and made sure that it contributed less to households. The children's allowance will be raised in income support and other income-related benefits, and there will be real-terms increases of 80 per cent. for children under 11.
  We introduced the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, which provide more support to families than their predecessors—family credit and disability working allowance—ever did. The working families tax credit helps almost 1.3 million families, who receive an average of £35 a week more than under family credit. The disabled person's tax credit goes to more than 29,000 people—almost 60 per cent. more than the disability working allowance at its peak. In 2001, we introduced the children's tax credit, which is worth up to £10 a week for about 5 million families. From next April, it will be worth an additional £10 a week to families who have a new-born child in that year. However, we have also made sure that work pays.
  Mr. David Willetts: The Paymaster General said that 1.3 million families were benefiting from the working families tax credit. It is important, of course, to assess the take-up of tax credits against the number of people who are eligible to receive them. How many people are eligible for the working families tax credit and how does its take-up compare with that of other benefits?
  Dawn Primarolo: I have indicated the growth in working families tax credit and the number of extra families who are receiving it over and above its predecessor, family credit. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the impact of the working families tax credit and whether it gets to the families who need it most and addresses the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). That is precisely why the Government have ensured that we have independent assessment and research on those points. It ill behoves Opposition Members, who presided over record growth in child poverty and unemployment, to try to undermine the take-up of those benefits.
  Mr. George Osborne: I want to press the hon. Lady on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member

  599
  for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who asked about take-up of the working families tax credit. How many people are eligible for it and how many claim it?
  Dawn Primarolo: Some 800,000 people were claiming family credit and 1.3 million now receive the working families tax credit—a higher number. Opposition Members need to focus on two points: first, the benefit to those 1.3 million families, and, secondly, whether all those who are entitled to receive the credit are receiving it and any barriers to doing so. Precisely the comments that Opposition Members have made about complexity and the problems of applying for this support are addressed in the Bill, to which they should turn their attention.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: No; I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Priskrose—
  Dawn Primarolo: Which part of the word "No" is the hon. Gentleman struggling with? I should like to make a little progress, after which I shall give way. I have been very generous in doing so. Indeed, so few Conservative Members are present in the Chamber, I think that I have given way to just about every one of them.
  The commitments to supporting families are mirrored by our efforts to ensure that work pays. We have improved work incentives and reduced in-work poverty through targeted tax cuts that allow families to keep more of what they earn. We introduced the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit and the children's tax credit—targeted cuts for families that provide, alongside the national minimum wage, guaranteed levels of income for working families. We included the child care tax credit in the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, removing the barriers to work and helping parents to enter and remain in the workplace. We introduced the 10p starting rate for income tax, which has halved the marginal rates of tax for almost 2 million people on low earnings. We also introduced the national minimum wage to ensure that people receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The national minimum wage tackles the worst excesses of low pay and ensures greater fairness in the workplace. The Low Pay Commission has estimated that between 1.2 million and 1.4 million workers aged 22 or above have benefited from the increase of the national minimum wage to £4.10.
  I turn now to the structure of the new tax credits and what they replace. Building on the foundations of universal child benefit, the child tax credit will draw together in a single payable tax credit the child elements of the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit, income support and the income-based jobseeker's allowance, as well as the children's tax credit .
  It establishes for the first time a single system of income-related support for families with children, whether they are in or out of work. It bridges the gap between welfare and work and removes the stigma from support for children.
  600
  The credit will include a family element available to all families with children that will be higher for families with a child under the age of one. We will also include additional elements to reflect the number of children or young people in the family. That tailors support according to the size of the family. Higher credits will be payable for children or young people with a disability.
  The working tax credit replaces the adult elements of the working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit, as well as the employment credit in the new deal 50-plus. It extends the principle of in-work support, paid through the wage packet to those without children. If based on current support systems, it would benefit an estimated extra 400,000 people without children on low incomes. That benefit will also cover workers with a disability. Disability groups have favoured that approach rather than retaining a separate tax credit such as the disabled person's tax credit.
  With the minimum wage, those credits will tackle poverty and improve work incentives by making work pay. The working tax credit will consist of a basic element for all those who are eligible. Additional elements will target support according to household circumstances. For example, there will be an additional element for couples, lone parents and workers who have a disability.
  The working tax credit will also include an element for the costs of child care. Unlike the other elements in the credit, it will be paid directly to the main carer alongside child tax credit. It will not be paid through the wage packet. That reflects views expressed in the consultation. The Government remain committed to helping parents to overcome barriers to work. We will therefore build on the success of the child care tax credit in the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit by including a child care component in the working tax credit.
  The child care tax credit already helps approximately 145,000 families with their child care costs. That is three times the number who benefited from the child care disregard in family credit. Lone parent employment is at its highest for 20 years. We have listened to the comments of parents and child care providers about the existing arrangements, and we will make improvements to the new system. We plan to pay the child care element only while child care costs are being incurred. That will meet the anxieties of providers about keeping places open for parents who do not use them. It provides flexibility for parents who can get extra help when they need it.
  Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend knows that there is no greater champion than me of the Government's actions on child care. However, during the Bill's passage, I ask the Department to try to tackle the problems that face families whose child care is provided in their homes. For example, child care must be provided in the home for a nurse on shift work or a parent with a disabled child. More than 50 per cent. of child care is in the informal sector.
  Dawn Primarolo: I assure my hon. Friend that child care in the home is partly covered by the Bill. However, I know that she is a champion of child care principles, and I emphasise that when we pay for child care, we must ensure that it is safe and of high quality so that the child is protected. She also knows that the Department for Education and Skills regulates child care providers. It will

  601
  be necessary, especially in the case of disabled children for whom it is more appropriate to provide care in the home, to ensure that there are no barriers to prevent the payment of the tax credit. This issue will also apply, as my hon. Friend rightly suggested, to shift workers, who usually find it more appropriate to provide child care in their own home, depending on their shift.
  The payment of the working tax credit through the wage packet will be key in demonstrating the link to work. We also recognise the practical need to provide help with child care costs quickly to the main carer. We shall, therefore, pay the child care element of the working tax credit directly to the main carer alongside the child tax credit.
  The Bill also deals with the transfer of child benefit payments to the Inland Revenue.
  Mr. Webb: I appreciate that the Minister will not give us specific figures, but may I ask her a question on the principle of the streamlining of support for people both in and out of work? She will be aware that the children of someone in work get slightly more support—through the combination of child benefit and working families tax credit—than the children of someone who is out of work receive through personal allowances on income support. The difference is not large, but it exists. Will she confirm her intention to level up, rather than level down, that difference?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman seeks to draw me into a discussion on rates and tapers in a slightly different way and, as much as I like and respect his work, I cannot be tempted down that route at the Dispatch Box today. He makes an important point, however, that goes to the heart of the tax credit reforms, which will ensure that support given to families specifically for children should not be differentiated according to whether the parents are in or out of work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will follow closely when the Chancellor makes his announcements on the rates and tapers in the 2002 Budget, and if the hon. Gentleman serves on the Committee for the Bill, he will no doubt want to pursue the matter further when we discuss the clauses that provide for the regulations on child care.
  The Bill provides for the transfer of child benefit to the Inland Revenue, as announced by the Prime Minister in June this year. Child benefit is a key part of the Government's strategy for eradicating child poverty, and it will remain an identifiable stream of income that is universally available. The child tax credit introduced by the Bill will build on the foundations of child benefit. It makes sense to streamline the administration of financial support for parents by transferring child benefit to the Inland Revenue.
  Alongside the introduction of the child tax credit, that will enable the Government to deliver a joined-up service to parents, who will need to deal with only one Department to get the support to which they are entitled for their children. The majority of the 7 million families who receive child benefit will also receive help through the child tax credit, so it makes sense for both to be run by a single Department. That will help to reduce the hassle and red tape for those families.
  Mr. Prisk: While welcoming the simplification of the various credits that the Minister has mentioned, may I ask
  602
  her whether she believes that the Bill in any way negates the need for the Carter report, which she and her senior colleague published recently?
  Dawn Primarolo: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, if he is referring to the Carter report that deals with the burdens on small and medium enterprises. The Government are currently seeking responses to the suggestions in the report.
  As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, small and medium enterprises have made the criticism—unjustly, in my view—that the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit put an unreasonable burden on such companies. While reforming the system, we examined the development of tax credits in the context of reducing the burdens on small and medium enterprises. If he reads the regulatory impact assessment, he will see that the costs are reduced by about £11 million per year, but by bringing tax credits more in line with the tax system we have reduced the number of necessary contacts with the employer. For example, the assessment is annual, so there is no need to stop and start during the year, which happens with the six-monthly working families tax credit allocations, and much of the paperwork necessary because of the six-monthly renewal has disappeared.
  I am sure that a few companies still cannot appreciate the benefits of having a stable work force and being able to provide child care, but they will realise that the burdens on them are considerably reduced. Although I do not necessarily agree with all the criticisms made originally, it would be churlish not to seek during the reform further to reduce the pressures and burdens on small and medium enterprises.
  If the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to sit on the Committee, which I hope he is, I shall be more than happy to engage in greater detail on the changes that we have made. Indeed, the Institute of Directors, which is not necessarily noted for its great enthusiasm for the tax credit agenda, has congratulated the Government on the measures and changes that we have introduced
  Mr. Kidney: On burdens, the other side of the coin is the ability of Inland Revenue staff to carry out their new duties in addition to their existing ones. Is my hon. Friend happy that they will be able to discharge their duties well? As an indicator of the answer, may I say that I have been extremely impressed with the high-quality service provided by the Inland Revenue in my constituency during delivery of the working families tax credit system?
  Dawn Primarolo: I was a little worried as my hon. Friend began in case he was about to point out an error—errors do happen in such a vast system—but I am happy that he has confirmed his experience of how the Inland Revenue conducts its relationships with employers, ensuring that they are properly informed of their obligations and working with those who claim their entitlement through the tax credits. It has worked extremely efficiently.
  There are always problems in a vast system, and I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that there will be no errors in future, but the Inland Revenue has shown in the development of the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit and in the Bill that it has the capacity to deliver sensitively, quickly and in a way that people who claim the tax credits understand.

  603
  The other important point, which my hon. Friend's intervention leads me to, is the tax credits responding to changed family circumstances. We inherited much of the structure for the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit from their predecessors, family credit and the disability working allowance, which included fixed awards. That means that families may have to wait up to six months for their award to be adjusted to their changing circumstances.
  We have already made changes to the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit to ensure that families can receive extra help immediately a new child is born, but the introduction of the new tax credits allows us to go much further in developing a responsive, targeted system.
  Under the new system, tax credit awards will respond as a family's circumstances change, delivering the right support to families at the right time. For example, whenever the composition of a household changes or a family's child care costs change significantly, tax credit awards will be able to respond to that change straight away. No longer will there be any need for a family to wait six months.
  In responses to the consultation, everyone recognised that there was a need to respond to changes in income, both up and down. The proposals in the Bill introduce a more flexible system that can respond to those changes in income, and that has been widely welcomed. All hon. Members will recognise that it is important to strike a balance between making the system responsive to income changes and keeping it straightforward for claimants. There must be certainty in the guaranteed amount of income over a fixed period that the family will receive. That has been vital in working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, and in family credit before that. We must provide that certainty, but we must also be able to respond to dramatic falls in income or changes in family circumstances. The Bill allows us to take a flexible approach to income changes.
  We need to have further discussion of this issue, which I am sure will occur in Committee, so that we can refine the system in the light of experience once the tax credits have been functioning for some time, and enable it to be changed quickly.
  Finally, the problems of compliance and fraud are ever present.
  Mr. Willetts: rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene before I move on to compliance and fraud? I know that I am going to regret giving way.
  Mr. Willetts: I intervene only because the hon. Lady said "finally", and I wanted to clarify a simple point of principle to which she has not yet referred. Will she pledge to the House that no families will lose as a result of the changes in the Bill?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman tries again to introduce the subject of thresholds and tapers. Families are considerably better off than they would have been had we had the misfortune of his party being re-elected.
  On compliance and fraud, it is important to ensure that only people who are genuinely entitled to the tax credits receive them. Everyone suffers if money goes to the
  604
  wrong people, including the people who receive that money and then have to return it. The compliance regime for the new tax credits will be based on two principles: encouraging people to claim everything to which they are entitled, and providing an effective deterrent to the small minority—it is small—who try to cheat the system.
  The Bill contains provisions to deal with non-;compliance, including inquiry and information powers to uncover false claims, financial penalties when tax credits are falsely claimed, and powers to investigate and prosecute cases of criminal fraud. The Inland Revenue has a long history of tackling fraud successfully. The compliance strategy for the new tax credits will make full use of the automated systems and data sources available to the Inland Revenue, which will enable it to use systematic risk screening techniques to identify the riskiest cases. It will also be important that such a regime does not deter people who are entitled to the tax credits from claiming them.
  The Bill builds on our achievements in the last Parliament, but we need to go further. It is the next step in the programme to tackle child poverty and make work pay. It will produce a more coherent and streamlined system of support, and will extend the coverage of that support.
  Child tax credit will provide a secure stream of income for families with children, regardless of whether they are in work. It will bridge the gap between welfare and work more effectively, and reduce stigma. Working tax credit will improve work incentives by making work pay, relieve in-work poverty, and extend the principle of in-work support through the wage packet to those without children.
  I urge Members to support the Bill, and ensure that we continue our fight to eradicate poverty in our society.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: The Paymaster General has presented a "motherhood and apple pie" case for supporting the Bill's objectives rather than appraising whether it can deliver them effectively, and identifying the various problems that the changes raise.
  In fact, Parliament is being asked for a blank cheque. We shall not know the amounts or the costs of the proposed benefits until next summer. Many of the important details have been presented sketchily, and await prescription in subsequent regulations. The Law Society fears that many important issues and principles relating to the new tax credits and their administration will not be considered properly by Parliament as a result.
  As has already become apparent, we do not know whether a million families in which both parents are working will lose out under the new child tax credit arrangements next summer. Nor, indeed, do we know whether the Chancellor or the Prime Minister has won in the row over tax credits. The Paymaster General noticeably refused to be drawn into answering that question.
  The Prime Minister, we understand, believes that the Chancellor's tax credit schemes will be too expensive and too complex to yield a political payback, and wants Government expenditure to be directed more towards clear-cut objectives such as higher health spending.

  605
  Moreover, the Chancellor confirmed in his pre-Budget report that the forecast for Government expenditure did not take into account the additional costs resulting from the new tax credits, as financial decisions on rates have yet to be made. Under sections 20 and 23(b) of the Government's "Code for Fiscal Stability", the extra expenditure should have been noted as a special fiscal risk in the pre-Budget statement.
  What I think we all know is that Britain cannot afford massive extra spending on health, transport and education, as well as very generous tax credits, without major tax increases that could damage the economy in the present uncertain economic climate. Some journalists have suggested that the Chancellor is trying to warm us up for tax increases by focusing on the needs of the national health service, when his real additional spending intentions are more modest. Health expenditure equal to the European Union average of 8 per cent. of gross national product back in 1998, which the permanent secretary described last week as the Government's target, actually represents only 0.2 per cent. more than the Government's existing plans to increase health expenditure to 7.8 per cent. of GNP.
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying we are spending too much on the health service and on education, and will now be spending too much on what I think he described as "generous" tax credits. Which area of spending would his party cut if it were in government?
  Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman should not waste the House's time. [Interruption.] It is the Government who are governing. The point that I have made, quite simply, is that as the Government have agendas in all those areas it would be helpful if they told us precisely what they are, and to what extent they will be affordable.
  The bill for the Chancellor's tax credits, and including pension credits, is likely to top £10 billion by 2003–04 and to rise substantially thereafter. Has Prudence Brown experienced a major character change? Is he becoming a big spender, or is he up to his old tricks of spinning more than he intends to deliver?
  The real issue is: have the Government got the approach right this time? The Chancellor repeatedly trumpeted the working families tax credit as his main flagship of welfare reform. It was described as a once in a lifetime shake-up of the tax and benefit system. The working families tax credit took effect only in 2000 and the children's tax credit only in April this year, but now the Government are ending those and proposing a different, more complex system of credits.
  Aside from the substantial work and costs to the Department for Work and Pensions and to the Inland Revenue, the different arrangements will be confusing for beneficiaries, who are only just getting on top of the working families tax credit and children's tax credit systems. Labour Members should take that matter seriously, because one of the problems has been lack of take-up. The Paymaster General was extraordinarily reluctant to comment on what the number eligible for working families tax credit has been, but the Bill effectively admits that the previous measures were not
  606
  correct, and that the Chancellor did not get it right last time. Many of the Opposition's criticisms of the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit have proven to be correct.
  The Government made great play of the 1.5 million eligible for working families tax credit but after two years, less than 1.3 million have claimed it. This very day the Government argued that over-spending on working families tax credit has been the result of the number claiming it being greater than expected. How can that be when the Government said that 1.5 million were eligible and less than 1.3 million have actually claimed it?
  It is a serious point that claimants will find the new system very different. The conflicting aims of targeting and, allegedly, simplifying credits have forced a compromise on simplicity and predictability for families whose income and composition may change significantly during the year. The new arrangements will heighten existing complexities. The adjustments required to pay-as-you-earn records are complex and a significant burden for employers, who may not be able to implement changes promptly.
  Entitlements to the credits must be based on annual income—either annual income in the previous year or an estimate of annual income for the current year. The arrangements will not be capable of operating in the way that was promised in the Queen's Speech, or of responding more quickly to changes in a family's situation to meet their financial needs effectively. There is no evidence that the Inland Revenue responds more speedily and appropriately than the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Social Security have in the past.
  Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman is making a case against the whole principle of tax credits. Does he intend to return to a benefit-based system? If so, what was it about that system that he so loved?
  Mr. Flight: I am grateful that the hon. Lady expects us to return to power and to address those issues, but the task of the Opposition is to raise the issues and the problems. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) would say, the issue is whether a tax-based system is indeed capable of dealing more effectively with people's needs, particularly poor members of society, than a Department for Work and Pensions-based system. I did not hear the Paymaster General cite arguments on why greater success is achievable under such a system. I will come to many of the problems and criticisms that have been raised, but may I comment first on the underlying principles?
  Hon. Members will recollect that it was the Conservatives who introduced family credit, as the Paymaster General said, from which 817,000 people benefited. We pioneered the case for pricing people into work and making work pay, at a time when for many the welfare system had acted as a disincentive to work. The Chancellor, in his pre-Budget speech, drew particular attention to the failures of the rest of the EU and made the point that if we had the EU system we would have double the level of unemployment—another 1 million people out of work. It was also the Conservatives who, 30 years ago, examined the arguments for a negative

  607
  income tax, which is largely what is proposed in the Bill, but we concluded that it would be less effective in addressing real needs than the social security system.
  John Robertson: I am confused about what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. He started by saying that what my hon. Friend the Paymaster General was saying was apple pie and all things nice, but now he is claiming that the previous Conservative Government should take the credit for all the good things that we are doing. If he thought things were so good, what has my hon. Friend said that has really pleased him?
  Mr. Flight: I will comment shortly on the aspects of the Bill that we like, but the structure of the Bill raises some problems that have not been addressed and that might prevent it from addressing the issue of real poverty in our community. The easy assumption that moving to a more tax-based system for delivering welfare will solve all the needs of our society is over-optimistic, for the reasons that I am giving.
  The Bill raises two crucially important issues. One is the level of balance that needs to be struck in measures to price people into work. Subsidising wages can entail the danger of depressing pay, demotivating skills improvement and personal advancement and depressing productivity growth. Secondly, the crucial issue is whether to use the tax system increasingly for welfare delivery or to continue with a mixture and use the existing Department for Work and Pensions system, which may be more effective at addressing real need.
  The Chancellor's pre-Budget report described the objectives of his proposed tax credits as helping to tackle inadequate work incentives and to tackle the unemployment poverty traps. However, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out that topping up low earnings is now often serving to entrench low pay.
  Caroline Flint: The difference between this Government and previous Governments is that when we had the old family credit system there was no national minimum wage to put a floor under poverty pay. The Government have provided a basis on which pay cannot go below a certain level, and can then be supplemented by in-work benefits
  Mr. Flight: I do not agree in principle, but a minimum wage is just a universal minimum for everyone and is not relevant to whether people receive the right rewards for different skill levels. It is merely a floor and we could spend hours debating whether it is sufficient.
  The Government's recent report on skill levels has admitted that Britain's skill base lags far behind that of other developed economies. The Government predict that thousands of jobs could be left vacant because of the lack of skills. The report points out that the growth in the proportion of the work force with intermediate vocational skills has been slower than in the rest of the OECD. Many who participate in skills councils have expressed concerns that, increasingly, the right reward signals for the enhancement of skills are not clear. Under the Bill, take-home pay for many will bear little relationship to the market remuneration for their skills. The Chancellor's
  608
  economic objective is to increase Britain's declining rate of productivity growth under the Labour Government. Has he understood the contradictions between the very worthy social objectives and the very necessary economic ones?
  Kali Mountford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the biggest barriers to attaining skills is an extended period of worklessness? Is it not good to incentivise going to work, so that people are back in the labour market and increasing the skills base?
  Mr. Flight: That is why I said a few moments ago that it was the Conservatives who started the principle of pricing people into work. This is an important issue. A delicate balance needs to be struck between pricing people into work and having a system of pay-packet remuneration with signals in terms of people's rewards for enhancing their skills. Getting that balance right is difficult, but crucial. We do not know whether the Bill will get the balance right because we have not been told what the level of credits will be. The House should focus—as should the Chancellor if he wishes productivity growth in this country to recover—on the fact that this is a crucial area to get right.
  According to the Government, for many, the working families tax credit should increase the incentives to get a job. However, as Donald Hirsch pointed out in the New Statesman, some people—not all—will, as they earn more, lose more than 90 per cent. of the extra income through tax and withdrawal of housing benefits. He said that while Ministers preached about improving individual opportunities and productivity, they risked sending signals that encouraged individuals and companies to go for low-grade, low-paid jobs.
  The second major issue of principle is whether it is right to move increasingly towards using the Inland Revenue, as opposed to the Department for Work and Pensions, as the administrator and the payer of such benefits. While there are attractions in using the Inland Revenue—it has people's PAYE records—it being the administrator of welfare benefits runs the risk of leading to even greater bureaucracy and complexity in our tax system and of it failing to be able to deliver to the needy when they are particularly in need of support.
  Much additional information beyond PAYE is required to administer benefits appropriately relating to family circumstances, receipt of housing benefit, disability and—for the Bill's particular purposes—average hours worked and child care costs. At the heart of the concerns of the Institute for Fiscal Studies is the need for claimants to monitor annual income, average hours of work and child care costs, which it believes will lead to the risk of considerably greater non-compliance. Pressure may also develop for those and other relevant items of information to be required to be included in citizens' tax returns, increasing the bureaucratic burden on everybody.
  The proposals to simplify the administration system for paying tax credits by moving to an annual system based around the tax year—essentially to save administrative costs—runs the risk of the system being unable to respond quickly and specifically enough to people's changed working circumstances. The Paymaster General expressed the view that the Bill would bring about great improvements in that area, but she did not describe

  609
  precisely how that was to be achieved within the simplified administration. That is one of the areas that awaits the further regulations.
  In addition, there is the risk of increasing fraud. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has pointed out that the less precise administrative arrangements for benefits proposed by the Bill run the risk of resulting in spiralling costs as people learn to play the system. The new arrangements also run the risk of offering large bonuses for dishonesty, inviting employers to connive with employees to the benefit of both parties and pulling employers into a spider's web of potential dishonesty. The right hon. Gentleman points out that as well as rewarding employers to pay low wages, the arrangements also take the pressure off improving productivity.
  The former Select Committee on Social Security expressed concerns that the potential for fraud could increase if priority is placed on prompt payment at the expense of rigorous checking of eligibility, but when families face hardship, welfare payments need to be made promptly.
  Similar systems overseas have experienced widespread abuse. Fraud became such a major problem with the Canadian working income supplement that Canada has moved back to a benefit system. In America, the earned-income tax credit has met with similar problems.
  Under the Bill, in line with the move to encourage electronic application, claimants for the new tax credits, unlike even those claiming the existing working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, will not be asked to provide documentary proof of income with their application. Also, despite the known efficiency of the Inland Revenue in tax matters, it is not, in administering the new tax credits, subject to the powers of the new Social Security Fraud Act 2001.
  The accounts that are required under the Bill and should be available for full parliamentary scrutiny do not include statistics relating to the number of payments and the location of employers affected, yet those are needed to make a proper assessment of where the greatest impact of the legislation on the community is felt.
  In increasing the extent of benefits paid through the pay packet by employers, beneficiaries are also taking on an increased credit risk. An employer could receive funds from the Revenue and become insolvent before those funds had been paid on to the employees. It may sound like a remote risk, but it is very real, particularly for smaller companies in an uncertain economic environment.
  The crucial issue is whether the new arrangements will tackle the problems of poverty in our community. The Chancellor has made much of his boast that the Government's measures to date have achieved a major success in reducing child poverty and have taken 1.2 million children out of poverty. However, according to the Department for Work and Pensions statistics, the increased spending on the working families tax credit has not yet reached those in the greatest need and at most risk of suffering the ill effects of low-income deprivation. This has been due in part to ever more complicated means-testing and in part to the fact that the focus overwhelmingly on work does not help families for whom work is not an option for health reasons, because the jobs are simply not there or because of problems with child care or transport.
  610
  Between 1994 and 1995, as the Paymaster General cited, and 1999 and 2000, there was little change in the proportion of children below the threshold's contemporary mean income. The Child Poverty Action Group report points out that the published figures for 1999–2000 showed that 34 per cent. of children were still living in income poverty and that one in six families fall into poverty as the result of the birth of a child.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has now been on his feet for 23 minutes, outlining what is wrong with the Bill. When will he give the House his alternatives to the Bill's proposals?
  Mr. Flight: In just a minute I will point out what is in the Bill's favour. The job of the Opposition is to offer a critique of legislation, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have burnt up yet more time.
  Martin Barnes, the director of the Child Poverty Action Group, recently pointed out that the figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions cast some doubt on Labour's claim that by the June election it had lifted more than 1 million children out of poverty.
  The New Policy Institute and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have commented that a major change will need to take place for the Chancellor's claim that 1.2 million children have been taken out of poverty to be achieved. The recent Barnardos study affirms that one in six of the poorest children—those in the bottom decile—will be worse off. They are most vulnerable to being pushed deeper into poverty.
  The Government's intention towards couples and parents who wish to care for their children at home also needs to be clarified and, possibly, challenged. We all agree with the objective of reducing the number of families with no one in work, but let us be clear that that is not a universal panacea to address the problems of child poverty.
  The Government's increasingly tax-based approach to administering welfare will also place an increasing administrative burden on business. For the new credits to work, employers will have to make complex and burdensome adjustments to PAYE records, especially if the new arrangements are to be sufficiently flexible to address changes in people's earnings. The real problem for small businesses, which have been promised some help in the pre-Budget report, is that they need to devote all their limited resources to running their businesses.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman refers to complex calculations involving the employer. He is simply wrong when he refers to the PAYE system. Employers will be told how much to pay during the year and when circumstances alter. The information in the tax system—the P60s and the P45s—will be used to determine a household's total income. Although he might want to make points about whether there should be a working tax credit at all, he is totally wrong to suggest that greater burdens will be put on business by the Bill; it will reduce them. He is completely wrong to suggest that the employer will be involved in any way with the calculation of payments.
  Mr. Flight: I thank the Paymaster General for her comments, but I was not suggesting that employers will

  611
  be responsible for calculating the payments; I was making the point that, if the Inland Revenue is to make the correct adjustments, it will be extremely necessary for employers to be absolutely bang up to date with all current adjustments to their PAYE records.
  Dawn Primarolo: All that will be required is for employers to discharge their current and long-standing obligations under the tax system to ensure that their employees are properly informed of how much they have received and how much has been deducted.
  Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General is raising an issue that we shall debate at great length in Committee.[Interruption.] No, this issue is very important—it is not funny. The system is based on annual earnings, but we need a system that can address changes in earnings and circumstances speedily and effectively, and which is not open to fraud. The precise mechanisms by which the PAYE system is expected to do all that reliably are not spelled out clearly in the Bill, and that issue awaits further regulation.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I agree with him that having the correct information and being responsive to change in the system are crucial, but his misunderstanding seems to be that somehow employers are involved in those matters through the PAYE system—they are not. The households that apply and the Inland Revenue are directly involved in those matters. With the working tax credit, employers receive notification of how much should be paid. The child tax credit does not go through the employer at all; it goes direct to the claimant.
  Mr. Flight: I thank the Paymaster General for that explanation, but all Members are well aware that the child tax credit will go directly to the main carer. That is one of the great benefits of the Bill and one of the key Opposition arguments that the Government have accepted.
  I do not wish to prolong discussion on this point any longer, but I did not suggest that the employer would be responsible for calculating the working tax credit. However, for the Revenue to be able to provide the right support at the right time, there needs to be dialogue between the employer and the Revenue to get things right. If there is no dialogue, the risk of wrong payment and fraud will be greater. That point lies at the heart of whether the measures will work.
  Mr. Ruffley: I find myself in the dangerous position of agreeing with both the Paymaster General and my hon. Friend. Be that as it may, he makes a genuine point in that, although there is an annual assessment basis to the new regime, the Bill also provides for in-year assessment. Almost by definition, the in-year assessment will involve notification to the employer so that, in year, the employer can adjust the amount of working tax credit. My hon. Friend is right, even though the Paymaster General is correct to say that the employer will not do the calculation.
  Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for encapsulating the point that I was driving at.
  612
  Last week, the Paymaster General was asked about the burdens placed on business in administering welfare, and I was somewhat surprised when she argued that business should appreciate the extent to which the Government are subsidising employment. As has already been said, we are in dangerous economic territory and it will do employees no good if the Government see the working tax credit as, essentially, a subsidy to employment.
  I note that, although the child care tax credit is to be part of the working tax credit, it will be paid alongside the child tax credit. Will the Paymaster General explain the administrative arrangements that that will involve, as it would seem more logical for the child care tax credit to be part of the child tax credit rather than the working tax credit?
  Dawn Primarolo: The child care ta credit and the payment of child care expenses will be attached to the working tax credit because many lone parents have said that they want to return to paid employment. However, by the time they have paid for child care, they are worse off and in an unemployment trap. The child care tax credit will be paid to remove a barrier to work, so one has to be in work and in receipt of the working tax credit. The trigger is the working tax credit but, after consultation, we felt that, as regards a couple, the main carer should receive the child care tax credit as the person likely to be responsible for arranging the child care. However, child care tax credit cannot be accessed unless an individual or household is also in receipt of the working tax credit.
  Mr. Flight: I am glad that the Paymaster General has clarified the fact that the carer will receive the credit. I appreciate the point of principle involved, but this is a case in which two neat boxes do not operate as two neat boxes. For the reasons that she gave, someone has to be in work to receive the child care tax credit, but it is administered out of the other box, which will involve the Revenue attempting to operate the two credits together efficiently.
  In assessing the case for a further shift towards tax rather than benefit-based welfare, the Government have again employed the stigma argument, but they are wrong. The evidence does not support their claim. Instead, it suggests that payment through the wage packet can stigmatise recipients rather more than benefits do. Many individuals understandably do not want their employers to know of their entitlements and circumstances, or for the employer to use that as a reason for holding down theirremuneration.
  It is also likely that workmates will know who is receiving such benefits. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies commented, for some people even the payment of the
  "WFTC through wage packets has been more stigmatising and certainly more hassle than direct payment."
  In short, the Paymaster General has not presented convincing arguments on the key issue to support the need to make a further substantial shift to administering welfare payments via the Inland Revenue, and there is a major risk that the administrative costs saved will be more than offset by an increase in fraud.
  We accept that the Bill makes some improvements. I am pleased to note that it addresses several of the issues that we raised in relation to the working families tax credit and children's tax credit. Payment of the child tax credit

  613
  to the main carer is crucial, although the Bill is not clear on how that will work in the case of broken families. However, the point about the main carer is secure.
  We welcome the fact that there will be no capital limits. We also welcome the extension of the tax credit to support about 100,000 families who are currently excluded, including students and nurses, and the fact that it will support families with young people who are in full-time education up to the age of 19. We are pleased to note that the child tax credit will end the unfair treatment of single-earner families, although we continue our quest to know whether, in principle, 1 million people will be worse off.
  We have reservations about extending in-work support to those without children who are over 25, from which 400,000 are expected to benefit. Some of the poorest families in our society are also those in which the parents are under 25, and they will not benefit from the working tax credit.
  On costs, the IFS analysis expects the new tax credits to add £2.8 billion a year, assuming no double-earner families are made worse off, and £2.2 billion extra if 1 million families are disadvantaged. It is clear from page 39 of the explanatory notes that the measures will also transfer a further £4 billion of expenditure that relates to income support and the jobseeker's allowance from welfare expenditure to a netting off of tax receipts, thus effectively concealing that expenditure. Allowing for the £2.8 billion expected additional costs, the total welfare expenditure that is not shown as expenditure but simply netted off tax receipts, will be up to £15 billion per annum. I am sure that that constitutes a major part of the Chancellor's real reasons for the existing and further move to Inland Revenue-administered welfare payments, which has less to do with the fundamental case—the Paymaster General did not argue it—that the Inland Revenue can administer them better .
  Welfare expenditure will increase by 36 per cent. from 1996–97 to 2003–04, which is an increase from £92 billion, to £125 billion a year, at a time when unemployment has fallen. That gives the lie to the Prime Minister's pledge to cut social security costs to pay for higher health and tax spending. Is that the outcome that the Government privately expected, or has the Chancellor outwitted the Prime Minister's intentions?
  Will the 725,000 people who come from overseas to work in the UK, mostly for a limited period and often taking low-paid jobs, qualify for the working tax credit and, if relevant, the child tax credit, particularly as a result of the central annual income qualification? If so, how much do the Government estimate that will cost?
  Having observed for the past four and a half years the way in which the Chancellor's mind works, may I ask whether political objectives are the main reason for the Bill? Has the Chancellor remembered that Herbert Morrison built council houses to secure votes? Could it be that the real objective of paying benefits through the payroll is to try to gain votes, by creating the mentality that it is a Labour Government who are giving out these benefits?
  Given the administrative costs and hassles involved, does it seem necessary for 40 per cent. of all families, 30 per cent. of those of working age and 56 per cent. Of
  614
  those in retirement to be eligible for means-tested benefits? At least 40 per cent. of them will be getting benefits financed by taxes that they themselves have paid. I am well aware that most do not pay significant amounts of income tax, but much of the tax that they pay is extremely regressive.
  The Bill creates a mass of income-tested complexity, which many will not understand. It looks likely to provide less, not more, flexibility and looks less able to support those in real need. Apparently, the Chancellor is keen to learn much in other policy areas from the economies of north America, but he appears to be blind to the problems experienced by Canada and the USA with large amounts of income-supplement welfare. We are concerned that, as well as risking an increase in fraud, the measures will increase the burden on businesses, particularly small businesses. There is a risk that small businesses will not always address the requirements made of them. We are concerned also that the measures will fail to help those who are most in need.
  We will not vote against the Bill today, substantially because we do not know what it proposes for the value of credits, what they will cost, or how, in practice, the arrangements based on annual income assessment will address needs arising from changed circumstances.
  Dawn Primarolo: Does the fact that the official Opposition feel unable to vote against the Bill mean that they will not table amendments in Committee?
  Mr. Flight: That is a very strange comment from the Paymaster General, who has always enjoyed discussing the amendments that we table. I assure her that the Opposition will table a substantial number of amendments to tease out the problems presented by the Bill, and the Government are not allowing sufficient time in the allotted Committee sittings for those amendments properly to be discussed.
  What the Chancellor has described as a seamless system of income-related support for families with children is in reality a complex extension of his means-testing agenda, which involves considerable dangers, and we are suspicious of the real political motives behind it.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: Nobody outside the House should be unclear about the Government's commitment to tackle poverty and child poverty. The Bill means that, as a party, we forgo a 3p cut in the standard rate of tax. When the whole of the Government's tax credit proposals are unfolded, we forgo something like a 5p cut in the standard rate of tax. So when we go into the next election, we will be setting aside the chance of campaigning on a 17p standard rate of tax and defending our tax credit strategy. I hope that, when they face the electorate, Labour Members will not be under any misapprehension about how costly the anti-poverty programme is or how seriously the Government are attempting to tackle poverty. It is clear that there is a big divide in the House. It is easy to speak about our concern for people on low income and our wish to see them on higher income but, when it comes to action, we have to put taxpayers' money where our mouth is. The Government are doing that handsomely. Later, I shall consider whether it is wise to put so much taxpayers'

  615
  money in one basket, but no one should be unaware of the seriousness of the Government's attempt to counter the growing poverty that many of our constituents first experienced under the regime that existed when the Opposition were in government.
  I compliment the Paymaster General. When Labour Members are in government, I wish that we always heard Ministers who commanded both the respect of the House and their brief as she does. The Opposition deliberately bowled her a number of difficult balls that were not always relevant to the Bill, but she had no problem in hitting them to the boundary. It certainly raises morale on this side of the House to have Ministers with such qualities and expertise.
  Of course, it is difficult for a Member of whatever party to speak against a Bill that tries to ensure that poorer people have more money. When I was in opposition, the Conservative Government introduced measures to initiate housing benefit. Who could be against a measure to help poor people pay their rent? I was one of the Members who spoke against the proposal. It was extremely attractive on the surface, but I thought that it would lead to extraordinary problems. I thought that when it came to fruition, it would push rents up so much that most working people would be unable to pay their rent without assistance; far from freeing people from poverty, we would increase significantly the extent of dependency in our society.
  My warnings in those debates carried no weight with the House of Commons. Hon. Members thought that I was scaremongering. The Opposition were embarrassed by my warnings and the Government were set on introducing housing benefit. However, rents have been pushed up, an ever-increasing number of people are dependent on housing benefit and fraud is so extensive that it frightens those of us who have glimpsed it. The present Government, like the previous one, do not know how to get off the treadmill of rising welfare bills. As with housing benefit, so with the tax credit proposals. Although I have no doubt that the Paymaster General will have no difficulty in countering arguments that may be made in the years ahead, today she is dealing with the easiest part of the argument. Once the benefits or credits kick in, real life will start to impinge on our image of how they work.
  I wish to discuss five bear traps that are already apparent. People around the country have written to me about them, and they will take up more of Parliament's time than they currently do.
  The first problem posed by the Government's approach to tackling child poverty is that many employers who employ people on lowish wages cannot make their employees better off by raising their wages, and can only suggest to their employees that they claim the relevant tax credits, while the employers plough back profits that they would have paid in increased pay. I do not criticise employers or employees for working the system in that way. I blame the House if it passes such measures, because we give them no option other than to behave rationally as economic men and women. Already, employers are aware that if they increase pay, that pay increase will be clawed back by the tax credit proposals.
  Mr. Ruffley: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to agree with his analysis,
  616
  but can he explain how the proposed in-work benefits differ from family credit? Did not the problem that he identifies exist under the family credit regime?
  Mr. Field: Of course it did. Both sides are tarnished. The only defence that the Opposition can come up with against my argument is, "Well, guy, we were shopped, but we were not nearly as generous with taxpayers' money, so fewer people were affected." That does not counter my argument.
  The second point concerns the exchange between the Front-Bench spokesmen about how the payments would be made. The crucial point is that they are made through the pay office of firms. Although information in pay offices ought to be confidential, and people ought to be discreet in what they say, sometimes, if they see an injustice, they are less discreet than we are with information that might come our way.
  People are already noticing what others are taking home in their pay packets, and what that is doing to pay hierarchies within firms. An employer writes to tell me that he is employing someone who has not worked before, and he is very pleased to have that person on the payroll, but after the tax credits are paid, her pay moves from £12,000 to the equivalent of £19,000 a year. There are many people in the firm who earn much less than that who are skilled, have acquired extra qualifications, and feel that that is a huge injustice. The issue will not go away, but become more current in our debates.
  The third bear trap is that we will be encouraging our constituents to work the system, like employers. I shall give an example from one of the Revenue offices, where staff failed to get their bosses to act against fraud. They and the staff of other offices have therefore leaked information to me. I hope that the word goes out from our debate tonight that we will be as careful with taxpayers' money as we are with our own.
  The example involves someone who is disabled and who pays her daughter £2.50 an hour to look after her. That is well below the minimum wage, as was pointed out by the officer, who was told by the senior officer to agree it. The push is to get claims registered; that is what is required. The officer comments that this example of "taking in washing" would be complete if the grandmother could qualify as a child carer, so that she could be paid to look after her granddaughter while her daughter is paid to look after her, all at the expense of the hard-working constituents whom I and other right hon. and hon. Members try to represent.
  Again, that leads to the question of fraud. How keen will the Government be to act when officers raise the issue of fraud but senior officers say that they are anxious to boost claimant numbers to meet targets, rather than ensuring that people are claiming correctly? When inspectors checked up on employers who were likely to be committing fraud in relation to family credit, they often found that employees were paid appallingly low wages and discovered a pattern in which employers regularly withdrew large cash sums from the bank, but could give no account to investigating officers of where that money was going. Obviously, cash deals were being struck between employers and employees, who decided that they should work the system and maximise family credit, as it was then called, while taxpayers picked up the bill for the fraud that both parties were committing.

  617
  For 13 weeks, I was Minister of State with responsibility for dealing with such fraud. In that time, I requested that we carry out a benefit review to consider the avenues for fraud in respect of the working families tax credit, but what happened is deeply disturbing. I asked for the review so that the Treasury would have the information when it came to design the working families tax credit so that the opportunities for fraud could be minimised as far as possible, but it was not undertaken and the papers that I signed in relation to that whole period have gone missing. I raise the issue merely as a sign that some people in Whitehall are less keen on countering fraud than hon. Members. When my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said that she gave the matter priority, it was news to our ears and to those of our constituents. I hope that she will equal the effort that she has put into launching the measure in taking the measures needed to counter fraud.
  In the longer run, I do not believe that a free society can be run in such a way. We cannot let people buck the system to the extent that about 85 per cent. of working families with children are on means-tested assistance and assume that it will not affect their behaviour one iota.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: While I recognise my right hon. Friend's distinguished record in fighting child poverty and family poverty, as well as the truth of much of what he is saying, what alternative measures would he suggest to tackle such poverty?
  Mr. Field: I shall deal with that matter in a moment. I suggested that forgoing a 3p or 5p cut in the standard rate of tax on every pound that our poorer-paid constituents pay is an opportunity cost that we are taking on ourselves, but an opportunity that they do not have. When we discuss anti-poverty measures, we need to think especially about the tax burden for people on low pay. It is fine for us to discuss whether we should take money out of the pockets and purses of some of our constituents and give it to other constituents, but we should also be aware that income tax is a cause of poverty, as well as of a reduction in living standards, especially for those below the bottom level. One should not lightly forgo substantial income tax cuts merely because one is in favour of paying benefits or awarding tax credits. That is one of the proposals that we need to have in our armoury if we are to counter child poverty effectively and reinforce the natural instinct of families to try to improve their lot by their own efforts.
  The real worry that the Bill presents was revealed on the BBC's six o'clock news after the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement. A low-paid worker with children was wheeled out. The spinners must have been delighted with his initial comments because his gratitude to the Government for increasing his family's income to the extent provided by the tax credits knew no bounds. However, instead of putting a full stop there, he used a comma, which must have given the spinners nightmares. He continued, "I now know that I will never be able to improve my family's living standards by my own efforts. It's up to politicians and bureaucrats to decide my take-home pay."
  I do not believe that we can run a free society through politicians determining people's living standards and thus negating their natural impulses to want their efforts,
  618
  length of working week, extra pay, skills and pride in looking after their household and families to count. We should not take over that role and keep it to ourselves.
  It is important that we do not simply concentrate on the Government's success with the minimum wage. The Opposition said that there would be mass unemployment even at the level that the Government were setting it. It has been an effective floor for many of my constituents, and I pay tribute to the Government for keeping their nerve and introducing it. I compliment them on increasing child benefit and on the contrast between our record and the poverty of the Opposition's approach when they were in government.
  Gareth Thomas: I defer to my right hon. Friend's great experience, but does he accept that his trumpeting of the national minimum wage makes the position that he outlined earlier contradictory? Is not the minimum wage an example of the Government intervening to improve people's conditions?
  Mr. Field: Of course it is. We intervene if we increase or decrease taxes. I do not argue that we can wash our hands of and have nothing to do with such matters. The minimum wage is an example of intervention and the Government used their judgment in setting it. They now realise that unemployment did not result from it and that we should be confident about progressively increasing it. I hope that the Paymaster General will take back the message that no credit approval should be given if it is clear that the wage entered on the form is below the minimum wage. There is no point in our passing measures if we do not implement them.
  There is a worry that stems from national insurance benefits and child benefits. Today's debate could give the impression that all our tax credit proposals erect a wonderful buttress against existing forms of welfare provision. Alternatively, they may prove to be cuckoos in the nest. I want us to think five years ahead. We shall be told how well the tax credits are working and the argument will change subtly. Is there a need for two welfare states operating next to each other? Given that the tax credit concentrates help on the poorest, should we place the same emphasis on the other welfare state, which comprises national insurance benefits and child benefits?
  The Government rightly claim credit for establishing a child tax credit. When it works well, what are the long-term consequences for child benefit? The debate will subtly change; we shall hear talk of the wastefulness of the other benefits and of what the revenue could be spent on. It may then be too late for some people to object to the plan that is unfolding. I believe— as my hon. Friend said in his intervention— that there is a case for placing floors under people and allowing them to grow by their own efforts, and for praising and rewarding them and letting them take pride in their efforts.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: I am reluctant to challenge my right hon. Friend, because of his record on welfare benefits, but some employment is very poorly paid, and the employers concerned will not improve wages. What would he say to people working in those conditions, who are in poverty and cannot get out of the mire? Would he tell them that they should not have

  619
  working families tax credit, or children's tax credit? The crucial issue is how we direct this support and get it to the people who most need it.
  Mr. Field: My plea would be that we should not get into that position in the first place. What do my hon. Friends have to say about housing benefit? Not one of our local authorities has a proper report on how we administer it. Every report produced shows the extent of fraud involved.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Given my right hon. Friend's great knowledge, it is difficult to challenge him, but does he agree that the problem with housing benefit stems not solely from its introduction but also from the deregulation of rents at the same time, which led to the increased housing benefit bill?
  Mr. Field: All that I was suggesting was that we are arguing now that we should have these tax credits, but in five years' time, we shall face the same arguments about them that we, as constituency Members, have to face now over housing benefit. Many of our constituents cannot afford to pay their rent, but what are the Government to do with the escalating housing benefit bill? How do we get off that helter-skelter? We are now in the early stages of tax credits; I am merely pointing out the direction in which we are moving, and sounding a note of caution.
  Ms Karen Buck: I am sure that the situation in my right hon. Friend's constituency is very different from that in mine. The reason that we have a benefit and rent crisis in London and the south-east is that the shortage of housing supply has pushed rents up. The availability of property to households on housing benefit in London has halved since 1996. The relationship that my right hon. Friend mentioned might well apply in the north of England, but it does not apply in London, and that must call into question the validity of his argument.
  Mr. Field: As someone born in London but who does not represent a London constituency, I would say that London is an island unlike other parts of the country. In many areas of Birkenhead, for example, there is a surplus of housing. That does not mean to say that landlords do not try to push rents up or to bleed taxpayers. I hope to introduce a Bill shortly that will allow local authorities not to pay housing benefit to bad landlords who do not look after their properties and care nothing for their tenants or for the hell that can be inflicted on neighbours and the rest of the street. I am sure, from the nodding that I see around me, that I shall gain widespread support for that measure.
  On Second Reading of the Bill that introduced housing benefit, I was challenged by other hon. Members. I was asked how foolish I could be, and told that I was trying to prevent their constituents from obtaining help with their rent. No attention was paid to where the benefit would lead us. I merely wish to suggest, by power of analogy, that we need cautiously to attend to the way in which we introduce tax credits.
  Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend's analogy with housing benefit seems flawed. I am sure that many hon. Members want some changes to the housing benefit
  620
  system, but surely a more relevant analogy would be with the system that the credits will replace— in particular, family credit. His argument is about the effect on the workplace. What does the working families tax credit do worse than family credit did?
  Mr. Field: My problem is that, when I sat on the other side of the House, I put those arguments against family credit. The whole Opposition also put those arguments. Thankfully, I now sit on this side of the House, although I continue to apply to tax credits the arguments that I applied to family credit. The measure is more generous, but it does not change the substance of the matter one iota.
  In what was intended to be a brief contribution, I have tried to show the extent of the red water, or the third way water, that divides this side of the House from the other. Even though I have criticised the measure, I do not want to conclude without drawing attention to this most fundamental difference: there is no question but that the Government and the Members who support them are as keen to tackle child poverty and other forms of poverty as I sensed, when I sat on the other side of the House, that the previous Government were not.
  I wish to underscore that major difference with all the energy in my body, but I am fearful of where the measure will lead us. Although it is about increasing the income of low-income people, that does not mean that it will be satisfactory. To tackle poverty successfully, we must increase the income of the poor and widen their freedom. The measure successfully increases their income, but it limits their freedom.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raises important concerns about the Bill, but they can be addressed by amending the detail in a manner that I shall explain. In a break with tradition, I can tell the Government that I am minded to encourage my 51 colleagues of this morning and the 52 of this afternoon to support the Bill. More are welcome to join us, and I understand that the Government Whip can advise me on leading my 52nd colleague into the correct Lobby.
  I am minded to support the Bill and to encourage my colleagues to do so for three reasons. First, the Government have delivered additional support to families with children. Indeed, I confess that I am struck by the substantial nature of some changes made over the last Parliament, particularly with respect to families with young children, and I welcome the fact that support has been concentrated on those families. It was increasingly becoming apparent that paying them less was a mistake, although that was a long-standing tradition in the benefits system. The evidence is to the contrary— there should at least have been a levelling up— and the Government are to be applauded for what they have done on that front.
  To the extent that the Bill levels up support for the children of those in and out of work— I would like to think that it will do so, but I suppose that Ministers will not give me that assurance— I welcome it. Furthermore, previously excluded groups such as students with children and student nurses are included, which is also welcome.
  The second reason for welcoming the Bill is the potential for streamlining. The current system is a dog's breakfast; it will be marginally less so after the Bill

  621
  becomes law. Any streamlining, any continuity between being in and out of work, getting rid of the hours rule on support for children and getting rid of the capital limits are welcome as they make the system somewhat simpler, although it will probably still be more complicated than the one we first thought of four or five years ago. The Bill is a move in the right direction, however, so we welcome it.
  The third main reason for that welcome involves our reason for opposing the Tax Credits Act 1999: payment through the pay packet, whose emphasis is diminished. I recall the Paymaster General assuring me that lone parents needed payment through the pay packet, which was a requirement of the existing system, to show them the value of paid work.
  I am pleased that the Government have thought again about support for children, and that that support will now go direct to the main carer. I welcome that move. Some current recipients of the working families tax credit who are within the taper will get no in-work payment through the pay packet: support for the children will be paid direct to the carer. That group of people will still understand the benefits of working. I welcome the Government's second thoughts on that issue.
  We broadly support the Bill, but I want to raise a number of concerns that we will pursue in more detail in Committee. I hope that the Financial Secretary, when he responds to the debate, will address some of my points, as I am approaching the Bill as a critical friend of the Government's proposals.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred to the burden on business. There is an issue to be addressed, but it is not the one he raised. As the Paymaster General said, the burden on business will be reduced with annual assessment and with the streamlining of the process. The regulatory impact assessment puts the figure at £10 million. However, the starting point is the £100 million burden on business: it costs businesses £100 million every year to deliver the working families tax credit. The Bill may reduce that figure to £90 million, but that is still a substantial burden on business, and the House needs to justify that.
  I contend that, because of the reforms in the Bill, support for children will be paid outside the pay packet, so what is left does not need to go through the pay packet either. We could take this opportunity to get rid of that £90 million cost on business. I shall set out how that could be done.
  Phil Hope: I find it distressing that, although the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the £10 million-worth of benefit to business, he says that it is not enough. Could he not accept that the Bill reduces the burden on businesses and celebrate that fact along with Labour Members?
  Mr. Webb: I am not sure that it is my role to celebrate these provisions. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying. A £10 million reduction in the burden on business is welcome, but there is now an opportunity to get rid of a further £90 million burden, which perhaps he would celebrate.
  What is left when support for families in respect of children is removed? There is the adult bit of the old working families tax credit, and there is the new bit for
  622
  people without children— that is, people working 30 hours a week aged more than 25. Why are we paying these people tax credits rather than giving them support in another way, which I will set out?
  The Government have put two arguments. They argue that we should support those people to relieve poverty and to improve incentives. The poor childless people who will be brought into the system do not work more than 30 hours a week and are not likely to be over 25. The poverty rates among childless people are higher for those not working 30 hours— indeed, not working at all— and are higher for those under 25 than for those over 25. If poverty is our concern, we should pay this employment credit to all childless people in low-paid work, not just to those over 25 working 30 hours.
  On incentives, I invite the Financial Secretary to come up with one piece of empirical evidence that suggests that the reason why childless people are not working or are not working longer hours is to do with incentives and free choices about jobs that they could take but are declining to take. I accept that there are plenty of jobs that families with children and a mortgage cannot afford to take, because they get plenty of help out of work and not as much in work, or barely more. However, childless people do not get much support when they do not work, so they already have a leg up into work.
  Benefit rates for childless people are not very good, and they would not want to live on them for long. Incentives already exist, and there is not much evidence to suggest that those who work 30 hours a week and are aged over 25 need additional labour market incentives. There could be a poverty argument, but the statistics suggest that the scheme is targeting the wrong people.
  If there is a case for supporting all low-paid workers— with or without children, single or married— do we need to do so by costing businesses £90 million a year? My argument is that we do not, because we have the personal income tax allowance. If we want to deliver an average of £15 a week— which is the sort of figure we are talking about for the working tax credit— we could do so by raising the income tax allowance.
  If that alone were done, every Member of Parliament would benefit as well. For these purposes we would not want to do that, but other adjustments could be made to tax thresholds enabling all the benefit to go to those just inside the income-tax structure, rather than some of it going to those with higher incomes. We could lower the starting level for higher-rate tax and raise the personal tax allowance, which would give Members no net benefit but would target help on all in low-paid work. That could be done through the PAYE code, and would impose no burden on business. Indeed, it would save businesses £90 million a year
  Kali Mountford: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting differential tax thresholds? Is he saying that different tax bands should involve different starting rates?
  Mr. Webb: No. I am sorry if what I said was not clear. I am suggesting that the personal tax allowance, which currently applies to all taxpayers, should be raised, and that— so that the hon. Lady cannot benefit— the higher-rate income-tax threshold should fall. That would merely change two of the premises of the existing system. It would prevent Members from benefiting, while

  623
  enabling those in the basic-rate— lower-rate— zband to do so. It is a fairly straightforward proposition. As I said, it would save businesses £90 million a year in administration, and would deliver to broadly the same groups an anti-poverty benefit of equivalent cash value. It would also deliver a labour-supply benefit: when people took low-paid jobs, the tax burden would be lower.
  The detail of what I propose is of course not identical to what the Government propose: there will be slight differences between the position of those who benefit from a tax-allowance rise and that of those who benefit from employment credit. I feel, however, that the onus is on the Government to justify continuing to impose a £90 million burden on business, rather than simply raising tax allowances, in terms of the extra benefit they receive as a result of paying working tax credit. If we are all interested in simplifying and streamlining the existing system, we may conclude that a tax-allowance rise would be better than employment credit.
  Intervening on the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, the Paymaster General suggested that he might want to question the whole existence of employment credit. That is an important point, but although I support the Bill— principally because of what it will do for families with children, and because of its streamlining effect— I have considerable reservations about working tax credit. I am not sure what it will achieve that a tax allowance could not achieve.
  Mr. RuMey: For the record, did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that he wanted to lower the threshold for the top rate of income tax? If so, will he tell us what effect that would have on the average earner of more than £25,000 a year? I am thinking of those whose incomes, in terms of thousands, are in the late 20s and early 30s. Many such people are nurses, sergeants— and police sergeants— and other public sector workers.
  Mr. Webb: It would have no effect whatever. Because we would raise the personal income-tax allowance, those people would gain an average of £15 a week— the sort of sum they would receive through working tax credit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is with me so far: it is a straightforward proposition. When the tax allowance goes up, nurses, doctors and everyone else in that bracket will get £15.
  Assuming that we want this to be a targeted measure to support the low-paid, we reduce the starting point for higher-rate income tax by an amount that will take away £15 at that end. The net effect will therefore be nil. In other words, the effect will be neutral for those on higher incomes because they are gaining from the tax-allowance rise and losing from the higher-rate threshold fall. Those who gain will be those receiving working tax credit— the low-paid, whom we are targeting. That, then, would be an alternative way of lifting burdens from business.
  There is another problem, which has also been mentioned already. The proposed integrated system adds couples' incomes together. Whereas children's tax credit is currently assessed on the basis of individual incomes, the proposed child tax credit will be assessed on the basis of joint incomes. Let me return to an example given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). At present, a nurse married to a teacher, with children, receives the full children's tax credit because neither earns
  624
  above the threshold, but, when added together, their incomes will be well above the threshold. Unless the threshold changes, they could lose up to £520.
  When we raised that with the Paymaster General, her response was essentially, "Wait and see." She said that the thresholds and allowances would not be announced today. I understand that, but this is the position: either the Government must find £600 million to prevent people from losing out, or some families who are receiving the current benefits— they are not necessarily filthy rich; I gave the example of a nurse married to a teacher— could lose significant sums.
  That brings me to a key point. Those of us who are potential members of the Committee that will consider the Bill would like to see regulations before we deliberate. We would like to know what we will be talking about. It would be helpful to have some idea of the ball-park figure that the Government are thinking of. I appreciate that we cannot pre-empt the Budget, but is it unreasonable for the House to know whether we are talking about a measure that will take up to £520 off 1.4 million constituents, or one that will cost no one anything? We simply do not know. For the Committee to have an informed discussion on those issues, some idea of how the system will be delivered and of the framework within which the threshold rates will be set would make a big difference.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made some points on fraud and how we may respond to it. The nub of the fraud problem is payment through the pay packet. That makes matters so much worse because the money benefits the employer before it is handed on. The fact that the employer has a stake in the process makes collusion potentially much worse.
  If the money goes directly to a recipient and the employer is not involved, it is not a problem. That is another compelling reason not to have a working tax credit at all and to put tax allowances up to deliver the money to the low paid. In that way, the employer will not get his grubby hands on the money, the good employer will be happy because he will not have to administer the thing and the bad employer will be denied the opportunity for fraud. Again, that could save the Government money. The scope for fraud could be substantial; it could run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
  Kali Mountford: I am at a loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman's proposal would benefit those people whose income keeps them below the tax threshold in any event? How would he get money to them?
  Mr. Webb: The vast majority of people whom we are talking about are income tax payers. The working families tax credit is currently paid above certain bands. The children's tax credit goes to people beyond the higher rate threshold.[Interruption.] The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I do not know how many of the people whom we are talking about are not taxpayers. For those with children, there is no problem. We can deliver the credit through other mechanisms.
  The childless non-taxpayer earns about £80 a week. As I have said, I am not convinced that there is an incentives issue for the childless non-taxpayer, but the hon. Lady makes a fair point. I do not know how many people we are talking about. My suspicion is that it is very few. I would be interested to know what the figure is. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has an idea of the order of magnitude, I will be grateful to hear it.

  625
  There are a few other concerns. One aspect of the proposal that has had little attention and debate so far is annual assessment. Trying to line things up with the tax system and reducing the bureaucracy of frequent reassessments is an interesting idea. However, in one respect the system will not line up with the tax system. It will go in the opposite direction: from a single assessment with the children's tax credit to joint assessment for the child tax credit. Therefore, in one important respect, there will be a move away from integration with the income tax system.
  If we were not to go for annual assessment, I hope that the Government would not say, "We cannot support that because that is not in line with income tax." In respect of the unit of assessment, the Government have rejected the income tax approach and have gone for a social security approach. Therefore, I hope that they will consider the issue of annual assessment.
  If we do not tackle the problem of people in fluctuating circumstances, we will face it in our advice surgeries for years to come. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has examined fluctuations in family circumstances using the labour force survey. It says that 225,000 couples with children break up in a given year and 200,000 lone parents start to co-habit in a given year: nearly 500,000 families with children experience a change that would affect their entitlement. One million families with children change employment status within a given year, so there is an awful lot of change.[Interruption.] Indeed, it was an IFS report I was quoting from, my former employer.
  The key question is: how should the system respond to that? Obviously, there is a trade-off. If the system responds to every last little change, it will be all over the place, administrative costs will be enormous and we will gain nothing. If the system is rigid, it will not fit people's individual circumstances.
  The problem is asymmetric. In other words, when people's circumstances change to their detriment, we want a substantial response. People should not have to go for prolonged periods without change. For example, if someone loses £10 a week because of a loss of overtime, the system should respond quickly. However, if they gain a tenner a week through doing overtime, it would probably cost the taxpayer an equivalent sum to recalculate the entitlement. For that reason, the taxpayer has no incentive to worry about upward changes, but we would need to worry about equal downward changes.
  Contrary to the Government's views in their consultation paper that we must have a symmetric threshold for reporting, we should be more worried about downward than upward shifts. That is not just because the wishy-washy Liberals want to throw money at everything, but because the taxpayer might not gain by trying to spot small upward shifts in people's incomes. Conversely, we would not want to leave people who have experienced a downward shift in the same position for 11 months. I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion that the threshold should be different for those who get worse off compared with people who get better off. I think that the Paymaster General is nodding.
  The issue of annual assessment troubles me. I can see what might be attractive about it, but some of the Government's consultation documents suggest that people
  626
  on low pay might have the option to forecast their income for the coming year. We all know constituents who would find that very difficult, because their lives are chaotic, they are in and out of work and their family circumstances change. If they were to forecast their income, they could be badly wrong. At the end of the year, if the situation had not been re-assessed, they could have been substantially overpaid. Potentially, in extreme cases, they could have to repay thousands of pounds of tax credits. How long would they have to repay the money? Would there be a maximum amount that they would have to repay? I would be very concerned if low-paid households had to repay large overpayments that might have arisen because they had to guess their income.
  I hope that we will be able to explore in Committee whether a year is the right timescale. At the moment, the period is six months, but that is a rigid time with no opportunity to re-assess income. If we change to a system of 12 months with scope for re-assessment in that time, I wonder whether we will have missed a step. Perhaps six-monthly assessments could be considered. I appreciate that that would involve twice as many notifications to employers, but given how often people's circumstances change, there will be lots of reassessments anyway. My worry is that some people who need a reassessment might not realise that they could have one and might try to get by with the wrong amount not just for six months, but for a year.
  Mr. Ruffley: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said, but does he know what would trigger an in-year assessment? The Bill does not tell us that.
  Mr. Webb: I understand that events such as the birth of a child, marriage, relationship breakdown or changes in employment would do so, but I am concerned about less obvious changes, such as stopping doing overtime or taking a second job. One of the issues is how much the onus is on the claimant to be aware of the effect that such changes will have on their entitlement. Anything that requires folk to understand that complex system, with the possibility that they will be penalised if they fail to report changes that they might not realise are significant, is a possible problem.
  I am concerned about take-up. The Paymaster General would not give us a figure for the number of families eligible for WFTC who do not claim it. If the take-up is about 75 per cent.— the sort of figure that is often quoted— it might be as many as 300,000 or 400,000 families. We know that of the 5 million entitled to the children's tax credit, 3.6 million receive it and perhaps another 1 million self-employed parents will get it through their tax returns. It may be that another 300,000 or 400,000 are missing out on that one.
  In terms of employment credit for people who have never been in the benefits system before, apart from housing benefit— the childless low-paid— there is an issue of take-up. Studies of various pilot schemes have suggested that take-up is a real problem, but there is not a problem with the take-up of tax allowances; everybody gets the tax allowance. If we deliver support through tax allowances and not through the working credit, we will not have a take-up problem. I am convincing myself more as I go on that tax allowance rises would be better than the employment credit.

  627
  The interaction with housing benefit has been mentioned. In terms of the pension credit, the Government have said that they will raise the housing benefit thresholds so that someone getting maximum pension credit will get exactly the same housing benefit as before; the thresholds will go up in line. There is a hint in the Bill that the Government are thinking of putting housing benefit thresholds up so that people who are brought into the tax credit system—the childless in particular— would not find that they were losing 85 per cent. through housing benefit tapers. We seek some reassurance on that. It would be perverse if people were given £20 with one hand and then had 80 per cent. of that taken away by another through the housing benefit system.
  The money we are talking about must be paid into an account. For those with a bank account, that is not a problem. For those without, it is. The scheme is to begin in 2003. Previously, the Government said that the universal bank and the card system— the switch to automated credit transfer— would be phased in over 2003 to 2005. However, the Bill requires payment into accounts from April 2003. If the Government are falling behind schedule on the universal bank, that will cause great concern, as these payments need an account. I hope that the Government can reassure us that the universal bank will be in place by April 2003.
  Clearly, this is a complex Bill, and the regulations will tell us a great deal. It would inform the Committee's deliberations to have sight even of draft regulations or indicative statements from the Government on the levels of thresholds and their thinking on other points. That would make a huge difference to our judgment of the Bill.
  Because the Bill, in principle, moves in the right direction— particularly with regard to families with children— I and my colleagues welcome it. We have considerable misgivings about the working tax credit that we hope to address in Committee but, on balance, we are minded to support the Bill.
  5.52 pm
  Gareth Thomas: The fact that this debate so far has been couched in technical terms and complex language may lead an outside observer to believe that this is an esoteric matter. It is not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did the House a service by bringing this debate to life. He is more sceptical about the Bill's implications than I am, but he was right to say that while the Bill is complex, it affects the lives of many people, as is often the case with social security measures.
  The Bill is a substantial step forward in the Government's campaign to end child poverty and to improve the lives of many people who continue to live on low incomes. The debate has brought to light the philosophical and political divide that exists, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead was right to refer to that. The Government are proceeding down this course, rather than seeking tax cuts. They are putting their political credibility on the line and seeking to implement measures that are, on any view, seriously redistributive and will mean a real improvement in the lives of many people.
  The Bill builds on the Government's work, and there are many tools in the toolkit; it is not just a question of relying upon tax credits. Reference has been made to the
  628
  need to bring low-income people out of tax liability, but that is already happening. The 10p starting rate for tax has been extended, so that many people are not paying tax at all. The national minimum wage has made a big difference, as has the working families tax credit, the predecessor of the child tax credit and the working tax credit.
  The figures from my constituency reflect the degree to which the Bill is of immense practical value. No fewer than 8,111 families in my constituency have benefited in a big way from increases in child benefit. No fewer than 1,840 low and middle-income families are, on average, £30 better off thanks to the working families tax credit. I am pleased that the Bill extends the scope of the tax credit regime to a greater number of people.
  Some 1.25 million children already have been lifted out of poverty. I am sure that the Government are under no illusions and are aware that a considerable amount of further work needs to be done. We live in a society in which, due to the legacy of the previous Conservative Government, the divide between rich and poor has widened. I am convinced that the Bill is a big step in the right direction. It is right for us to move away from the culture of welfare dependency to a system in which we promote incentives to work, make work pay and further improve financial support for children.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned elephant traps, but there other traps; the unemployment trap and the poverty trap. I am certain that the regime of tax credits will be one of the most effective ways of bringing an end to the culture of dependency and improving the lives of a considerable number of people.
  As a former member of the Social Security Committee, I agree with its findings in the last report that it produced in the previous Parliament. The Committee concluded that tax credits will help to tackle child poverty, increase work incentives and produce a simpler and more coherent system of administration for the benefit of recipients.
  The Committee was particularly exercised by the question of what work was being done to ascertain the absolute measure of poverty to which the regime of tapers, rates and thresholds will be addressed. One appreciates that the devil is in the detail, but could the Minister give an indication of the Government's thinking on that matter?
  Will the Government respond positively to a briefing that I have received from NACAB, which has expressed concerns about two issues? The first is the number of hours worked. In terms of eligibility, how many hours would people have to work before they can qualify for the working tax credit? It is the view of NACAB— and I suspect many others— that the current figure is rather too high, particularly with regard to disabled groups.
  On the vexed question of housing benefit, I wish to refer to paragraph 45 of the Social Security Committee report, concerning the perverse effects of differential tapers. It states:
  "With a taper of 65 per cent. for Housing Benefit and twenty per cent. for Council Tax Benefit, a family currently in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit can find themselves as little as five pence better off for each additional –1 of gross earnings."
  The Committee went on to suggest that serious consideration should be given to a free-standing housing credit as part of the planned reforms. It concluded that it was pleased that the Government were looking at the

  629
  interaction of child tax credits and housing benefit but felt that the aim should be to improve marginal deduction rates rather than simply not making them worse than they are at present. As I understand the Government's position, they were, until recently, looking seriously at that issue, because it cuts across the philosophy behind the Bill and the Government's approach, which is to make work pay.
  The Bill is a substantial step forward. I am particularly pleased that the Government have accepted the need for child tax credit to be paid to the main carer and that the Bill will disregard child maintenance. I am also pleased that it strikes a balance between predictability and certainty, which is so important for many low-income families, while taking into account the need to respond to changed circumstances. I welcome the Bill, which offers an opportunity to have a more streamlined system of support and makes a reality of the principle that work should pay.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: I much enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It was hugely important and was listened to with rapt attention and great respect on both sides of the House. I, for one, agreed with almost every word he said. I fear, however, that I will make a slightly more partisan contribution than the right hon. Gentleman.
  I have not been a great fan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's tenure of office. That is partly because some of his alleged achievements are damaging to the economic national interest. I believe that the Bill contains another set of his meddling measures that issue from No. 11, which will not redound to the credit of the tax and benefits system.
  Incapability Brown, as I call the Chancellor, has shown himself unable to enhance the landscape of tax and benefits since his first Budget in 1997. In my judgment, the Bill bears five Brownian signature defects. In July, the Chancellor said that he would give us a draft Bill, and give us some detail. We have not had that. He said that the Bill would simplify and streamline the system but, as we have heard, more complexity is being introduced. He said that he would lighten burdens on business, yet we heard of many examples today where the burdens on business will increase. We have heard that the right hon. Gentleman wants an open debate on tax and spend, yet the scoring of tax credits— about which I will speak in a few moments— gives him and Ministers the ability to massage the national tax burden figures downwards by scoring tax credits as negative revenue. Of course, they are nothing of the kind— they are good old-fashioned public spending. Finally, the Chancellor says that under the Bill, working people will be better off. That is hardly the case when we know that hundreds of thousands— perhaps millions—of working couples who receive children's tax credit may, under the joint assessment regime in prospect, lose all, or substantially all, of the £520 a year they receive.
  Let me deal first with the Chancellor's unwillingness to publish a draft Bill and much necessary detail to which many Members have referred. It is true that a consultation document with a regulatory impact assessment was
  630
  published on 19 July. That is fair enough. However, it was such a detail-free zone that the Institute for Fiscal Studies was prompted to say:
  "it provided no quantitative evidence on which one might base a sensible response."
  We have no idea at what level the credits will be set, what the withdrawal rates will be and at what level they will kick in. Andrew Dilnot of the IFS signally understated the problem of the lack of detail that has been given to us today when he said that it was all "very disappointing indeed".
  It is virtually impossible to have a meaningful debate when the Government simply say that we should not worry because it will all be dealt with by regulations under clauses 7, 9 and 11. We should at least have some basic indicative numbers for the thresholds. The Paymaster General said that we were talking about a "framework" today, but such a framework is not meaningful without the detail. I urge those on the Treasury Bench to ensure that draft regulations are presented to the House far in advance of the Bill's Committee stage.
  That leads me to my second Brownian defect. The claim is that the Bill will simplify the system. In truth, it will become more complicated because the Government are seeking to introduce means-testing on an annual basis, credit entitlement being based on the previous year's income and fixed for one year in advance. The problem is that families' financial circumstances change greatly within a year, and the Bill pays insufficient attention to that. How will changes be monitored effectively by the Revenue in-year? What will the notification requirements be? How will they be consistently— rather than erratically— enforced? Surely potential underpayments and overpayments, to which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred, will be greater under an annual system of assessment than under a six-monthly one undertaken for working families tax credit or, indeed, a weekly one for income support. Those are some of the questions that outside commentators are asking, and it is a great shame that we are not able to discuss them today.
  The scale of the problem of having an annual basis for assessment rather than a shorter period is highlighted rather well by the labour force survey. It shows that 360,000 adults and couples with children and 90,000 lone parents change employment within three months in an average year. For those groups in which employment is changed within 12 months, the figures are 840,000 and 180,000 respectively.
  An annual basis of assessment can, by definition, achieve greater simplicity only by ignoring, to an extent, changes in financial circumstances within the current year. If those circumstances are not ignored, the Revenue will have the problem that the Benefits Agency has— frequent and complicated in-year reassessments at various intervals. The Bill does not address that point; it simply says that the matter will be settled in regulations, which is regrettable. In particular, how easy will it be for claimants to estimate, with any degree of certitude, how changes in their current year income might relate to their previous year's income? Estimating changes will, in practice, be difficult to do over a year. Clause 7 attempts to provide an answer by stating that the regulations to be laid before the House could give claimants some leeway to ignore any potential change in their current year income as against their previous year's income.

  631
  In other words, a threshold will be set in which changes in income— either up or down— will be ignored. The problem is that, if that band is too narrow, the Revenue will have to instigate reassessments. If it is too broad and too much income is disregarded, huge overpayments to certain people whose financial circumstances improve in-year are possible for long periods, as are severe underpayments to those whose circumstances deteriorate in-year. So the setting of the threshold is critically important. The hon. Member for Northavon talked about asymmetry, and the reference to asymmetry applies to the point that I have just made.
  For us to form a judgment about the delicate balance that Ministers will have to strike, we need to have at least some indicative numbers before us as soon as possible, so that we can debate this issue, which involves a fine judgment. It is not an easy judgment, but it is one that the House has to make. Regrettably, we do not have that information today.
  I have assumed in my speech that claimants will make accurate or reasonably accurate estimates of current year income compared to previous years and faithfully report them. But I know some possible claimants in my constituency who, for whatever reason, will be confused about this issue or are not very good at numbers— a lot of hon. Members are not very good at numbers. So, in reality, it is a bit much to expect all claimants to be particularly adept at estimating current year income.
  Although we know that, the Government will ask those people to make notifications of changes in their circumstances during the year. There is a severe risk that they will get that wrong and that they will continue to claim payments to which they are not entitled. They may not be acting fraudulently, but such things may happen by accident or through their incompetence in that regard. They will then be hit with a huge bill from the Inland Revenue for the repayment of overpaid credit at the end of the year, and I can envisage that causing severe problems.
  The Revenue simply has not had to bother about those problems before because any errors or overpayments of that kind have been picked up through the payment of income support, because the assessment period is very short, or even by the working families tax credit, which involves a six-month assessment period. So we could be letting ourselves in for a great deal of trouble with our constituents by introducing annual assessments on that basis.
  Ministers should tell us their thoughts on another issue— the hours test. I understand that, under the Bill, claimants will have to calculate their own average of hours worked to determine whether they satisfy the eligibility criteria. That is a change from the working families tax credit, under which employers typically carried out that work, and I wonder how the Inland Revenue will monitor it. Of course, in the United States, the earned-income credit regime does not require any proper checks or certification of hours worked to be carried out, and it is a bit of a disaster as a result. The Government are trying to do better than the American system, but how will the hours worked be monitored if not by the employers?
  Thirdly, there is in the Bill a typical Brownian trademark measure— more burdens on business. Labour Members refer to reductions in burdens on employers, and there are one or two, but I suggest that there will be net
  632
  increase in such burdens. I shall refer to my concerns and the concerns of those who are in business in the constituency, but, before I do so, I congratulate the Government on deciding to pay the new child tax credit directly to the carer. That is an important reversal of their policy. We are returning to a wallet-to-purse policy, reversing the purse-to-wallet policy effected by the working families tax credit. However, the payment of working tax credit through the pay packet will only reinforce the enormous payroll burdens that are already placed on too many businesses in this country today.
  The Treasury and several hon. Members have argued that payroll payments reduce stigma, but that is not the case, and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead made that point rather well. There is no quantitative evidence to show that such payments reduce stigma, and it would be nice to know the results of the working families tax credit evaluation programme. If that evaluation can show that take-up of the working families tax credit has been increased and improved, fair enough. However, no such evidence exists, and I am rather surprised that the Government continue down that route without providing any evidence to show that the system reduces stigma and improves take-up.
  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux suggests that the qualitative evidence shows that payments through the payroll do not stop the stigma, and it gives two examples. First, some employers decide not to take on possible employees because they fear the paperwork. They simply do not take people on if they think that they will be involved in in-work benefit paperwork. Secondly, employers insist that employees work fewer than 16 hours. In fact, they reduce their employees' hours of work the better to ensure that they do not meet the eligibility criteria for the working families tax credit. That qualitative evidence comes not from the Opposition but from NACAB.
  It is undoubtedly the case that businesses feel rather put upon. They feel that they are being turned into unpaid tax collectors and benefit administrators for the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue. The Chancellor's assertion that burdens will be reduced will comfort them not. Ministers think that the burdens will not increase because of calculations that they have done, probably on the back of an envelope, showing that the number of new childless claimants of working tax credit, who were not eligible for the payroll regime under the working families tax credit, is exactly matched by the number of families that will receive child tax credit not through the payroll but direct from the Revenue.
  In other words, those figures balance out. But that depends on the assumptions about eligibility that Ministers are making, so we return to the tapers and the thresholds. Without the evidence, we cannot judge the burdens on business and whether more businesses will have more payroll work. We cannot answer those questions, so it is incumbent on Ministers to undertake today to report back to the House when the system is up and running— if the Bill is passed— to show whether more businesses incur more compliance costs under the new regime compared with the working families tax credit.
  If the Minister deigns to answer that question, it would be helpful if he would explain why the Federation of Small Businesses thinks that there is a lot of mileage in moving away from payment through the payroll to the

  633
  Inland Revenue paying working tax credits direct. That has been done for the child tax credit, so why not for the working tax credit?
  Fourthly, depending on how they are scored, the tax credits in the Bill can seriously affect the national tax burden— a politically sensitive subject, as we all know, in some cases to the cost of Ministers. The enthusiasm for tax credits as a general concept is in my view not unrelated to the fact that they afford hyperactive and meddlesome politicians the ability artificially to massage downwards the tax burden figures. The current Chancellor does not appear to like benefits very much, because they count as public spending, so he calls them tax credits and, miraculously, they stop being public spending items and become tax reductions. Put like that, it sounds completely outrageous if not downright absurd, but that is what the Harry Potter of the tax and benefits system is doing in the Bill. He is magicking out of existence public spending and scoring it as a tax reduction.
  The Chancellor has done that already with the working families tax credit when he defied international conventions set out under the European system of accounts—ESA 95— which was adopted by our Office for National Statistics. He defied the ruling by counting all the working families tax credit as negative income tax in his preferred measure of the national tax burden.
  The problem with such an approach is that it is a breach of international standards, because only 20 per cent. of working families tax credit claims relate to relieving an income tax liability. The other 80 per cent. of claims cannot conceivably be described as negative income tax, because there is no income tax liability to be relieved. I hope that this is parliamentary language, but that is a complete fiddle of the tax burden numbers by the Chancellor. He knows it and we know it, but I fear that such dodgy creative accounting will be perpetrated for another few years if the Bill's tax credit regime is implemented.
  Fifthly, another signature Brownian touch is evident in the Bill— our dear old friend the stealth tax. Under the Bill, we face the prospect of a new regime of joint assessment of income. This time the stealth tax could be imposed on middle-income families with children in middle England who currently receive the children's tax credit. When the Chancellor abolished the married couples allowance, he said to couples with children, "Don't worry. You'll be compensated." However, they lost out for a year and they had to wait until the children's tax credit was introduced. As we know, that was worth £520 to those who got the full whack.
  If one person in the couple earned more than £33,395 a year but less than £41,735, the couple would receive a proportion of the £520 on a sliding taper. If both members of the couple earned less than £33,395, the family unit received the full whack of £520. That is fine, but if they both earned below the threshold, their gross income could be well over £40,000. It might be nearer £60,000 but the couple would receive the full £520 under the rules that operate now and as we understand them.
  However, if joint assessment is introduced, Opposition Members have expressed the fear that people on moderate incomes— for example, a couple earning £25,000 a year each with a gross income of £50,000 a year— would
  634
  receive absolutely nothing because they jointly earn more than the threshold of £41,735. They would lose the entire £520, and that is the prospect with which the Bill presents us. It is another Brownian stealth tax.
  On House of Commons Library figures, 1.4 million couples with children who currently claim the children's tax credit will lose out: 500,000 will lose part of their credit and 900,000 will lose the credit in its entirety because they will receive nothing. Will the Minister allay the concerns of many couples with children in middle England and even of observers in the City? Ann Redston, the senior tax partner of Ernst & Young, observes:
  "The Chancellor was strangely reluctant to give us any idea of how many families will be able to take advantage of the Child Tax Credit. He should show his hand."
  He certainly should.
  The Bill's author is a Chancellor who constantly repackages and chops and changes the tax and benefits system. Too much policy has been made on the hoof since 1997 and I fear that it has been driven by his desire to run other Departments from the Treasury. The result is a lack of true strategic vision in the system and more complexity.
  As I have said, the Bill discloses a desire for more stealth taxes, but we have had little debate about the detail of them because the Chancellor wants to leave that to regulations and to consideration in Committee. Incapability Brown has, unfortunately, left too many unanswered questions in the Bill. He is not so much Incapability Brown as Complexity Brown. That is bad news not just for the Departments that will have to try to administer the new system and the businesses that will face more burdens as they try to operate it, but bad news for the men and women who the Bill is most designed to help— those who want genuine incentives to return to work. That is why I am glad that Conservative Members will not vote for the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
  6.26 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: There is another Government trademark to the Bill, and that is their demonstrable commitment to tackling child poverty. We have heard Labour Members refer to that subject but little about it, I am sad to say, from Conservative Members. The Bill must be considered in the context of what the Government have done over the past four years to tackle child poverty. It demonstrates both the commitment and the path to continuing the challenging task that has been set— of eradicating child poverty within a generation.
  The figures speak for themselves. In the journal New Economy, the independent experts David Piachet and Holly Sutherland have concluded that more than 1 million children have been lifted out of poverty since 1997 and that there has been a 7 per cent. increase in the number of lone parents working. The Child Poverty Action Group published the document "An End in Sight" before the general election and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is not present to hear what it said:
  "In the weeks leading up to the general election in 1970, the Child Poverty Action Group published a pamphlet, co-written by Frank Field, maintaining that poor people had become worse off under Labour … CPAG would not be justified if it were to assert the same … there is no doubt that when the election takes place there

  635
  will have been a substantial reduction in poverty by any measure you care to use … This reduction in child poverty has been achieved, of course, partly as a result of the buoyant economy and falling unemployment".
  Unlike Conservative Members, I do not believe that that happened entirely by accident and, as the document makes clear, the reduction in child poverty is mainly the result of redistributive social and fiscal policies.
  Independent organisations, and organisations that are rightly not slow to criticise the Government when they think that we are taking action that is not beneficial to the poorest people in the country, have confirmed the success of the policies so far. However, although a great deal has been achieved, there is still a very long way to go.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was quite dismissive about that objective in his speech. If I heard him correctly, he suggested that we could not afford to take effective action to tackle poverty, even though he confused me by asking for assurances that the Government's policy would not result in any losers.
  Mr. Flight: My point was very clear. I simply said that, if we were to have massive increases in expenditure on health, transport, education and tax credits, they would together amount to more than the country could afford. I merely asked which of those areas would be chosen for expenditure.
  Ms Buck: I am not sure of the extent to which that illustrates the hon. Gentleman's point. The fact is that child poverty— this applies also to pensioner poverty— is an obscenity in the 21st century, especially in a country with the fourth largest economy in the world. That obscenity was allowed to develop and multiply during the years of Conservative Government.
  We cannot afford not to tackle poverty, partly because of the cost of maintaining people in workless households, which make a major contribution to poverty, and partly because of what poverty does to our public services. Poverty and public services are two sides of the same coin and cannot be addressed separately. Children born into poverty carry with them a legacy of disadvantage that they will take literally to their graves. People from poor families are 12 to 20 times more likely to die prematurely, of a range of conditions, than those from wealthier families. Poverty is still, sadly, a key determinant of educational achievement. We know that we cannot improve our public service outputs— a healthier and better educated nation— without tackling poverty.
  The Government are right to put poverty at the centre of their social and fiscal policies. Tax credit legislation has been an important tool to achieve that end, together with the action that the Government have taken to help the children of families that are out of work, with an 80 per cent. increase in the child component of income support. That important point has not been made. It relates to the Bill, in that there is an explicit understanding that although work is the best way out of poverty for many families— I am evangelical in my support for that objective— many families cannot work, and many children are trapped in poverty as a consequence. There is a clear link not only between worklessness and poverty, but between social security expenditure and poverty, as the United Nations Children's Fund study of child poverty in industrial nations clearly demonstrates. The Government's twin-track policy of promoting work
  636
  incentives in tax credit legislation and supporting children who are in families that are out of work has achieved a great deal.
  To digress slightly, this morning's media reports referred to the study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Based on figures that were extant as of April 2000, it concludes that progress— albeit relatively modest— has been made on tackling child poverty. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues to ensure that the statistics on which we base our debates on poverty and the progress we are making to tackle it are up to date? It is nonsensical that such an important debate is informed by a media commentary on statistics that are a year and a half out of date.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) talked about the need to develop an objective policy indicator. The Social Security Select Committee reinforced that when it considered integrated child credits. We will always need a twin-track policy to measure poverty. We need to get closer to an objective that applies a constant benchmark for child poverty, and to an indicator that is based on, and related to, average earnings, so that we measure income inequality as well as objective poverty levels. The Government have been so bold as to set themselves the target of halving child poverty by 2010 and then eradicating it entirely. They have also established multiple indicators of proxies for poverty, such as housing conditions and health, in the "Building on Opportunities … for All" document. It is a great shame that they have not taken the further step of commissioning research that will allow us to have that benchmark around which we can conduct the debate.
  Tax credits have been successful. Their take-up has been positive, and considerably more people have taken advantage of the WFTC than of the family credit system. In addition to my comments being guided by the statistical evidence, I spent time in the past couple of years sitting in my employment office with personal advisers, listening to people undergoing a better-off assessment and talking about work opportunities. I watched their faces when they were told how much better off they would be if they worked even in relatively low-paid service economy jobs. As a consequence of their housing benefit, school dinners and help with transport costs, they expected to find that there would be almost no difference between benefit entitlements and their take-home pay. They were stunned to discover that they would be £40 a week better off. The small extent to which people know about the benefits that are available to them when they are in work is an important issue.
  We know that there are weaknesses in the WFTC. The Select Committee considered the WFTC and, after a heated debate on wallet-to-purse transfers, was fairly relaxed about it. It was always a judgment call as to whether the WFTC would have a detrimental effect on household incomes. On balance, I am pleased to hear that the Government will deal with that.
  We also know that the WFTC system is complex. Unlike the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. I think that the new system will be simpler. It will not be completely transformed, because anything that does not involve an absolute guarantee of universality and fixed-level payments will never be free of complexity. Although in an ideal world that would be the best way to proceed, unfortunately it is prohibitively expensive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made a

  637
  powerful case about the dangers of a means-tested system, and I had sympathy with some of his concerns. However, he has to recognise that an alternative would be prohibitively expensive. We have discussed that with him at several Select Committee hearings on the contributory principle and pensioner incomes.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the parallel dangers in housing benefit, but as I said in my intervention, that is not a fair comparison. It is possible to argue that the big problem with housing benefit was that it signalled a shift from bricks-and-mortar subsidy for millions of council and housing association tenants to a personal subsidy, which had detrimental side effects. The core problem with housing benefit, however, is rooted in housing issues that are not intrinsic to the housing benefit system. I mean not administration, but entitlement and eligibility. We could have many arguments about the abolition of rent controls, but it clearly contributed to the problem. The collapse of new social housing building in areas of high demand across much of the country also pushed up private sector rents.
  The Government can do a great deal about these problems. They can proceed with the licensing of homes in multiple occupation and some private sector tenancies, which they are committed to doing. The work on improving administration of housing benefit will also help. Changes could be made, some of them set out in last year's Select Committee's report on housing benefit, to tackle the structural weaknesses in the housing benefit system. I do not agree that housing benefit was of itself a doomed enterprise. Where would we be without it? London has phenomenally high housing costs and high demand, and the private rented market for low-income claimants collapsed in recent years. I cannot imagine what the system would be like in London without the security of a housing benefit system that most people can rely on to meet all their rental costs. The alternative would make households deeply fearful for their security.
  Undoubtedly, there are weaknesses in the system, some of which are unavoidable unless we are to spend billions and billions of pounds on a universal system that is adequate to lift families with children out of poverty, and that is not feasible. The integrated child tax credit will have advantages over the existing system, and it will build on the strengths of that system. Much will depend on the level at which it is set, and I share some of the criticism by hon. Members of the fact that we do not have information about thresholds, which would have enabled us to have an informed debate about what are likely to be the crunch points for individual families.
  The introduction to the system of a single children's component that is common to families in work and families out of work enables us to deliver a real, targeted increase in benefit to the poorest children in the country, and that in itself is something to be celebrated. It also, as the National Council for One Parent Families has said, gives us the opportunity to exercise a lighter touch in means-testing, and I shall return to that point. There are advantages to the system being proposed, especially when it is compared with the day-to-day changes in the benefits system which have been fiercely resented by many families as highly complex and intrusive.
  638
  The new structure for the child tax credit will also have the positive effect of giving families the security of being able to predict their income. It will be portable between work and unemployment, so families will know that a chunk of their income is untouchable. Anecdotal as well as statistical evidence shows that it will be enormously beneficial and will enhance work incentives.
  What, then, are the problems that we need to look out for? As I said, we need to know what level the child tax credit will be set at, and we need to scrutinise that very carefully, particularly to ensure that there will be no losers at the lower end of the income spectrum. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that if there are to be no losers, families who are currently on income support will need an extra £4.05 a week for the first child, and £3.40 a week for each subsequent child. I certainly hope that such levels are being considered, although I am sure that we will not receive more details from Ministers tonight. Hon. Members have made the point, which I support, that the basic requirement is that there be a levelling up for families on the lowest incomes.
  I very much welcome the discounting of child maintenance. Another issue that we will want to scrutinise closely is the passporting of benefits. We have had discussions and disagreements about school dinners, certainly in relation to the working families tax credit. I am familiar with the argument that the school dinners component is factored into the WFTC. It is also possible to argue that parents value the ability to pay for school dinners because it is a symbolic freedom from dependence on benefits. I understand that, but if a parent is paying £13 a week for school dinners for two children out of the working families tax credit at the lower rate, that is a significant chunk out of their income. I would welcome it if the passporting of free school dinners were built into the lower end of the income spectrum for the working tax credit and the child tax credit.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the difficulties of an annual assessment. We know that other countries, including Canada, Australia and the USA, have based systems on an annual assessment. The American situation is slightly different, in that there is a cultural difference in the attitude towards annual assessments. The early evidence from Australia, where information is only beginning to feed back, is that, as predicted, the annual assessment has caused hardship for families whose income fluctuations took them over the threshold for the credit, so they found that they were asked to repay significant sums. That is a serious danger. I fear that if we do not consider carefully what can be done to prevent such problems, our surgeries will be full of people who have been asked to repay £1,000 or more out of a relatively low income, something that they were unable to predict. That will cause debt hardship and undermine what is generally an excellent system.
  The Select Committee had a few words to say about the annual assessment. Although there is no easy answer, one solution would be to have the widest possible band of income for people on the maximum child tax credit. I sympathise with the points made by hon. Members about having an asymmetric approach to the assessment. We must, at the earliest opportunity, build into the legislation ways of ensuring that if families receive large overpayments, they are not asked to repay a lump sum. Will people in receipt of housing benefit be asked to repay that as well? That problem could quickly become very

  639
  significant, so I hope that Ministers will take it extremely seriously, because I would not want it to undermine the whole tax credits system.
  I turn now to an issue that is dear to my heart— regional variations in entitlement. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General is nodding. I have bent her ear to the point of tedium about this on a number of occasions, and I am afraid that I am about to do so again. I thank the House of Commons Library for its excellent work on this matter. Some 10 per cent. of households with children in London and 22 per cent. of such households in Yorkshire receive the working families tax credit. The variation across London and, to a certain extent, other areas in the south-east, is dramatic.
  With all due respect to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), we might expect that area to come at the bottom of the table, alongside Chelsea, because we know that in some areas of London the average income is extremely high, as are property prices. We would not expect many people living there to be in poverty or to be entitled to the working families tax credit. However, in Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, only 3 per cent. of eligible households receive the WFTC, and in Islington, South and Finsbury and in Hammersmith and Fulham, the figure is only 2 per cent.
  My constituency, Regent's Park and Kensington, North, is 472nd in the national league table of 641 constituencies where working families tax credit is received, which means that about 3 per cent. of eligible households are in receipt of it. Yet we have the seventh highest eligibility in the country for free school dinners and the 60th highest level of unemployment. Clearly, something is going badly wrong. In London in particular— I do not doubt that other hon. Members can make a similar case for other parts of the country— there is a mismatch between poverty and unemployment, which are extreme in many areas, and the entitlement to working families tax credit.
  There are two possible explanations. The first concerns take-up, and it is probably partly true. When I go to nurseries and elsewhere in my constituency and talk to people, I find that there is a profound ignorance of the working families tax credit. People simply do not know whether they are eligible for it. The quality of advice given in employment offices is variable, and not many people get to the Employment Service or other agencies to receive better assessments, so they do not have the figures to show them whether they will be better off with the WFTC.
  Secondly, there is an obvious correlation between ethnicity and take-up. When 130 languages are spoken in an area, as in Greater London, it is much more difficult to explain entitlements to all the different communities. It is not just about take-up, however. We must also address structural problems involving entitlement. We know among other things that entry-level wages are slightly higher in London, so the added value of the working families tax credit is not as great there. Housing costs are significant and child care costs have to be taken into account. I have talked about housing benefit, and shall not overstate the point. However, rents in London are obviously higher; 50,000 families are in temporary accommodation, which means that ridiculous sums of money are paid in housing benefit— so almost certainly, those people are never freed up to be able to work.
  640
  A group of clients with a particular problem are families on income support receiving mortgage assistance. In 1996 which, I think, is the last year for which research information is available, 41 per cent. of mortgage holders on income support told the former Department of Social Security that the prospect of losing help with their housing costs was a disincentive to leaving benefit. If that applies to the country as a whole, it is particularly true of London, where the higher cost of mortgages means that the value of the assistance that will be lost is much greater. That is a genuine problem; if we are going to try to get the significant cohort of unemployed households in London off benefit and into work we have to tackle the housing costs both of tenants and of people with mortgages.
  The issue of child care costs is dear to my heart. I welcome the fact that the child care component of the working families tax credit was increased significantly last year. However, London child care costs are on average the equivalent of the working families tax credit maximum, and higher earnings in London mean that the credit tapers away much more quickly. In central London, people routinely pay £300 a week for a full-time nursery place. Unfortunately, child minding places are impossible to come by. My early years development partnership is losing child minders faster than it can recruit them. For all the excellent work done by such partnerships, the neighbourhood nurseries initiative and the national child care strategy, in London we are not keeping pace with the demand for child care and certainly not with the demand for affordable child care. That is exacerbated by the fact that, in London, the proportion of households able to call upon family members to provide their child care is about a third lower than in the country as a whole. In many parts of the country, people can call on grandparents and others to help with child care, but that is much less likely in London because of the high social mobility which brings people into the city.
  We need more child care, whereas in fact there is less. Establishing it is capital-intensive; recruitment and retention difficulties mean child care workers are at a premium, and we cannot recruit child minders. Taken together, that means that it is genuinely difficult to attract parents with children into the workplace, safe in the knowledge that child care will be available. I am therefore slightly anxious about the child care component of the working tax credit. I fear from what we know about the system that it will not make the situation better; I want to look closely at the tapering to make sure that it will not make matters worse. Unless we use this opportunity to refund people's child care costs virtually in full, in high value areas like London— and, presumably, across the rest of the country— we will simply not overcome that barrier to work.
  In summary, we must build on tax credit legislation, which is excellent and has achieved a great deal. The Chancellor and his team are to be congratulated on all that they have done to tackle child poverty. The Bill will advance that effort, but we have a great deal to do on take-up and tackling the problems of housing benefit, thresholds, and/or a significant increase in the earnings disregard. We should tackle the issues of school dinners and of child care; more child care help is needed in London, and we should consider an increase in the percentage reimbursed by the child tax credit, to ensure that families paying London child care costs can draw down the assistance that they need.

  641
  If all this comes together, we will find, depending on the level of credit and trusting that targeting will be generous, that tax credits will do what they were intended to do: they will continue to tackle child poverty, but they will also give us a leg-up in the process of getting another cohort of families, especially lone parents, into the workplace. Without such assistance, the Bill may be valuable, but an opportunity may be lost to enhance work incentives, especially in high-cost areas like London.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: This Bill was represented earlier as a simplifying measure that would make life easier for businesses, claimants and other people. Clause 1 refers to
  "a tax credit to be known as child tax credit"
  and
  "a tax credit to be known as working tax credit."
  That sounds straightforward. The clause goes on to list the existing benefits that will be abolished by the Bill, including the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit. It will also abolish the family premium in respect of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance and
  "increases in benefits in respect of children under sections 80 and 90 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992".
  It will abolish the relevant sections of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and the employment credit for older people known as new deal 50-plus. It sounds like a great simplifying measure yet, as with a number of such measures, simplicity is an illusion. In the clauses on child tax credit and the working tax credit, there are 14 different elements or calculations, which specify that entitlement is dependent on the age of children, the number of children in the family, whether someone is disabled or severely disabled, whether they are above a certain age and the number of hours that they work.
  Regrettably, therefore, the Bill is not the simplifying measure that it was described to us as, and still includes many aspects of the previous benefits regime, which will cause much dissatisfaction among my constituents, whose biggest complaint about navigating the benefits system is its complexity. They feel that they cannot be certain how benefits have been, are being or will be calculated. Indeed, one of the biggest items on benefits in my postbag is what happens when benefits change, which causes many problems for my constituents. They would welcome a simplifying Bill because it is hard for them to predict what will happen if their circumstances change. In that respect, the Bill is disappointing.
  The Bill is also disappointing because it does not include the detail that we need to scrutinise it effectively in the House and in Committee. The lack of detail affects three important areas: the cost to the Exchequer, the people who will benefit, and businesses. Regrettably, in the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor did not see fit to comply with the provisions of the Finance Act 1998, which requires Ministers to adhere to the code of fiscal stability. The code requires the Government to assess the fiscal impact of policy changes and disclose that in a note in the pre-Budget report. It is disappointing that the
  642
  Government have not done so because it is difficult to discuss the Bill without knowing how much they intend to spend on tax credits as a consequence of introducing it.
  The reason why the Government have not done that may lie in the continuing disputes between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor about how much money should be spent and where. Should money be spent on education or the health service, or should more be spent on tax credits? When we get the answer to those questions, we will be able to engage in a necessary debate in the House to discuss how the Bill will affect my constituency and constituencies throughout the country.
  We need to know the rates of the tax credits, the tapers and the thresholds, for without that, how are we to judge whether the framework Bill will help those who need help most? The Bill is vague and unsatisfactory in that respect. It is not surprising that external commentators such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies have been forced to rely on sophisticated guesswork as the basis for the assumptions that they use to model the impact on ordinary families of the changes that will be brought about by the Bill. That will minimise the scrutiny that the Bill will receive in this place.
  The lack of detail in the Bill will affect the assessment of its impact on businesses. The Paymaster General was upbeat about the regulatory impact assessment and spoke about a £10 million reduction in the costs that businesses face, but until we know how many people will benefit and how many will lose from the Bill, it is difficult to assess the benefit to business, if indeed there is one. The Government trumpet the virtues of the annual assessment, but the obligation to look at the change in circumstances of people who benefit from the Bill will lead to a great number of changes in the money that people receive, either directly from the Inland Revenue or through their pay packet, and each of those changes will have an impact on business. Until the Government produce the detailed figures, we will not know what the impact on British business will be.
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the research paper produced by the House of Commons Library on the Bill. On page 42 there is an excellent breakdown of the Bill's impact on businesses. I will not bore him by reading it out— you would not let me, Madam Deputy Speaker— but suffice it to say that the reduced burden on businesses is estimated to be £10 million a year. That directly contradicts almost everything that he said.
  Mr. Hoban: No, it does not. I said that the Minister identified a £10 million saving, but because the Bill does not deal with the number of people who will claim benefit and at what rate, we cannot be certain how many people will be covered by the Bill. We do not know.
  Phil Hope: I shall not quote it at length, but the Library research paper states that the regulatory impact assessment
  "estimates that the total number of employers paying tax credits will remain unchanged at around 300,000 during any one year."
  Again, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point.
  Mr. Hoban: I am not wrong. Until the Government publish the details of who will qualify for the tax credits,

  643
  it is impossible to determine how many people will benefit from them. The Government have made some assumptions that handily cancel each other out, but until we have the full details— the regulatory impact assessment does not take into account the extent of the Government's changes, and we have not been told what the impact of those changes will be— we do not know how many people will receive the tax credits. The Government have not told us. Any assessment of the regulatory impact is based on assumptions that will be proved valid only when the rates and the tapers are announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. The estimates to date are based on assumptions, not reality.
  We know from what the Minister said earlier that at the time of the changeover there will be winners and losers from the reforms, and a great deal of disruption to business. The Government have rightly recognised that there is a risk of people not being paid their benefit during that period. That is why I welcome the Government's suggestion that in the run-up to the changeover, the payment of working families tax credit and other tax credits should be made directly by the Government and not by employers.
  The lack of detail in the Bill masks its likely effects on the Exchequer, on people who receive the benefits and, in spite of the comments of the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), on business.
  Specific aspects of the Bill cause me concern. Historically, benefits have been calculated on the basis of people's needs at that time. The Bill moves away from that to an annual assessment, taking account of changes in their circumstances over the course of the year. I am not clear what parameters will be used to assess whether a claim should be submitted for reassessment.
  In some circumstances, that is clearly necessary— for example, if a child is born, if a couple breaks up or if a couple gets married— but what happens to someone who works more than 30 hours a week, and receives an additional credit, as at present? At what point will he have to register a reassessment of his tax credit if he works fewer hours? Will a reassessment be necessary if he works 29 hours, 29 hours 55 minutes or 28 hours a week?
  We need to know such details. We are asking people to keep a record of their hours and make an assessment of future hours. I hope that in Committee the Minister will present the draft regulations, so that we can see what parameters will be used in such situations. We must reduce the burden of keeping detailed records for people, while recognising that we need to target help where it is most needed. By disregarding a change in hours, we may be giving help to people who do not require it.
  Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is a particular problem in seasonal employment such as tourism, which is a major employer in my constituency? The problems may not be lessened by the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about people who do seasonal work or whose hours vary significantly, depending on other factors. I am worried that we are placing a great burden on those who need help most and who may have difficulty in predicting the number of hours that they will work in the course of the year. We need to think carefully about the people who are subject to the regulations and claim credits for certain aspects of their work or their family life.
  644
  We should be equally mindful of the fact that when people's circumstances change, it can have a significant impact on the benefit that they receive. It may not be clear to people that they need to apply for reassessment. They may forget that a change in their circumstances leads to a change in their assessment for tax credits. I recently dealt with a case in my constituency in which a constituent was landed with a large bill as a consequence of a change in circumstances that she had not realised would lead to a change in the assessment of her benefit.
  The Bill sets out penalties where information is supplied to the Inland Revenue fraudulently or negligently. Some people may supply information incorrectly, through no fault of their own. I hope that the provision will not apply to them and that they will not receive fines.
  A further aspect of the Bill that concerns me is the treatment of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) raised the treatment of child tax credit in two-earner and single-earner families. I shall not go down that route, but another concern is the child care tax credit. It is important to encourage parents to decide how best their children should be cared for. The Bill perpetuates the mistake that was made in the previous legislation on child care tax credits by placing financial value only on formal child care. Many parents would prefer sisters, aunts, mothers, fathers or grandparents to look after their children, rather than sending their children to a nursery or a child minder. Of course, they will not receive tax credit in respect of child care because informal child care arrangements are not covered by the Bill. Baby-sitters who are required to come into the home to look after children while parents are working on a night shift are not covered either. I ask the Paymaster General to reconsider the issue, because I believe that we need to recognise the value of child care even if we are not required to pay for it.
  Dawn Primarolo: First, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that where the taxpayer pays for child care, our preoccupation should be the quality of care and the safety of the child, which must be paramount before we agree to pay for the care? Secondly, does he accept that the whole point of the child care payment is to remove a barrier for parents to whom no form of support is available, which means that they cannot return to work? That proposition is quite different from his suggestion that we should pay relatives to care for their nieces, nephews or grandchildren.
  Mr. Hoban: On the first point, the reason why many parents place their children in the care of mothers, grandmothers or grandfathers is that they believe that they will provide the best and most appropriate care for their children. That is the choice that they make and we should respect it. Of course, they will have considered the options that are available. One reason why informal child care is used is that parents cannot afford other child care even with the help that the Government have offered. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred to the problem in her constituency, where child care costs are very high and cannot be met by the child care tax credit as it stands. In such a situation,

  645
  parents may want their children to be cared for in a formal setting, but cannot afford to pay for such care because the credit is insufficiently generous.
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the child care tax credit may not be generous enough, but the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said that it was too generous and that we should cut some of these benefits. Does he stand by his remarks or those of his Front-Bench colleague?
  Mr. Hoban: I was not disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) or saying that the rate was too high or low, but trying to respond to the Paymaster General's intervention and to set out the reasons why people may decide to place their children with parents and grandparents rather than in formal child care arrangements for which they will receive the benefit provided by the tax credit. That was the point that I wanted to make; I was not arguing about whether the rate should be higher or lower. Of course, we will know about the rate only when the Chancellor deigns to inform us of it in March in the Budget.
  The second point of detail that I want to raise relates to qualifying hours. I think that clause 11 ensures that couples' working hours will be aggregated to achieve the current 30-hour limit in respect of receiving additional tax credit. The couple can decide how to work those hours. For example, the husband could work 10 hours and the wife 20, and they would get additional credit for working 30 hours. They could, therefore, sort out their domestic child care arrangements to suit their working pattern. However, the problem for single parents is that the 30-hour limit remains and they will be forced to find alternative child care arrangements. I hope that hon. Members will have the opportunity to explore in Committee whether it would be appropriate to prorate the 30 hours for single parent families, to ensure that they are not put at a disadvantage in comparison with married or cohabiting couples. Of course, that debate should not take place without some consideration of clause 39, which relates to polygamous marriages. I wonder how the 30-hour limit will interact with such marriages. Perhaps the Paymaster General wants to intervene now to expand on that point.
  The Bill tries to address two worthwhile objectives. They are goals that we all share: the alleviation of poverty and the encouragement of people to move from welfare to work. Few would criticise those aims. I am concerned, however, that the Bill lacks the definition that we would like. Some 16 regulations have yet to be laid before us and we have not seen the rate or taper in relation to the 14 elements of the two tax credits. We do not know how many winners and losers there will be as a consequence of the Bill. Thus, notwithstanding our earlier discussion, we do not know what the full burden on business will be. The goals of the Bill are generous, but the generosity of the Government in providing information to us has been very limited on this occasion. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to discuss the Bill in more detail on the Floor of the House. Before supporting it, we need to know a great deal more about the details in terms of the rates and tapers, the winners and losers and the people who will benefit from it.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Colin Challen: This has been a very complex debate on a very complex subject. I am trying desperately to keep up with some of the technical detail, on which, I must admit, I am not an expert. So far, it has struck me that some of that complexity seems to be adding to confusion on the Opposition Benches. We began by hearing about the Opposition's view that the legislation would be an open cheque book and would lead to a rise in public expenditure comparable to the acknowledged increase in respect of health and all the other Government programmes. Later on, however, we heard about the idea that it would impose a Brownian stealth tax, which seemed to suggest that they held the opposite view. So, while the debate might be complex, I cannot say that I am very much wiser about some of the aspects on which the Opposition have chosen to focus. In general, I can see that their approach would be to salami-slice away all the complexity until there was no Bill left. Where would we be then in terms of our stated aim of trying further to tackle the poverty trap?
  I welcome the changes to the tax credit system that the Government are making in the Bill. They will build on the successes of the children's tax credit and the working families tax credit in tackling child poverty, ensuring that the transition from welfare to work is easier. I think that that is what the Bill is all about. The simplicity should lie in making it easier to climb out of the poverty trap. One matter that has not been discussed at any length is the Bill's extension of the system of tax credits to people without children, which is wholly correct. It will also make the whole tax credits procedure simpler, which has been a focus of the debate.
  I believe that the Bill will lead to greater simplicity in general. Simplification may not be its overarching aim, but it is a very important part of it. I speak as somebody who ran small businesses for about 15 years, mostly under the aegis of a Conservative Government, and operated PAYE— a rather unenviable task. Trying to understand the tax system and at the same time to run a small business with only a handful of employees is not easy. Every March, the nightmare package would arrive from the Inland Revenue, filled with the extensive information that all employers need in order to pay their staff. Sometimes, that information felt like a job lot of European treaties— essential reading, no doubt, but not many people's cup of tea. In the end, I would carefully file the information away— I imagine that many small employers would do the same— hoping never to have to read all of it. I was, therefore, very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Paymaster General make it clear that employers will not have to face extra costs in calculating payments. There seems to be cross-party agreement that £10 million will be saved to employers and that perhaps the savings will be even greater.
  Employers may take a dangerous attitude when they have to cope with all the information. That was shown by one of the first cases that I tackled after my election. A constituent was told by her employer that if she took time off sick and thereby reduced her hours in any week to less than 16— the qualifying number for working families tax credit— she would lose her entitlement and have to reapply. That information was clearly wrong but

  647
  it shows that when the details of a scheme are examined, complexity creeps in, if only in the minds of the army of people who are asked to implement it.
  Given the increase in the number of small businesses, I hope that the Government are alert to the problem; I believe that they are. Before the Bill is enacted, I hope that there will be a review of the means whereby employers and employees can gain easy—I emphasise "easy"—access to accurate information about tax credits. Employers sometimes have to ring round and speak to different people; employees have the same problem. That needs attention.
  Another WFTC case that arose last week illustrates the difficulty. A single mother of four young children had waited 12 weeks for a decision about her WFTC. That is three months—far too long. She works part-time and had previously received the tax credit for 18 months. She was told that her renewal claim was caught in a backlog and that her employer had filled in the form incorrectly. Her employer does not know what extra information is required. She has telephoned daily those responsible for her employment and for the WFTC. Every time she phones, she speaks to a different person. She now faces financial difficulties and is consequently clearly suffering considerable stress.
  People trapped in such circumstances must feel as if they are undergoing a Kafkaesque trial. Someone who is merely trying to speed up the system ends up feeling treated like a nuisance. When dealing with such cases on behalf of my constituents, it would be useful as a Member of Parliament to have a dedicated number to ring. I have been told that there is currently no such number, but perhaps I am wrong about that.
  The Bill will help to alleviate the difficulties that I described by lengthening the period between applications from six months to one year. That will be a relief to thousands of people, perhaps the majority. It certainly applies to the hundreds or thousands of people in my constituency who currently benefit from the WFTC without problems. It may not be the Bill's overarching aim, but we cannot overestimate the significance of simplification to anyone who has to claim. I hope that simplification will ensue.
  In moving towards more flexibility whereby a family's tax credits can be reviewed as and when their circumstances change significantly, we need to be sure that we will be geared up to providing a service that can cope with the changes. If it does not already exist, a telephone hotline should be available for claimants out of normal working hours at weekends and on week nights as well as week days. We must acknowledge that people's working hours are far more varied nowadays.
  It could be argued that the best way to simplify the system would be to revert to the days when as many payments as possible were paid universally. The TUC, which is a critical friend of the Government's, was one of the respondents to the Inland Revenue's consultation on tax credits. It has voiced its anxieties about the increase in the means-testing that the Bill proposes especially for child dependency awards. I share those worries, although my anxiety is mitigated by the simple fact that, since coming to office in 1997, the Government have placed more money in the hands of poorer families than any Government for at least a generation.
  648
  The Library's research paper stated:
  "Between April 1998 and April 2000, personal allowances for children aged under 11 grew by 73 per cent. in real terms, while those for children aged 11 to 15 grew by 18 per cent. in real terms. At 2001–02 prices, this latter measure is estimated to have cost around £2.5 billion over the lifetime of the last parliament."
  The inevitable delay in compiling research on those measures means that some newspaper headlines in the past 12 months or so have proclaimed that Labour has not reduced child poverty.
  Only this morning, The Guardian included an article entitled "Research throws doubt on child poverty claim". It claimed that in 2000 only 300,000 fewer children were classed as being below the poverty line than in 1997. The article was based on research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It states that the foundation
  "found that there were more than 4 million children living below the poverty line in the year to April 2000."
  That shows the scale of the problem that we inherited. Is it possible even to imagine how we could overcome the problem of 4 million children in poverty in only a handful of years? At least we have set a target of halving child poverty by 2010. Previous Conservative Governments did not make the same commitment.
  We must sometimes read behind the headlines. Research is crucial, and we should consider the research that is carried out when the measures are in place and the WFTC has had time to take effect. Those who oppose our anti-child poverty strategy—they do not oppose our objective openly, but vote against the means of achieving it—will have to wear their Scrooge-like smiles elsewhere on their anatomy in the not-too-distant future.
  The TUC is not among the churlish, carping Government critics. Its overall assessment is that
  "tax credits have been one of the government's successes."
  That is an objective view with which I agree. If the price that we have to pay for losing some element of the principle of universality is the Government spending more on ending child poverty, I shall sign up to it.
  Child benefit continues to be a universal benefit and the increases in it have been staggering. It has risen from £11.05 for the first child in April 1997 to £15.50 in April this year.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as in the case of pensions, a mixed strategy is beneficial so that some benefits are payable to everyone, thus enabling everyone to feel involved in the benefits system, and others are targeted at those who are most in need?
  Mr. Challen: That is an important point. The Government are committed to that strategy for pensions. We have defended the basic state pension, which we will maintain in line with rises in prices. That is contrary to policies that Conservative Members have proposed in recent election campaigns. The Conservative Government froze child benefit for several years. They obviously intended that benefit to wither on the vine.
  No one can accuse the Government of trying to prevent the redistribution of wealth to those who most need it. More people are receiving WFTC—500,000 more than received family credit. On average, families with children are £1,000 a year better off than in 1997. The bottom one in five families are £1,700 better off.

  649
  Another welcome reform proposed in the Bill will ensure that the gender bias in the working families tax credit distribution can be tackled, by ensuring that moneys are paid to the main carer in families and not necessarily through the wage packet, as now. Three quarters of those wage packets went to men, so there was a massive switch away from women being paid directly. Now it is proposed that couples will have a choice as to which partner receives the payment. This is a welcome step, but I envisage problems arising through a third party sometimes having to decide who the main carer is—that is, the person who will be designated as the recipient of the tax credit. I hope that clear guidance will be available.
  These are, in the main, matters of detail that do not impinge on the principle, now firmly established, that, through tax credits, we are able to target poverty and build pathways out of it. The poverty trap of previous decades is being eradicated and, combined with measures such as the national minimum wage, it is now possible to see real progress in improving people's living standards, based on the idea that work pays. The only danger with this strategy—and it is a big danger—is that wage levels will be kept too low, and that the excessive growth in part-time working will continue apace. Let us be clear that well-paid work is the ultimate pathway out of poverty, and we must be on our guard against accepting as a substitute anything that falls short of that. We do not want to see a growth in the payments of tax credits because employers start paying less; nor should we seek to build a full-employment economy predicated on the idea that low wages will sustain it.
  However, that argument is clearly weaker when more people are in work, as they have been since this Government came into office. Under the previous Conservative Government, we had a Dutch auction in which unemployment could be used as a tool to force wages down and to force people out of work. Who could forget the sentiments of "Je ne regrette rien" and "If it ain't hurting, it ain't working"? Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will continue to monitor the impact of the new tax credits closely, so that we can fine-tune the system—as we are doing today—to make it even more responsive and able to deliver our strategy of getting people out of poverty.
  7.32 pm
  Siobhain McDonagh: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate because I believe that the working families tax credit, the child care tax credit and the minimum wage are the pinnacles of achievement by the Labour Government. They introduce a range of benefits that manifest a principle that we all believe in, and that the Chancellor has frequently repeated, which is that if you can work, you should work. That will not seem like a revolutionary concept to hon. Members, but it is to many people in my constituency, because they have lost the notion of the obligation to work. That has happened for a number of reasons—perhaps because the work was not there, or because they had not seen members of their families working, or because simply getting out and doing it was so hard.
  While the Government try—as any Government will—to enforce the values and morals to which they adhere, there must also be physical laws that will allow that to
  650
  happen. The working families tax credit has done that. For me, this is a question of morality. I have no problem in believing that receiving one's benefit through one's pay packet while in work is far better than receiving it through an order book or by having to claim it from a benefits agency. Most of my working life before entering the House was spent working as a receptionist in a large south London benefit office, in a housing benefit office and in the reception of a homeless families unit. Enforcing the idea that to go out to work and to receive a pay packet is fundamentally important will provide a legacy that will last long after we have achieved many other things.
  The child care tax credit allows people to consider going out to work. It is easy to give anecdotal evidence of this. In my own circle, my best friend at school trained to be an occupational therapist, and she loved her job. She had two pre-school aged children and, unfortunately, two and a half years ago, her husband died. He had stayed at home looking after the children until his death. All of a sudden, Bernadette had lost not only her husband but the person who had cared for her children, and she was about to lose her ability to return to the work that she loved because she could not pay for the child care that would allow her to go to work.
  Because Bernadette was entitled to 50p working families tax credit, she made her way in to the child care tax credit and received £74 a week. That allowed her to continue in a job for which the NHS had trained her—and everyone knows how short we are of occupational therapists. We must all be delighted to have played a part in creating a provision that can do something for people in those circumstances, because this is about helping those who are desperately trying to help themselves.
  I welcome the decision to pay the child care element of the working tax credit to the main carer, usually the mother, which will mean that the money will find its way directly to the children. I also welcome the decision to continue to ignore the income from child maintenance, which will continue the considerable financial incentive to work for lone parents receiving child support. I hope that this will also continue to give people confidence in the means of obtaining child support, mainly from absent fathers.
  I also welcome the decision to align tax credit rules with the improved rules for carer's allowance, by continuing the entitlement to child tax credit for eight weeks after a child's death, or while a child is in hospital—both very difficult times for families. Given the Government's commitment to encouraging more young people to make the most of their potential in education, I welcome the aim to pay the child tax credit until the September after a child reaches the age of 16, or 19 if they are in full-time education.
  As a London Member, however, I have some concerns about the working tax credit. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) expressed them much better than I am about to do, and I am very glad that there has been such a gap between her contribution and mine. As a London Member, I regularly see people at my weekly surgery whose housing costs are incredibly high. The way the benefit is structured at the moment, the more housing benefit a person receives, the more they lose as the working families tax credit comes into play, because the working families tax credit is taken into account as part of their income for housing benefit purposes. About 35 per cent. of the people who receive

  651
  the working families tax credit in London are also on housing benefit, which means that tens of thousands of people are not getting all the benefit that they should from working and from the working families tax credit, compared with people in other parts of the country where housing costs are lower.
  This disincentive works also in terms of child care costs, which are about one fifth higher in London than in most other parts of the country. That means that a single mum on £200 a week is £6 or £7 a week worse off than her equivalent in other parts of the country, because she is paying that much more for child care, and has to find that 30 per cent. differential. I realise that it is difficult to compare regional variations—we were reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that London's housing costs are pretty spectacular in comparison with much of the rest of the country—but I hope that we can consider this issue. London has the highest proportion of single parents not in work, and they and their children would benefit from any changes that the Government might consider.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned the fact that only registered child minders are taken into account for the purposes of the child care tax credit. I would have a problem with the Government paying for informal arrangements, and I completely understand their reluctance to do so. However, I have a problem when child care is available in the home from a well trained person, but benefit cannot be claimed for that.
  May I cite an example similar to one used frequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? A lady in my constituency was a nurse at St. George's hospital. She owned her own home, but her partner left her with two children. To carry on her job, which involved a rota of nights, earlies and lates, she employed a National Nursery Examination Board-qualified nanny in her own home. Although she was financially entitled to benefit, she could not get it because that person was not a registered child minder.
  The NNEB-qualified nanny must, by all accounts, be a better qualified person—should I say, a more qualified person—than a number of child minders, but the result of that lady's dilemma was that she sold her highly priced house and moved to Birmingham to work as a nurse. Another key worker has moved out of the capital, where we desperately need them, so I hope that we can consider the form of child care. I appreciate that that is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills, but we desperately need redress.
  I have raised points that concern people in my constituency and similar London constituencies, but I must emphasise that the working families tax credit and its basis helped to get me involved in politics. I am here to help people to help themselves. I believe in a hand up rather than a handout, and the working families tax credit is the best example of that.
  7.41 pm
  Kali Mountford: We have heard some extraordinary contributions from Members who are obviously gifted not only as speakers in the House, but particularly in their knowledge of and expertise in such legislation. I feel somewhat inadequate, but perhaps more adequate than some Conservative Members, not because I denigrate their speeches, but because it is a sad fact that
  652
  too few are taking part in the debate. However inadequate my contribution, it must be better than no contribution at all, or at least I hope so.
  Some speeches have shown the consensus across the House on the principle behind the Bill. To an extent, that surprises me. Some reminded me of speeches made in Committee, so detailed was their content, but I shall not go into such detail. I prefer to consider the broader points, especially those involving the principle of tax credits, what got us to this debate and where we are going in terms of the relationship between people in and out of work and the benefits that we can accrue to support them.
  I must do that because it has been suggested today that we are limiting people's scope and disabling their progress through their working lives. I fundamentally disagree with that argument, even though it was proposed by a most well regarded Member, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend wondered whether her contribution would be better than those of Conservative Members. Has she realised that no Conservative Back Benchers are present?
  Kali Mountford: I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that, whatever humble words I say to the House, they are better than none, although I am not sure whether he is damning me with faint praise. Thanks anyway.
  I have a problem with the assertion that giving in-work benefits of any kind limits people's prospects. We are acting as though the debate is taking place in a vacuum, but we are in an extremely stressed world economic market. I cannot remember a time in the past 20 to 25 years when we could say that we could do nothing to benefit the low paid. Often the battle-cry was, "A fair day's work for a fair day's pay." People also said, "I want enough pay for a working family to live on." That presents another problem.
  Employers may say, "My business can support only so much, those skills attract only so much pay and the economic situation allows my business to develop only at a certain rate in this market." To follow the argument through to its logical conclusion, we could say, "Pay a higher rate for the job—not the market rate—and skew the market so that people are paid according to what they need rather than what the market demands." Then we would be in a completely different situation. We would be telling employers, "You must pay what your business cannot afford." That begs a question about the minimum wage.
  It now seems to be accepted across the House that a minimum wage underpins the labour market and provides a base below which people cannot fall. That wage in itself is an interference in the marketplace, but it is minimal and we are telling employers, "There are standards that we expect you to keep." We are right to do so, but are we also saying that they should never employ people with several children, many obligations or high housing costs, because their businesses could not afford them on such a basis? That cannot be right.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the minimum wage and the working families tax credit are

  653
  two sides of the same coin? If we had the working families tax credit without the minimum wage, we would subsidise people paying low wages.
  Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend shows his wisdom in anticipating my next point. I would go further and say that family credit acted as a dynamic. It was argued often and rightly that family credit interfered in the marketplace. Tonight, however, we must consider not only the new tax credits that we are putting in place, but what the working families tax credit achieved and what happened previously. There was a difficult dynamic acting between people who were in work and out of work, and the tax regime.
  My meagre thinking on the subject before 1997 took in examples such as benefit tapering rules to get round the problems of a lumpy system that dealt with problems in a lumpy way. I cannot think of a better word for it than "lumpy", as people got benefits in lumps, their assessment was done in lumps and the system was a lumpy instrument for dealing with what was, for people whose circumstances changed routinely and regularly, a complex and difficult problem.
  I did not have the imagination to consider the tax system instead, but I am glad that someone did, because we are moving to a more flexible system that will change the relationship between people in work, taxation, benefits and their ability to pay their own way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead pursued the argument that we will damp down wages by interfering in the marketplace and that we are preventing people from aspiring to break out of the cycle. I would argue that that was true under the benefits system and that the flexibility in the tax credits system allows people to develop their skills.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) advanced the argument that the skills base would be damped down completely by the introduction of tax credits, but both he and my right hon. Friend are completely wrong. People excluded from the marketplace who cannot get into the world of work have no opportunity to extend their skills. If people have no opportunity to extend their skills, they have no opportunity to develop in the workplace, get better pay and break out of the downward spiral of decline that comes with the poverty of worklessness.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend has shown by her eloquence that she knows a lot more about this subject than she has let on. I agree with her that low wages and low skills hold people back, and are a problem for people on low incomes living in deprived areas. The tax credit system provides the trampoline for them to get into work, which is essential if they are to develop skills and go beyond the minimum wage.
  Kali Mountford: I refer my hon. Friend to the contribution of our hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). In her eloquent and detailed speech she explained how people are affected by lengthy periods of worklessness. No one in the House should suggest that the tax credit system is a panacea for all ills, because there will always be people who, for a variety of reasons, are not able temporarily or
  654
  permanently to enter the world of work. However, for those who can—I am not sure whether we can put it as strongly as an obligation or even a right—there is an opportunity to do so. We should encourage people to understand the effect on their lives of lengthy periods of worklessness, and its effect on generations.
  Before I came to the House, I lived in Firth Park in Sheffield, which is one of the poorest areas in the country. There was great deprivation after the closure of the steel mills. Generations of families were out of work, and great social change resulted from that. It was burdensome for individuals, because their working lives, their relationships with colleagues and their sense of self-worth were altered, and their children did not grow up in an atmosphere in which people expected to go to work and look after themselves throughout their lives. There was also a cost to us all socially and economically. There is a cost to us if we do not have a full employment strategy. Recognition of that lies at the core of the tax credit system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is on my left—politically or literally—rightly referred to the relationship people have with work in her very good speech. We must recognise the intrinsic nature of that relationship: it is how people identify themselves and how they move forward in their lives.
  Both those contributions from my hon. Friends were telling. I was disappointed in the contributions of Conservative Members—if I can be even more disappointed in them than I was by the absence of those Members—because they rarely touched on poverty and how people get themselves out of economic poverty and poverty of expectation. Values and aspirations come from the world of work, and although the tax credit system is not a panacea, because some people will be excluded from the world of work for a variety of other reasons, there are measures to encourage and give people hope when, through disability or illness or other circumstances, they have been unable to work. Under the tax credit system they may be able to change those circumstances some time in the future.
  We can at least give support to people who are currently able to work, so that they can move into the world of work and it can make some sense to them. What I value about the system is that it gives people advice before they take final decisions about what job to take and what job they can afford to take. The in-work benefit advice is crucial and has made a significant change.
  When we try to combat fraud in the system, we should consider the main motivations for fraud. It is easy to get into a major argument about organised crime—I put it no less than that—in the benefits system. It has been suggested that we cannot handle fraud in the tax system. If anyone has ever made a mistake on their tax form, they will know only too well how responsive the tax system can be when people make mistakes—honest mistakes by some of us, but less so in other cases. The tax system has proved itself well able to deal with fraud. To compare the ability of the tax system and the benefit system to deal with fraud is to underestimate why people get themselves in a pickle. In the benefits system, it often arose out of ignorance.
  Some useful suggestions were offered about how we deal with such ignorance. Ignorance in the benefits system often stemmed from people's belief that if they moved

  655
  into the world of work they would be worse off, not only because of the loss of passported benefits, but because the work they would get would not pay enough to cover their rent or mortgage and their bills. I have frequently come across people who make a false judgment that if they take a particular job they will be worse off, so they take work on the black market. They put themselves at risk, as well as the whole economic structure, because the black market does nothing for any of us. Giving them advice beforehand prevents that problem and by moving people into a world of work where they are given the correct advice about how their employment can affect them, we are helping them to help themselves and to help their families into a world of aspiration, which they have so far been denied.
  Other criticisms have been made about means-testing. I have discussed that issue in the House on many occasions. Some call it means-testing, but I prefer to call it targeting because that makes me feel so much better about myself. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred to the subject. I was concerned about how we think about targeting and how we help people through targeting—the hon. Gentleman may want to call it means-testing. There is a growing acceptance that we cannot afford everything all the time. Even the Liberal Democrats realise that we cannot afford everything we would like to deliver. I accept that there is a place for universal benefits in some circumstances, but our money is sometimes better spent by focusing it on the people who need it most.
  I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's seemingly simple and attractive notion that by changing the threshold for income tax we would offer a quid pro quo for people like us and those worst off would gain a great deal, and that it would cost us little compared with a tax credit system. On the face of it, that sounded like a clever idea and I wanted to applaud the hon. Gentleman, until I gave a little moment's thought to the objective of the tax credit, which is to help the poorest. I understand his argument that those of us who are better off would pay more tax—we could talk about other ways of doing that, such as considering the starting and the top rate of tax—but we would not necessarily help those who need it most.
  The hon. Gentleman says that he does not know of many people who earn so little that they are below the tax threshold. Unfortunately, I do know some people in that situation who are outside that threshold. I suggest to him that tax thresholds change for other reasons, not least if a person has paid too little or too much tax in the previous year. It is a mechanism used by the tax office to amend someone's tax for the following year, so it is not quite the tool that it seemed when the hon. Gentleman set out his proposals.
  Mr. Webb rose—
  Kali Mountford: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Webb: I shall resist the temptation to go into detail, because these are detailed matters. I did not say that I do not know anyone who earns too little to pay tax. I said that I suspect that there are relatively few people who earn too little to pay tax and who would be entitled to the employment credit for which they have to work
  656
  16 hours a week. Sixteen hours a week at the minimum wage does not quite get them to the tax threshold, but it is not far off. I suspect that that is less of an issue.
  On the issue of raising tax allowances and not helping the rich, that could also be done by starting the basic rate band lower down, so all the increase in the tax allowance would benefit the poorest taxpayers. There are various permutations. It is the principle that is important. It does not have to be done through an in-work benefit: it could be done through the tax system as I suggested.
  Kali Mountford: I asked similar questions recently during a Select Committee meeting. I asked whether we should simply change the starting rate. I see the simplicity of the proposal and understand why the hon. Gentleman finds it attractive, but it does not solve the problem of ensuring that those who are not in a position to pay tax will gain some benefit.
  Conservative Members, who are not here now, said that no stigma was involved in claiming benefits, and that they saw no difference between benefits and tax credits in that regard. I think there is a difference between receiving benefit through a pay packet and receiving it by means of an order book. I can only say that anyone who has ever had the misfortune to stand in a queue at a post office with an order book and who says no stigma is attached to that cannot have had the experience for long. In areas like my constituency, which is made up of many villages, everyone knows who is receiving benefit and who is not.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that some pay clerks got to know how much was in wage packets, and that that led to jealousy in the work force. I think that much more stigma is attached to the use of an order book. For some it means a huge disadvantage, especially when it is used to claim in-work benefit. The prospect of collecting such benefit in that way is not attractive. We are moving towards a system in which more people will receive benefits or tax credits through bank accounts, but, as the hon. Member for Northavon pointed out, we do not yet have a universal bank.
  I think that receiving benefit through the pay packet is a benefit in itself, in that the benefit of being in work can be easily recognised. A social structure is involved, which makes sense to me—although other Labour Members have criticised the arrangement, for a party political reason that I abhor. They suggest that a benefit book makes it clear immediately that the Government have provided the money, whereas a tax credit makes the connection between the Government's generosity and the receipt of money less clear. I think it good for people to see the tax credit not as some act of generosity by the Government, but as something they have earned through their own efforts. That, I think, deals with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead.
  I did not set out to issue a critique of my right hon. Friend's work, because I admire him greatly. Today, however, flags have been flown bearing words writ large, as though they were true and unchallengeable. I felt strongly that I should take the flags down and have a closer look. Having done so, I do not think that they deserve to be flown.
  Before I begin to sound like someone from a naval outfit—such a person might, in fact, address the House by means of semaphore, but I have no gift for that—let me say this: no matter how learned or respectable Members

  657
  may be, I think we should give detailed consideration to every suggestion that is made here. Today we have been presented with a direct challenge to the system that we propose. I am not talking about the points made by many Members about how we could tinker with the system and make it more workable, or about reasonable criticisms that might enable us to improve it in Committee. I am talking about what I consider to be a direct assault on a principle relating to whether tax credits can work. One or two Opposition Members made particularly challenging points. I think it worth spending a little time considering the principle of tax credits, and asking whether the flexibility gained from them is worthwhile.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North cited the example of Australia, and asked whether a system involving a yearly check was fair and proper. I think she was right to ask that, and to ask whether it would lead to greater poverty and hardship. I ask her, however, to look at the Bill more closely, as I did when she made her suggestions. The Bill makes it clear that under this system—though not under the Australian system—people can present new evidence during the year. They can tell the Inland Revenue that their circumstances have changed substantially, and their tax credits can be altered as the year goes on.
  To my great disappointment, Members continually spoke of anticipation of the following year's income. The Bill, however, does the reverse, in that it asks us to consider the previous year's work, hours and income. That is not an impossible request. Under the previous "lump" system, there was an absolute requirement for the slightest change relating to those on any kind of benefit to be presented on the day; otherwise benefits would not be paid for that fortnight, for that month or, in the case of family credit, for the six months involved.
  In all cases, there will be winners and losers. One factor must always be balanced against another. From time to time, we incurred substantial losses through the system of family credit operating for six months in advance, because people's circumstances changed during that time. Sometimes we made substantial gains, however, so the factors would balance out—although whether they balanced out fairly is another question.
  Dr. Palmer: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me again.
  Do not all these systems involve a specific problem for those whose incomes fluctuate wildly during the year? I am thinking of people doing casual work or working on commission—people who cannot, in all honesty, predict whether their income in a few months' time will be much higher or much lower than it is now. Does not the tax credit represent a more flexible approach than the old benefits system, with its brutal cut-off points? I think that is probably what my hon. Friend is saying.
  Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend has characteristically answered his own question. He is a thoughtful person, and he is absolutely right. Whenever we look at legislation, we are balancing one factor against another. We must ask whether we are balancing some crude implement against flexibility, or whether we are balancing cost with
  658
  effectiveness. What are we achieving, and what is the main objective? At some points, the House has seemed unclear about the Bill's main objective.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Is it not particularly important to consider the continuing need for child care support during the period of benefit entitlement? A group of child minders from Pollards Hill in my constituency wrote to me saying that under the current system people were asking them to sign their forms for child care tax credit, and then, after a week or two, leaving them to some informal system. They felt that they would be penalised by the Inland Revenue, which would assume that they had received payment that they had not received. They were also concerned, as taxpayers, that people were walking away with benefits to which they were not entitled.
  Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend is right. I have encountered similar situations. I would not expect the House to devise a foolproof system—all the systems we have devised in the past have been open to some form of fraud or abuse—but I think it imperative for us to seek at least a minimisation of abuse.
  My hon. Friend used the phrase "child minder". I am glad that someone in the House is using that phrase. Hon. Members have talked about the informal child care market, with relatives taking care of children. I have no objection to parents choosing their own parents to look after their children. That is the matter for them, but the child minding system is an extremely valued and valuable way of providing child care. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General made the point that child care should be regulated and be of a high standard. That fits with the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden about standards and who should qualify. It should be about standards.
  People forget that those who want to enter some informal arrangement can register as child minders. It is a great pity that in some of the debate it has been forgotten that the child minder system regulated by the local authority has a useful part to play.
  Hywel Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Kali Mountford: I will, although I have not quite finished answering my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden.
  Hywel Williams: On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that in some parts of the country, particularly in rural areas, there is an absolute lack of child minders? In my constituency recently, the only child minding available was in large towns—when I say large towns, I mean towns of about 3,000 people. In large tracts of the country, whatever sort of child minding one wanted was not available, despite the best efforts of the national child care strategy and the National Assembly for Wales.
  Kali Mountford: I have come across areas where child care availability is limited. This Bill does not seek to improve the number of child care places, although there are measures in place to attempt to do that. Introducing some cash into the system changes the marketplace for child care. The attraction of being paid for work that was previously unpaid may entice more people into child minding than were attracted previously.

  659
  The role of child minders has been undervalued. The formal system of nursery care, creches and child care provision out of school hours is valuable, but the child minder also has an important role to play. Local authorities would do well to look at their home assessments of prospective child minders and encourage more people to be child minders. They play a valuable role not only for the family who need child care, but for all of us economically.
  I do not know about availability in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but there has generally been a rundown in the child care system. We are in the process of improving the position. I hope that in similar debates in years to come in the House about how to get people out of poverty, the hon. Gentleman will not describe the same problem.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for not treating tax credits in isolation and for looking at things that link. I am fortunate enough to have a Jobcentre Plus pilot office in my constituency—on those days when there is no industrial action at that office—and the joined-up approach is exactly the strategy being adopted there. When jobseekers go into the Jobcentre Plus to discuss a particular job, they are given not only an instant assessment of what their working families tax credit and all the various components will be—we have talked about the necessity of giving people confidence to go back into the labour market—but advice on issues such as child care, which is bound to have a beneficial impact. Does she agree that more remains to be done and that there is a role for local authorities, along with the Inland Revenue and the Employment Service? They must continue to work closely together to ensure that the joined-up approach is cemented.
  Kali Mountford: I go one step further and point my hon. Friend to the ONE project, a pilot of which was run in my constituency, where the local authority, the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service were all part of one system. The great thing is that people only have one place to go to get advice.[Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Northavon laughing, but the name "ONE" is absolutely suitable in that particular circumstance. Those people have one place to go where advice is streamlined, comprehensive and right for the individual. It has changed the relationship between people working in the system and the recipient of the service.
  One person said to me when I visited our local pilot project, "I bet you wish you were still in the system now." I would rather keep the job I have, but I could see what civil servants were saying to me. By changing the dynamic between the people giving a service and those receiving a service, we change the quality of the service. I hope to see more of that. Although not perhaps directly related to this Bill, such an approach plays a part in the general relationship between the world of benefit, the world of work and the world of paying tax. If we can go one further and say, "in the world of getting a tax credit", we will all benefit from that.
  8.16 pm
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) has been passionate, enlightening and persuasive. I feel educated as a result of
  660
  her contribution. For all hon. Members, having these debates is an opportunity to discover more not only about others' constituencies, but about the expertise that Members bring to the debates. Her contribution was truly excellent, unlike the contributions from Conservative Members.
  We started the debate at around 3.30, when five Conservative Members were in the Chamber. Most of the time, however, there were two. Then it went down to one, and in the past hour or so not a single Conservative Back-Bench Member has bothered to appear in the debate. If it were a debate on inheritance tax, it would be packed out. The fact that it is about poverty and dealing with the issues that concern our constituents clearly illustrates the priorities of the Conservative party.
  In pressing some Conservative Members for their views on the Bill, I found myself slightly confused. When asked what the Conservatives would do, we were told that they did not know. They will not vote on the Bill because they have not made their minds up yet. That does not tell us much about their priorities or concern for tackling the issue of poverty.
  We heard the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) say that the Labour Government are promising more on health, on education and on all these extra tax credits, but when pressed on what he would cut, he would not say. Clearly, he regards these as generous commitments to the poor, but by not voting for them we know where the Conservative party stands. He was then contradicted by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who said that the child tax credit was not generous enough because people could not afford to pay for the child care that was required. So we heard one Conservative Member complaining that it was too generous and another saying that it was not generous enough.
  I would like to know what the Conservatives think about tackling poverty. In fact, I would like to hear—it would be very rare—an apology for the fact that, in 1997, when the Labour Government came to power, one in three children were living below the poverty line, and one in five households with children were workless. That was the poverty that we inherited. Instead of packing out the Opposition Benches this evening to try to discover what they did wrong, apologising for it and learning how to get it right, Conservative Members have absented themselves from the debate.
  Vera Baird: I do not want to give my hon. Friend too difficult a task at this late stage in the evening, but having made the comments that he has, can he help me by listing any attempt to alleviate poverty that has ever come from the Conservative Benches?
  Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I will have to disappoint her because, as a result of the policies of the Conservative party, 4 million people were unemployed.[Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) from a sedentary position—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We cannot have interventions from a sedentary position, and I hope that the hon. Member for Corby will soon turn to the Bill before the House.
  Phil Hope: We hear from Conservative Members the cry, "Has the gap between rich and poor widened or

  661
  narrowed?" If benefit after benefit is cut, as they were when the Conservative party was in government, the poor will get poorer. If child benefit, which is a universal benefit, is frozen, the poor will get poorer. If 4 million people are thrown out of work, the poor will inevitably get poorer. The point is that the Conservatives do not care, and they have not come here tonight to see how we might put things right.
  Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend think it better to try to lift families, especially those with children, out of poverty or to concentrate on limiting the resources of the very wealthy?
  Phil Hope: The crucial thing is to lift the floor and raise the level for everyone—like boats on the sea—to give all an opportunity, as opposed to abandoning them on run-down estates in constituencies that the Conservatives failed to represent adequately.
  The Bill builds on the last four years of successful intervention in meeting the needs of the poor. The national minimum wage was introduced by the Labour Government, and the tax credit will be a vital addition to that. I remember an all-night debate in the last Parliament during which the Conservatives made every effort to oppose the introduction of the national minimum wage. The general election saw a huge U-turn by the then shadow Chancellor, but he is no longer a member of their Front-Bench team. What is the Tories' real position now on the national minimum wage? If they got back into power, would we see 2 million people thrown back into the poverty pay that they had to live on under the Conservatives?
  The Conservatives opposed the WFTC, the child care tax credit, the 10p starting rate of income tax and the increases in child benefit. The fact that they are abstaining this evening tells us that they may be wondering whether they got it wrong. They may be asking themselves whether it was wrong to keep cutting people's incomes. They may be having second thoughts. Unfortunately, I doubt it. They do not want to vote tonight, because they do not know what to do. They do not understand the people who live in poverty.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The Conservatives may be abstaining tonight because the measures in the Bill are popular with the public and they do not want to admit that a Labour Government have brought in policies that are popular with the public. Those policies are why the Labour Government were returned in June.
  Phil Hope: That is an excellent point. We are doing the right thing in the Bill by seeking to meet the needs of people in most need. It will provide not a handout, but a hand-up. These measures will provide people with the building blocks to move themselves out of the poverty into which the Conservatives seemed so casually to throw them.
  The impact of measures that we have already taken has been significant. Lone parents have come up to me as I have been walking through the town centre just to say, "Thank you." They are doing their shopping with their
  662
  kids in the buggy and they come over and say, "Mr. Hope, I just want to say that, for the first time, I have got a job." That actually happens.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng) indicated assent.
  Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend was with me when that happened and thought that I had set it up for his visit, but it was spontaneous. People are now, for the first time, on the ladder of opportunity that we have provided. That is especially true for young women who left school early and had their babies early. For the first time, they have access to child care and financial support, and that has helped them to start to reconnect to their communities and develop relationships with friends and colleagues who can help them out. Community regeneration starts in that way, and that shows that the Bill is not just about money. It is about bringing people together and finding ways to lift them out of poverty.
  Tony Cunningham: In my constituency, generations of people have not only not worked but have had no opportunity of, or aspiration towards, further or higher education. It is not just work that is important. The Bill will give people the opportunity to take a job and obtain training and education themselves, and their children will see how important it is to have a job and to go on to further education. I taught in my constituency for many years and many young people did GCSEs but never went any further. They never thought of further education or university as being for them. The Bill will change that for many children, and that is just as important as its other proposals.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right, and the passion with which he speaks illustrates all too well why Labour Members are here debating this issue and why Tory Members are all too obviously absent. The people we represent find that these measures lift their hearts, aspirations and expectations. We talked in the general election about supporting the many and not the few. These measures are for the few among the many who so often get overlooked. They are the bottom 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. who live in difficult circumstances and who have not had a decent education. They and their children live in disadvantaged areas, but if we can bring together the support contained in the sure start programme, the education action zones, the neighbourhood renewal funds and the new deal for communities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the Tax Credits Bill. I have brought that to the hon. Gentleman's attention before and he should now address his remarks to that subject.
  Phil Hope: As I was about to say, poverty is not just about money. It is about the lack of all the other opportunities. However, money is crucial, and the Bill will give families the cash they need. It will provide the means to get the resources to those who do not have them.
  The new child tax credit is important, because it contains extra elements for particular children. For example, it has a higher element for children under one year of age. I know that the most painful time financially

  663
  for parents is the first 12 months of a child's life. The mother has not gone back to work and the family does not have everything it needs, be it a pram or the other necessities for bringing up a baby. The extra amount for that first year will be vital. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the fact that it will be paid to the carer is a vital factor in the successful targeting of the measure. The regulatory impact assessment suggests that 5 million families will benefit from the measure. We are removing the stigma from obtaining benefits for a low-income family, and that is vital in regenerating individuals, families and communities. We do not want the negative stereotyping and stigmatising of lone parents; we want people to have the money they need to bring up their children.
  The working tax credit is important, because it extends support from those with children who work to those at work without children. The regulatory impact assessment suggests that 400,000 individuals will benefit. That is vital, because we want to help people out of the unemployment trap. Someone who is unemployed and has no children should have an incentive to get back into work and get on the ladder of opportunity.
  I note that the extra cash will go to workers in low-income households who are aged 25 or over, and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) wondered whether that was targeted correctly. My understanding is that it is targeted on the older age group because they find it hardest to get back into work. I have campaigned heavily on youth issues in this Parliament, and I know that young people under 25 do not stay on low incomes for long. None the less, I am nervous about creating another age break in a system where someone who is 18 is considered an adult. I have argued this point also in relation to the national minimum wage and the right to vote.
  Education maintenance allowances are not affected directly by the Bill, but there is a link. Where 16 to 18-years-olds in pilot areas have received the allowances, they have stayed on in education a lot longer. I would like that scheme to be extended to Corby, if I may put down a marker for Ministers. If we can encourage young people to stay on in school, they can get a higher-paid job and can start to benefit from the working tax credit.
  I wish to refer to fraud. I am a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, which had an annual ritual in which representatives of the Benefits Agency would be slapped round the ears and sent on their way for failing to make the system work well. I hope that under the system of tax credits, using the Inland Revenue, we may see a reduction in the error and fraud that have bedevilled the system under Administrations of both parties.
  Child care is a barrier in terms of parents getting to work, and reference has been made to the problems of child care in rural areas. My constituency contains the town of Corby, as well as a rural area of 60 villages. They have established a system of co-operation between very small playgroups in small villages, through which they pass on items of equipment and joint training takes place. This indicates that the child care tax credit can help to provide new services for such groups. That can reduce the isolation felt by many young parents who are bringing up a child on their own in a small village.
  On passporting benefits, it is important that people receiving a means-tested benefit under the old system which then entitled them to another benefit should not
  664
  lose these benefits. The new system must protect people's passports to those additional benefits. One example is the sure start maternity grant. I have a sure start programme in my constituency, and it is astonishingly successful at supporting parents in the poorest areas. Those individuals can now claim the grant, and I hope the new system will protect the benefit.
  I have mentioned a panoply of measures in which the Bill plays a part, but what counts when one is poor is cash. We know the impact of taking money away from people; we saw that under the long, bleak, 18 years of Conservative rule. We are now seeing a new commitment to people in our constituencies.
  David Taylor: I have been fascinated by the strong and sound case that my hon. Friend is making. However, has he had contact with the small employers in his constituency on whom falls a disproportionate burden in relation to the operation of the tax credit system in all its glory? There is a problem, and I would appreciate my hon. Friend giving some thought to it before he concludes.
  Phil Hope: I know of the support that my hon. Friend gives to small businesses in his constituency, which provide a vital source of employment for so many people. I can reassure him that the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill shows that the new scheme will cost employers £10 million less than the current arrangements. Going over to an annual cycle will reduce the cost by some £9.5 million; not having to issue a certificate of payment will save some £400,000; and not having to issue an earnings inquiry form will save £1.1 million. If my mathematics serves me right, that comes to savings of about £11 million, rather than £10 million.[Interruption.] I picked that figure up from the hon. Member for Northavon, and now I remember the old adage—in Corby, anyway—about never trusting a Liberal Democrat's figures.
  In conclusion, some impassioned speeches and important interventions have been made today. We are committed to tackling poverty in this party and in government. We have already made a substantial change to people's lives. The Bill is another major step along the historic route to halving and eventually eliminating poverty in the United Kingdom.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I welcome the Bill, which is also warmly welcomed in my constituency, certainly among the poorest members of the community. It builds on the work done since 1997 and underlines the key themes of our Government: to support families, to make work pay and get people into work and, vitally for communities such as mine, to tackle the scourge of child poverty.
  The Bill builds on measures that have already been outlined at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope). It includes measures that were opposed by the Conservative party and will bring in measures that will be welcome to many in my constituency. I refer to the children's tax credit, which we introduced in April this year, and the higher baby tax credit, which will be introduced in April 2002. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is looking forward to receiving the benefits of that particular credit.

  665
  The Bill builds on measures that have been put in place by the Government since 1997. I know that they are making a real difference because people come up and say that they have more money in their pockets. This June, the people of North Durham realised the benefits of having had a Labour Government since 1997, and, with good and wise counsel, elected me as their Member of Parliament. More than 11,000 families in my constituency have been helped by the working families tax credit, the children's tax credit and the record rises in child benefit since 1997.
  Constituencies such as mine went through very rough times in the 1980s and 1990s as the local pits, steel works and factories were closed. The despair of unemployment in those communities was real, and the hardest part was the scourge of child poverty in many of the former pit villages in North Durham. Unemployment has put serious pressure on those communities, and the pit villages in my constituency have been resourceful and resilient in resisting those pressures.
  Tackling unemployment and aiming to benefit the poorest in our community has to be the right approach. Those in South Stanley and Pelton in my constituency will welcome the Bill; it will provide the support that those communities need, and help them in their regeneration. The Bill is all about helping to regenerate communities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, helping people to get on the ladder of opportunity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) eloquently explained what the Bill is about. It is about giving people their dignity back. We are all used to turning up to work every morning, talking to people and knowing our place in the world. The first question that most people ask when they meet someone for the first time is, "What do you do for a living?" Many people in my community and in other constituencies have not had that dignity, but they will certainly be given that dignity under the Bill.
  The Bill will also help to rebuild communities. It will certainly help to put the hope back into those in parts of my constituency. It will tackle some of the scourges, such as crime, that go with poverty in many constituencies and give youngsters a fair start in life, which is vital and something in which I believe passionately. Hon. Members have referred to despair. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) talked about the cycle of despair that involves a lack of opportunities not just in work, but in education. The Bill must be about giving those people a fair start in life.
  The Bill will benefit single parents, and I am pleased that the National Council for One Parent Families has publicly welcomed it and recognised that it will make real progress in tackling poverty among one-parent families. The Government have rightly set a target of ending child poverty in 20 years, and the range of measures outlined already since 1997, which the Bill builds on, will help to tackle the scourge not just of child poverty, but poverty among the children of single parents.
  Progress has been made already. Since 1997, more than 1 million children—520,000 of whom are in one-parent families—have been lifted out of poverty by the Government's measures. That has got to be good news. Another good news story since 1997 is that the proportion
  666
  of one-parent families in work has increased from 44 to 51 per cent. That will make a real difference to a lot of families who are struggling. Clearly, one-parent families are at greatest risk of poverty in the United Kingdom, and the measures outlined today in the Bill will make a real difference to many of them.
  I should like, however, to draw the Minister's attention to a couple of concerns that I have about the Bill, one of which is take-up, which has already been mentioned eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Take-up has been a problem, especially with the working families tax credit, and I hope that the Minister will give some thought in his reply to how to ensure the maximum take-up.
  I cannot understand why we have not previously linked take-up with, for example, free school meals. Schools have a register of children who receive free school meals, and we could use it to try to target their parents. We should involve local communities when we roll out the child tax credit. Local citizens advice bureaux and community groups should be encouraged to get involved in promoting the new credit, and the citizens advice bureau in my constituency would welcome that. Like my hon. Friend, I know that there is sometimes frightening ignorance about such proposals in certain parts of my constituency, and we need to put extra effort into dealing with it.
  My hon. Friend referred to the problem of charging for child care, but another problem is the number of available child care places and carers. Alongside the Bill, we need to do a lot to encourage people to enter child care as a career, so that we ensure that child carers are in place to assist parents.
  Child care in rural areas is also a problem, because people have to travel long distances. We need to ensure that child care facilities are available in some of the smaller villages and rural communities for those working parents who wish to take up offers of work and the assistance that the new tax credit will provide.
  David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that in areas such as ours, which have lost many jobs in one industry over a short period, there is a risk that the working tax credit might perpetuate relatively low wages into the medium term? That might be economically and socially bad, so might not the preferred alternative be to attract more high-paid, high-skill and high-tech jobs into former mining areas such as North Durham and North-West Leicestershire?
  Mr. Jones: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but the two approaches should go side by side. We need to get people out of a spiral. In some villages in my constituency, people's hope has gone and, even if high-tech jobs came to the area, they would not be ready for them. They do not have the skills and they have lost the culture of work. The important point about the Bill is that it will get people back into work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington eloquently pointed to the need to get people into education and to raise their expectations and aspirations. We must do that not just for the people who receive benefit, but for their children. That is how we can tackle the problems in such communities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about

  667
  getting the jobs that he described back to our constituencies, but we need to raise expectations. The Bill will do that, because it is not just about the financial aspects of the problem but about providing people with dignity at work and in their communities.
  Mention has already been made of the approach that Conservative Members have taken towards the Bill. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said that it was all motherhood and apple pie but, when I challenged him to provide an alternative, nothing came forward. When the Conservative party was in power, my constituents were given not motherhood and apple pie but poverty and gruel. The same applies to many constituencies across this great nation of ours.
  I note that one Conservative Back Bencher is present, but it is disturbing that Conservative Members have not taken part in a debate that is important to all our constituencies. I also note the absence of Liberal Democrat Back Benchers. Their Benches were full the other night when they made anodyne points against the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, but when it comes to tackling poverty in our communities, not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher has spoken. That fact should be noted. They are more interested in headlines in The Guardian than in dealing with the issues that interest our constituents.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on being in his place now, but the Conservative Members who have spoken have reverted to the same old adages that they used in last week's debate on the Employment Bill. The Conservative party makes great play of its claim that it is the party of the family but, when measures are introduced to help the family, we hear the old chestnuts about how they will affect business. We heard that when they said that the Employment Bill's provisions to help people with families would affect business. There is a recurring theme and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General dealt with it eloquently.
  The new tax credits will be popular in constituencies such as mine. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that it was designed to buy votes, but it will obtain the support of our constituents. It will not only benefit people directly, but rebuild communities in my constituency. That is the most important point, and that is why I shall support the Bill.
  8.49 pm
  Vera Baird: I must confess that I was rather pleased with the result of my modest intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope). I asked whether he could list all the poverty alleviation measures that could be attributed to the Conservative party, and he was able to come up with none. The massed battalions of Tory poverty campaigners who are overcrowding the Opposition Benches were able to come up with one—the tax credit which, if I remember rightly, they subsequently froze.
  I may be more charitable, or perhaps more unrealistic, than some of my hon. Friends, but I suspect that the marked absence of Conservative Members goes beyond simple indifference to well earned and much deserved guilt, backed up by well earned and much deserved shame, for the state of communities such as Redcar, which was raddled with inner-urban poverty for the past decade or more until this Government came to power and
  668
  introduced measures such as tax credits. Step by step, refinement by refinement, detail by detail, particular by particular, the Government are starting to pinpoint those in greatest need and to work out the best way to alleviate their poverty. I nominate the term "Conservative measure for poverty alleviation" for the dictionary of oxymorons. Enough of them, however, and more about the excellent Bill.
  I am going to concentrate on the child tax credit, which builds on the children's tax credit, of which we have some experience. The Government learn as they go, as I have said in relation to a wide range of measures, and the child tax credit is a refinement and improvement on that former tax credit. It has welcome features, the ramifications of which I should like to work through tonight.
  A much mentioned facet, but none the less one of particular importance to feminist campaigners such as me and some of my closest friends, is that the child tax credit is paid to the main carer direct. It is not paid through the wage packet, so it is likely to be paid into the purse, not the wallet. Women's equality campaigning groups, such as the Fawcett Society, of which I was pleased to be vice-chair before I came into the House, have campaigned for that simple step for many, many years. It means that the money is always put with the child. Research that goes back as many years as the campaigns to introduce that measure shows that payments that are designed to lift children out of poverty are most effective if they are paid to the primary carer of the child. I congratulate the Government on taking that step.
  Another excellent facet of the child tax credit is that it will be paid to families that are out of work and those in work, so there will be a reassuring, consistent source of income on which families can rely as they move out of unemployment and into work, which they are beginning to do in constituencies such as mine. A disruption to benefits seems to be part and parcel of attaining employment, and historically the uncertainty about what specific support will continue in their place has clearly been a disincentive to seeking employment. Jobseekers are not clear about what will replace their benefits and which benefits will entirely be lost. The adaptable concept of the child tax credit, meshed into the taxation system, should encourage people to make that move into work with confidence.
  It is hard to overstate how vulnerable people are, especially lone parents who are out of work and people who have been thrown on the scrap heap and made redundant, which the heads of some families on the council estates in my constituency experienced again and again as the older industries restructured and newer ones came and went.
  Tony Cunningham: May I stress once more the importance of breaking into the generational cycle of unemployment? There are young people in my constituency who have no experience of work and whose parents, uncles and neighbours have no experience of work. If we do not break into that cycle, we will never establish the role models and routines that work provides and that children need as they grow up.
  Vera Baird: My hon. Friend is right. An important benefit of the continuity of the credit while people are in work and while they are unemployed is that it will safeguard against very poor people slipping, even for a week, into greater distress. Consistency and stability are extremely important characteristics of the tax credit.

  669
  There is a further, admirable element of consistency and stability in that the child tax credit will be assessed for up to a whole tax year at a time, which means that changes in a claimant's circumstances that change the rate of credit will not end its payment. There will not be an interruption in their receipt of benefits for one, two or three weeks—gaps in the supply that can occur now while benefits of the kind that we are used to are reassessed.
  Gone are the days, I suggest, in this sphere of poverty alleviation when a mother with two small kids queued with her book at the post office for a difficult and noisy half-hour, only to have the book removed by the counter staff because some minor alteration in her circumstances meant that her income support, with its child-related element, must be reassessed. That instils the fear—even if it is not the reality—that the process may take a couple of weeks to put right. Meanwhile, she must worry about the absence of the money, although in the end she will not lose it. Poor families cannot afford to be out of benefit for a day, so close to the boundaries of distress are they. This tax credit offers a better structure, and it offers to smooth out what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) called the lumpy delivery of benefits.
  I turn now to another feature of this excellent benefit. It is likely to encourage the second parent into work. When the rates, the threshold and the amount by which the benefit tapers away as other family income rises are set, Ministers intend that the second adult in the family, who is of course usually the woman, will also be encouraged into work. It is therefore essential, and I am confident that the Government will perceive it to be so, that the new rate is high and the taper gentle enough to ensure adequate support and a smooth transition to facilitate women returning to work as second earners in a family.
  In today's labour market, where many jobs are not long term, it is important to encourage second earners to stay in employment so that households will not be solely reliant on benefits if the other job is lost. In addition, given that most lone mothers become single some time after the maternity period, it is important that women can retain the means of earning independently to reduce the likelihood of the household being workless in future.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a flexible system with a smooth transition so that people, particularly women, coming back to the labour market can start with something substantially less than a full-time job, then move up to a full-time job without experiencing a catastrophic loss in benefits?
  Vera Baird: That is an important aspect of the smoother delivery that the new structure implicit in the tax credit will guarantee. It will benefit a good many young women who, in the course of the general election campaign, told me that they found it difficult to get back to work when they realised that they would lose more than they would gain, although they devoutly wished to be properly employed and gainfully engaged in society again.
  If that is to happen, the taper must start at a relatively high level with a low rate of withdrawal. Similar systems in Canada and Australia cut out payments at the higher
  670
  end of the income scale, with the top 15 per cent. and the top 10 per cent. of earners respectively shifting from a poverty assessment to an affluence assessment. Structuring the system to include a large proportion of families will help to build a coalition between middle and lower-income families and overcome any residual stigma attached to receipt of payment. That is another paean to the detailed facets of the tax credit.
  A further excellent facet of the credit is the disregard of capital except when it generates an income. It is right that the new credit will be calculated in a way that takes into account income from capital only when it is earned by capital in the hand of the claimant. The current rules count into an income assessment a notional return on all capital at what seems to be a fantastic and unrealistic rate. Once one breaks through the barrier of capital required for assessment, it is assessed at a return of £1 a week for every £250 of capital over the limit, which seems to be the equivalent of a return of £52 on £250 a year or an interest rate of about 20 per cent. If that is a realistic estimate of how capital is treated, I would very much like the assistance of the Minister in giving me the address of the bank that delivers such a return, but I believe that it is an inexplicable and invidious myth.
  The disregard of capital rules and the scrapping of a frankly silly system will be of particular benefit to the parents of families in areas such as mine on Teesside, where older industry has restructured and is restructuring further, where there is much manufacturing—a very vulnerable sector at present—and where there have been repeat patterns of redundancy. A lump sum redundancy payment is hugely valuable and often all that a person in that situation can be sure of. However, people in that position have been encouraged by the current rules to spend their redundancy money as quickly as possible to safeguard their new dependency on benefits for however long it takes to find another job.
  I conclude my catalogue of the Bill's excellent features with the maintenance disregard, a hugely positive characteristic carried over from the working families tax credit. Because maintenance payments are disregarded entirely, they can be received 100 per cent. by the claimant. That will make a massive difference to many people, especially lone parent families and women on their own. Furthermore, it will be an incentive for lone parents to claim maintenance, and an incentive for lone parents who are receiving maintenance to look for employment.
  I have only two questions or caveats. Although the child tax credit has all the excellent characteristics that I have mentioned, perhaps the same cannot be said of the Government's plans to accompany it with the abolition of child dependency increases in non-means-tested benefits. The Government have promised to protect the entitlement of existing recipients, which is extremely welcome, but new claimants will soon lose out. A child-dependent addition is worth about £11.35 a week, paid to qualifying families who receive incapacity benefit, retirement pension, widowed mother's allowance, invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance. The effect of those additions is to raise the incomes of many families enough to keep them out of means-tested benefits, with their well known poverty and unemployment traps.
  Incapacity benefit, retirement pension and widowed mother's allowance are national insurance benefits, and the measure therefore represents a cut in the value of

  671
  national insurance benefits. An anti-poverty strategy that promotes employment should require the enhancement of national insurance benefits, not a further cut.
  Another caveat, to which I invite my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to direct his mind, possibly in his closing remarks, is the position of the second and other children. As I understand the position under the Bill, as with child benefit, the credit will be paid at a lower level after the first child for subsequent children. I assume that the rationale for a lower level of credit for the second child is that the facility is present to pass down items of child care and so on from the elder to the younger.
  However, much highly praised research, some of which was presented to the Select Committee on Social Security and some of which I have read, makes it clear that on average that represents a saving of only about 17 per cent., which means that setting the level of credit for the second child at more than 17 per cent. lower than that for the older child will discriminate among members of a family, and will impact hardest on large families.
  Is there to be any element in the provisions to reflect the greater needs of very large families, such as the one that came to my constituency surgery all together in a group on Saturday? The family consisted of a mother managing alone with six children aged from the middle teens down. There is no doubt that such families will feel the impact of a lower rate for subsequent children. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider that position.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) expressed his concerns about the Bill and about the principle of the top-up on low wages, the encouragement that that offers to thug employers to keep wages down, and the way in which it robs the poor, as he put it, of the freedom to work themselves up in the earnings scale so as to lift themselves from poverty by their own endeavour. I recall—not personally, as it happened at the time of the agricultural revolution—from being at school, which was almost as long ago but not quite, learning about a system similar to the one that causes him concern. Many other hon. Members may recall the Speenhamland system. I see that failed measures of poverty alleviation are well recognised on the Opposition Benches.
  The Speenhamland system was devised in the agricultural revolution and had exactly the effect about which my right hon. Friend spoke. Indeed, it went further. The rural poor, who were on low wages, received from the local poor law relief board a subsidy that made up their pay, which meant that rural employers could not merely stop wages rising, but actively reduce pay, throwing people into deeper and deeper poverty of wage, while knowing that there would always be a top-up from the local parish board to save them from the workhouse.
  I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that we have the push of the national minimum wage—despite the best endeavours of Opposition Members—to counteract any such effect on employers from a tax credit top-up to low pay. I hope that the minimum wage will go up and up, and increase to a realistic and acceptable level, so that employers do not have the freedom to keep wage bills down, because we had the courage to take statutory control to ensure that they cannot have such freedom.
  David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of achieving a national minimum wage that increases
  672
  in the way that she described would be to set the level unambiguously at half male median earnings—the policy on which our party campaigned in the 1992 general election?
  Vera Baird: There is much to reflect on in what my hon. Friend says and I am grateful for his suggestion. I shall have to leave what I would prefer to describe as the details of the matter to other people, but I hope that I have managed none the less to make the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead worries too readily about the effects of the Speenhamland system in 2001.
  Tony Cunningham: I have heard nothing from Opposition Members about what the Tory policy would be. Does my hon. Friend think that it is wise to remind them of the Speenhamland system?
  Vera Baird: I see that I have rashly run into the danger of trying to draft the Tory party's next manifesto. I shall not take another step in that direction.
  I should like to add that the danger that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead saw in respect of the application of such a system to employees is not very real either. He was worried that employees could not take pride in themselves if they could not get themselves out of poverty wages by their own endeavours. That danger—if it has ever been more than theoretical—is completely outweighed by the absolute urgency of helping families out of the poverty that currently diminishes their lives. The figures given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor show that there are more than 12,000 such families in my constituency alone. That poverty lowers the horizons of parents and limits the outlook of children, so restricting them that they are in danger of growing up blind to the possibility of improving their position by their own endeavours. Such children are unlikely, therefore, to miss the freedom to do that.
  I welcome the Bill for children and for the equalising effect that it has on the income of mothers and on the power structure of families by putting money directly into the primary carer's pocket. It is a thoughtful, clever, well structured and progressive measure, and it is very welcome indeed.
  9.14 pm
  Roger Casale: In the short time that remains, I wish to add my endorsement of the Bill to the enthusiastic support of other Labour Members. If we listen carefully, we may hear something from Conservative Members that rises above their quiet acquiescence hitherto.
  I welcome the principle of the Bill. It seeks to underpin the Government's drive to encourage people off welfare and into work, and to make work pay. I welcome the measure's practical implications because it will directly help hundreds of thousands of people throughout Britain, including more than 400 recipients of WFTC in my constituency.
  Mostly, I welcome the political vision behind the Bill. It represents another landmark in our determination to reform welfare and eliminate child poverty. The measure will take its place alongside the minimum wage, the lop starting rate of tax and many other measures that are either already in place or will be introduced by the Labour

  673
  Government to lift families out of poverty and break the cycle of dependency and impoverishment of aspiration, which was passed down from generation to generation and characterised the long years when the Tories were in government.
  I do not have time to go into detail. The measure will give our programme to support working families a much stronger foundation. It will consolidate the support that different arms of government already provide, making the system more accessible and easily understandable. It will make important benefits available to more families, help them out of poverty and increase their incomes.
  I especially welcome the fact that the new child tax credit will be paid directly to the carer, not the person in work. I welcome the annual assessment of eligibility instead of an assessment of weekly income, based on the previous year's income.
  The Bill is more than the sum of its practical reforms, important though they are. Behind it lies the idea of negative income tax, which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned. He said that the Conservative party had considered and rejected that idea 30 years ago. Although his party rejected it as a mechanism for lifting families out of poverty then, I ask him to consider whether it is right to dismiss that approach today when economic forces are those of the global economy, and families, individuals and communities are subject to its vagaries. However, there are also new opportunities to develop skills and reconnect with the labour market if a hand up rather than a handout can be given.
  I must limit my endorsement of the Bill to those remarks, but I should like to refer to two points that other hon. Members have mentioned. Although the measure's benefits are clear and we support them, it is important that we do not shut our eyes to the potential costs. I have received representations from small businesses in my constituency. They understand that the measure is important for getting people back to work and appreciate that more than 1 million have returned to work through our measures and because of economic stability. Nevertheless, they find it difficult to administer some aspects of the programme. I ask the Paymaster General to pay special attention to the needs of small businesses when we implement the measure; I know that she will. Perhaps we can revert to that in Committee.
  The Bill will provide a bridgehead from welfare to work and, from there, to a better kind of job and a better kind of future for the people concerned. Rather than simply compensating people for being poor, we are working to liberate their energy and potential. This is not just a question of being compassionate towards the poor; everyone has the right to make a better life for themselves and their families. The Bill will help them to do that.
  The Bill represents one of the most important changes in support for families since the Beveridge report in the post-war years. It will help the Government to do what they were elected to do: to tackle child poverty; to boost family incomes; and to help more people back into work. It is central to a modern approach to building prosperity for all by offering opportunity to all. It is a measure that combines a passion for social justice with sound economic common sense, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: The speeches from Back-Bench Members today began with what the House will recognise as an important contribution from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He made a very thoughtful speech, on which we would all do well to reflect. I say that even though it contained some uncomfortable comments about my own party, but my assessment of his speech is based on the appetite in politics now for a more open style of criticism. We see a certain amount of public disenchantment with the constant diet of spin—a disenchantment that seems to extend to some on the Labour Benches, when they put their heads above the parapet. It is incumbent on us all to listen to important criticisms such as those made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  In the same spirit in which I took the right hon. Gentleman's comments about my party, I hope that Labour Members will reflect on the important criticisms that he made of the Bill—what he described as the "bear traps" at its heart—which left him fearful of where the measure would lead. Labour Members would also do well to reflect on the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the effect of the measure on incentives and relativities among those in work, and about the important issue of fraud, which he has raised in the past, and to which I shall return later.
  We have heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds drew attention to the fact that up to 1 million people could lose out under the measure. He also mentioned the fact that the Government's treatment of tax credits violated international accounting conventions and would not be accepted by reputable international bodies. He made further important points about the additional burdens that tax credits have created for business. I shall return to that subject in more detail later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham drew attention to the complexity of the Bill, which is self-evident. That point was echoed by at least one Labour Member—the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen). My hon. Friend was also right to say that we needed time to scrutinise the Bill properly, and to consider its details, especially as we have only its bare framework before us at the moment. He also made important points about parental choice in relation to how children are looked after.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), and there was a running debate throughout the day about the Liberal Democrats' proposals for an increase in personal allowances and a lowering of the threshold for higher-rate tax payers. The hon. Gentleman was at pains to point out that the higher-rate tax payers who would have their thresholds lowered—as well as the lower paid people—would be compensated by the higher personal allowance. We shall explore those proposals in greater detail in Committee. The only point that I wondered about was that, if the hon. Gentleman's system were tax neutral, there would be a gain for some people at the lower end of the tax scale, with nobody paying for that gain.
  Mr. Webb: rose—
  Mr. Clappison: I think that we shall debate this issue at a later stage, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Webb: Lest the hon. Gentleman go to bed confused, the proposal is to replace the employment credit with a tax allowance rise. The money that would be spent on the employment credit would be spent instead on a tax allowance rise.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman does not yet know the figure for that, and I am suspicious of any Liberal Democrat proposal described as tax neutral under which everyone gains and no one loses, but we shall debate that later. He also made important points of detail, particularly on the way in which the Bill deals with people's circumstances, which change throughout the year. Again, I shall deal with that in a moment.
  From the Government Benches, we heard from the hon. Members for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Morley and Rothwell, for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), for Corby (Phil Hope), for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) and for Redcar (Vera Baird). I do not want to upset the hon. Lady, but she asked about Conservative policies and I am afraid that one of her first and most important points referred to the Conservative policy at the general election that in-work payments should be made to carers. She spoke forcefully about that policy, which was in the 2001 Conservative manifesto.
  Vera Baird rose—
  Mr. Clappison: I shall give way in a moment, although I do not want to upset the hon. Lady even more by saying that she may want to reflect on the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made similar points to hers about the treatment of capital disregard. I say that gently, given the spirit of her speech, and I shall certainly give way.
  Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman may make the interesting point that, somewhere in the fragmented mists of time, are Tory proposals that almost remembered such people, but they did not get very far, did they? Would they have got far under the current leadership and the current array on the Tory Front Bench? Would they have got anywhere at all? The answer is no.
  Mr. Clappison: As to how far any proposal gets, I gently remind the hon. Lady of family credit, which she wrongly described as tax credit. In 1988, Norman Fowler, now Lord Fowler, as Conservative Secretary of State, introduced family credit, which lasted a number of years and helped many low-paid families. It was widely accepted as a well targeted system that worked in practice. It was not greatly complex, it was paid to carers and it helped many poorer people.
  Dr. Palmer rose—
  Mr. Clappison: I shall give way in a moment, as the hon. Gentleman may want to hear this point. In contradistinction
  676
  to that honourable record of a successful and practical Conservative measure, since the Government came to power ordinary working families have been subjected to a series of changes—the tax credit system—of extraordinary rapidity and complexity. They could be forgiven for feeling that they are on the receiving end of a series of social experiments conducted by social scientists recruited from the ivory towers to the army of special advisers.
  Dr. Palmer rose—
  Mr. Clappison: On the point about ivory towers, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Palmer: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's thesis that people resent getting additional benefits. As we are going down memory lane, I would like clarification. There was a time when the Conservative party opposed the working families tax credit. Is it committing itself to abolishing the new tax credit as well?
  Mr. Clappison: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I shall set out what we consider to be the important aspects of the proposal. We are concerned that dealing with the working families tax credit and all the other credits is like trying to hit a moving target. A feature of tax credits that is striking above all others is the amount of change that has taken place—constant change, and never mind if it is change for change's sake.
  On tax credits, The Guardian, which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar with, said last week:
  "The Chancellor loves them, and invents new ones every year".
  Let us consider the history of the working families tax credit, which the hon. Gentleman asked about. The Chancellor announced his intention to introduce it in his March 1998 Budget. It was to take effect in October 1999, and payment of tax credits by employers through the wage packet was to take effect from the beginning of the next financial year, on 6 April 2000, but before the first tax credit was paid by employers, the Chancellor announced in his March 2000 Budget that it was to be abolished and replaced by the employment credit for working households. The working families tax credit had a longer history than the employment tax credit, because that never even made it to the statute book let alone the pay packet. In his pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor announced that the employment tax credit was to become the working tax credit.
  The Chancellor was a model of consistency on the working families tax credit compared with his handling of the child tax credit. In the 1998 Budget, he announced the introduction of the children's tax credit as an allowance for which relief was to be given at a rate of 10 per cent. That was to begin in April 2001. We note in passing that the married couples' allowance ended in April 2000, so that couples with children, including couples on moderate earnings, lost all such tax relief for a year, which was a cruel trick on ordinary working families.
  The children's tax credit barely made it to April 2001, because in his March 2000 Budget statement, the Chancellor announced that the children's tax credit was to be replaced by the integrated child credit. The children's tax credit had the distinction of being abolished before it was even introduced. Instead of a tax allowance

  677
  in the form of the children's tax credit, the integrated child credit was to be a tax credit integrated with the child premium in income support and the working families tax credit.
  I hate to report to the House that, since then, the integrated child credit has disintegrated, and we are now left with just the child credit. I shall tell hon. Members a little tale from history. Under this Government, family credit, which had existed since 1988, has so far been replaced by the working families tax credit, the employment tax credit, the working tax credit, the children's tax credit, the integrated children's tax credit and the child tax credit. To look at it another way, we have had a new family tax credit roughly every nine months.
  Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman is having some fun with the changes in tax credits. Does he accept that, in the Conservative Government's efforts to introduce simplicity in the system, they cut benefits one after the other or withdrew them altogether? Is that the simplicity that we should expect from his party's proposals?
  Mr. Clappison: We are dealing with the Bill, and I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Even she would have to admit that, in view of the Chancellor's past form, it would be a brave man or woman who backed the tax credits in the Bill to last very long. The Chancellor has, beyond peradventure, created what The Guardian called "a hideously complex system." What is more, he has brought more and more individuals and families into means-testing, which he had turned his face against at the 1994 Labour party conference. Individuals and families who pay more and more tax to the Government are having to undergo means-testing to have their own money recycled back to them.
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: No, I have given way a lot.
  It is fair to say that the simplicity of this legislation is not entirely self-evident, and all hon. Members should accept that. The Bill will require careful scrutiny, not least because it is a framework Bill that leaves the details to be filled in later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs rightly made clear. Ministers must answer questions, and we are still waiting for an answer from the Paymaster General to the question of how many people are eligible for the working families tax credit. She dealt with that question very elegantly, but she did not answer it. I look forward to the Financial Secretary dealing with it, perhaps not as elegantly as the hon. Lady, but I shall be interested to see whether he gives us an answer to that simple question on the working families tax credit, which so many Labour Members have praised. Will he tell us how many people are eligible for it?
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: No, I shall not give way, because time is short. The hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a long time. His speech was interesting, but I want to finish my speech, if he does not mind. I was being generous when I said that his speech was interesting.
  678
  We must consider carefully the issue of fraud. Many people are worried about the potential for fraud, none more so than the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The right hon. Gentleman spelt out the risk of fraud, including the risks of fraud involving employers and employees. It was worrying for hon. Members on both sides of the House to hear about his request, when he held office, for fraud to be taken into account in the design of the working families tax credit, and that the papers from his time in office had subsequently gone missing. I know that the Financial Secretary will want to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's important comments. He must answer some questions about them.
  While we are on the subject of answering questions, let me say that I would be grateful for an answer to a written parliamentary question, for which I have been waiting since 15 October. The Paymaster General was at pains to tell us about the penalties in the Bill, and the framework it established for dealing with fraud. Will the Financial Secretary tell us, then, how many prosecutions for fraud there have been under working families tax credit, and how many have led to successful convictions? I refer to all who have received the award.
  Is this a credit that does not attract fraud, and does not involve any fraudulent behaviour? Or is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead justified in being worried and suspicious about the potential for fraud owing to the way in which it was designed?
  Fraud, however, is not the only potential source of waste. The sheer complexity of the system increases the risk of error. As has been pointed out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and also by the hon. Member for Northavon, many people's family circumstances will change during a year. Because of the way in which the Bill will deal with them, there is a serious risk of mistakes.
  We shall want to scrutinise carefully the burdens that the Bill will impose on business. The burdens imposed by the tax credits system are already well known, and must be added to all the other burdens created by the Government. The Government claim that tax credits increase people's propensity to enter the work force to take on low-paid jobs; yet the administrative and regulatory burdens the Government have brought about diminish the propensity of, in particular, small and medium businesses to create jobs for such people to occupy.
  The greater the burdens thrust upon business, the less competitive United Kingdom businesses become. Jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, go overseas. Worryingly, last month both main measures of unemployment indicated an increase in unemployment in the UK. That must be of concern to Labour Members, in view of all they have said about unemployment today.
  It was the Prime Minister, no less, who told the Labour party conference in 1996
  "by the end of a five year term of a Labour government I vow that we will have reduced the proportion of national income we spend on the welfare bills of social failure … This is my covenant with the British people. Judge me upon it. The buck stops with me."
  It is a fact that the welfare bill in 1997 was £92 billion. Under these proposals, it is set to rise to £125 billion by 2003. It will then have risen by more than a third since the Government took office. What is more, the Government have given up trying to get it down.

  679
  We have the Tax Credits Bill before us; in the Queen's Speech in June, however, we were also promised a welfare reform Bill, which has clearly been abandoned. We do not know exactly why—was it shot down during the battle between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister? But we do know that, in the meantime, the cost and complexity of the welfare system has spiralled out of control.
  We will hold the Government to account for the way in which they have dealt with welfare, the way in which they are spending taxpayers' money, and their failure to make good the Prime Minister's promises—not for the first time—to bring welfare under control. We will hold them to account by giving the Bill the careful scrutiny that it clearly needs, which hard-working taxpayers would expect us to give it. We intend to give it extremely careful scrutiny; hard-working taxpayers who pay the Government more and more in tax, and get bewildering and complex schemes in return, deserve no less.
  9.39 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): Our promise was to move people from welfare to work and it is a promise on which we have more than delivered. In this measure, we are making sure that work pays.
  It has been a good debate, which I suspect is a good indication of the quality of debates that we will engage in when the Bill is sent upstairs to Committee; by all accounts it will be, as we have not heard of any intention on the part of Opposition Members to vote against it. In a characteristically generous moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) referred to the Opposition's quiet acquiesence. That is the sort of acquiesence we like from the Opposition. It is more than welcome.
  The Bill is a key element in the next stage of the Government's strategy for tackling child poverty and making work pay. The tax credits brought in by the Bill build on the important reforms that the Government have already introduced. During the previous Parliament, we increased child benefit substantially. At the same time, we increased children's allowances in income-related benefits to ensure that extra support was available to the poorest families. We introduced targeted tax cuts for families through the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit and the children's tax credit.
  Our policy has been to ease the transition from welfare to work. That is why we halved marginal tax rates for low-income workers through the introduction of a lop rate of tax, ensuring that they keep more of what they earn. We introduced a basic level of fairness for employees through the national minimum wage. Those reforms are in place now and they are working now. The Government's personal tax and benefit reforms since 1997 have made a real difference.
  It is worth while looking at the record of the Conservatives when they were in power. In 1979, 14 per cent. of children lived in households with below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income. By 1996–97, the figure had increased to 34 per cent. Under the stewardship of Conservative Members, the number of children living in poverty more than doubled. That was our inheritance.[Interruption.] It is no use Conservative Members saying no, no, no. That is the fact. That is the record. It has been
  680
  our task through this Bill, among other measures, to bring that number down. It is not an occasion for self-congratulation or for complacency, but we are getting the number down. Opposition Members should delight in the fact that that problem is now being dealt with. We should be working together to find ways of ensuring that yet more children are taken out of poverty.
  As a result of the improvements that this Government have made, families with children are on average £1,000 a year better off. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are £1,700 a year better off compared with 1997, but we are determined to do more. The Bill and the new tax credits will allow us to take forward the programme of reform.
  We have heard some good speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), for Corby (Phil Hope), for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), for Redcar (Vera Baird) and for Wimbledon all made the point that an important start has been made, but that we need to ensure that the Bill is targeted correctly, and that the take-up is as good as we would all wish it to be, recognising that there are specific regional variations that should give us cause for concern, including in London. Indeed, we are determined to ensure that we improve take-up in our capital city.
  Phil Hope: When my right hon. Friend read out the roll of honour of those Back Benchers who had participated in the debate, I could not help wishing to point out that only two were Conservative Back Benchers.
  Mr. Boateng: I did not mention any Conservatives, but as I have been encouraged to do so I shall refer to their contributions. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made a considered speech. I did not agree with all of it, but I agreed with some points, not least those about fraud which were taken up by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). No one should be under any illusions about our determination as a Government to tackle fraud. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead rightly drew attention to the need to ensure that we do not lose sight of the importance of tackling fraud. We do not intend to do so. People should be encouraged to claim everything to which they are entitled—that is part of the take-up issue to which several of my hon. Friends have referred—but we will introduce effective measures for deterring and investigating fraud and non-compliance.
  The Bill lays down a clear framework for tackling fraud and two clauses in particular are important in that regard. Clause 33 introduces a new criminal offence of tax credit fraud and clause 34 gives the Inland Revenue new and more effective powers to investigate tax credit frauds. No one should be under any illusions: we intend that those powers should be used and we intend to ensure that the Bill addresses the need for penalties when a person has fraudulently or negligently provided incorrect information in connection with a claim or has refused to co-operate with an inquiry. Those powers are in place and will be used.
  The child tax credit will deliver our commitment to introduce a single, seamless system of income-related support for families with children. It will replace the array

  681
  of different support mechanisms with a single, payable tax credit for families, bridging the gap between welfare and work. It will enable families to take advantage of the credit, irrespective of the employment status of the parents. It will also remove the stigma all too often attached in the past to such measures. Reference has been made to the position of student nurses who will get mainstream support for their children, over and above child benefit, for the first time. Families will be able to get support for their children from a single Department, through a single coherent system that will respond to their changing circumstances.
  We will go further to rationalise the way in which families get financial support for their children. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in June, responsibility for child benefit will transfer to the Inland Revenue so that families will have to deal with only one department to get the support they need. That transfer is also accomplished by the measures in the Bill.
  A crucial point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden and for Colne Valley about the importance of child care. We need to get it right so that those who need child care to get back into the world of work, and to stay there, receive it in the manner that is most effective and most directly meets their needs. That is what we are doing, and it is part of a wider package of support for families. Part of the answer to the points that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead lies in the fact that the Bill needs to be seen in the context of the wider package of support for families, especially working families, that we are introducing.
  The Government have continued to make significant new investment to support vulnerable children, young people and their families. Sure start is part of that. The 2000 spending review more than doubled planned expenditure, with sure start's budget increasing from £184 million in 2001–02 to £499 million in 2003–04. Over 430 sure start programmes have already been announced, and more than 200 are operational. By March 2004, 500 programmes will be reaching 400,000 children at any one time. Around one third of young children in poverty will benefit.
  We are working within the context of the children's fund. Through our wider social reforms, we are producing a fairer society for families by improving service provision for vulnerable children. That is the context in which the Bill has been proposed. The Government are committed to improving work incentives and making work pay. The unemployment trap—where the gains from moving into work are too low, or the associated barriers too great, to encourage people to take the step from welfare into work—has in the past led to an unacceptable waste of human resources. The working tax credit will help to tackle that.
  The working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, introduced in 1999, were an important start. They helped to make sure that work paid for families with children and for people with disabilities. Now, with the working tax credit, we are taking the next step forward, extending the principle of in-work support through the wage packet to people without either children
  682
  or a disability. The working tax credit not only extends the principle of in-work support, but improves the way in which support is delivered.
  The Government have listened to disability groups. The working tax credit will provide a single work-focused credit, so that the extra barriers to work that disabled people can face are addressed within this single system of mainstream support. We have also listened to parents. We will make sure that help with child care costs, provided through the working tax credit, is paid directly to the main carer, alongside the child tax credit. Couples can decide themselves how to share responsibility for looking after their children, and we will allow couples with children to add their hours together to qualify for the 30-hour element within this credit.
  We are responding to the point that was made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar by ensuring that there is always a recognition that money in the purse does make a difference. We need to have the transfer of money from the wallet to the purse in order best to meet the particular needs that children have. We know that child poverty is best addressed by the work of women in the home and in the workplace. If we do not get the framework right, all that we seek to do in this area is likely to come to nothing.
  I said at the outset of my remarks—as did my hon. Friend the Paymaster General—that we have to ensure that we build on the progress that has been made. The working tax credit is just one of several measures introduced by this Government to tackle the unemployment and poverty traps and to deliver our long-term goal on employment so that, by the end of the decade, there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before.
  The Bill has to be seen in the context of the national minimum wage—a national minimum wage that was opposed by the Conservative party. We still have not heard any recognition in the remarks of the Opposition spokesmen who bothered to address the House how they view the national minimum wage. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Bill?"' Opposition Members want to hear about the Bill. While we were discussing it, there were two of them in the Chamber. Two of them were sitting on the Front Bench, while the Back Benches were bare—denuded. Not one Conservative Back Bencher was prepared to engage in the debate or to suggest that they have learned the lessons that we have been teaching them these four and a half years about how to move people from poverty into work and how to begin to give people the sense that they can, through their own actions, reach a point where they benefit from what work has to offer.
  These reforms are supported by the new deal, which provides tailored packages of help and support to enable people to make that transition back into work. It enables them, through contact with personal advisers, access to job search support and help in addressing basic skills gaps, to get into the world of work. In that way, they and their children will benefit from their activity.
  During the debate, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell about the importance of ensuring that small businesses feel, as those responsible for the payroll, that their needs and concerns have been taken into account. That is why my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has introduced a measure that is structured in such a way as to reduce compliance costs. That is why the measure is friendly to small businesses.

  683
  It would have been helpful if Conservative Members had given just a hint that they understood that the Government have listened to small businesses with regard to the structure of this measure. However, there did not come from them one spark of recognition that that was the case. That is recognised by employers' groups. The Confederation of British Industry says that it supports and welcomes
  "the attempts made by the government to simplify the rules for tax credits."
  The Institute of Payroll and Pensions Management stated that it welcomed the beneficial changes from an employers' perspective. In its detailed response, it recognised
  "all the positive changes to the administration of tax credits that will benefit employers".
  That is what business says. However, we must have balance, and the Institute of Directors remains, as one would expect, firmly opposed to the measure although, to be fair, it says that it warmly welcomes the ending of the requirement for certificates of payment and strongly supports automatic increases in funding when new employees become entitled to tax credits. Even in the heart of the Institute of Directors there is a beginning of an understanding that the measure has some positive benefits. If only that same warm glow of recognition had been present in the hearts and minds of Conservative Members, but look at them—not a sign. The milk of human kindness does not, I fear, flow in very many of those veins.
  During the last Parliament, we embarked on a wide-ranging programme of reform of the tax and benefits system. The Bill sees us continue that to the point of success, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  TAX CREDITS BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Tax Credits Bill:

  Committal
  (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Programming of proceedings
  (2) All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  (3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24th January 2002.
  (4) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  (5) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
  684
  (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
  (7) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 155.

  Division No. 104]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coleman, lain

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'tryNE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Cox, Tom

  (Swansea E)

  Crausby, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Baird, Vera

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Banks, Tony

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barron, Kevin

  David, Wayne

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Stuart

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benn, Hilary

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Benton, Joe

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Dowd, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Drew, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brennan, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Farrelly, Paul

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bryant, Chris

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burnham, Andy

  Flynn, Paul

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caims, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gapes, Mike

  Casale, Roger

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caton, Martin

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Challen, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chaytor, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Grogan, John

  (Norwich S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds WE)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coaker, Vemon

  Havard, Dai

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  685

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hendrick, Mark

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miliband, David

  Hill, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mole, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Picking, Anne

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pike, Peter

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Fettham & Heston)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Laxton, Bob

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robertson, John

  Leslie, Christopher

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  Lucas, Ian

  Ruane, Chris

  Luke, lain

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lyons, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ryan, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sawford, Phil

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacDougall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McKechin, Ann

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Simon, Siôn

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Mann, John

  Southworth, Helen

  Marris, Rob

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  686

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Tynan, Bill.

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Ward, Ms Claire.

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Stringer, Graham

  Watts, David

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  White, Brian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tami, Mark

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Timms, Stephen

  Woolas, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Todd, Mark

  Wray, James

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. John Heppell.

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Goodman, Paul

  Amess, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bacon, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Barker, Gregory

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Baron, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Barrett, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heath, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hermon, Lady

  Brady, Graham

  Hoban, Mark

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Horam, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cameron, David

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Laws, David

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cotter, Brian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cran, James

  Luff, Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Mercer, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Flight, Howard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Francois, Mark

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Price, Adam

  687

  Prisk, Mark

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigbn)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Walter, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Selous, Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Webb, Steve

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wnittmgdale, Jonn

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Soarnes, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson John

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Bob

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willis, Phil

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swire, Hugo

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and Mr. Julian Brazier.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  TAX CREDITS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Tax Credits Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the deduction of payments for or in respect of tax credits from the gross revenues of the department of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,

  (2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown or that department under or by virtue of the Act, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act, and

  (3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Angela Smith.]

  Question agreed to.

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

  ROAD TRAFFIC
  That the draft Driving Licences (Disqualification until Test Passed) (Prescribed Offence) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  ELECTRICITY
  That the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Andrew Hunter be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Mr. Keith Simpson be added to the Committee.—[Keith Hill, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Police Officers
  10.16 pm
  Mr. John Baron: I am presenting a petition from the residents of the Billericay and district constituency regarding their concern about the lack of police officers patrolling our streets and responding to reported crime in the constituency. The petition urges the Home Secretary to commit more resources to Essex police so that we can benefit from more police officers. More than 5,400 signatures were collected in two weeks.
  The petition declares:
  That there is a shortage of beat and response police officers in the Billericay and District constituency, and that a number of recent reported incidents demonstrate that the police service in the area is overstretched.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to increase the resources available to Essex Police.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Yoko Sibthorp
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: According to the House of Commons Library, there have, over the last four and a half years, been four Adjournment debates on specific aspects of immigration cases and a further 12 Adjournment debates on immigration policy more generally. I refer to those statistics for the benefit of the House and to underline the fact that right hon. and hon. Members do not lightly raise particular immigration cases in the House. I do so, I think, for good reason tonight.
  Yoko Sibthorp, on whose behalf I speak, was born on 31 July 1969. Andrew Sibthorp, to whom, until her divorce, she remains married, was born on 21 May 1973. Mr. Andrew Sibthorp is the son of my constituents, David and Angela Sibthorp of Blakes cottage, Horn street, Winslow, in the Buckingham constituency. Yoko first met Andrew in May 1992, so they have now known each other for approximately nine and a half years. They went out together for some time and eventually, on 27 February 1995, their marriage was registered in Japan. There they lived as man and wife for over five years. They then decided, early in 2000, to come to the United Kingdom, with the specific purpose of settling here and starting a family. They came to Britain on 17 April 2000, Andrew on the basis that he was a British citizen and Yoko on the strength of a 12-month permit to stay in this country. At that point, she was already pregnant.
  After a couple of false starts, in July 2000 Andrew managed to secure a job at the Japan centre, in London's Piccadilly. In September, they got their own property in South Norwood, and on 29 October 2000 came the happy news for both of them of the birth of their first child, Nesta. Yoko testifies, and I have no reason to doubt her veracity, that Andrew had always given the impression in all the time they knew one each other that he would be a willing father, that on no account would he be separated from his son, and that he looked forward to the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood.
  For the first few days, Yoko testifies, as do her parents-in-law, Andrew enthusiastically changed nappies and partook of other domestic responsibilities. Sadly, however, all went badly wrong and turned sour, to the great detriment of the family, and to Yoko and her son Nesta in particular. Twenty days after the birth of the child, on 18 November 2000, Andrew, after a row with his wife, suddenly left the family home—for ever, as it later transpired. He said that he wanted to lead a Rastafarian existence and conceded that he had returned to the use of drugs, which had bedevilled him in his youth, but which he now felt were useful to him and made him feel better. He left the home; occasionally he came back unannounced for short periods, but he never returned permanently.
  The day after Andrew left Yoko, in understandable shock and trauma at the most ghastly experience that could be visited on anyone, she asked her parents-in-law, David and Angela Sibthorp, whether, for a period, she could come and live with them in Horn street in Winslow, to which they readily agreed. On 17 April 2001 Yoko, conscious that her marriage had not survived for the
  690
  12 months in this country required under immigration law, applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. She did so, aware of the strength of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which has been transposed into British law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998. As you will undoubtedly be aware, Mr. Speaker, article 8 underlines the important right of every individual to have his or her private and family life respected. At the end of April, Yoko managed to secure a job at Fujitsu, in Hayes. Only four months ago, in August, her estranged husband sadly lost his job in Piccadilly. In September, in what proved to be his final communication to his father, he said that he wished to have no further contact whatsoever with his parents, whom he had known for 27 years, or with his wife and his child, who was born on 29 October 2000. Sadly, the ghastly and unimaginably appalling sequence of events that has afflicted Yoko Sibthorp culminated on 31 October 2001—in the Home Office's refusal of her application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
  Following that refusal, Lord Rooker of Perry Barr, for whom I have a high regard, wrote to me on 13 November to say:
  "The application was refused on 31st October as we were not satisfied that the variation of leave to remain was being sought for a purpose covered by the immigration rules."
  He went on:
  "The case was also considered exceptionally outside the rules but we were not prepared to exercise our discretion in her favour."
  That seemed a dismal and lamentable state of affairs, and has certainly caused great heartache, as I am sure the Minister will understand, to Yoko and her devoted parents-in-law.
  It is relevant at this point to refer to the views of Yoko and of her parents-in-law as regards the changed character and behaviour of Andrew Sibthorp. All three of the individuals concerned—Yoko and her parents-in-law, David and Angela—have good reason to feel affection and love for Andrew, for they are all inextricably bound up with his life.
  Yoko concluded that there had been a dramatic and unaccountable change in her husband's behaviour. Previously devoted, unselfish, loving and willing to partake of domestic and family responsibilities, he had, she concluded, started to behave oddly. She has recounted a particular case in which Andrew Sibthorp, for reasons unknown to her, to me and to the House, broke the back window of a car by bashing his head repeatedly against it. David Sibthorp, devoted father of Andrew for 27 years, testifies with sadness that his son has undergone an extraordinary personality change. He tells me that the man has become self-centred, unpredictable and paranoid.
  I emphasise that that is the account that has been given to me. I have every faith in the integrity of the individuals concerned. I have not spoken to Andrew Sibthorp; I am not interested in besmirching his name. I am seeking to give an account of events as they have been related to me, and as they pertain to the attempt of Yoko Sibthorp to secure indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
  Yoko decided that she would appeal against the rejection of her application. She is doing so, as the hon. Lady is aware, under section 61 of the Immigration and

  691
  Asylum Act 1999. Specifically, she is doing so with an emphasis and reliance on article 8 of the human rights convention, which states:
  "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
  The article continues:
  "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
  In that context, because I feel passionately about the case, I want to make a simple but—as it seems to me, and I hope it might strike the Minister as—a compelling point. The presence in this country of Yoko and her son Nesta does not threaten national security. Their presence does not threaten public safety. Their presence does not threaten the economic well-being of the country. Their presence does not threaten the prevention of disorder and crime. Their presence does not threaten the protection of health or morals. Their presence assuredly does not threaten the rights or freedoms of others.
  I have attended closely, as the hon. Lady no doubt has done, to the wording of the article upon which Yoko is reliant in her appeal against the initial judgment of the Home Office. That seems to me to be one ground on which she can credibly base a humanitarian plea to be granted indefinite leave to remain in this country, but there are others, to which I shall briefly refer.
  First, it ought to be understood and it will be readily apparent from the facts, that the marriage was not one of convenience. It was not undertaken for an ulterior purpose which, once achieved, caused the marriage to be dissolved or to wither on the vine. It was a loving relationship that was conducted over a period of several years. Yoko and her husband were married happily for five and a half years. It is a pure technicality that the marriage did not subsist in this country for the requisite period of 12 months to qualify Yoko for success in her application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
  I consider the case compelling, but I am determined to persuade others, including your good self, Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, that there is an additional argument in Yoko's support—that is, that she enjoys the love, devotion and support, both emotional and financial, of her parents-in-law. They have been absolute bricks in a ghastly situation. They love their son, of course, but they are horrified by what has happened, by the extraordinary metamorphosis in his character and behaviour that appears to have taken place, and by the residual but massive damage that has been done to her life, which could impact upon that of her son and their beloved grandson.
  In communications to me in October and November this year, David Sibthorp stated:
  "Nesta continues to grow into a super little boy and gives much pleasure to my wife and me as grandparents. All I can say is that he is the light in this sorry mess and compensates a lot for the hurt and anger our son has inflicted on everybody."
  Significantly, and worryingly from the point of view of the integrity and repute of the democratic process, he adds:
  "As British citizens, we believed that this country was just and fair; that it could not and would not treat Yoko like this. It makes us both ashamed to be British."
  692
  I know these two parents-in-law. They are decent, reasonable and level headed. They are model citizens, well respected in their community. They are not hotheads and are not excitable or extremist in any way, but that is how they feel. Even if the Minister cannot give me the news that I seek, I ask her to empathise with their plight. I think that she will do so as a humanitarian.
  There is a final argument in Yoko's support: she is not dependent on public funds. She has a good job, works hard and is industrious. She wants to succeed and is conscious of her responsibilities and willing to fulfil them. She is also fortunate in having superb parents-in-law who are willing to do everything that they can—emotionally, practically and financially. I think that I am right in saying—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—that the Home Office refers to or has consciously in mind no fewer than seven forms of public funding that someone could be receiving and that might count against an individual in pursuit of an application for indefinite leave to remain, on the grounds of their being a drain on the public purse: child benefit, disability allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, housing or homelessness assistance, income support and jobseeker's allowance, social fund payments or the working families tax credit. To the best of my knowledge and belief, Yoko does not receive and currently has no intention of receiving any of those payments. She wants to be self-supporting and wants the wonderful relationship with her parents-in-law to continue. She wishes to bring up her lad, her little boy Nesta, as she and her husband had always intended: as a British boy who speaks English and is integrated into our society and who understands, accepts and enjoys the mores of this community. She does not want to have to take him back to Japan, which is not quite the melting pot that she judges this society to be and where she fears that he may be subject to teasing, ridicule or possibly even discrimination.
  I think that Yoko has a compelling case. Of course, there must be rules and there has to be a public policy, and the general principle must be of compliance with those rules and that policy. However, there must also be exceptions to every rule. I say to the Minister—I repeat that I believe that she is a humanitarian—that Yoko is not a statistic but a human being. Nesta, too, is not a statistic, but a human being. David and Angela Sibthorp, Yoko's parents-in-law and my constituents, are not statistics, but human beings. They are genuinely shaken by their first experience of immigration law and what they believe to be a defiance and violation of the rights of their daughter-in-law and the grandson whom they love so dearly. They want him and Yoko to stay here. They want that relationship to develop and become more fruitful, and to see the boy grow up into an adult citizen of this country.
  I appeal to the Minister further to reflect on this matter. She and I have jousted many a time and oft in this House and doubtless we shall do so in future.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I hope so.
  Mr. Bercow: Indeed, I certainly hope that we shall. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her sedentary confirmation of that point.
  I emphasise that, because I feel so strongly about this case, I have not the slightest intention, now or at any time in the foreseeable future, of letting it drop. Indeed, to coin

  693
  a phrase, I intend to go on and on and on about it, because I believe that denying the rights of Yoko and her child would be callous, cruel and contemptible.
  I appeal to the Minister to offer me some hope in her reply.
  10.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing the Adjournment debate and setting out the issues that pertain to the case. I understand, sympathise and empathise with the distressing circumstances that he has outlined and the emotional effects on all those involved. I agree that no immigration case is a mere statistic; all have emotional and difficult aspects, and all involve human responses and circumstances. All those with whom we deal are human beings. I am conscious of that, as are the caseworkers who apply the rules, although sometimes that may not seem to be the case.
  The hon. Gentleman set out the way in which Mrs. Sibthorp came to the United Kingdom in April 2000 with her husband, Andrew. The couple have known each other since 1992; they met while Mrs. Sibthorp was studying. They spent some time together in Japan before marrying there in 1995. In April last year, they returned to this country to settle and await the birth of their child. In accordance with the immigration rules, Mrs. Sibthorp was granted 12 months leave to enter the United Kingdom because of that marriage.
  Upon his return to the UK, Mr. Sibthorp got a job in Scotland but, unfortunately, the firm that employed him went into liquidation. Following that, he and his wife lived with his parents for a short while. As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Sibthorp successfully obtained a job in London and the couple bought a flat in south London. Shortly after moving into their flat, Mrs. Sibthorp gave birth to their son, Nesta. As the hon. Gentleman explained, two weeks after Nesta's birth the marriage broke down.
  In April, shortly before her leave to remain expired, Mrs. Sibthorp applied for indefinite leave to remain here. Her representatives asked for consideration to be given to the application outside the immigration rules on compassionate grounds, so that Mrs. Sibthorp can bring up her son in this country and maintain the undoubtedly close family ties that she has formed with Mr. Sibthorp's family.
  The immigration rules provide that a person may be granted indefinite leave to remain here if he or she has completed 12 months leave to remain on the basis of marriage, provided that the marriage subsists and the couple intend to live together permanently. Unfortunately, in the case that we are considering, the marriage has not subsisted and indefinite leave to remain on the basis of marriage cannot be granted to Mrs. Sibthorp.
  Mrs. Sibthorp's application for indefinite leave to remain was therefore refused on 31 October. She has exercised her right of appeal against the decision. The next step in the process is the preparation of an
  694
  explanatory statement, which sets out the Home Office's position and the reasons for the refusal. It will be sent to the appellate authorities, and the appeal will be heard before an independent adjudicator. Mrs. Sibthorp and her parents-in-law will have the opportunity to put forward their views fully at the hearing and the adjudicator will, of course, fully consider them before he makes his decision.
  I cannot intervene in cases when appeals are outstanding unless there are "exceptional compelling" reasons for doing so. That is the phrase in the rules. It does not appear to me that there are exceptional compassionate circumstances. We must take account of the word "exceptional". I am not saying that there are no compassionate circumstances or that there is not a great deal of emotion and anxiety about the case. However, there have to be exceptional circumstances for a Minister to intervene.
  Mr. Bercow: I understand the Minister's vantage point, but can she tell me of another case of which she is aware whereby a couple have been married for more than five years, a child is born and one partner leaves the other less than three weeks afterwards?
  Angela Eagle: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I assure him that there are similar cases. They are not all in my head, but such circumstances are unfortunately not as rare as he may think.
  I would like to take this opportunity to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention that it is open to Mrs. Sibthorp's employers to apply for a work permit on her behalf. If the application were approved by Work Permits (UK), Mrs. Sibthorp would normally be granted five years' leave to remain in the United Kingdom, at the end of which she would be eligible for permanent settlement.
  Under normal conditions, a person wishing to remain in the UK in approved employment must hold the necessary work permit before entering the country, but, in certain circumstances, Work Permits (UK) will issue a permit to a person already here if the criteria are satisfied. The immigration and nationality directorate would then consider whether to permit the person to remain here.
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot speculate tonight on the outcome of any work permit application by Mrs. Sibthorp's employers in advance of it being made; nor, in the light of what I have said, can any guarantees be provided at the Dispatch Box tonight that Mrs. Sibthorp would be allowed to remain in the UK by the immigration and nationality directorate, even if a work permit were granted. However, that may be a course of action that she wishes to consider.
  I am sorry not to be more helpful on this delicate issue at this stage but, with an appeal outstanding, it would be inappropriate for me to intervene. I am sorry that I have to give the hon. Gentleman this reply tonight. I am aware of the case, and I will keep an eye on it for him. I hope that he will understand that that is all that I can say at this juncture.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by the Law Officers' Departments were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22023]

  The Solicitor-General
  The figures are as follows:

  Percentage

  1998–99

  0.8

  1999–2000

  0.85

  2000–01

  1.7

  Dangerous Driving (Sentencing)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many of the cases of causing death by dangerous driving whose sentences were considered to be unduly lenient have been referred to her by the court of appeal in each of the last five years. [20937]

  The Solicitor-General
  Records for cases referred by the Law Officers as unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal have only been maintained by category of offence since 2000. Four cases of death by dangerous driving were referred in 2000 and so far this year six cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal.

DEFENCE

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how may jobs will be supported by the decision to proceed with the joint strike fighter in(a) the regions of England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the UK; and what information he has collated on how many jobs will be supported on a company basis. [17358]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I announced to the House on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 514W, it is estimated that up to 3,500 jobs could be supported or created during the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter project, rising to 8,500 in later phases. The detailed information requested is not held in the format requested. Officials are working to collate the information and I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Active Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the percentage of the(a) Army,
  532W
  (b) Navy and (c) Air Force which were committed to operations in each reporting period for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [18754]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since April 2000, the percentage of the trained strength committed to operations for each service has been collated on a quarterly basis. These percentages, which do not include personnel preparing for operations, recovering from operations, or engaged in training, are shown in the table.

  Percentage of trained strength committed to operations

  Percentage

  Army

  Navy1

  Air Force

  2000–01

  April-June

  21.6

  11.1

  9.2

  July-September

  22.7

  13.8

  9.0

  October-December

  23.1

  19.3

  8.7

  January-March

  24.4

  10.8

  8.5

  2001–02

  April-June

  21.8

  9.5

  8.9

  July-September

  25.6

  8.4

  9.8

  1 Including Marines

  For financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000, summary information on commitment levels can be found in the relevant Ministry of Defence Performance Report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Information for years predating the 1998 Strategic Defence Review is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We remain determined to balance operational commitments and we will commit personnel to operations for no longer than is necessary to achieve the military aim. Recent operations in Macedonia demonstrated this well. To mitigate the demands placed upon those service personnel who are deployed on operations overseas, we have introduced a new and comprehensive package of welfare support.

  Home Defence
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he has made of the need for home defence since the events of 11 September. [20889]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Defence informed the House on 4 October that the Ministry of Defence would be conducting work designed to ensure that we have the right concepts, forces and capabilities to deal with the kind of asymmetric threat that we saw on 11 September.

  This work is on-going and is addressing, among a wide range of issues, the balance between the contributions that the armed forces make to home defence and countering threats abroad. A key part of this work is exploring the role that the armed forces, including the reserves, have in defending and protecting the homeland.

  The lead for domestic security lies with the civil authorities, and with the police in particular. The armed forces already provide assistance to the civil authorities in a range of ways. In terms of classical territorial defence roles, the RAF is responsible for the defence of our airspace and the Royal Navy has a role in ensuring the integrity of our territorial waters.
  533W
  We are looking at whether we need to enhance the assistance we provide or build on our territorial defence roles. We are also reviewing the arrangements and level of co-ordination between the civil authorities and the armed forces in order to maximise the utility, and suitability, of responses to any future requests for assistance.

  Armed Forces (Deployability)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of the armed forces were deployable at the latest date for which figures are available. [18460]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 November 2001, the Navy had a trained strength of 37,176, of which 33,352 personnel were fully deployable and 1,638 were deployable with some limitations. The Regular Army, excluding Gurkhas and the Royal Irish, amounted to 96,255 personnel of whom 86,296 were fully deployable and an additional 7,042 deployable with some limitations. The RAF had a trained strength of 49,116 of which 45,245 were deployable.

  Osama bin Laden
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what discussions his Department had prior to 11 September with Pakistan Government officials regarding Osama bin Laden. [19414]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Defence Adviser in Islamabad discussed the al-Qaeda organisation in his routine contacts with Pakistan Government officials prior to 11 September.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20667]

  Mr. Ingram
  The level of wage costs in the Defence budget this year and in future years will be dependent upon the outcome of Pay Review Body reports and negotiations. The Department's performance report published in the autumn of next year will give full retrospective costs.

  Vehicle Purchase
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy the Defence Procurement Agency adopts on supporting British manufacturing when purchasing vehicles. [20881]

  Dr. Moonie
  Competition is the cornerstone of the Ministry of Defence's procurement policy and this applies equally to the purchase of vehicles. Contracts are awarded on best overall value for money. Article 12 of the EC treaty requires that member states do not discriminate in favour of national suppliers. However, where there are exemptions under the regulations we make use of them.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the financial benefits of bulk purchasing vehicles of one particular model for the MOD police. [20882]
  534W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence police require a range of vehicle types to meet operational needs. When assessing which vehicle represents best value for money against a particular requirement, the bulk purchase discounts offered by manufacturers are taken into account.

  Spanish Airspace
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost(a) per flight on average and (b) on an annual basis since 1977 of the fuel consumption caused by military aircraft having to avoid Spanish airspace. [20775]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armed Forces Headquarters
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when an announcement will be made concerning the relocation of 51 Brigade headquarters. [20885]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is examining the roles and responsibilities of the regional brigade structure of which 51 Brigade is part. No decisions have yet been made but I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts in excess of £5 million have been signed, awarded or novated to(a) Matra BAE Dynamics and (b) consortia in which Matra BAE Dynamics is a member since January 1997; what the approximate value is of each contract; what the in-service dates were when contracts were announced; and what they are now anticipated to be. [21217]

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

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been granted a war pension from the War Pensions Agency in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [21215]

  Dr. Moonie
  A claim for war disablement pension may only be made after discharge from the armed forces. During the year April 2000 to March 2001 6,384 awards of war pension were made to former members of the armed forces. For the period April 2001 to September 2001 3,221 awards were made.

  Specialised Reservists
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the specialised reservists called out on 11 October were mobilised; and if he will make a statement. [20926]

  Dr. Moonie
  A Call-out Order was signed on 11 October under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96) to permit reservists to be called out for permanent service on operations arising from the terrorist attacks in the United States of America. Since then 51 reservists from all three services have been called out
  535W
  on various dates, of whom 46 have come into service. Of that 46, three have completed their tasking and been transferred to another operation. In addition, five Sponsored Reserves from the Royal Air Force's Mobile Meteorological Unit have been called out under separate powers contained in section 43 (1) of RFA 96. We expect to call out more reservists as the operation progresses.

  Recruitment
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recruitment and retention in the(a) (i) Coldstream Guards and (ii) Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters' Regiment and (b) (1) Royal Scots and (2) Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment. [20927]

  Mr. Ingram
  Recruitment to Infantry regiments is at about the same level this year as last. To the end of October 2001, the Army has recruited to just about 50 per cent. of target for all Infantry Divisions. Although retention data are not centrally collected at regimental level, indications are that recruitment to the specific regiments mentioned is satisfactory and on a par with last year.

  Retention in the Army overall is currently holding steady. We expect (and need) an acceptable level of outflow in order to achieve the required manning profile. The premature voluntary exit of other ranks has fallen to 6.1 per cent. over the last 12 months. The rate for officer outflow has remained steady at 4.4 per cent. This maintains the historically very good performance and is well below the peak experienced at the beginning of the 1990s.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what warnings about depleted uranium hazards have been given to(a) UK and other allied forces troops, (b) UK and international aid and media organisations and (c) civilian communities and military organisations likely to be exposed to depleted uranium contamination in Afghanistan. [20341]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: We are not aware that DU has been used in the current conflict by the Coalition, nor are we aware of any plans for it to be used. We have no information about the use of DU in previous conflicts in Afghanistan.

  In the event that it is used in future, suitable guidance will be available to UK deployed forces. It will be for other nations to take similar actions with their own forces as they see necessary. The Coalition will also liaise with the Afghan authorities and human relief agencies in the event that there is a need to issue guidance to the Afghan population.

  Whale Island, Portsmouth
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future occupancy of Whale Island, Portsmouth, with special reference to the(a) Royal Marines and (b) Royal Marine Band. [21413]

  Mr. Ingram
  The functions of the Headquarters Royal Marines, currently based on Whale Island, will be subsumed by the new, fully integrated Fleet Headquarters 536W
  which will be formed in the Portsmouth area in April 2002. The headquarters is planned to occupy purpose-built accommodation on Whale Island from the end of 2003.

  The band of Her Majesty's Royal Marines will remain located in Her Majesty's Naval Base Portsmouth.

  In addition, Whale Island will continue to be used as a site for Naval training.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to ensure sufficient soldiers, sailors and airmen are available to celebrate the Golden Jubilee in London. [21516]

  Mr. Ingram
  I can confirm that sufficient personnel will be available to meet the requirement.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Commonwealth troops are expected to participate in the London celebrations of Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how many participated in 1977. [21522]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. Similarly, no Commonwealth troops took part in the London celebrations for the Queen's Silver Jubilee in 1977.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military bands and (b) armed service personnel will participate in the London celebrations of Her Majesty's the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2001. [21524]

  Mr. Ingram
  Detailed planning for the London celebrations of the Queen's Golden Jubilee that will take place between 1 June and 4 June 2001, with particular reference to the armed forces, is still on-going, though the armed forces will play a significant role in the proceedings.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Commonwealth countries have been invited to send troops to participate in the London celebrations of Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [21523]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22012]

  Dr. Moonie
  The percentage of parliamentary questions replied to that received a holding answer in the last three sessions is as follows:

  Session dates

  Percentage of holding replies

  24 November 1998–11 November 1999

  21

  17 November 1999–30 November 2000

  21

  6 December 2000–14 May 2001

  21

  The percentages include replies that gave an undertaking to answer shortly or to write. It should be noted that some questions might have been answered in part and also gave an undertaking to write.

  Nuclear Transport
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the suspension of nuclear transport since the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September. [22150]

  Mr. Ingram
  The security arrangements for the transportation of Ministry of Defence nuclear materials, which take particular account of the threat of an attack by armed terrorists, have been kept under constant review since their inception. These security arrangements include a review of the threat prior to the movement of these materials and a mechanism to provide for a speedy decision to suspend the operation if it is deemed necessary to do so. Suspension has not been considered necessary since 11 September, although due account has been taken of the changed threat environment.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government have evidence that Iraq is in breach of United Nations resolutions on the(a) procurement, (b) possession and (c) manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. [19885]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  In their final report following withdrawal from Iraq in December 1998, UNSCOM noted that Iraq still retained a significant WMD capability. There have been no independent inspections since then. We assess that Iraq still has that capability. There is considerable circumstantial evidence that Iraq is engaged in a programme of rebuilding manufacturing facilities disabled by UNSCOM and those destroyed during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

  In line with exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, I cannot provide any fuller details of our knowledge of Iraq's current activities.

  Base Security
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he perceives a heightened risk of terrorist attack on private houses located adjacent to high security military bases; and what consideration he has made of whether proximity to high security military bases should be a consideration during the planning process. [19575]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  Threat and risk assessments are conducted on a regular basis and incorporate intelligence assessments together with a range of other factors. Police contingency planning, which gives priority to prevention, takes account of all types of threat.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff Passes
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to review the number of passes available to hon. Members for their staff following the recent changes in staffing levels consequent on the SSRB report; and if he will make a statement. [21400]
  538W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  I understand that the principles underlying the issue of photo-identity passes to Members' staff were considered by the Administration Committee on 14 November 2001 in the context of the recommendation of the SSRB report that hon. Members should be enabled to employ up to the equivalent of three full-time staff. I also understand that the Committee agreed that the current regulation approved by the House in 1989 whereby no hon. Member is entitled to apply for a photo-identity pass for more than three individual members of their personal staff may be interpreted to take account of job-share and part-time staff. The Commission has no plans to carry out a further review of the number of passes available to hon. Members for their staff at present.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if further discussions are to take place with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards regarding her continuation in office; and if he will make a statement. [21444]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission's intentions are as set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 18 October 2001,Official Report, column 1285W. Since then, the present Commissioner has indicated that she does not wish to enter the selection process.

  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what communication he has received from the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life regarding the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [21446]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Sir Nigel Wicks wrote on 29 November to Mr. Speaker as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission. Sir Nigel has placed the letter on the Committee on Standards in Public Life website.

  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when it is proposed for the Commission to next discuss the post of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; and if he will make a statement. [21445]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission will discuss this matter at its next meeting.

  Advisory Committee on Works of Art
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, who sits on the House of Commons Advisory Committee on Works of Art; when this Committee was established and who its Chairman is; if he will(a) publish the minutes of meetings of this body and (b) place them in the Library; how many times the Committee has met in the past two years; what plans he has to make the work of the Committee more public; what the criteria are for commissioning and purchasing artworks for the House; what the mechanisms are for consultation about purchasing policy; what steps (i) hon. Members and (ii) members of the public may take to nominate a particular work of art to be (A) purchased and (B) borrowed for display in the House; what is the value of works of art (1) on display and (2) in

  539W
  storage in the Parliamentary estate; and what is the value of purchases of artworks in each of the buildings that comprise the Parliamentary estate in each of the last three years. [20893]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I am informed that the Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art was established in 1956, in response to a report on works of art in the House of Commons by a committee chaired by Viscount Hinchingbrooke. Mr. Speaker appointed the following hon. Members to the current Advisory Committee on 11 July 2001:

  Mr. Tony Banks

  Mr. John Burnett

  Frank Cook

  Mr. Mark Fisher

  Mr. Robert Jackson

  Mr. Hugo Swire

  Mr. Michael Trend

  Derek Wyatt.

  The Committee elected Mr. Banks as Chairman at its meeting on 18 July 2001.

  Under the Committee's terms of reference, which have been endorsed by the Commission, the Committee shall:
  (a)advise Mr. Speaker on any matters relating to works of art in general which he might consider appropriate;
  (b)each year, approve the conservation and curatorial programme for the historic collection of works of art, furniture and frescoes etc;
  (c)consider the policy on the future of the collections and on the historic decorative interior and report from time to time to the Accommodation and Works Committee; and
  (d)at the request of the Domestic Committees, advise on proposed changes to the historic decorative interior of the Palace and other matters connected with the parliamentary estate.

  In addition, the expenditure of that part of the House of Commons: Administration Estimate for the acquisition of new works of art is delegated to the Committee.

  I am informed that the Committee has met on 11 occasions since 1 December 1999. It is not the Committee's practice to publish minutes of its meetings or place them in the Library. The Chairman is a member of the Accommodation and Works Committee and reports regularly to that Committee on the work of the Advisory Committee. I will invite the House of Commons Commission to consider what information could usefully be published in its annual report. The Committee is keen to make the content of the Permanent Collection of Works of Art more widely known both inside and outside Parliament. Press releases are issued to publicise important new acquisitions or the acceptance into the Collection of significant commissions.

  The Committee seeks to acquire for the Collection works of art which illustrate the history of Parliament, which are of outstanding artistic quality and which represent good value for money. The Committee seeks in particular to acquire representations of Prime Ministers and party leaders. Expert advice on the artistic and material quality of potential purchases is sought from the Honorary Advisers to the Committee, the Curator and his staff and, where appropriate, directors of relevant national institutions. The Chairman welcomes suggestions from
  540W
  hon. Members and from members of the public for purchases or loans. He wrote to all hon. Members in April this year inviting them to put forward suggestions for inclusion on a new acquisition list.

  No assessment has been made of the total market value of works of art on display in the parliamentary estate, but works in store are worth approximately £50,000. For the estate over the last three years the value of purchases was:

  Year

  £

  1998–99

  62,653

  1999–2000

  69,904

  2000–01

  60,046

  In addition, a special purchasing budget was approved for the House of Commons in respect of Portcullis House. Expenditure in the last three years was:

  Year

  £

  1998–99

  18,500

  1999–2000

  90,711

  2000–01

  99,823

WALES

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in(a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [22004]

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

  Days

  Correspondence answered

  Under 15

  2

  16–19

  0

  20–29

  1

  30–39

  0

  40 or more

  0

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by the Wales Office were the subject of a holding answer in the last three parliamentary sessions. [22017]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  1,345 questions were tabled for answer by my Department during the last three parliamentary sessions, of which 2.9 per cent. received a holding answer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many and what proportion of letters
  541W
  received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to (a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days; [18587]

  (2) how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in (a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [22003]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information is as follows:

  (a) in under 15 working days—21 letters—55 per cent.

  (b)in under 20 working days—six letters—16 per cent.

  (c)in under 30 working days—five letters—13 per cent.

  (d)in under 40 working days—three letters—8 per cent.

  (e)in over 40 working days—three letters—8 per cent.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many letters his Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18567]

  Dr. John Reid
  I received 38 letters from Members of Parliament in this period.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22021]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Police
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Police Reserve are stationed at each police station; and what percentage this represents of the total number of officers posted at these respective stations. [20373]

  Jane Kennedy
  Under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it would be inappropriate to comment.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to introduce the Airwave system of communication to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [20368]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans to introduce the Airwave system of communications to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. However, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is planning to procure its own digital trunked radio system in partnership with other emergency services in Northern Ireland.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many emblems were(a) produced and (b) published for consultation as the new badge for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [20269]
  542W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State commissioned a number of designers to come forward with a range of proposals. The process involved the development of a number of design concepts and themes. In all about seven different themes were explored.

  Seven illustrative designs were published to assist consultation on the draft Emblems and Flags Regulations.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will place the minutes of the Northern Ireland Police Authority in the public domain; what measures he has taken to ensure meetings of the PSNI Policing Board are open to the public; and how reports of Policing Board meetings will be published. [17759]

  Jane Kennedy
  Minutes of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland's meetings with the Chief Constable have been published since 1997 under the Authority's Code of Openness.

  Paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act requires the Policing Board to hold at least 10 public meetings each year. The first public board meeting was held on 7 November at the board's headquarters in Belfast.

  The board is currently establishing its committee structures and will formulate a policy on how reports of its meetings will be published.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average cost is per applicant to the new police service of Northern Ireland recruitment competition. [14048]

  Jane Kennedy
  The recruitment agent is contracted to run two recruitment competitions, with the costs spread across both competitions. It is not therefore possible to quantify the cost per applicant in the first competition alone.

  Stamp Duty
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria were used to identify the wards in Northern Ireland in which stamp duty will no longer be paid on properties up to the value of £150,000. [20372]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The qualifying areas were identified by reference to "Measures of Deprivation in Northern Ireland 2001".

  Paramilitary Violence
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on present levels of(a) terrorist violence and (b) community unrest. [18881]

  Jane Kennedy
  We continue to monitor the activities of all paramilitary groups who are on ceasefire. The loyalist UDA/UFF, and the LVF, were specified on 23 October, and a threat remains from disaffected elements within loyalism who continue with their campaign to disrupt the peace process. The ceasefires of
  543W
  the main republican paramilitary groups are believed to be holding though there is a significant threat from dissident republicans. Community tensions remain high throughout Northern Ireland, but more particularly, within interface areas in north Belfast where there have been ongoing sectarian attacks carried out by rival factions on both sides of the community.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  UK Caribbean Overseas Territories (HIV/AIDS)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 776W, if she will outline the conclusions reached at the CARICOM meeting held in St. Lucia in November regarding future HIV/AIDS prevention and mitigation programmes in (a) the Turks and Caicos, (b) the UK Virgin Islands, (c) Montserrat, (d) Anguilla and (e) US Virgin Islands of the Caribbean. [21390]

  Clare Short
  The CARICOM meeting held in St. Lucia last month focused on the revision of the Caribbean Regional Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS to take account of the outcome of the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS and the Nassau Declaration of the CARICOM Heads of Government meeting in July this year. It also discussed the need to develop an appropriate structure to co-ordinate the implementation of the Regional Strategic Plan. DFID has offered support to the CARICOM Secretariat in both of these areas. The St. Lucia meeting did not specifically discuss country level programmes.

  We are currently funding a £516,000 project with the Caribbean Regional Epidemiological Centre (CAREC) to strengthen HIV/AIDS/STD case management, support the development of behavioural, communications and information interventions for vulnerable groups, strengthen the management of national AIDS programmes and improve epidemiological surveillance in the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories. Montserrat, Anguilla, the British Virgin Island and the Turks and Caicos Islands are the primary beneficiaries of this project. The CAREC programme forms a key component of the Caribbean Regional Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS and a £1.7 million extension of our support, taking it to 2005, is currently being developed in collaboration with CAREC.

  Zimbabwe (Malnutrition)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of deaths from malnutrition in Zimbabwe in 2001; and if she will make a statement. [21519]

  Clare Short
  According to a national survey carried out by the Ministry of Health in 2000, 29 per cent. of children aged six months to six years were chronically malnourished. However, the situation is deteriorating. A recent World Food Programme assessment concluded that due to the combined effects of the highest incidence rate of HIV/AIDS in the world (35 per cent. of the population are infected), the deteriorating economic situation and reduction in food production, approximately 35 per cent. of the population, or about 700,000 people, now have inadequate income to procure sufficient food to meet 544W
  basic needs. The UK Government have committed £4 million to supplementary feeding programmes working through non-governmental channels.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by her Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [22024]

  Clare Short
  Over the last three Sessions of Parliament 20 per cent. of parliamentary questions put down to my Department have been the subject of a holding reply.

  New Partnership for African Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the New Partnership for African Development with regard to Togo. [20640]

  Clare Short
  The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) is an Africa-wide initiative that does not focus on specific countries. NEPAD has set up teams to work on five areas, which are capacity building on peace and security, economic and corporate governance, infrastructure, central bank and financial standards, and agriculture and market access. Togo is not a member of the NEPAD Steering Committee or Implementation Committee. If Togo implements the principles set out by NEPAD, it should also benefit from the faster progress in development and poverty reduction that will ensue.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the New Partnership for African Development in Nigeria. [20638]

  Clare Short
  The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), is an Africa-wide initiative, that does not focus on specific countries. Nigeria is one of the five members of the NEPAD Steering Committee, and therefore takes a leading role in NEPAD activities. NEPAD has set up teams to work on five areas, which are capacity building on peace and security, economic and corporate governance, infrastructure, central bank and financial standards, and agriculture and market access. Work on these areas should bring benefits to Nigeria, as it will to other countries in Africa.

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21332]

  Clare Short
  Days lost owing to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  9,276

  1998

  8,691

  1999

  9,276

  2000

  8,399

  545W

  China
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what terms and conditions her Department attaches to agreements with non-governmental organisations working in China in relation to(a) human rights and (b) family planning policy. [20972]

  Clare Short
  My Department is committed to a rights-based approach to development, based on three principles of participation, inclusion and obligation. We actively seek to promote this approach in all the work which we do anywhere in the world, including in China, and with all partners, including non-governmental organisations.

  UK assistance for reproductive health programmes anywhere in the world is provided in line with the principles of free and informed choice set out at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo in 1994. We provide a core contribution to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in order to support its work in some 140 countries, including China. It is a prerequisite for membership of the IPPF that affiliate family planning associations agree to provide information and services in line with ICPD principles.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people are employed by the Department under the New Deal for Young People; and at what cost to public funds. [21317]

  Clare Short
  One member of staff is employed by DFID under the New Deal for Young People. The costs to public funds in the current financial year is estimated to be £10,626.

  Africa Private Infrastructure Finance Facility
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work done by the Africa Private Infrastructure Finance Facility. [20657]

  Clare Short
  The Africa Private Infrastructure Finance Facility (APIFF) is due to be established by the end of December 2001. It is, therefore, not yet operational. The overall aim of APIFF will be to improve private sector delivery of infrastructure services in Sub-Saharan Africa, leading to economic growth and increased access for the poor.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the World Trade Organisation on increasing the representation of developing countries in the WTO. [20971]

  Clare Short
  We are in regular touch with the WTO on this issue, most recently on 7 December.

  The UK is in favour of the expansion of AITIC, the Swiss NGO which has been supporting resource-constrained WTO members since 1998, into a broader-based organisation with a wider mandate than at present. We worked closely on this with other donors in the run-up
  546W
  to the WTO Ministerial meeting at Doha. At the Ministerial, an important commitment was made by a range of beneficiaries and donors to establish a task force on AITIC' s future development. The first meeting took place on 7 December in Geneva. The WTO was represented. Some of the £1 million available from my Department to support countries which are under-represented in Geneva (which I announced on 7 November) might assist this work.

  We also hope that AITIC might take forward some of the constructive recommendations made by John Weekes' "Study on the Assistance and Representation needs of the Developing Countries without WTO Permanent Representation in Geneva" (published in August 2001), which my Department part-funded through the Commonwealth Secretariat.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [21241]

  Clare Short
  The level of wage costs within departmental budgets this year and in future years will be dependent upon negotiations. Departmental reports published next spring will give full retrospective costs.

  Togo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on reports of civil and political rights abuses in Togo. [20639]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  We deplore the present situation in Togo, where there have been grave human rights abuses.

  The European Community suspended aid to Togo in 1993. We are working closely with EU partners to maintain pressure on the Togolese Government to observe the principles of democracy and human rights. In October the EU issued a public statement raising its concerns about the deteriorating political atmosphere, stressing the need for the parliamentary elections scheduled for early 2002 to be held in a free and transparent manner, and calling for the unconditional release of an opposition party leader still held in detention.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  September 11
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families she has met of the victims of the 11 September events. [17201]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have been co-ordinating work to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place in the UK and US to support the families of UK victims and of those victims with close links to the UK. The present estimate is that 78 such families lost a relative. I have met many of them—here and in New York.
  547W

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many days were lost owing to sickness absence in her Department in each of the last four years. [21347]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is set out in the following table. The figures for the current year cover the period up to 30 November.

  Year

  Number of days absence

  1998

  3,127

  1999

  3,191

  2000

  3,599

  2001

  2,991

  Commonwealth Games Rugby Sevens
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has made to seek to ensure that the 2002 Commonwealth Games Rugby Sevens are open to teams from both codes of rugby; and if she will make a statement. [20977]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Decisions on the sports at the Games are taken by the Commonwealth Games Federation who agreed with the Commonwealth Games Council for England and the host organisers to include Rugby Sevens in Manchester next year.

  Rugby Sevens is governed in England by the Rugby Football Union. They set eligibility criteria in association with the international rugby union governing body. These restrict them to selecting the England team from members of affiliated clubs.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many civil servants have left her Department as a result of(a) voluntary, (b) statutory retirement, (c) dismissal and (d) employment outside the Civil Service in each of the last five years. [21388]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The information is set out in the table. The figures for the current year cover the period up to 30 November.

  Date

  Minister

  Country

  Purpose

  21 June 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Luxembourg

  EU Council of Ministers meeting on Culture and Audiovisual matters

  1–2 July 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Belgium

  EU Presidency Tourism Summit

  2–8 August 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Canada

  World Athletics Championships

  1–2 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Germany

  Germany v. England World Cup qualifier

  9–10 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Germany

  Opening of Berlin's Jewish Museum and meeting with Julian Nida-Rumelin

  26–27 September 2001

  Secretary of State

  USA

  Supporting British families of victims of September 11

  14–17 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  USA

  UKwithNY and supporting British families of victims of September 11

  27–28 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  USA

  Remembrance Service for victims of September 11

  30–31 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  France

  UNESCO World Heritage Committee elections

  548W

  Year

  Voluntary

  Statutory retirement

  Dismissal

  Employment outside civil service

  1997

  32

  2

  —

  15

  1998

  36

  5

  —

  18

  1999

  34

  4

  1

  16

  2000

  46

  3

  1

  19

  2001

  41

  2

  —

  16

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many civil servants have(a) transferred at their own request and (b) otherwise been transferred (i) from another Department to her Department, and (ii) from her Department to another Department, in each of the last five years. [21387]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The information is set out in the following table. The figures for the current year cover the period up to 30 November.

  Own request

  Been transferred

  Year

  to DCMS

  from DCMS

  to DCMS

  from DCMS

  1997

  6

  3

  —

  22

  1998

  3

  8

  —

  —

  1999

  4

  6

  —

  —

  2000

  4

  8

  —

  —

  2001

  9

  17

  46

  —

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which film showings(a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have attended in an official capacity since 8 June; and what was the (i)purpose and (ii) date of each attendance. [21378]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and I attended a showing of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" on 13 November 2001. In addition, my hon. Friend also attended a showing of Gas Attack on 3 October 2001 and the opening night gala screening of Gosford Park at the London Film Festival on 7 November 2001 and we have both attended the cinema in a private capacity.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which countries(a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have visited in an official capacity since 8 June; and what was the (i) purpose and (ii)date of the visits. [21380]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The information the hon. Gentleman requested is shown in the following table.
  549W

  Date

  Minister

  Country

  Purpose

  5 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Belgium

  EU Council of Ministers meeting on Culture and Audiovisual matters

  12 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Belgium

  EU Ministerial Conference on Sport

  23 November-1 December 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Canada/USA

  Promotion of UK Tourism and Creative Industries

  3 December 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Ireland

  Meeting with the Irish Prime Minister, to discuss the 2002 Irish Special Olympics

  Staff Training
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on opportunities for staff training in her Department. [21389]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: My Department has Investors in People accreditation and is committed to providing opportunities for staff development. Through the annual appraisal system staff identify their own training and development needs. Both formal and informal opportunities are provided for staff. Formal opportunities include bought-in training from bodies like the Government's Centre for Management and Policy Studies, and courses delivered by DCMS's in-house trainers. Informal opportunities include shadowing, secondments and coaching.

  Press Notices
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what determines(a) whether a press notice issued by her Department is placed on the Department's website and (b) how long a press notice issued by her Department remains on the Department's website. [21374]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Press notices publicising policy announcements and statements appear on the department's website www.culture.gov.uk. Operational notices, inviting the media to launches or events, are sent directly to the media and are not posted on the website. Press notices dating back to 1999 are archived on the website. Earlier releases are available from my department's Press Office.

  Yorkshire Cultural Consortium
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the cost of establishing the Yorkshire Cultural Consortium. [21438]

  Dr. Howells
  At 6 December 2001, the Yorkshire Cultural Consortium had spent £39,000 from the budget allocated to it by my Department. It has also been helped by a grant of £30,000 from Yorkshire Forward. Much of the money spent so far has gone towards the research and publication of the Consortium's strategy 'Deep Roots, Real Achievements, Lofty Ambitions' which was published on 13 November.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are employed by the Department under the New Deal for Young People; and at what cost to public funds. [21310]
  550W
  Dr. Howells
  There are currently no staff employed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under the New Deal for Young People.

  Announcements
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what announcements her Department is planning to make between 19 December and 8 January. [21375]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Final decisions on any announcements for this period will be taken nearer the time.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the process which resulted in Manchester City Football Club being chosen as the final occupier of the Commonwealth Games Stadium in Manchester. [21355]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: In order to secure the long term viability of the City of Manchester Stadium, a tenant was required to assume the operational risk and maintenance obligations, so that these would not fall on the public sector. Manchester City Football Club was identified as the only realistic long term tenant able to undertake that role. Manchester City Council and Sport England negotiated terms with Manchester City Football Club for the Club to operate the stadium after the Games. Those arrangements have been evaluated independently, on behalf of Sport England, who are satisfied that they comply with lottery funding rules.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of converting the Commonwealth Games Stadium in Manchester into a football stadium will be. [21351]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The cost of removing the athletics track, creating a football pitch and replacing the temporary north stand with a permanent facility is estimated to cost around £12 million.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the design of the Commonwealth Games Stadium in Manchester. [21350]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The City of Manchester stadium is being built in two phases.

  The first build phase, in preparation for the Commonwealth Games, is designed for athletics. Following the Commonwealth Games in 2002, in the second phase of building, the stadium is to be further

  551W
  developed into a football stadium. In both phases the stadium will provide high quality facilities for athletes and spectators.

  With the construction of the stadium in two phases the venue is made suitable first for the Commonwealth Games and then as a lasting legacy to Manchester as a football stadium. The stadium and other venues within the overall Sport City complex will provide facilities to support both elite athletes and facilities for community use, a key element in the regeneration of east Manchester.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the cost of(a) the Commonwealth Games Stadium, (b) the Manchester Commonwealth 50 Pool, (c) each other sporting facility and (d) each non-sporting facility to be used in the 2002 Commonwealth Games; and which bodies own each facility. [21353]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The information requested is as follows:

  Construction costs of sporting venues1

  £ million

  Venues

  Construction costs

  Owned by

  Stadium2

  110

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester Aquatics Centre3

  32.7

  Manchester 50 Pool Ltd.

  Heaton Park Bowls

  1.06

  Manchester City Council

  Belle Vue Hockey Pitches2

  3.2

  Manchester City Council

  English Institute of Sport2

  16.2

  Manchester City Council

  International Convention Centre4

  23.6

  G.Mex

  National Cycling Centre (complete 1993) 4

  10

  Velodrome Trust

  1 Projections for those not yet complete

  22 Projected costs

  3 Developed as a partnership between Council and three Manchester universities who made capital and revenue contributions to cost of project.

  44 Will be used, but not specifically built, for the Games.

  All the other venues to be used are listed and will be the subject of hire agreements between Manchester 2002 Ltd., the Commonwealth Games organisers, and the venue owner. Costs associated with the temporary works for the venues necessary for the Games are contained in the Games organisers' budget.

  Venues

  Owned by

  Other sporting venues to be used

  G-Mex Ltd.

  G-Mex

  SMG Ltd.

  MEN Arena

  Manchester University

  Athletes Village

  National Rifle Association, Bisley

  National Shooting Centre, Bisley

  UPP (Manchester Student Village) Ltd.

  Technical Officials Village

  Manchester City Council

  Wythenshawe Forum

  UMIST

  Manchester School of Management

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Bolton Arena

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rivington and Blackrod High School

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester Town Hall

  Lowry Trust

  Lowry Centre

  Peel Holdings

  Dock 9 Salford Quays

  Training Venues

  Sugden Centre

  UMIST

  Grand Central Pool

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  Ducie Sports Academy

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester Grammar School

  Manchester Grammar School

  552W

  Venues

  Owned by

  Salford Wrestling Academy

  The British Wrestling Association Ltd.

  Boggart Hole Clough

  Manchester City Council

  GMP Hough End

  Greater Manchester Police

  Northern Lawn Tennis Club

  Northern Lawn Tennis Club

  Wythenshawe Park

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester Leisure Sports Development Centre

  Manchester City Council

  Aquinas College

  Diocese of Shrewsbury

  Manchester Rugby Club

  Manchester Rugby Club

  Sale Sharks Rugby Club

  Sale Sharks Rugby Club

  Aldwinians Rugby Club

  Aldwinians Rugby Club

  Old Bedians Rugby Club

  Old Bedians Rugby Club

  Bumage Rugby Club

  Burnage Rugby Club

  Bowdon Hockey Club

  Bowdon Hockey Club

  Non-Competition Venues

  Openshaw Business Centre

  Manchester City Council

  Midland Hotel

  Holiday Inn

  Commonwealth House

  Bruntwood Properties

  Heron House

  Manchester City Council

  Commonwealth Games Village

  Manchester University

  Technical Officials Village

  Jarvis

  Bisley Village

  University of Surrey

  Mancat College

  Mancat

  Manchester High School for Girls

  Manchester High School for Girls

  Hollings College

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the secretary of state for culture, Media and Sports if she will make a statement on the 2002 Commonwealth Games and on the cost of its organisation. [21352]

  Mr. Carborn
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The commonwealth Games will be held in Manchester from 25 July to 4 August 2002. The games are organised by Manchester 2002 Limited, an operating subsidiary of Manchester Commonwelath Games Limited, a company limited by guarantee, which is wholly owned by Manchester City Council. Manchester City Council are underwriting the cost of the Commonwealth Games.

  The current budget of the Games organizers is£125 million. This is being funded by a combination of commercial revenue from TV rights, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing income and by public sector support from Manchester City Council, the Sports Lottery Fund and the Government.

  Manchester City Council is also meeting approximately million of additional human resource costs and expenses of preparing the City.

  The Government. Sport England and Manchester City Council have agreed to provide contingency funding of up to£25 millilon which would be available if necessary to meet unforeseen Games' costs.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the timing of the process of transferring the Commonwealth Games Stadium in Manchester from its current owners to Manchester City Football Club. [21354]

  Mr. Carborn
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: It anticipated that the transfer to Manchester City Football Club will be undertaken in time for the 2003–04 football season.
  553W

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received regarding changes in the(a) role, (b) organisation and (c) structure of the Railway Inspectorate. [21057]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has not directly received any representations for specific changes in the role, organisation or structure of HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI). These would be matters for the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to consider in the context of the wider deployment of HSE resources. Lord Cullen's Inquiry report made recommendations to the HSC which affect HMRI.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes in the(a) role and (b) terms of reference of the Railway Inspectorate within his Department have taken place since 1997; what changes are planned; and what consultations on such changes have (i) taken place since June and (ii) are planned. [21024]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The role and remit of the Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) within the Health and Safety Executive has not changed. HMRI continues to fulfil its role in ensuring the proper control by duty holders of risks to the health and safety of employees, passengers and others who might be affected by the operation of Britain's railways. Lord Cullen's Inquiry report made recommendations to the Health and Safety Commission which affect HMRI.

  Regulatory Impact Assessment Costs
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the gross cost was of the regulatory impact assessment for(a) the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001, (b) the Transportable Pressure Vessels Regulation 2001 and (c) the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) (Amendment) Regulations 2001. [17691]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These costs are shown in the published regulatory impact assessments which are in the House Libraries.

  Rail Investment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his Department's budget was for(a) payments to Railtrack and (b) investment in the rail infrastructure in 2001–02; and what the projected outturn is. [18935]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money(a) public and (b) private investment has provided for the railways in each year since privatisation of the railways. [21712]
  554W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on investment in railways is contained in the latest (September 2001) edition of the Strategic Rail Authority bulletin "National Rail Trends". All investment in the four years 1997–98 to 2000–01 was undertaken by the private sector.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much was Railtrack's most recent estimate of the network's infrastructure investment needs in Control Period 2 of 2001 to 2006; [18956]

  (2) what is the Government's most recent estimate of the network's infrastructure investment needs in Control Period 2 of 2001 to 2006; [18958]

  (3) how much money had been allocated to Railtrack for renewals, maintenance and operating expenses for Control Period 2 of 2001 to 2006 prior to administration. [18946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's 2001–02 budget for payments to Railtrack by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is £497 million, comprising £335 million for network grant payable under the 2 April agreement between the Government and Railtrack and £162 million for network grant in respect of the (October 2000) final conclusions of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of access charges. Projected outturn is £498.6 million, the £1.6 million variation from budget reflecting an allowance for inflation under the 2 April agreement.

  While my Department has no 2001–02 budget for direct investment in rail infrastructure, its budget for SRA payments of network grant to Railtrack and of Support for Passenger Services (SPRS) to train operating companies (TOCs) takes account of the Regulator's review. That review set the level of passenger access charges to be paid to Railtrack by TOCs, most of which receive SPRS. Much of Railtrack's infrastructure investment is remunerated through access charges, which provided some 85 per cent. of Railtrack's income last year.

  It is difficult in practice to distinguish between investment in renewals and maintenance and investment in enhancement. The Regulator's review set passenger access charges at a level designed to enable Railtrack to increase both types of investment expenditure. The Ten Year Plan for Transport, published in July 2000, provided for extra expenditure on both types of investment. The SRA's Strategic Plan, to be published shortly, will set out the SRA's plans for delivering the Ten Year Plan targets within the levels of funding provided for in the Ten Year Plan.

  Information about the network grant allocated to Railtrack for the management and provision of assets in Control Period 2 (CP2, 2001–06) is contained in the answer I have given today (PQ 18947).

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on how the(a) Government and (b) Railtrack administrator will replace the £445 million due to be raised by Railtrack as part of the Renewco arrangement. [18951]
  555W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The cash requirements of Railtrack in administration are being financed by a loan from Government.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what payments were made from(a) the Treasury, (b) his Department, (c) the SRA and (d) the Rail Regulator to Railtrack between 1996 and 5 October 2001; and if he will list the dates on which these payments were made and what they were for. [18948]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between 1996 and 5 October 2001, no payments were made to Railtrack by the Treasury or the Rail Regulator. For payments made by my Department, and for payments of network grant made by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 26 October 2001,Official Report, columns 424–25W. Between 1 April and 5 October 2001, the SRA paid some £24 million to Railtrack for feasibility work.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date Railtrack formally requested additional investment funding from the Government above the amounts in the Regulator's most recent review. [18955]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the course of discussions over the summer, Railtrack's advisers first identified three options for the company—restructuring, renationalisation and, as they described it, receivership. It was agreed that Railtrack would develop proposals for the additional finance the company required and possible restructuring. Under these proposals, Railtrack requested additional uncapped subsidy from the Government, and a suspension of the regulatory regime administered by the Rail Regulator.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what payments were scheduled to be made to Railtrack from 5 October until 5 April 2006, from(a) the Treasury, (b) his Department, (c) the SRA and (d) the Rail Regulator; and if he will list the dates on which these payments were due to be made and what they were for. [18947]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between 5 October 2001 and 5 April 2006, no payments are scheduled to be made to Railtrack by the Treasury or the Rail Regulator. Apart from repayable cash advances made since 7 October 2001 to Railtrack in administration under the Loan Agreement, no payments are scheduled to be made by my Department. For payments of network grant to be made by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in respect of the (October 2000) final conclusions of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of access charges, I refer to Appendix D of those conclusions.

  Under the 2 April 2001 agreement between the Government and Railtrack, the SRA is scheduled to make the following payments of network grant to the company on the following dates:

  £ million1,2

  Due payment date

  Amount

  1 April 2002

  217.5

  1 October 2002

  217.5

  1 April 2003

  142.5

  1 October 2003

  142.5

  1 April 2004

  117.5

  556W

  £ million1,2

  Due payment date

  Amount

  1 October 2004

  117.5

  1 April 2005

  77.5

  1 October 2005

  77.5

  1 In 2000–01 prices.

  2 Payments from 1 April 2003 onwards are to be increased by an adjustment for freight access income. The size of the adjustment to each payment will be one-sixth of the difference between the total amount of freight income allowed for in the second regulatory control period in the Regulator's final conclusion on passenger charges and that to emerge from the Regulator's freight charging review.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date his Department last discussed Railtrack administration with(a) the Treasury and (b) the No. 10 Policy Unit. [18936]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has regular contacts with the Treasury and the No. 10 Policy Directorate on a range of issues.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what cash(a)guarantees and (b) sums have been made available to the administrator of Railtrack plc. [19424]

  Mr. Spellar
  On the question of cash made available to the administrator, I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to him of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 388W. The administrator is obliged to use reasonable endeavours to procure commercial bank facilities to refinance all outstanding advances under the Loan Agreement. The commercial bank facilities will be guaranteed by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which senior executive positions in Railtrack are(a) vacant and
  (b)undergoing change of personnel. [19960]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack plc is a private company in railway administration. This is a matter for the Administrator.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what liabilities Railtrack plc has incurred for poor performance since 5 October. [19958]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a commercial matter between Railtrack and train operating companies.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average earnings were of Railtrack directors in(a) salary, (b) bonuses and (c) additional payments in each year between 1996–97 and 2000–01. [19495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The table provide information on the average remuneration of Railtrack directors based on information available in Railtrack's annual reports and accounts, 1996–97 to 2000–01. The averages are calculated and presented separately for executive and non-executive directors.

  (i) Average payments to the chairman and executive directors (termed executive directors for ease of reference) are provided in table 1.
  557W

  Table 1: Payments to executive directors

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Average1

  Salaries

  1,375

  158

  180

  204

  224

  Other emoluments including benefits in kind

  16

  11

  10

  11

  26

  Other performance related bonus payments

  48

  49

  28

  23

  15

  Pension scheme contributions

  19

  34

  12

  11

  9

  1 This average divides payments to executive directors by the number of executive directors serving that year. The number of executive directors used to calculate the average has been pro-rated to take account of directors who did not serve a full year

  (ii) In addition to the payments detailed, the compensation paid in each financial year to executive directors who resigned prior to or during the financial year is provided in table 2. Because it is only directors who lose office who receive payments, the table presents total payments and the number of individuals receiving compensation rather than providing an average based on the total number of directors in service in the year.

  Table 2: Compensation in respect of loss of office

  Compensation in respect of loss of office (£000)

  Number of directors compensated

  1996–97

  292

  1

  1997–98

  335

  3

  1998–99

  309

  2

  1999–2000

  153

  1

  2000–01

  594

  2

  (iii) Average fees paid to non-executive directors are provided in table 3:

  Table 3: Fees paid to non-executive directors

  Average (£000)1

  Fee2

  1996–97

  15

  1997–98

  19

  1998–99

  21

  1999–2000

  31

  2000–01

  32

  1. This average divides payments to non-executive directors by the number of non-executive directors serving that year. The number of non-executive directors used to calculate the average has been pro-rated to take account of directors who did not serve a full year.

  2 More detailed figures are not provided in Railtrack's annual reports and accounts.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether Mr. John Robinson asked him for a letter of comfort for Railtrack at the meeting on 25 July. [20420]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the supplementary note of the meeting of 25 July, which was provided to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport. Local Government and Regional Affairs and which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy that the company limited by guarantee he is proposing for Railtrack will seek to include property management as part of its core business. [21046]
  558W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A team is being assembled to take forward to develop the CLG bid. It will put forward proposals to the Administrator in due course.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the expenditure(a) planned and (b) allocated by Railtrack plc on (i) office costs, (ii) expense accounts, (iii) entertainment budgets, (iv) workforce training, (v) staff promotion costs, (vi) information technology costs and (vii) other administration costs, for each month from January 2000 to November 2001. [21035]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold this information. These are matters for Railtrack.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what amounts have been repaid to date under section 7.2 of the commercial loan agreement with the Railtrack administrator. [21490]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A total of £20,107,776 has been repaid.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guarantees he has made to the Railtrack administrator under section 9.1 of the commercial loan agreement. [21482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No guarantees have been given to date.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made by the Railtrack administrator in refinancing the facilities set out in the commercial loan agreement, as outlined in section 7.1.3. [21489]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the administrator.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Railtrack administrator has sought consents under section 8.1.2 of the commercial loan agreement. [21488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the trust facility outlined in section 2.1 of the commercial loan facility with the Railtrack administrator has been drawn down. [21494]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A total of £1,208,287,305.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the working capital facility referred to in section 2.2 of the commercial loan ageement with the Railtrack administrator has been drawn down. [21493]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.
  559W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government have fulfilled its obligations under section 5.6 of the commercial loan agreement with the Railtrack administrator. [21492]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes.

  Railways
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with(a) the Strategic Rail Authority and (b) Railtrack regarding the Virgin cross country upgrade, as outlined in the 2001 Network Management Statement Part 1, Chapter 9, page 13. [20091]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the importance of the railways to an integrated transport strategy, with particular reference to integration at a regional level. [21745]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Improving the quality of our rail system and increasing its use, by both passengers and freight, is an integral part of our 10 Year Plan for Transport. The Plan aims to deliver improvements across all modes of transport, at national, regional and local levels.

  Achieving our target of increasing rail passenger patronage by 50 per cent. by 2010, and rail freight by up to 80 per cent., would help to relieve the growing pressure on our roads, and contribute to the reductions in congestion and pollution that the Plan envisages.

  At the regional level, the Government's guidance on Regional Transport Strategies emphasises the importance of integration in supporting more sustainable travel choices. The programme of multi-modal studies currently under way, covering most of our main transport corridors and bottlenecks, is also taking an integrated approach and examining a full range of possible solutions in each case. The programme for replacement and extension of existing rail franchises invites bidders to offer proposals for local and regional integration, and the draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority reinforce this aim. The Rail Passenger Partnership scheme also exists to provide financial support for local and regional initiatives to improve integration of rail with other modes.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the importance of diversionary routes for the rail network. [21736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Diversionary routes are clearly important in providing alternatives where disruption occurs. Franchise agreements require train operating companies to use all reasonable endeavours to provide alternative transport where services cannot run as advertised, for which diversionary routes are one possible solution.

  Back Lanes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason unnamed back lanes are excluded from 560W
  highways data for the purposes of calculating standard spending assessments; and when this exclusion was introduced.[20103]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Back lanes, unnamed or otherwise, should have always been excluded from the data used in SSAs. The same is true of other public ways such as Byways Open to All Traffic, bridleways, footpaths, green lanes and unsurfaced roads. This is on the basis that this group of rights of way take very little or no traffic relative to major and minor roads.

  Some authorities have, in the past, erroneously, included some of these rights of way in their highway returns to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what performance indicators on the London Underground are routinely monitored by his Department. [20114]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department routinely monitors progress towards achievement of the Government's performance and investment targets for 2001–02 that I announced to the House on 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 367W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many signal failures there have been on the District line since 1 January between Earls Court and Wimbledon. [20117]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me that there were 117 signal failures causing delays to services on the District line between Earl's Court and Wimbledon between the 1 January and the 10 November this year.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether London Underground holds an up-to-date register of its assets.[20122]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that London Underground holds a register of its assets, in which assets are categorised according to their condition. Under the tube modernisation plans the infrastructure companies will be required to bring all assets up to a satisfactory condition.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many mechanical failures there have been on District line trains since 1 January. [20125]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me that between 1 January and 10 November there were 31 train delays of over 15 minutes and 103 peak time cancellations of District line trains because of train defects.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much investment has been made in the London Underground, excluding Jubilee Line construction, in each year since 1995. [20116]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) to the hon.
  561W
  Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 23W. The actual level of investment in 2000–01 was set out in London Transport's annual report 2000–01, published in July of this year.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when a detailed survey was last carried out (1) of London Underground's tunnels; and if he will make a statement; [20770]

  (2) into the condition of London Underground's signalling; and if he will make a statement. [20769]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. In many areas London Underground infrastructure is old and of varied condition. Frequently, assets are in need of replacement or renewal. London Underground inform me that they carry out a regular and ongoing programme of inspections and surveys of tunnels, signals, and track. All tunnels are thoroughly inspected several times each week to identify any track defects.

  Should any assets be found to be in a condition which has a possible safety implication, then remedial action is taken immediately or if that is not possible, mitigating measures are taken to ensure safe operation, for example, the imposition of a speed restriction. Where necessary, more extensive and/or frequent surveys are undertaken to ensure that no further deterioration takes place before a long-term solution can be implemented. Under London Underground's tube modernisation plans, bidders will have the resources to implement these long-term solutions more quickly than London Underground itself can at present.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what measures he proposes to tackle graffiti on the London Underground; and what account is taken of graffiti in the formulae relevant to the calculation of environmental ambience; [20963]

  (2) what minimum measurements apply to (a) litter and (b) graffiti for qualification for inclusion in the periodic surveys of the ambience of London Underground stations and trains conducted by mystery shoppers. [20964]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 December 2001,Official Report, columns 442–43W.

  Railway Stations (Electronic Ticket Barriers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent crowd safety assessments have taken place at the London railway stations that have had electronic ticket barriers installed(a) before and (b) since the barriers were installed; and if he will make a statement. [20624]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that prior to barriers being installed, a full risk assessment must be submitted to the HSE and the station operator who is installing the gates must carry out an operational safety assessment. Operation of the gates is assessed as part of the operational safety cases during field inspection. The gates must operate in such a way that they will be powered down, ie set to open, if unattended. There are now many 562W
  gates in operation and I understand that there have been no significant safety concerns as a consequence of their use.

  M58
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the total public investment in the M58 motorway since 1985; and how much of that investment was subject to European Union subsidy. [20651]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Peter Duncan, dated 10 December 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the total public investment in the M58 motorway since 1985.
  I am afraid that our records are not kept in a form which allows us to provide this information.
  The total spend includes monies for routine and winter maintenance which we pay to our agents in bulk: the sums are not disaggregated to individual roads. I can say however that between 1992 and 1995 we spend £10.5M on major maintenance schemes on this section of motorway.
  This investment was funded by the Agency and its predecessor through the national roads vote. We can find no record of an EU grant having been received towards the cost of these works.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful but if you would like any further information about this matter, the Agency's Route Manager for the M58, Roy Wood, would be pleased to help you. His telephone number is 0161 930 5686.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many pensioner households(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in London and (c) in Barnet are (i) in receipt of housing benefit and (ii) not now eligible for housing benefit, but will become eligible as a consequence of formula rents (x) in 2002–03 and (y) in 2011; and if he will make a statement. [20843]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of pensioners in May 2000 in Great Britain who were in receipt of housing benefit was 1,693,000 and in London was 215,000. Reliable information on the numbers of pensioners receiving housing benefit is not available at local authority level. The other information is not available.

  Rents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many tenants in(a) registered social landlords and (b) local authority property in (i) London and (ii) Barnet will see their rents lower in real terms after completion of restructuring in 2011; and if he will make a statement. [20848]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available in the form requested. In particular, the rate of increase of actual registered social landlord and local authority rents over the next 10 years will depend, among other things, on the outcome of future Spending Reviews (for local authority
  563W
  rents) and periodic reviews by the Housing Corporation (for registered social landlord rents). Moreover, individual landlords retain responsibility for rent-setting.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to adjust housing benefit thresholds and caps in the light of formula rent increases in(a) London and (b) Barnet; and if he will make a statement. [20841]

  Ms Keeble
  Rent restructuring will have no impact on more than 60 per cent. of council and registered social landlord tenants who received housing benefit as their housing benefit will be adjusted to reflect the changes in their rents. Furthermore, rent restructuring will have no direct impact on housing benefit rules for private sector tenants.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect of formula rents on housing benefit expenditure in(a) the UK, (b) London and (c) Barnet for (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2011; and if he will make a statement. [20840]

  Ms Keeble
  Our initial estimates suggest that the overall impact of the social rent reforms on public expenditure is broadly neutral, taking account of housing benefit expenditure, local authority rental income and the grant requirements for new developments.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to what extent formula rents after restructuring will be(a) inclusive and (b) exclusive of management and maintenance charges; and if he will make a statement. [20844]

  Ms Keeble
  The "Guide to Social Rent Reforms" published by my Department at the same time as the December 2000 housing policy statement "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—the way forward for housing" stated that formula rents under restructuring do not include service charges for items such as management and maintenance.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) registered social landlords and (b) local authority tenants (i) in the United Kingdom, (ii) in London and (iii) in Barnet (1) (x) are and (y) are not in receipt of housing benefit, (2) will become eligible for housing benefit as a consequence of the introduction of formula rents in 2002–03 and (3) will become eligible for housing benefit as a consequence of the introduction of formula rent by 2011; and if he will make a statement. [20842]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of tenants in receipt of housing benefit in May 2001 in the registered social landlord (RSL) sector in Great Britain was 988,000 and the number in local authority housing was 2,131,000. In the London Government Office Region 167,000 RSL tenants were in receipt of housing benefit, as were 313,000 local authority tenants. In the London borough of Barnet 7,889 local authority tenants were in receipt of housing benefit, but the number of RSL tenants in Barnet in receipt of housing benefit is unavailable. The other information is not available.
  564W

  Aston Clinton Bypass
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the expected reduction in vehicle movements through Aston Clinton that will result from the construction of the bypass there. [21239]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. John Bercow, dated 10 December 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the expected reduction in vehicle movements through Aston Clinton that will result from the construction of the bypass.
  The bypass will remove approximately 70% of the current through traffic on the A41 through the village. The north-south movement on the local route between Leighton Buzzard and Wendover would continue to use part of the existing A41 in the village.
  The contract for the construction of the bypass was let in March 2001 although the start of works on site was delayed until August 2001 due to Foot and Mouth precautions. Construction is due to be completed in the Summer of 2003.
  If you would like further details of this scheme the Project Manager in our Dorking office, Andy Finch would be pleased to help you. He can be contacted on 01306–878342.

  Bus Safety
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 27W, if he will simplify the criteria for determining the number of persons permitted to stand on scheduled buses. [21017]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to his question on 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 137W. The recent agreement in the EU for a common standard for the construction of buses will lead to a change in the way the numbers of permitted standing passengers is calculated. I do not intend to introduce changes in advance of the introduction of this directive in the UK as it will cause unnecessary disruption to bus manufacturers and operators.

  Traffic Links (West Sussex)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from the South East Economic Development Agency regarding traffic links in West Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [21115]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) is however represented on the Steering Group of the South Coast Corridor Multi Modal Study. This study is looking at strategic transport issues along the whole of the south coast including West Sussex, and SEEDA feed in their views via this forum.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are taken to ensure that the views of local economic development
  565W
  agencies and other stakeholders are given due weight in the provision of new roads and bypasses; and if he will make a statement. [21116]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All stakeholders including local and regional economic agencies are able to comment at the various statutory stages in the development of a road scheme. These include preferred route, order publication and, if necessary, public inquiry. All parties are also free to comment at the consultation stages of the series of multi-modal and road based studies being undertaken to consider transport problems associated with the trunk road network. Regional development agencies will normally be represented on study steering groups or in the wider reference groups from whom comments are specifically sought. They may also comment at the public consultation stages of regional planning guidance when the regional transport strategies are being considered.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what his criteria are for areas affected by traffic congestion to be addressed by using fast track procedures for building roads and bypasses; and if he will make a statement; [21113]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the process to be followed in order to designate a road scheme under the fast track procedure. [21114]

  Current train operating company

  Original franchise commencement date

  Length of original franchise

  Original franchise expiry date

  Original franchisee

  Changes since original franchise commencement date

  Anglia Railways

  5 January 1997

  7 years 3 months

  4 April 2004

  GB Railways Group plc

  —

  Arriva Trains Merseyside

  19 January 1997

  7 years 2 months

  18 March 2004

  MTL Trust Holdings Ltd.

  Previously Merseyrail Electrics. Arriva acquired the franchise from MTL in February 2000 for a period of 12 months on existing terms. An extension agreement was signed in February 2001 for a further two years

  Arriva Trains Northern

  2 March 1997

  7 years 1 month

  1 April 2004

  MTL Trust Holdings Ltd.

  Previously Regional Railways North East and then Northern Spirit. Arriva acquired the franchise from MTL in February 2000 for a period of 12 months on existing terms. An extension agreement was signed in February 2001 for a further two years.

  Cardiff Railway

  13 October 1996

  7 years 6 months

  12 April 2004

  Prism Rail

  The takeover of Prism by National Express Group was agreed on 17 January 2001.

  Central Trains

  2 March 1997

  7 years 1 month

  1 April 2004

  National Express Group

  —

  Chiltern Railways

  21 July 1996

  7 years

  20 July 2003

  M40 Trains Ltd.

  Heads of Terms signed in August 2000 for a new 20-year franchise with M40 Trains. New franchise agreement currently being negotiated.

  Connex South Central

  26 May 1996

  7 years

  25 May 2003

  Connex Rail Ltd. (renamed Connex Transport UK Ltd.)

  Transferred to GoVia on 26 August 2001. New 20-year franchise agreement being negotiated with GoVia.

  Connex South Eastern

  13 October 1996

  15 years

  12 October 2011

  Connex Rail Ltd. (renamed Connex Transport UK Ltd.)

  —

  C2C

  26 May 1996

  15 years

  25 May 2011

  Prism Rail

  Formerly known as LTS Rail. The takeover of Prism by National Express Group was agreed on 17 January 2001.

  Gatwick Express

  28 April 1996

  15 years

  27 April 2011

  National Express Group

  —

  Great Eastern

  5 January 1997

  7 years 3 months

  4 April 2004

  FirstGroup PLC

  —

  Great North Eastern Railway

  28 April 1996

  7 years

  27 April 2003

  GNER Holdings Ltd.

  Two-year extension being negotiated.

  566W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The new Highways Agency procurement strategy, which I announced on 22 November 2001, will speed up delivery of improvement schemes on motorways and other strategic roads in England. This will be achieved through streamlining the pre-construction phase and better procurement techniques and help to deliver the targets from the 10 Year Plan for Transport. This should significantly cut the 12 years it typically takes at present to deliver these schemes.

  The package of measures, announced by the Secretary of State in this House on 20 July 2001, to speed up decisions on major infrastructure projects of major national significance, are expected to apply, in respect of highway projects, to the construction of a new route in excess of 30 kilometres in continuous length. This criterion and the process to be followed to designate schemes are subject to consultation before coming into force.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will state, for each train operating company,(a) when the franchise was first renewed, (b) the length of the original franchise awarded, (c) the dates on which the franchise has since been awarded, (d) when the franchise is next due to be awarded and (e) details of changes in the ownership which have taken place since the franchise was first awarded. [21051]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as listed.
  567W

  Current train operating company

  Original franchise commencement date

  Length of original franchise

  Original franchise expiry date

  Original franchisee

  Changes since original franchise commencement date

  Great Western

  4 February 1996

  10 years

  3 February 2006

  Great Western Holdings Ltd.

  FirstGroup plc acquired Great Western Holdings Ltd. in March 1998.

  Island Line

  13 October 1996

  5 years

  12 October 2001

  Stagecoach Holdings

  Two-year extension until 27 September 2003 agreed in March 2001.

  Midland Main Line

  28 April 1996

  10 years

  27 April 2006

  National Express Group

  Two-year extension agreed on 10 August 2000

  North Western

  2 March 1997

  7 years 1 month

  1 April 2004

  Great Western Holdings Ltd.

  FirstGroup plc. acquired Great Western Holdings Ltd. in March 1998

  ScotRail

  31 March 1997

  7 years

  30 March 2004

  National Express Group

  —

  Silverlink

  2 March 1997

  7 years 6 months

  1 September 2004

  National Express Group

  Formerly known as North London Railways

  South West Trains

  4 February 1996

  7 years

  3 February 2003

  Stagecoach Holdings plc

  Heads of Terms signed in April 2001 for a new franchise for up to 20 years with Stagecoach Holdings. New franchise agreement currently being negotiated.

  Thames Trains

  13 October 1996

  7 years 6 months

  12 April 2004

  Victory Railway Holdings

  In June 1998 it was agreed that Go-Ahead Group plc would take over from Victory Railway Holdings

  Thameslink

  2 March 1997

  7 years 1 month

  1 April 2004

  GoVia plc

  —

  Virgin Cross Country

  5 January 1997

  15 years

  4 January 2012

  Virgin Rail Group Ltd.

  —

  Virgin West Coast Trains

  9 March 1997

  15 years

  8 March 2012

  Virgin Rail Group Ltd.

  —

  Wales and West

  13 October 1996

  7 years 6 months

  12 April 2004

  Prism Rail

  Previously South Wales and West. The takeover of Prism by National Express Group was agreed on 17 January 2001.

  West Anglia Great Northern

  5 January 1997

  7 years 3 months

  4 April 2004

  Prism Rail

  The takeover of Prism by National Express Group was agreed on 17 January 2001.

  Notes:

  1.The Shadow SRA announced in June 2000 its intention to develop new franchises for Wales and Borders and Wessex. The SRA announced on 15 February 2001 that it had shortlisted four parties for negotiations to select a preferred operator for a new Wales and Borders franchise. On 2 March 2001 it announced that it had prequalified seven parties to prepare proposals for a new Wessex franchise.

  2.The SRA will announce in due course how it will respond to the Secretary of State's recent draft statement on passenger rail franchising. Although the statement emphasises the importance of delivering short term benefits—essentially through existing franchises—as well as longer term improvements for passengers, this does not mean that there will be no early franchise replacements; it does not rule out the proposed Wessex and Wales and Borders franchises. The SRA will, however, consider all the options for delivering benefits to passengers, and take a realistic view about affordability and what represents value for money.

  3.The 'Wales and Borders' managerial unit will consist of Valley Lines' services and Wales and West services within Wales and to some English destinations. Discussions are continuing with National Express Group on an early transfer of services within Mid-Wales (from Central Trains) to the new Wales and Borders management unit. Services in North Wales will currently continue to be operated by First North Western.

  4.The 'Wessex Trains' managerial unit will consist of Wales and West services not transferring to Wales and Borders. London Waterloo-Exeter services and Reading-Brighton services will currently continue to be operated by South West Trains.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many different types of rolling stock were operated by each train operating company in each year since 1994; and in what year each rolling stock type was due to be replaced. [21052]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, I have placed in the Library of the House information on the different types of rolling

  Vehicles ordered, by train operating company, since 1 January 1994

  Total number of vehicles ordered

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Train operating company

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  Anglia Railways

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  —

  Arriva Trains Northern1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  c2c2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  184

  —

  —

  Central Trains

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  —

  Chiltern Railways

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Connex South Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  120

  —

  —

  568W
  stock currently in use by each train operator. This excludes Mark 1 slam door vehicles which are required to be removed from the network by 1 January 2005.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will state the(a) number and (b) type of new rolling stock ordered in each year since 1994 for each train operating company. [21050]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is provided in the table.
  569W

  Vehicles ordered, by train operating company, since 1 January 1994

  Total number of vehicles ordered

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Train operating company

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  First Great Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First Great Western3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  First North Western4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  Gatwick Express

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64

  Midland Main Line

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  —

  Scotrail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  120

  South Central5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West Trains

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  120

  —

  —

  Virgin Cross Country

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  352

  —

  Virgin West Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  34

  424

  545

  392

  0

  0

  12

  458

  937

  Vehicles ordered, by train operating company, since 1 January 1994

  Total number of vehicles ordered

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Totals

  Train operating company

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  DMU

  EMU

  Total

  Anglia Railways

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  0

  24

  Arriva Trains Northern1

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  0

  56

  56

  c2c2

  —

  —

  —

  112

  —

  —

  0

  296

  296

  Central Trains

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  0

  76

  Chiltern Railways

  10

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  39

  0

  39

  Connex South Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  210

  210

  First Great Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  84

  0

  84

  84

  First Great Western3

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  0

  70

  First North Western4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  70

  70

  Gatwick Express

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  64

  64

  Midland Main Line

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  44

  0

  44

  Scotrail

  27

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  78

  120

  198

  South Central5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  0

  240

  240

  South West Trains

  —

  —

  16

  —

  —

  785

  16

  905

  921

  Virgin Cross Country

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  352

  0

  352

  Virgin West Coast

  —

  477

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  477

  477

  Totals

  67

  477

  31

  120

  10

  1,109

  699

  2,522

  3,221

  544

  151

  1,119

  3,221

  1 Formerly Northern Spirit

  2 Formerly LTS Rail

  3 Formerly Great Western Trains

  4 Formerly North Western Trains

  5 Formerly Connex South Central

  Notes:

  DMU—Diesel Multiple unit

  EMU—Electric Multiple unit

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on arrangements for the(a) renewal and (b) replacement of rolling stock by train operating companies. [21048]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Opportunities exist for the refurbishment of existing rolling stock or the introduction of new rolling stock to be taken forward as part of any franchise extension or replacement proposal submitted to the Strategic Rail Authority. Train operating companies and rolling stock companies are free to place orders for new rolling stock in addition to any required under any such franchise extension or replacement proposals.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions 570W
  he has had with the ROSCOs on how the supply of new rolling stock can be speeded up. [21738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been regular ministerial discussions with rolling stock manufacturers concerning the timely delivery of new rolling stock. These discussions will continue. The Strategic Rail Authority is also setting up a pan-industry group specifically to address rolling stock issues. There will be ROSCO representation on that group.

  Rail Industry Confidential Reporting System
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans there are to develop the CIRAS confidential reporting system within the railway industry. [21074]
  571W
  Mr. Jamieson
  All train operators confirmed that they had enrolled their safety critical staff in CIRAS by the end of 2000. Train operators are developing procedures for reviewing reports and responding to reports made.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Strategic Rail Authority is due to publish its strategic plan. [21056]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has announced that it will publish its Strategic Plan on Monday 14 January.

  Rail Fatigue Damage
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the length of track on the railway network suffering from gauge corner cracking was for each month between January 2000 and November 2001(a) in total, (b) subdivided by zonal area and (c) subdivided by train operating company area. [21038]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack advise that information is not held in this format.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of research conducted into gauge corner cracking; and what action he has taken in response to the conclusions reached. [21040]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive recently received copies of a report into a major piece of research into 'Head Checking' (the general term for the type of rail fatigue damage of which Gauge Corner Cracking is a particular type) carried out for Railtrack jointly by specialist consultants Ove Arup and TTCI. HSE is currently undertaking a detailed evaluation of the report's findings. The initial evaluation indicates that the report makes a very useful contribution to improving the understanding of the factors that influence the occurrence of 'Head Checking'. It would be inappropriate for any formal actions to be taken until HSE's evaluation is completed.

  Supporting People Strategy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the breakdown of funding to local authorities under the Supporting People Strategy is. [20916]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  A40, Ross-on-Wye
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the (a) original budget and (b) final cost of the traffic light installation on the A40 at Lea, Ross-on-Wye; and if he will make a statement on who audits the accounts. [21220]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.
  572W
  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 10 December 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent question about the budget and final cost of the traffic light installation on the A40 Trunk Road at Lea, Ross-on-Wye.
  The traffic signals at Lea are part of a package of traffic calming measures for the village that were completed earlier this year. The original budget for the signals was £133,000 but the final costs have yet to be finalised and should be available next month. Auditing of the Highways Agency's accounts is undertaken by the National Audit Office, as with all government departments.
  In view of your interest, I have asked the Agency's Project Sponsor, Tom Barry, to write to you with details as soon as the final costs of the signal installation are known. He can be contacted on 0121 678 8072.

  Regional Airports
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of United Kingdom air passengers used (a) Manchester Airport Group, (b) Peel airports and (c) Leeds Bradford airport, for the last year for which figures are available. [21455]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Based upon CAA statistics for 2000, 11.9 per cent. of total UK airport terminal and transit passengers used Manchester Airport Group airports (Bournemouth, East Midlands, Humberside and Manchester. 1.1 per cent. used Peel Group airports (Liverpool and Sheffield) and 0.9 per cent. used Leeds Bradford airport.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the use of public funds by Manchester airport to oppose the proposed airport at Finningley, Doncaster. [21433]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is open to anybody to object to a planning application, and it is reasonable to expect objections from anybody who considers that their interests would be damaged by an application. This ensures that the public inquiry can gain a fully rounded picture of the issues relevant to the application.

  Travellers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the estimated cost to public funds in 2000–01 of enforcement action by local authorities against travellers. [21461]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have recently met officers from Brighton and Hove council to discuss issues relating to travellers. [21727]

  Mr. Byers
  No, but the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) has agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) to discuss the issue.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities on issues relating to travellers and traveller encampments; and if he will make a statement. [21726]
  573W
  Mr. Byers
  My Department receives representations from time to time from local authorities on issues relating to travellers and traveller encampments, particularly about unauthorised encampments. The Government recognise the problems that unauthorised encampments can cause.

  We are revising the joint DTLR/Home Office guidance to local authorities and the police on managing unauthorised camping. This follows a review into the effectiveness of the current guidance. We published a summary of the findings on 2 November. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. We will publish the revised guidance early next year and will evaluate its effectiveness in bringing about improvements on the ground. We continue to keep the scope and application of existing enforcement powers under review.

  Housing (Birmingham)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what provision he has made for early redemption penalties and setting-up costs of successor organisations to be paid if transfer of Birmingham City's housing stock takes place; and if he will estimate the cost of central Government subsidy towards them; [21717]

  (2) what the outstanding debt is on Birmingham city council's housing revenue account that he will write off if stock transfer goes ahead; and what was the annual cost of debt financing charges in the last three years. [21597]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department's assumptions for housing revenue subsidy purposes of Birmingham city council's debt financing charges in the last three financial years have been as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  248,033

  1999–2000

  253,651

  2000–01

  264,672

  If stock transfer were to go ahead the Department would make a payment equal to Birmingham's housing-related debt less any of its receipt from the transferred stock that remained once set-up costs and early debt redemption premiums had been deducted. That figure cannot yet be calculated.

  The Department makes no provision for set-up costs or early debt redemption premiums; these are met by the local authority from the transfer receipt.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what provision he has made in the current financial year for his campaign against drinking and driving. [21498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the THINK! road safety campaign, my Department allocated £1.7 million for this year's publicity campaign against drinking and driving. Approximately £1 million of this was planned for the Christmas period with the balance for the remainder of the year-round campaign. Anti drink-driving messages are also supported throughout the country by local authority road safety officers, the police, and widely in the public, private and voluntary sectors.
  574W

  Traffic Calming
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives to local authorities on (a) installing road bumps on established roads, (b) painting speed limits in block form on roads and (c) other traffic calming measures. [21458]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department provides local authorities with guidance and advice on traffic calming, including road humps, through our Traffic Advisory Leaflets. We are also preparing a Local Transport Note on the design and effectiveness of traffic calming measures. Unlike many other traffic calming measures, painted speed limits on the road (carriageway roundels) require authorisation from the Secretary of State. This is due to their limited effect on vehicle speeds. As such no specific guidance exists, although we offer advice where this is required.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what directions have been given to local authorities since May 1997 concerning the estimation of rough sleepers in their area. [22045]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities have been asked annually since 1996 to provide estimates of rough sleeping in their areas in statistical returns to my Department as part of the Housing Investment Programme (HIP).

  Additionally, my Department encourages local authorities to work with voluntary sector homelessness agencies to conduct head counts of people sleeping rough in their areas. The Government's policy, set out in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on 19 May 1999, Official Report, column 357W, is to encourage:
  at least two counts a year in areas with a substantial number of rough sleepers (20 or more on a single night);
  at least one count a year in areas with between 10 and 19 rough sleepers on a single night; and
  counts in a selection of areas estimating fewer than 10 rough sleepers on a single night to spot check the validity of those estimates.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department and the Rough Sleepers Unit are taking to improve the quality of information on the numbers of people sleeping rough. [22044]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department, through the Rough Sleepers Unit and the Housing Directorate's Housing Data and Statistics Division, monitors and seeks to improve information on the extent of rough sleeping in England by encouraging all local authorities to estimate the numbers of rough sleepers in their areas; by investigating claims by local agencies that they have evidence of a local problem that does not show up in local authorities' Housing Investment Programme (HIP) statistical returns to the Department; and by encouraging areas where there is a known rough sleeping problem to undertake street counts at appropriate intervals, depending on the size of the local rough sleeping problem.
  575W
  Agencies and local authorities working with the Rough Sleepers Unit collect a range of other information about rough sleepers.

  The hon. Member will know that the Homelessness Bill, currently in the other place, will place a new duty on local authorities to conduct regular reviews of the levels, and likely future levels, of all forms of homelessness in their districts.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes his Department and the Rough Sleepers Unit have made to the methodology for counting rough sleepers since the guidance published in 1996. [22043]

  Ms Keeble
  None.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements the Government have placed on local authorities to engage in street counts of rough sleepers. [22046]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department monitors the extent of rough sleeping in England by encouraging all local authorities to estimate the numbers of rough sleepers in their areas; by investigating claims by local agencies that they have evidence of a local problem that does not show up in local authorities' Housing Investment Programme (HIP) statistical returns to the Department; and by encouraging areas where there is a known rough sleeping problem to undertake street counts at appropriate intervals, depending on the size of the local rough sleeping problem.

  In areas with a substantial number of rough sleepers (20 or more on a single night) at least two counts a year are encouraged.

  In areas with between 10 and 19 rough sleepers on a single night, at least one count a year is encouraged.

  In other areas with fewer than 10 rough sleepers on a single night, local authorities are asked to report estimates through their annual HIP returns. My Department ensures that street counts are undertaken in a selection of these areas to spot check the validity of estimates, especially in areas which have previously recorded a significant problem.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received over the last four years concerning the manner in which rough sleepers head counts are conducted. [22048]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's Rough Sleepers Unit has received a number of oral and written inquiries and representations about the methodology for counting and estimating the number of people sleeping rough in England.

  Head counts of people sleeping rough provide a useful `snapshot' of the numbers of people sleeping rough. The methodology originated among voluntary sector agencies working with rough sleepers in London and was developed by my Department in partnership with the voluntary sector. Despite occasional criticism, independent evaluation has shown consistently that such counts are the most effective method for evaluating changes in the levels of rough sleeping.
  576W
  They are just one of the tools by which the effectiveness of the Government's strategy on rough sleeping may be gauged. Additional monitoring information provided by agencies providing services as part of local rough sleeping strategies is also useful in making sure rough sleepers are getting the help they need.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what communications his Department and the Rough Sleepers Unit have had with (a) the Metropolitan and (b) the City of London police concerning the rough sleeping head counts in London over the last four years. [22047]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department's "Guidance on evaluating the extent of rough sleeping" states that the police should be consulted in advance of any rough sleepers count as one of the key local agencies in contact with rough sleepers. The police may also be involved in the count in some areas to ensure the safety of counters.

  The Rough Sleepers Unit and the agencies which it funds have regular contact with police forces around the country—including the Metropolitan police and the City of London police—as part of the planning and carrying out of a head count. We also encourage Contact and Assessment Teams and other funded agencies to liaise with police throughout the year.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department and the Rough Sleepers Unit have conducted into the movements of rough sleepers who are placed into (a) hostels and (b) other temporary accommodation; and if he will place a copy of the documents in the Library. [22049]

  Ms Keeble
  Research commissioned by the former Department of the Environment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to evaluate the Rough Sleepers Initiative has looked at the use of hostel and other temporary accommodation by rough sleepers. I refer the hon. Member to the following reports, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House:

  "The Rough Sleepers Initiative: An Evaluation", Department of the Environment, HMSO, 1993;

  "From Street to Home—An evaluation of Phase 2 of the Rough Sleepers Initiative", Department of the Environment, The Stationery Office, 1996; and

  "Homes for Street Homeless People—An evaluation of the Rough Sleepers Initiative", Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999.

  The Rough Sleepers Unit has commissioned further research to evaluate the impact of its current strategy, including the role played by hostels. The results of this work will not be available until later in 2002.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what are the new targets for 2002–03 in respect of local authorities handling planning applications; and what are the targets they replace. [22053]
  577W
  Ms Keeble
  The new targets are: for major industrial, commercial and residential applications, 60 per cent. should be decided in 13 weeks; for minor industrial, commercial and residential applications, 65 per cent. should be decided in eight weeks; and 80 per cent. of all other applications should be decided in eight weeks. These will replace the current single target to decide 80 per cent. of all applications in eight weeks.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department set a new Best Value indicator for local authorities in 2002–03 that 90 per cent. of all planning applications should be delegated; if this will be measured by (a) number, (b) size, (c) controversy and (d) value; and what other changes to Best Value he plans to propose. [22101]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government published their full proposals for changes to Best Value in a consultation paper "Best Value Performance Indicators 2002–03", published on 2 November 2001.

  The proposals included a new indicator for the percentage of planning applications delegated to officers, underpinned by a new target, also announced on 2 November 2001, to delegate 90 per cent. of all applications received.

  Best Value
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which local authorities are not obliged to sell assets at best value. [21526]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's general policy on local authority land disposals is that authorities should seek to obtain the open market value when making disposals. However, local authorities' land disposal powers under the Local Government Act 1972 are discretionary and they may exercise them in any manner they wish.

  The consent of the Secretary of State is required before an authority may dispose of land for less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained. Consent is not required to any disposal for a lease of seven years or less.

  For certain classes of disposal any necessary disposal consent has been given by the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consents 1998 and in these circumstances it is not necessary for a local authority to apply for a specific disposal consent. For example, the General Consents include the disposal in certain circumstances of the freehold or leasehold interests in property to be used for charitable, recreational and certain retail and commercial uses.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what strategy exists to help collaboration between fire brigades related to their role in civil contingencies and dealing with terrorist attacks. [21229]
  578W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Arrangements exist for mutual assistance between fire authorities under the provisions of sections 2 and 12 of the Fire Services Act 1947 which enable brigades to collaborate in carrying out their statutory duties.

  In the light of the events of 11 September, we have established with the fire service stakeholders a group, chaired by HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services, which is evaluating, among other matters, existing response capabilities, including the need for regional collaboration.

  Young Firefighters Association
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many children are involved in the Young Firefighters Association in the west midlands; and what funding he has given to this organisation to assist it in expanding. [21230]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Around 400 children are involved in the Young Firefighters Association in the west midlands.

  The DTLR provides an annual grant of £54,000 to the Young Firefighters Association: this funds the association's national and training officer posts. In addition, brigades are encouraged to explore funding opportunities for the Young Firefighters Associations (or similar schemes) with the regional Youth Inclusion Programmes, established by the Youth Justice Board.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with (a) the Health and Safety Executive and Rail Inspectorate and (b) the Train Operating Companies on driver safety. [21708]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have regular meetings and contact with the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, the Association of Train Operating Companies and individual train operators during which a range of railway safety issues are discussed.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what limit he sets as the maximum hours a driver can safely drive a train. [21709]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 require employers to ensure that employees do not undertake any safety critical work, including driving a train, for a length of time that would be liable to cause them fatigue which could endanger safety.

  Parish and Town Councils (Uniform Business Rate)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of restoring the policy of giving a share of the uniform business rate to (a) parish and (b) town councils. [21448]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have made no assessment. Parish and town councils have never had a share of the revenue from the national non-domestic rate—or uniform business rate—since its introduction in 1990. Their main source of funding is—and will remain—the council tax.
  579W

  Strategic Rail Plan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the strategic rail plan will be published. [21710]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has announced that it will publish its Strategic Plan on Monday 14 January.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the Strategic Rail Authority's strategy for freight. [21737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority published its Freight Strategy on 3 May 2001.

  Irish Sea Cable
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which body is responsible for the completion of Irish Sea cable reference 360 Atlantic/C. [21540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Consent was originally granted to Atlantic/C, who have now gone into liquidation. Responsibility for the cable is now in the hands of the administrator—Wallace, Philip Wedgewood.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22019]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was formed on 8 June 2001. In the period 8 June to 6 December, my Department answered 894 named day parliamentary questions, of which 223 (25 per cent.) received holding answers.

  Fluorspar
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of Britain's national annual need for fluorspar; what proportion he expects to come from the British fluorspar industry; and what assessment he has made of future fluorspar need. [21977]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department has made no assessment of Britain's national need for fluorspar. Statistics published in the UK Minerals Yearbook indicate that, in 1999, some 40,000 tonnes were produced in the UK and estimated that about 43,000 tonnes were imported. It also indicated that about 5,000 tonnes were exported. This suggests that some 78,000 tonnes were used nationally in that year.

  Local Public Service Agreements
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessments he has made concerning the use of local public service agreements; and if he will make a statement. [21729]
  580W
  Mr. Byers
  Local public service agreements help our drive to improve services in partnership with local authorities. Twenty local authorities negotiated agreements with the Government earlier this year, in the pilot stage of this scheme. Each authority proposes demanding targets for key local services over the next three years, covering a mix of central government priorities and priorities of the authority's area. The Government offer possible relaxations in statutory and administrative requirements, some initial financial help, and the prospect of a reward grant for achieving the demanding targets agreed. The scheme is on offer to a further 130 authorities, 119 of which have already sought an opportunity to participate. The first of these further agreements are now being concluded.

  Housing (Departmental Definitions)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish his department's definition of (a) affordable housing, (b) social housing, (c) key worker, (d) low income earner and (e) intermediate income earner. [21730]

  Mr. Byers
  Affordable housing, when used in planning guidance, refers to low cost market and subsidised housing.

  Social housing is normally used to refer to subsidised housing provided by local authorities or registered social landlords for rent.

  There is no national definition of (c), (d) and (e). However, local authorities may use some of these terms in assessing local housing needs and defining what they regard as affordable housing within their area. Such definitions are usually based on the level of local incomes and their relationship to house prices or rents. In defining key workers authorities will need to decide upon those groups in need of affordable housing who contribute to essential service provision.

  Local Government White Paper
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the White Paper on local government. [22108]

  Mr. Byers
  The Local Government White Paper will be published shortly.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will reconsider the guidance given in PPG8 in respect of the siting of mobile phone masts; and what further research he has commissioned into the effects on health following the Stewart report. [21749]

  Ms Keeble
  On 22 August 2001 we significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. We have introduced two sets of regulations and a revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, "Telecommunications" (PPG8). The revised PPG8 takes account of the conclusions of the Stewart report. We have no plans to reconsider the guidance.
  581W
  The Stewart report recommended that a substantial research programme should be set up to investigate the potential health effects of mobile phone technology as a whole. This programme has been set up by Government under the direction of an independent scientific management committee who have recently assessed a range of research proposals. The first group of projects is expected to start shortly. Information about the research is being made available at www.mthr.org.uk

  Social Service Departments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many local authority social service departments have applied to his Department for financial support in the current financial year. [21791]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities will have applied for the various types of financial support run by this Department. Records of these applications are not kept centrally. The Department has received a number of representations about the pressures on local authorities' social service budgets. The Government announced an additional £300 million to cover 2001–02 and 2002–03 to assist councils in building care capacity. We have also recently announced our proposals for the funding of local government revenue expenditure in 2002–03. Provision for spending on Personal Social Services is set to increase by £684 million next year or 6.5 per cent.

  Area Cost Adjustments
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much (a) Tewkesbury's, (b) Cheltenham's and (c) Gloucestershire's revenue support grant has been changed as a result of the area cost adjustment in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [21404]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Area Cost Adjustment (ACA) is used in calculating Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) for each authority. The table compares total SSA for the 2001–02 local government finance settlement, with what total SSA would have been if the ACA was not included in the grant distribution formulae:

  Local Authority

  2001–02 Settlement SSA (£ million)

  Without ACA (£ million)

  Absolute difference (£ million)

  Percentage difference

  Gloucestershire

  395.746

  400.394

  4.648

  1.20

  Cheltenham

  10.644

  11.191

  0.546

  5.10

  Tewkesbury

  6.919

  7.072

  0.152

  2.20

  There is an interaction between the ACA and deprivation indicators in the formulae which means that if the ACA is excluded, the weighting given to deprivation changes. This is why the impact of leaving out the ACA varies between authorities. The figures should be treated as approximate. This is because, if the ACA is excluded, it is possible that the analyses on which the formulae are based would find that some of the deprivation and other indicators that appear in the formulae would change. We have assumed that, apart from the ACA, all the other indicators that appear in the formula are the same.
  582W
  The ACA methodology has not been changed since 1994–95. The consequence of leaving out the ACA will therefore be broadly the same as the above figures for other years since then.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local authorities which were net recipients under the area cost adjustment scheme in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [21405]

  Dr. Whitehead
  For the 2002–03 Local Government Finance Settlement, announced for consultation on 4 December, the authorities listed receive an area cost adjustment (ACA).

  Camden

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Southwark

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Brent

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Kingston upon Thames

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Sutton

  Waltham Forest

  Bedfordshire

  Buckinghamshire

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight Council

  Kent

  Oxfordshire

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Council for the Isles of Scilly

  Broxbourne

  Dartford

  Elmbridge

  Epping Forest

  Epsom and Ewell

  Hertsmere

  Reigate and Banstead

  South Bucks

  Spelthorne

  Three Rivers

  583W

  Watford

  Slough

  Basildon

  Brentwood

  Chiltern

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  East Hertfordshire

  Guildford

  Harlow

  Mole Valley

  Sevenoaks

  St. Albans

  Surrey Heath

  Tandridge

  Waverley

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Woking

  Bracknell Forest

  Thurrock

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Adur

  Arun

  Ashford

  Aylesbury Vale

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bedford

  Braintree

  Canterbury

  Castle Point

  Chelmsford

  Cherwell

  Chichester

  Colchester

  Dover

  East Hampshire

  Eastbourne

  Eastleigh

  Farreham

  Gosport

  Gravesham

  Hart

  Hastings

  Havant

  Horsham

  Lewes

  Maidstone

  Maldon

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Suffex

  New Forest

  North Hertfordshire

  Oxford

  Rochford

  Rother

  Rushmoor

  Shepway

  South Bedfordshire

  South Oxfordshire

  Stevenage

  Swale

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Thanet

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Tunbridge Wells

  Uttlesford

  Vale of White House

  Wealden

  West Oxfordshire

  584W

  Winchester

  Worthing

  Wycombe

  Bigton and Hove

  Luton

  Medway

  Milton Keynes

  Portsmouth

  Reading

  Southampton

  Southend-on-sea

  West Berkshire

  Workingham

  Bedfordshire Police authority

  Essex Police authority

  Hampshire Police authority

  Kent police authority

  Surrey police authority

  Sussex police authority

  Thames Valley police authority

  Greater London authority

  The geographical coverage of the ACA has remained the same since 1993–94, although local government reorganisation has taken place over the period. Some of the authorities listed above have changed from district to unitary status, though they received an area cost adjustment in both cases. In some cases, former districts were combined at the time of reorganisation. The predecessor authorities as listed, also received an area cost adjustment:

  Predecessor billing authority

  Reorganised authority

  1 April 1995

  The Council of:

  The Borough of Medina

  The Isle of Wight

  The Borough of South Wight

  The Borough of Brighton

  The Borough of Brighton and Hove

  The Borough of Hove

  1 April 1998

  The Borough of Gillingham

  The District of the Medway Towns (now Medway)

  The City of Rochester upon Medway

  The Greater London Authority took responsibility of the functions of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority from July 2000.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to review the area cost adjustment; and if he will make a statement. [21403]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are reviewing the area cost adjustment as part of our current review of all the grant distribution formulae. We intend to implement changes in the 2003–04 local government finance settlement. We are actively involving local government in the review process, and all relevant papers are available on the Local Government Association website.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the project by the Building Research Establishment and Tree
  585W
  Advice Trust to develop an objective way of assessing the obstruction of light by hedges will be completed; and when the report will be published. [22164]

  Ms Keeble
  The Building Research Establishment (BRE) and Tree Advice Trust have now completed their project to develop an objective method for assessing whether high hedges block too much daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties, and to provide guidance on hedge heights to alleviate these problems.

  Copies of the final report of their work, together with guidelines for calculating hedge height, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These documents are also being published on my Department's website.

  The guidelines explain how to calculate whether a hedge is likely to block out too much light from a garden and from the main rooms of a house. In relation to gardens, the procedure looks at what portion of the garden is shaded by the hedge and what direction it faces. For the rooms of a house, the main factor is the distance from its windows to the hedge. Some of the details of this formula have been refined in the light of the results of consultation and field-testing on a sample of problem hedges.

  We want to encourage people to apply the BRE guidelines to their problem hedge and to use the results to try to settle matters with their neighbours amicably. We will, therefore, be preparing a leaflet specifically designed for this purpose. It will include a simplified version of the BRE guidelines as well as advice on how people might approach their neighbours with this information to try and agree a solution. We will be involving local authority, professional, consumer and advice groups in its development and expect to launch the leaflet in spring next year.

  We recognise, of course, that in some cases guidance and voluntary action is no substitute for a legal remedy. We remain committed, therefore, to bringing forward legislation to set up a statutory complaints system for dealing with high hedge problems as soon as there is space in the Parliamentary timetable.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the signals passed at danger at least three times by trains stating the number of times this has occurred; what action has been taken at each signal to prevent these signals being passed at danger; and what has been the annual cost of this action in the last six years. [12265]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:
  (a) A full list showing signals passed three times or more has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  (b) Actions

  The fitment programme for the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) will be completed by the end of 2003. The rail industry has initiated a "SPADRAM" (Signals Passed at Danger Reduction and Mitigation)
  586W
  programme which covers a wide range of issues, eg signal sighting, human factors, driver training. Within this programme some of the specific actions include:

  highlighting these signals to drivers;

  vegetation control;

  provision of different backboards;

  countdown markers;

  repositioning of Signal Post Telephones;

  realignment and repositioning of signals;

  provision of repeater signals;

  changing signalling sequences.

  (c) Cost

  It is not possible to separate out SPAD mitigation costs from other expenditure.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Health and Safety Commission's working group looking at risks associated with road rail interface will publish its findings. [21196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Commission hope that its report and recommendations will be available in the first quarter of 2002.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent steps Railtrack has taken to ensure that a supervisor is employed on a continual basis in all signal (a) boxes and (b) centres to manage the operation of workstations. [21124]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for Railtrack.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive on the (a) benefits and (b) outcomes that have resulted from the monthly publications of reports on SPADS. [21030]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Publication of the Health and Safety Executive's monthly reports on signals passed at danger (SPADs) on the Railtrack network, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House, has put the information into the public domain, provided detailed comparisons by train operating company and outlined the action being taken by the industry to reduce the incidence of SPADs.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps have been taken by Railtrack to introduce a system for the central tracking of those recommendations within Part 1 of the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry report directly made to Railtrack; and whether this has been extended in those cases where recommendations are directed to (a) train operating companies and (b) others; [21064]

  (2) what progress has been made by Railtrack to improve the speed at which signallers are able to take action to move points in an emergency; [21120]

  (3) what progress has been made towards ensuring that railway (a) signallers and (b) drivers jointly attend away days and other training; and if he will make a statement; [21068]
  587W
  (4) what research on the understanding of human factors as they relate to train driving his Department conducted between June and November; and what steps are being taken to ensure further research is conducted in this area; [21076]

  (5) what consideration has been made by train operating companies of the possibility of providing snap wands as a supplementary means of providing lighting in an emergency; [21184]

  (6) what progress has been made to extend the computerisation of information to be used by the police service, in co-operation with the emergency services, in the event of a major incident involving passenger rail services; and if he will make a statement; [21018]

  (7) what progress has been made to ensure that the police service, in conjunction with emergency services, ensure that common telephone numbers are issued for the use of members of the public who are seeking to obtain or give information about persons who have or may have been involved in a major incident involving a passenger rail service; [21020]

  (8) what steps have been taken by Railtrack management to (a) set out and (b) apply the criteria for allowing signallers to exceed the maximum of 72 hours per week; [21122]

  (9) what progress Railtrack has made towards the introduction of simulators for the training of signallers in dealing with emergencies; [21167]

  (10) if instructions for railway signallers on their response to a SPAD provide a set of options, including the use of CSR, either to send an emergency stop message to a particular train or a general stop message; and whether such instructions are supported by full and regularly repeated briefing as to the type of circumstances in which each option is appropriate; [21169]

  (11) what progress has been made to ensure that the computerisation of information in the event of a major incident involving passenger rail services is extended to all police forces; [21019]

  (12) when Railtrack conducted a safety examination of the layout within two miles of Paddington Station; whether this included a risk assessment; and if he will make a statement; [21066]

  (13) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned, by train operating companies to ensure that all members of the on-board train staff, including those under contract, have been trained in train (i) evacuation and (ii) protection; [21202]

  (14) at which locations ambiguity in the meaning of very short duration, under the Railway Safety Group standard on signal sighting, has caused problems; whether a retrospective review of all such locations has taken place; and what action has been taken in those locations where problems have been identified; [21082]

  (15) whether the expression overhead line equipment, under the Railway Safety Group standard on signal sighting, has been clarified to refer only to wires and droppers; [21083]
  588W
  (16) what progress has been made with the application of NVQs to the driver licensing scheme under the ATOC study on the central licensing of drivers; [21073]

  (17) what steps have been taken by Railtrack to ensure that (a) signallers, (b) managers and (c) maintenance staff working at integrated electronic control centres are instructed as to the need to preserve CSR data disks in the event of a SPAD taking place; [21179]

  (18) what steps have been taken to ensure that the reports made by Railtrack about a SPAD include a report by the signaller as to (a) their actions and (b) the reasons for such actions; [21168]

  (19) if he will publish the guidance provided by the Health and Safety Executive under the provisions in Schedule 1 of the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 regarding (a) evacuation and (b) escape; [21192]

  (20) what consideration has been made for turbo trains of (a) the enhancement of end pillar weld connections, (b) the possible enhancement of crashworthiness by weakening the ends and strengthening the saloon of the cars and (c) the fitting of (i) shear-out couplers and (ii) anti-overriding devices; [21175]

  (21) what steps have been taken by (a) train operating companies and (b) ROSCOs to ensure that emergency signs on-board trains are (i) luminous and (ii) capable of being understood by passengers without the necessity to read text; [21177]

  (22) who has the responsibility to decide whether the recommendations of a signal sighting committee under the group standard on SPADs are to be implemented under Railtrack's safety management system; [21088]

  (23) what steps have been taken since the crash at Ladbroke Grove to review the standard for crashworthiness of (a) vehicles used on the rail network in order to ensure that there are adequate measures for safeguarding survival space and (b) new vehicles; [21174]

  (24) whether the definition of very short duration, under the Railway Safety Group standard on signal sighting, was revised between June and November; [21095]

  (25) what progress has been made towards ensuring that Railtrack introduce a risk assessment when a material change to (a) track and (b) signalling is proposed; and whether this is being conducted on a holistic basis at the design concept stage and repeated at defined stages up to and including implementation; [21028]

  (26) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned, by (i) train operating companies and (ii) ROSCOs to test the practicability of building emergency hammers into the passenger alarm system so that they can be released only after an alarm has been activated; [21204]

  (27) what research (a) has been conducted and (b) is planned by (i) train operating companies and (ii) ROSCOs into (A) the feasibility of, and risks associated with, removable windows, (B) the adequacy of windows as a means of emergency egress, (C) the number of dedicated windows that are necessary and (D) the provision as to the maximum distance between each passenger and bodyside door or emergency exit; [21205]
  589W
  (28) what the steps included by train operating companies are in their daily routine check of every train; [21207]

  (29) which train operating companies have conducted a review of the effectiveness of the systems which are in place to deliver the required level of driver competence over the six month period June to November; what these reviews have concluded; and what progress has been made to retest drivers against revised systems; [21071]

  (30) what steps have been taken by the Association of Train Operating Companies to obtain expert assistance on the advice which should be given to passengers as to what to do in the event of there being a known threat of serious danger to them remaining on board after an accident; [21187]

  (31) whether the use of the term "disregard" in the Railway Group standard on SPADs and its associated documentation was revised between June and November; [21090]

  (32) if he will provide details for each train operating company of (a) the criteria against which drivers are tested under their driver training and testing programmes, (b) the minimum standard that must be reached for each of these criteria for drivers to reach a definite pass standard, (c) what steps have been taken between June and November to develop these standards, (d) what further steps are planned to develop these standards and (e) what consideration has been made of how often drivers should repeat key steps in their training before submitting themselves for testing; [21075]

  (33) what steps to strengthen the (a) safety audit process and (b) quality of communication under the process under the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 1994 (i) have been taken between June and November and (ii) are planned; [21077]

  (34) what steps have been taken by (a) train operating companies and (b) ATOC to ensure that the availability on trains carrying passengers of the items of emergency equipment mentioned in the standard on emergency and safety equipment is unrestricted; [21198]

  (35) what steps have been taken to enhance the security of (a) seating in turbo trains and (b) tables in high speed trains; [21171]

  (36) what market research (a) has been conducted and (b) is planned with regard to railway safety related measures; [21195]

  (37) what (a) assessment and (b) research his Department has made of the problem of shortages of trained and skilled staff within the railway industry with special reference to (i) drivers, (ii) signallers and (iii) engineers; [21054]

  (38) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned, by (i) Railtrack, (ii) train operating companies and (iii) ROSCOs to study the possibility of installing on driver-only trains a telephone by which passengers can communicate with the signaller in the event of the driver being killed or incapacitated; [21201]

  (39) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned, by (i) train operating companies and (ii) ROSCOs to review the (A) adequacy of the number of and (B) signage relating to emergency hammers on board trains; [21206]
  590W
  (40) what progress has been made by the railway group to review (a) emergency planning, (b) liaison with the emergency services and (c) arrangements for the aftercare of survivors and provision of (i) support and (ii) facilities for the bereaved and injured of passenger rail accidents; [21021]

  (41) when he expects the Health and Safety Commission to publish the outcome of the first six monthly review of Lord Cullen' s recommendations within Part 1 of the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry report; [21197]

  (42) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned by (i) Railtrack, (ii) train operating companies and (iii) ROSCOs to study the feasibility of introducing remote broadcasting from outside the train where this is not already available; [21199]

  (43) what measures (a) have been introduced and (b) are planned within the railway industry to enhance protection against fire; [21194]

  (44) what recent steps have been taken to provide passengers with general safety advice (a) before and (b) after they have boarded their train; and what proportion of train operating companies provided this information (i) as of June and (ii) at the last date for which information is available; [21188]

  (45) what assessment he has made of the (a) enhancement of the cabs on high speed trains to improve driver protection and (b) the enhancement of measures for the retention of bogies on the coaches of high speed trains; [21178]

  (46) what steps have been taken to establish a system for the collection of human factors information pertinent to issues of passenger safety following rail accidents; [21189]

  (47) what steps have been taken to update the code of practice on public information on train (a) safety and (b) emergencies; and what plans there are to update the code of practice; [21191]

  (48) when Railtrack carried out the (a) risk assessments and (b) consequent actions required under Group Standard GK/RT 0078 in respect of the signals in the Paddington area; and if he will make a statement; [21065]

  (49) what reviews Railtrack has conducted of the work of signallers in order to identify non-essential tasks; [21165]

  (50) if he will provide details of the recommendations of WS Atkins' Initial Study of Signal Sighting, Issue 1, published on 6 March 2000, which his Department plans to act upon; [21086]

  (51) what changes in the frequency in the briefing by driver standards managers of drivers from Thames Trains have taken place since the beginning of June; [21069]

  (52) what steps have been taken by (a) training operating companies and (b) ROSCOs to ensure that staff-only doors on all trains have an override device to enable them to be used by passengers in an emergency; [21182]

  (53) what steps have been taken by (a) Railtrack and (b) train operating companies (i) to examine the availability of signal sighters and (ii) to ensure an adequate supply of trained signal sighters; [21087]
  591W
  (54) what progress has been made to consider, in the case of new vehicles constructed of aluminium used on the rail network, (a) the use of alternatives to fusion welding, (b) the use of improved grades of aluminium which are less susceptible to fusion weld weakening and (c) the further development of analytical techniques; [21173]

  (55) if he will provide details of changes made in (a) the direction of running of line three from Paddington station and (b) speed limits on any of the lines between two and six miles out of Paddington Station; and in each case (i) whether a risk assessment has been carried out to the satisfaction of HMRI and (ii) if additional measures have been (A) implemented and (B) shown to have been effective; [21067]

  (56) what research (a) has taken place and (b) is planned, by (i) train operating companies, (ii) ROSCOs and (iii) train manufacturers into developing a means of safeguarding emergency lighting systems from disablement by the forces involved in sudden deceleration; [21185]

  (57) what steps have been taken to standardise between (a) train operating companies and (b) rolling stock (i) the safety information issued to passengers and (ii) the means by which they can (A) be evacuated and (B) escape from a train; [21190]

  (58) what revisions of the Railway Safety group standard on signal sighting took place between June and November; and if he will list details of those (a) groups and (b) individuals involved in this process of revision; and what plans there are for further revision of these standards; [21094]

  (59) what steps have been taken by (a) train operating companies and (b) ROSCOs to develop signage in the form of pictograms similar to those used on aircraft and conforming to current human factors standards on signage depicting the correct operation of emergency door mechanisms; [21181]

  (60) what steps have been taken by (a) train operating companies, (b) ROSCOs and (c) the HMRI to assess the number of train coaches which have internal doors that slide in the same direction and will need to be replaced by 31 December 2003 under the terms of Lord Cullen's recommendations in Part 1 of the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry report; [21183]

  (61) what progress has been made by (a) Railtrack and (b) train operating companies towards the introduction of a national system of direct radio communication between trains and signallers; [21180]

  (62) what steps have been taken to make progress with the ATOC study on the central licensing of drivers over the six month period June to November; and what additional steps are planned; [21072]

  (63) what steps have been taken by (a) Railtrack and (b) train operating companies to train (i) signallers and (ii) drivers so as to appreciate the (x) nature and (y) demands of each other's work; [21166]

  (64) what steps have been taken by (a) Railtrack, (b) train operating companies and (c) other groups to train persons who (i) investigate and (ii) make recommendations as a consequence of SPADs in the (A) identification of human factors and (B) root cause analysis; [21091]
  592W
  (65) whether instructions for railway signallers on their response to a SPAD dictate that the signaller should make an assessment and take action immediately; [21093]

  (66) if he will list changes in Railtrack procedures, and the actions of management to enforce them, in response to Lord Cullen's recommendations within Part 1 of the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry report; [21063]

  (67) what progress has been made towards the (a) teaching and (b) practice of defensive driving by train operating companies; [21070]

  (68) what progress has been made by Railtrack to provide signallers with the opportunity to practise the controlling of train movements; [21123]

  (69) what steps have been taken by (a) train operating companies, (b) ROSCOs and (c) train manufacturers to carry out a (i) feasibility and (ii) risk assessment into the incorporation of escape hatches in (A) existing and (B) new carriages; [21203]

  (70) what steps have been taken by Railtrack to institute a system whereby all signallers in a signal (a) box and (b) centre are briefed by their line manager following a SPAD in their area; and what steps have been taken to ensure that there is appropriate dissemination of information which may be of assistance to signallers elsewhere; [21170]

  (71) what progress has been made towards the introduction by Railtrack of a system in which there is an automatic replacement of a signal to danger where a SPAD takes place; [21119]

  (72) what steps have been taken by Railtrack to improve the alarm system for SPADs in integrated electronic control centres; [21121]

  (73) if he will provide details of how acceptable limits to the temporary obscuration of a signal are defined under the Railway Safety Group standard on signal sighting; [21084]

  (74) what progress has been made by Railtrack towards the introduction of an arrangement whereby a train fitted with CSR sounds an audible warning automatically in the cab when a signal at danger is passed; [21118]

  (75) what changes in scope in Schedule 1 to the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 took place between June and November; and what further changes are planned; [21193]

  (76) what steps his Department has taken to review the Railway Group standard on SPADs and its associated documentation; [21089]

  (77) what recent steps have been taken by Railtrack to (a) clarify and (b) improve the instructions for signallers as to their response to a SPAD; [21092]

  (78) how the Railway Safety Group standard on signal sighting defines the cab sight lines within which signals must be positioned; [21085]

  (79) in respect of which signals the Railway Safety Group standard on signal sighting deals explicitly with the additional time required for reading; [21096]
  593W
  (80) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that all material and information on the activities of the organisation being audited in regard to the area of activity being audited is disclosed to the auditor under the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 1994; [21098]

  (81) what proportion of passenger rolling stock of each train operating company provides on-board explanatory information about the emergency facilities on the train; [21186]

  (82) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned, by (i) train operating companies and (ii) ROSCOs to study the feasibility of introducing a roaming communication system for train staff; [21200]

  (83) if he will list for each train operating company the proportion of services which make use of on-board announcements to draw attention to safety information. [21176]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lord Cullen made recommendations on this issue in Part 1 of his Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry report. The Health and Safety Commission is reviewing the industry's compliance with all the recommendations and will publish a report in the spring. I will ensure that a copy is placed in the House Library.

  Housing Allocation (Paedophiles)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information the Government makes available to (a) local authorities, (b) registered social landlords and (c) private landlords to enable them to make appropriate decisions about housing allocations to those convicted of paedophile offences. [17688]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced a statutory duty on the police and the probation service to make joint arrangements for the assessment and management of risks posed by sexual and violent offenders, including paedophiles, and by other offenders who may cause serious harm to the public. Each police/probation area is required to prepare a report on its discharge of those responsibilities. The first reports will cover the period to 31 March 2002 and will be published next summer. Local authorities and housing associations may be involved in risk management panels and will have access to shared information under protocols established in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Women and Public Services
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to report on the Government's work on women and public services. [21865]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have today published the report "Better Services—Better Working Lives". Copies have been placed in the Vote Office, and the Libraries of the House.

  This document reports back on the work undertaken to look at how health and education public services are delivered for women. We know that the proportion of women with dependent children working full-time has
  594W
  risen from 59 per cent. in 1991 to 65 per cent. in 2001. But women are still the people responsible for accessing services—91 per cent. of women with school age children say they normally take them to the GP and 61 per cent. take them to school.

  In this publication we report back on what women have told us during a series of regional evidence gathering visits supported by a wide range of good practice examples, new research findings and recommendations for national and local action.

  Copies of "Better Services—Better Working Lives" will be distributed to all the women who took part in the regional evidence gathering visits and through the Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by the Cabinet Office were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [22014]

  Mr. Leslie
  The percentage of Cabinet Office parliamentary questions that required a holding reply during the last three Sessions of Parliament is as follows:

  1998–99: 50 had holding replies, which equates to 7 per cent.

  1999–2000: 68 had holding replies, which equates to 8 per cent.

  2000–01: 32 had holding replies, which equates to 11 per cent.

  Opinion Polling
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list his Department's(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure on opinion and market research during each financial year since 1996; what recent assessment he has made of the need to continue to monitor public opinion; by what means he intends to do it; and if will make a statement. [15375]

  Mr. Leslie
  The total expenditure on opinion and market research from the 1997–98 to the 2001–02 financial years is shown in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  1—

  1997–98

  0.7

  1998–99

  0.9

  1999–2000

  0.3

  2000–01

  0.4

  2001–02

  20.4

  1 Not available

  2 Planned

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not include the salary costs of Cabinet Office staff.

  2. Expenditure undertaken by Central Office of Information on behalf of clients is not included.

  We are reviewing the current and future requirements of the monitoring of public opinion but have not reached any firm conclusions on the tools or vehicles required. We will inform the House in the normal course of business of any conclusions or decisions made in this area.
  595W

  Public Interest Disclosure
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the operation of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 as it applies to central Government; and if he will make a statement. [21647]

  Mr. Leslie
  Guidance for civil servants on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is set out in the Directory of Civil Service Guidance, volume 2. Copies of the directory are in the Library of the House and on the Cabinet Office website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/guidance.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [21234]

  Mr. Leslie
  The level of wage costs within departmental budgets this year and in future years will be dependent upon negotiations. The Departmental Report to be published next spring will give full retrospective costs.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the public service agreement target for openness and diversity in the civil service. [21249]

  Mr. Leslie
  The latest figures for April 2001 show that the civil service continues to make steady progress towards the targets for openness and diversity, increasing on all indicators from 1998 baselines:

  24.2 per cent. of the Senior Civil Service are women, up from 17.8 per cent. in 1998. The target for 2004–05 is 35 per cent.

  20.2 per cent. of those in the top 600 posts are women, up from 12.7 per cent. in 1998. The target for 2004–05 is 25 per cent.

  2.4 per cent. of staff at Senior Civil Service level are from a minority ethnic background, up from 1.6 per cent. in 1998. The target for 2004–05 is 3.2 per cent.

  2.0 per cent. of staff at Senior Civil Service level are disabled, up from 1.5 per cent. in 1998. The target for 2004–05 is 3.0 per cent.

  The Cabinet Office has launched 'Pathways', a central development programme targeted at minority ethnic staff with the potential to rise to senior levels.

  The number of successful candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds in the Fast Stream Scheme has doubled from 3.4 per cent. in 1998 to 6.8 per cent. in 2000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what opinion research he has undertaken for ascertaining progress in meeting the public service agreement target on responsiveness of public services to the views of users. [21341]

  Mr. Leslie
  A third wave of research ("Wave 6") monitoring and tracking changes in public satisfaction levels against key public services is currently under way. The results will be published in newsletter format and on the internet. Copies will be placed in the House.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the initial targets to be met by April 2001 in pursuit of the public service agreement target for the delivery of new programmes. [21343]
  596W
  Mr. Leslie
  Progress continues to be made across Government towards achieving targets outlined in departmental public service agreements. Details of public service agreements can be found on both departmental and HM Treasury websites and performance against those targets in departmental reports.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the public service agreement target to introduce new pay systems to improve Departments' performance. [21348]

  Mr. Leslie
  Departments and agencies are reviewing their pay systems in line with the principles of Civil Service Reform. Good progress is being made and we expect around 80 per cent. to have completed this by April 2002. Departments and agencies will continue to adjust their pay and performance management systems annually against central guidelines, to drive improvements in their performance.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action has followed fulfilment of the public service agreement target to publish a White Paper on modernising Government. [21345]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government have moved into a second phase of modernisation, focused firmly on improved service delivery. The reorganisation of the centre of Government, including the creation of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit and the Office of Public Services Reform, is helping to take this agenda forward.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress this year with the public service agreement target for the saving on administration revenue. [21248]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office has a public service agreement (PSA) target to"achieve a 2.5 per cent. saving per year on administrative resources".

  The Department's spending plans are agreed and monitored by Her Majesty's Treasury and its accounts and performance are audited by the National Audit Office.

  The Department's 2000 spending review settlement reflected a reduction in resources available to the Cabinet Office in light of the 2.5 per cent. savings required. The Department has carried out several Better Quality Service Reviews and is continuing to develop and improve its planning, budgeting and procurement systems in order to ensure resources are deployed efficiently and effectively.

  Machinery of Government changes have led to an expansion of the Department, which will result in an overall increase in administrative costs. However the Department intends not to exceed its agreed expenditure limit.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the performance of (a) the Cabinet Office and (b) other Departments in meeting the public service agreement for electronic service delivery by Government. [21349]

  Mr. Leslie
  Delivery is at the heart of our agenda for transforming public services and e-government is one of the most powerful catalysts we have for achieving that transformation. The Office of the e-Envoy produces both an annual report and regular monthly reports giving details of the progress that is being made. The latest annual report
  597W
  was published on 4 December and is available at http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/ukonline/champions/anrep— menu.htm.

  The latest figures on progress towards the target of making Government services available electronically by 2005 show that over 50 per cent. of Government services are e-enabled now. Departments predict that 74 per cent. of services will be e-enabled by the end of 2002. This information is available at http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/ publications/reports/esd/autumn2001/esdrep— 2001.htm.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on progress in securing departments' compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process as part of the Cabinet Office's public service agreement target on the subject; [21342]

  (2) what action has been taken in pursuit of the public service agreement target for improved Government regulation to establish a baseline of compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process. [21344]

  Mr. Leslie
  In accordance with the published SDA target (reference Command Paper CM5119 July 2000), by the end of the 2001–02 financial year we aim to produce a baseline measure of the extent of departmental compliance with the Regulatory Impact Assessment process. Work on this is under way and we will make an announcement in due course.

  Knowledge Pool
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with testing and refining the Knowledge Pool approach to evidence-based policy. [21463]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) is currently running a demonstration programme to assess the effectiveness of 'knowledge pools' in contributing to evidence-based policy making and delivery. 'Knowledge Pool' is an initiative to identify and bring together experts and evidence in specific policy areas. It is designed to replicate good practice in knowledge management and to address the need for policy making to be more effectively and efficiently informed by evidence.

  The first phase is now almost complete— CMPS has identified knowledge pool topics, substantially refined the concept of knowledge pools and is currently working closely with sponsoring units to determine how knowledge pools could bring practical benefits to their policy areas.
  598W
  Knowledge pools currently in development are sponsored by the Performance and Innovation Unit (Strategic Futures Project), the Social Exclusion Unit, the Regional Co-ordination Unit (Area Based Initiatives Forum) and the new cross-Government Excellence in Policy Making Network set up by CMPS. It is anticipated that further knowledge pools will join the programme in the near future.

  CMPS have also been working together with sponsoring units to design and build a website. This will support collaborative working and knowledge sharing among experts in each of the knowledge pools. It will also provide a channel through which useful information can be made widely accessible. This will be launched early next year.

  The independent evaluation of this programme to assess the effectiveness of knowledge pools in delivering evidence based policy making and practice will be completed in December 2003.

  Expenditure and Receipts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department maintained expenditure and receipts within the voted provision in 2000–01. [21465]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office's provisional outturn for 2000–01 against voted provision is reported in Table 3 of the Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn White Paper (Cm 5243), copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  An Appropriation Account showing final outturn will be published as usual.

  Performance Targets (Labour Costs)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department achieved the key performance target in 2000–01 for increasing sales revenue for every pound of expenditure on direct labour costs. [21466]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office as a Department does not have a specific performance target for increasing sales revenue for every pound of expenditure on direct labour costs. However the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA), which is an executive agency of the Cabinet Office, has a key performance target for increasing sales revenue for every pound of expenditure on direct labour costs.

  The GCDA did not achieve its target for increasing sales revenue for every pound of expenditure on direct labour cost as price increases to customers were held below the rate of inflation. This was reported in the agency's annual report and accounts for the financial year 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
  599W

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  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. [22615]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: On average hon. Members who ordered computer equipment after 15 October had their machines delivered to Westminster within 20 days and installed within 24 days.

  In the constituency, the times were 24 days and 28 days respectively. As I explained in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 25 October 2001, Official Report, column 323W, delays were mainly caused by the complexity of the distribution exercise, which by the end of the financial year will have involved delivering over 6,000 items to over 1,300 locations. In addition, some hon. Members have asked for a delay in installation for their convenience.

  I am delighted to report that delays are now largely eradicated. Hon. Members can now expect to receive their equipment, complete with parliamentary software, as quickly as they would from a major high street retailer. Members who order this week can have both delivery and installation within 15 days if they wish.

  Royal Prerogative
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the orders made through the Privy Council under the royal prerogative in each year from 1997 to date. [21402]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The hon. Member may, however, like to know that the vast majority of Orders in Council are made under statute, and of the prerogative Orders in Council and Orders of Council that are made most relate to amendments of the charters, by-laws and statutes of chartered bodies (including universities) and the giving of Royal Assent to Channel Islands legislation.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to inform employers of their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 not to discriminate against disabled people. [19152]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government are running media campaigns to raise awareness of disability. Good practice guides and Codes of Practice are available. The Disability Rights Commission's Helpline and website and Equality Direct provide further advice.
  600W

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the take-up of the minimum income guarantee in Pendle in the last six months. [19156]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are about 2,900 people in receipt of minimum income guarantee in the constituency of Pendle. Nationally, as a result of the national take up campaign over 120,000 more pensioners are now receiving an extra £20 a week. Overall, during the last three years we have provided an extra £12.5 billion to pensioners through the minimum income guarantee.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures his Department has taken to monitor uptake of the minimum income guarantee since the introduction of the shortened application form. [19159]

  Mr. McCartney
  A variety of statistical information will inform our judgment on the success of our new, much improved and shorter minimum income guarantee claim form.

  As a result of the national take up campaign, over 120,000 more pensioners are now receiving an extra £20 a week.

  There are 2,200 pensioners in receipt of minimum income guarantee in the constituency of Crawley.

  Overall, during the last three years we have provided an extra £12.5 billion to pensioners through the minimum income guarantee.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the earnings disregard is in the calculation of the pensioners' minimum income guarantee; and how the disregard has changed since the introduction of the guarantee. [20293]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The earnings disregard is £5 for single pensioners and £10 for couples. In certain circumstances, concerning the receipt of particular premiums or engagement in a special occupation, the disregard may be £20 a week. These disregards have not changed since the introduction of the minimum income guarantee.

  We are continuing to consider the treatment of earnings in the pension credit.

  Employment Opportunities (Women)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to remove the obstacles to women's employment opportunities. [19160]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Women can benefit from the range of New Deals and welfare-to-work initiatives that we have introduced to help people overcome the barriers to employment and to make work pay, such as working families tax credit, the national minimum wage, the national childcare strategy and the sure start programme.

  Measures are also being introduced in the current Employment Bill that will help working mothers to remain within the workforce through better balancing of their work and home commitments. This is good for parents, children and business.
  601W

  Jobseekers
  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve co-ordination between the benefits system and the support given to people to help them find work. [19162]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working age are being brought together to form Jobcentre Plus.

  53 Jobcentre Plus offices have now opened, providing for the first time a fully integrated employment and benefit service. First reactions from both individual customers and employers have been overwhelmingly positive. We plan progressively to extend this integration nation-wide beginning later next year.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to enable those unemployed who are the hardest to help find work. [19166]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The range of new deals help disadvantaged groups to move from welfare into work. We are further increasing support for drug mis-users and will be exploring how we can extend that approach to other hard to help groups. We have also introduced Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones that, between them, have helped over 32,000 people in the most deprived areas into work.

  In addition, on 28 November we announced StepUP, a new pilot programme to help people who have not been able to find a job through new deal. StepUP will provide transitional jobs lasting up to 12 months and will be the stepping stone for some of the hardest to help unemployed people to reconnect to their local labour markets.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures are being taken to combat fuel poverty among pensioners. [19163]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have just published our Fuel Poverty Strategy. Measures which will help pensioners in particular include maintaining the winter fuel payment at £200 for the rest of this Parliament, improvements to the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, and the introduction of pension credit from 2003.

  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme provides grants of up to £2,000 for comprehensive packages of insulation and heating improvements, including central heating systems for the over-60s.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to ensure pensioners who have savings for their retirement do not lose entitlement to benefits. [19165]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's oral statement on 28 November.

  We have already raised the capital limits for pensioners in the Minimum Income Guarantee. When Pension Credit is introduced we will abolish the rule which excludes pensioners with £12,000 or more in savings from any help and halve the current assumed rate of income. In addition,
  602W
  for the first time, we will reward— not penalise— savings, ensuring those who have worked hard to save modest amounts gain from having done so.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to help pensioners claim the benefits to which they are entitled. [19168]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are always concerned to ensure that those eligible for the receipt of benefits can achieve their legal entitlements and we are particularly concerned to ensure that the poorest among our pensioners have their entitlement increased to reach the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  That is why we launched a national take up campaign in May 2000 writing to 2 million pensioners informing them about MIG. We are following this up and from 15 October 2001 callers to the Retirement Pension telecentre who are not already receiving MIG are asked a series of questions to identify if they may be entitled and encouraged to claim if they wish to do so. Those pensioners who claim Retirement Pension by post are sent a MIG leaflet.

  We are looking at a number of options to extend this service so that a claim to MIG will be invited automatically following certain key life events, for example when the pensioner reaches age 75 or 80 or when another benefit such as Attendance Allowance is awarded.

  We are also working in partnership with organisations for older people to improve access to benefits and take up of the MIG. This includes projects on a national good practice guide and a survey of local take up initiatives.

  New Deal
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact that the new deal 50-plus has had on getting older people back into work. [19169]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are committed to the principle of extending opportunity for all to everyone regardless of age, and tackling age discrimination in the workplace. A key element of this is the New Deal 50 plus which has already helped over 50,000 people move into work since its national launch in April 2000.

  We are developing 3rd Age Apprenticeships to increase take up of the New Deal 50 plus training provision, and employer involvement in the programme. These will offer work-based training organised on a sectoral basis, making using of existing New Deal 50 plus funding arrangements, particularly the Training Grant.

  The ongoing AgePositive campaign is challenging workplace attitudes towards age, ensuring employers realise the benefits of employing an age diverse workforce. On 3 December the campaign launched both a new AgePositive website and research studies, including the Evaluation of the Impact of the Code of Practice and Good Practice in the Recruitment and Retention of Older Workers.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with employers on the new deal. [19177]
  603W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since June of this year we have met with key employer organisations and many individual employers. Their input is central to the development of our employment policies and to ensuring that our employment programmes meet local labour market needs and employers' recruitment needs.

  We have also created the National Employment Panel to ensure that employers, and other key customers, have a strong and permanent voice within the Department. The Panel is an employer-led body that will provide independent advice on the design, delivery and performance of our welfare to work initiatives.

  Employers have a central role to play in achieving our goal of creating and sustaining employment opportunities for all.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training is given to New Deal personal advisers in respect of the new deal 50 plus. [15842]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All personal advisers receive training in interviewing, influencing and motivational skills; effective communication and interpersonal skills; awareness of the diversity of clients and their particular needs. They are also trained in practical skills such as how to conduct In Work benefit calculations, knowledge of the local labour market and ES programmes and services. In addition to this generic training detailed guidance is available on the new deal 50 plus process through the ESCOM computer system which is accessible to advisers in Jobcentres. An Open Learning handbook has also been produced for use by advisers to support the Age Diversity initiative. This contains a section addressing specific new deal 50 plus issues.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the number of participants in the new deal for over-50 from Tynemouth constituency in the last 12 months, (b) the destination of people leaving the scheme and (c) the cost involved. [17991]

  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.

  The only measurement of participation in the programme is the number of those who move into work and claim the programme's in-work financial support, the Employment Credit. 92 people went into work with the help of the Employment Credit from Whitley Bay and North Shields Jobcentres, between October 2000 and September 2001. Others will have benefited from the advice and help available from personal advisers.

  The Employment Credit wage top up is paid at £60 per week for full-time work (maximum £3,120) and £40 for part-time work (maximum £2,080), for up to 12 months. In addition, each individual in receipt of the Employment Credit is eligible for a £750 in-work Training Grant.
  604W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered the new deal gateway(a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times or more in the Buckingham constituency in respect of the (i) new deal for young people, (ii) new deal for 25-plus, (iii) new deal for 50-plus and (iv) new deal for lone parents. [17851]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  For new deal for young people, there had been 101 starts on the programme in Buckingham constituency to the end of September 2001. Of these, three young people had entered twice and none had entered three or more times.

  For new deal for 25-plus, there had been 149 starts on the programme in Buckingham constituency to the end of September 2001. Of these, 16 people had entered twice and four had entered three or more times.

  The new deal for lone parents and new deal 50-plus do not have gateways.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered the new deal gateway(a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times or more in Arundel and South Downs in respect of the (i) new deal for young people, (ii) new deal for 25-plus, (iii) new deal for 50-plus and (iv) new deal for lone parents. [18316]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  For new deal for young people, there were 129 starts on the programme in Arundel and South Downs constituency to the end of September 2001. Of these, 10 young people had entered twice and none had entered three or more times.

  For new deal for 25-plus, there were 89 starts on the programme in Arundel and South Downs constituency to the end of September 2001. Of these, nine people had entered twice and three had entered three or more times.

  The new deal for lone parents and new deal 50-plus do not have gateways.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) long-term unemployed and (b) lone parents have gained (i) subsidised and (ii) unsubsidised employment under the New Deal scheme in Wiltshire. [18409]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to the end of September 2001, the New Deal 25 plus had helped 58 long-term unemployed people move into subsidised employment and 412 into unsubsidised employment in Wiltshire Employment Service District.

  Up to the end of August 2001, the New Deal for Lone Parents had helped 798 lone parents move into work in Wiltshire Employment Service District. Subsidised employment is not a feature of the New Deal for Lone Parents programme.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database
  605W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people on the New Deal for Young People in Arundel and South Downs have joined(a) the subsidised employment option, (b) the environmental task force option, (c) the voluntary sector option and (d) the full-time education or training option in each year since its inception. [18315]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Number of young people starting NDYP options in Arundel and South Downs

  Subsidised employment

  Environment task force

  Voluntary sector

  Full-time education and training

  1998

  4

  1

  2

  5

  1999

  3

  0

  3

  3

  2000

  1

  0

  1

  8

  20011

  3

  1

  0

  1

  Total

  11

  2

  6

  17

  1 To end September

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) long-term unemployed and (b) lone parents have undertaken training under the New Deal scheme in Wiltshire. [18408]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to the end of September 2001, 17 people had started education and training opportunities under the New Deal 25 plus in the Wiltshire Employment Service District.

  Up to the end of August 2001, 102 lone parents had taken up education and training opportunities under the New Deal for Lone Parents in the Wiltshire Employment Service District.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to monitor the effectiveness of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [19147]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The results of the New Deal for Lone Parents programme are published every month. These show that we have helped lone parents into over 127,000 jobs through this New Deal.

  Extensive evaluation of the programme is being conducted and new items of research are published as they are completed. We expect to publish a report, bringing together findings from all strands of the evaluation, in 2003.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the number of participants in the new deal for young people from Tynemouth constituency in the last 12 months, (b) the destination of people leaving the scheme and (c) the cost involved. [17992]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the tables.
  606W

  Tynemouth constituency

  Month

  Number of new deal for young people participants

  October 2000

  240

  November 2000

  236

  December 2000

  231

  January 2001

  246

  February 2001

  245

  March 2001

  255

  April 2001

  259

  May 2001

  255

  June 2001

  245

  July 2001

  239

  August 2001

  237

  September 2001

  220

  Note:

  Figures are the number of participants at the end of each month and are the latest available. The figures are not cumulative.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Tynemouth constituency

  Destination on leaving the new deal for young people

  Number of clients

  Unsubsidised employment

  471

  Other benefits

  107

  Other known destinations

  214

  Not known

  285

  Total leavers

  1,077

  Note:

  Figures are cumulative to the end of September 2001.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Estimates of the cost of the programme are not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people on the new deal for young people in the Buckingham constituency have joined(a) for subsidised employment, (b) the Environmental task force, (c) the voluntary sector and (d) the full-time education or training option in each year since its operation. [17850]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Number of young people starting NDYP options in Buckingham

  Year

  Subsidised employment

  Environment task force

  Voluntary sector

  Full time education and training

  1998

  2

  1

  4

  2

  1999

  2

  1

  4

  2

  2000

  1

  3

  5

  0

  20011

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Total

  5

  6

  13

  5

  1 To end September

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Pension Schemes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on changes in the availability of final salary pension schemes. [19170]
  607W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Government recognise the valuable role that final salary schemes play in providing security in retirement. They also recognise, however, that employers provide occupational schemes on a voluntary basis and consequently it is for them to determine the most appropriate pension provision to suit their business needs. We welcome the broadening by occupational pension schemes of their eligibility criteria in response to the introduction of stakeholder pensions.

  The stakeholder pension has helped increase the size of the overall pensions market. The value of new pension sales rose by 9 per cent. in the July to September quarter of this year to £2.8 billion. Regular pension premium business rose by 50 per cent. to £584 million compared with the same period last year.

  There is also evidence of sustained growth in the amounts contributed to non-state pensions from £50 billion in 1997 to £69 billion in 2000.

  Long-term Unemployment (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action is being taken to alleviate long-term unemployment in Romford. [19171]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our aim is employment opportunity for all throughout the country. We have put in place a framework that delivers:

  a platform of economic stability and low inflation, to promote sustained growth in output and jobs;

  investment in education and training so people have the skills they need to take up work;

  a labour market policy with a strong work focus so all jobless people have access to vacancies, advice and help with jobsearch;

  a range of new deal programmes which help disadvantaged groups. including the long-term unemployed, move from welfare into work;

  policies such as the national minimum wage and working families tax credit designed to make work pay; and

  locally focused initiatives designed to tackle the problems of particular areas.

  Since 1997, these policies, alongside continued economic growth, have helped to reduce long-term unemployment by 55 per cent. in Romford.

  The new deal for young people and new deal 25 plus are playing an important part in helping long-term unemployed people improve their job prospects and move into work in Romford. Up to the end of September, they had helped over 350 long-term unemployed people move into jobs in the constituency.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has for extending housing costs support to elderly low-income owner-occupiers. [19172]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Over 94,000 pensioners already receive help with their mortgage interest payments through our minimum income guarantee. We expect this number to increase to around 200,000 when the pension credit is introduced. Our detailed proposals for the pension credit were published on 28 November 2001.
  608W

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many stakeholder pensions have been taken out on behalf of under 18-year-olds. [19173]

  Mr. McCartney
  491,694 stakeholder pensions had been sold by the end of October 2001. Information on how many of those were taken out on behalf of under 18-year-olds is not yet available.

  In its recent press release on 3 December the Association of British Insurers said
  "we should remember that stakeholder pensions are not the only story. Charges on group personal pensions have fallen as a result of stakeholder pensions, and employers have also widened their eligibility criteria for existing schemes. This means more people are able to save for their retirement— an aim shared by the Government and ABI."

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the take-up of stakeholder pensions. [19175]

  Mr. McCartney
  Figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) show that up to the end of October 491,694 stakeholder pensions had been sold. A more detailed breakdown of these figures will not be available until next year, but I consider that sales of almost half a million in the first seven months on the market is a very encouraging start. In addition, the ABI figures show 284,821 employers had designated stakeholder pension schemes for their staff.

  In releasing these sales figures the ABI said
  "Stakeholder pension providers have worked hard to encourage employers to designate stakeholder schemes. The industry is keen to work in partnership with Government and employers in attracting more employees into employer-designated schemes. But we should remember that stakeholder pensions are not the only story. Charges on group personal pensions have fallen as a result of stakeholder pensions, and employers have widened their eligibility criteria for existing schemes. This means more people are able to save for their retirement— an aim shared by the Government and the ABI."

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on changes to eligibility for lower rate disability living allowance in respect of those suffering from fear or anxiety. [19174]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 178W.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to ensure that applicants for disability living allowance are able to request a face-to-face completion service for application forms. [22031]

  Maria Eagle
  Not all customers who ask for help need or want face-to-face assistance. There is a range of services available including textphone communication, the benefit inquiry line and the DLA/AA helpline which can provide telephone assistance with forms completion and where necessary, customers can be visited in their own homes.
  609W
  In addition caller offices have induction loop systems, private interview rooms and when required arrangements will be made for interpreters to assist in face-to-face interviews.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to produce information about disability living allowance in a sign language video format. [22027]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is considering the most appropriate and cost-effective methods of providing information on benefits (not just disability living allowance and attendance allowance) to deaf people. One option being considered is the production of videos.

  This approach, rather than just promoting a single benefit, would give potential customers the ability to decide for themselves what sort of help may be the most appropriate for them.

  Action Teams for Jobs
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of action teams for jobs. [19178]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Action teams for jobs are one of a range of initiatives we have introduced to help people move into work. Action teams are performing well, so far helping over 15,500 jobless people in the country's most employment deprived areas move into work (41 per cent. of participants). Up to mid-October 2001, the Thanet action team had helped 727 people into work.

  In October, we increased the number of action teams from 40 to 53, and in January 2002 we will increase the number further, to 63.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of employment zones in reducing unemployment. [19179]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Employment zones are one of a range of initiatives we have introduced to help long-term unemployed people move into work. The performance of the 15 employment zones is encouraging. Early indications are that almost half of participants find work. We are currently evaluating the zones before deciding how to take the initiative further.

  Disabled Access
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to inform those who provide goods and services about the access requirements for disabled people. [19154]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government ran an awareness campaign late last year aimed at service providers. A further campaign will be launched in January. The revised Code of Practice for access requirements was laid before Parliament recently and will be published early next year.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases alleging 610W
  discrimination against disabled people the Disability Rights Commission has supported financially in its first year of operation. [19155]

  Maria Eagle
  In its first year of operation, the Disability Rights Commission provided or arranged legal representation in 41 cases brought under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he plans to assist pensioners with income just above the poverty line. [19180]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have already taken a number of steps to tackle pensioner poverty.

  We introduced the minimum income guarantee (MIG) to provide more money for pensioners as quickly as possible. For example a single pensioner aged 60 to 74 now receives £92.15 a week, an increase of £18 a week since 1997 over and above inflation. From April 2002 single pensioners will see their MIG rise by £6 to £98.15 a week.

  From 2003 pension credit will ensure people aged 60 and over need not live on less than £100 a week (£154 for couples) and for the first time, saving will be rewarded instead of being penalised. Pension credit will provide a savings credit for those aged 65 and over who have saved for their retirement and have incomes up to £135 a week (£200 for couples), ensuring pensioners with even modest second pensions and savings will get more as a result of their thrift. In addition, we will abolish the rule which excludes pensioners with £12,000 or more in savings from any help and introduce a fairer system for taking into account income for savings.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [6917]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed on 8 June 2001 from parts of the former Department of Social Security, parts of the former Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service.

  The Department for Work and Pensions currently employs two full-time special advisers and 11 full-time press officers.

  Child Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if new assessments on existing Child Support Agency cases after April 2002 will be made on the new system; [10434]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to bring all existing Child Support Agency cases on to the new formula by 2005. [10435]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From April 2002, new child support cases will have maintenance calculations made under the new system. Most existing cases will be transferred from
  611W
  a common date to the new system. However, some cases will convert earlier if they are linked to a new scheme case. Parents who have arranged their lives around current maintenance payments will need time to adjust to any changes resulting from the new calculation. For this reason, we plan to phase in the new liabilities in stages over a period of up to five years. There will therefore be cases in 2005 that have not reached their new scheme liability.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12267]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  For such information as is available on marketing expenditure for the year 2000, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 27 November 2001, Official Report, column 828W.

  Widowers' Benefits
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many widowers would have been eligible for widowers benefits between 1994 and 2000; and what is his estimate of the cost. [15474]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated cost and number of recipients if widows' benefits had been available to men

  Number of recipients

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  1994–95

  90,000

  200

  1995–96

  90,000

  200

  1996–97

  90,000

  200

  1997–98

  90,000

  250

  1998–99

  90,000

  250

  1999–2000

  100,000

  250

  2000–01

  100,000

  300

  Notes:

  1. It is assumed that widowers' benefits were subject to the same overlapping benefit rules as widows' benefits.

  2. No allowance is made for taxation effects, or for offsetting savings from reduced income-related benefit expenditure.

  3. Costs are rounded to the nearest 50 million, recipients to the nearest 10,000.

  Source:

  Government Actuary Department estimates and DWP Policy Simulation Model.

  ONE Pilots
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the integrated claim form piloted in the ONE callcentre pilots. [17998]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  As part of the ONE delivery evaluation programme research was carried out among clients and staff, including views on the Integrated Claim Form (ICF).
  612W
  Around 48 per cent. of Call Centre clients in 2000–01 used the ICF to claim two or more benefits. Clients thought the Call Centre process was generally more convenient and they welcomed help in completing complicated forms, although the service was sometimes hampered by IT problems. Clients liked ICFs because they received a partly completed claim form and it reduced the number of forms that they had to complete. The ICF also advises clients as to what will be required at their Personal Adviser (PA) meeting.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the(a) costs and (b) benefits of the ONE pilots introduced in June and November 1999. [19038]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  ONE has a comprehensive evaluation programme designed to assess its costs and benefits. We expect final results from the cost benefit analysis to be available in winter 2002–3.

  Published findings from the voluntary phase of ONE and the early findings from the full participation phase of ONE, which assess the impact of ONE, are available on the Department's website and in the Library.

  Work Incentives
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to improve incentives for those with children to work; and how many have taken them up in Tynemouth constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [17997]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  This Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for those who are able. We have introduced a wide range of measures including the Working Families Tax Credit to help make work pay and the National Childcare Strategy to help make work possible for people with children. Since April this year, lone parents can also get help with childcare payments if they take up part-time work through the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  We are also easing the transition to work through a range of benefit run-ons. Lone parents benefit run-on was introduced in 1999 and in the year 2000–01 helped over 50,000 lone parents nationally. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit run-ons have been available for a number of years and in 2000–01 were claimed by 140,000 people nationally. From April this year we have also introduced the Mortgage Interest run-on to help home owners moving from benefits to full time work. The numbers of people taking advantage of all of these run-ons are not available broken down by constituency.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer the question tabled on 25 October by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North concerning the suspension of child benefit payments. [18599]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to her on 26 November 2001,Official Report, columns 707–08W.
  613W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [22015]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of named day parliamentary questions for which holding replies were given

  Session

  Percentage

  1998–99

  6.5

  1999–2000

  9.0

  2000–01

  18.5

  Medical Assessments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 936W, on SEMA, if he will place in the Library, the IMPACT and Corporate Medical Group's assessments of Medical Services' performance against quality targets; if he will estimate the number of occasions that Medical Services have been required to develop and deliver action plans to improve performance where this fails to reach an acceptable standard; and if he will estimate the number of occasions that his Department has claimed service credits from SchlumbergerSema in each year since the contract was signed. [18225]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: A report on Medical Services' performance against quality targets will be prepared for publication before the parliamentary summer recess, and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Since the contract was signed, Medical Services have been required to develop and deliver one action plan involving all sites, and ten relating to individual Medical Services Centres, to improve performance against service level volume targets.

  Service credits for performance against quantitative service level targets have been applied monthly since September 1999. Qualitative and customer service targets have only recently been introduced.

  Diversity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement (1) on the cost in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of measures to meet the aspirational diversity targets referred to on page 35 of the 2001 Departmental report; [18976]

  (2) on the cost in (a) 2000–1 and (b) 2001–2 of the diversity and equal opportunities framework for action. [18982]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The cost of the measures which are intended to enable the Department to achieve its equality targets are inextricably linked to the broader costs associated with the promotion of equal opportunities and diversity, and cannot be separated. These are set out in the table. The key measures themselves are detailed in the Department's Diversity and Equal Opportunities Framework for Action.
  614W
  The figures relate to the costs of the Department's central policy team and to corporately funded initiatives. They do not take into account local implementation costs which are managed within regional budgets. In addition, as the principles of equal opportunities and diversity are embedded into all of the Department's human resources policies and procedures it is not possible to identify those costs separately.

  Year

  Cost

  2000–01

  1,242,829

  2001–021

  590,154

  1 To the end of October 2001

  Pay Scales
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost of the reintroduction of common pay scales across his Department. [19262]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Common pay scales were reintroduced into the former DSS as part of the 2000 pay round. The overall cost of the pay package for that year was £67.57 million (equating to a 4.5 per cent. package). Of this, 1.2 per cent. or £17.9 million was the cost of bringing staff on to common pay scales.

  Work is currently under way to inform and cost the approach for next year's pay award which will cover all staff in the newly formed Department for Work and Pensions (including Employment Service and ex DfEE staff).

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 28 November, in what circumstances benefit will be withheld from the long-term unemployed. [20272]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Starting in April next year, the Government will pilot a new approach to assist long-term unemployed people who need more intensive help to get into work. Long-term recipients of jobseeker's allowance will be guaranteed a full-time job, lasting up to a year, and paid at the national minimum wage. In return, they will be required to take up that opportunity. It is our intention to ensure that there will be a choice of jobs on offer but no choice of simply remaining on benefit. Anyone who refuses to take up a job offer without good reason will have their benefit withdrawn in the same way as those jobseekers who fail to take up an offer of suitable employment.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 28 November, (1) in what circumstances long-term unemployed may receive remuneration above the national minimum wage; [20275]

  (2) how much of the remuneration for the long-term unemployed will be provided by (a) Government and (b) employers. [20280]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Long-term unemployed people participating in the new job guarantee scheme will be paid out of Government funds at the national minimum wage. Those with children will also be eligible to apply for
  615W
  working families tax credit in the same way as other workers. In addition, it will be open to employers to make payments on top of the funding provided by the Government but this will be entirely at their discretion.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 28 November, what targets he has set in respect of his proposals for the long-term unemployed, including targets for sustained unsubsidised employment following completion of the 12-month period of employment; and what plans he has made to evaluate his proposals. [20273]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The new approach to assisting long-term unemployed people by guaranteeing them a full-time job will be piloted in 20 areas, starting in April 2002. Because these are pilots, no targets have been set for the number of participants moved into sustained unsubsidised employment. The pilots will provide the information we need to set such targets if and when the scheme is extended.

  The pilots are expected run for up to two years and will be subject to a full and thorough evaluation.

  Deafness
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that examining medical officers acting on behalf of his Department are familiar with the problems of deaf people. [20791]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: All Medical Services doctors are trained to assess deafness in connection with medical examinations for benefit claims. They are trained to evaluate the effects of deafness, as measured by a person's ability to hear and understand the spoken voice, on activities of daily living.

  A training module on "Sensory Impairment" will be delivered to all Medical Services doctors within the next nine months, as part of the Continuing Professional Education training programme. The module will update and reinforce previous training on assessment of people with hearing and/or visual impairment. It will draw doctors' attention to the communication problems experienced by deaf people, and to the need for effective communication between the doctor and the deaf person, through use of a sign language interpreter when appropriate.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to ensure that only qualified sign language interpreters are used during medical assessments for deaf people who claim disability living allowance. [22030]

  Maria Eagle
  Medical Services' existing procedures provide for a professional interpreter service for people with hearing difficulties. Where problems arise advice is sought from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf s helpline. However, some people may prefer to have a friend, relation or colleague to act as an interpreter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many profoundly deaf people are panel members of the Appeals Service. [22028]
  616W
  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available. Last year the Appeals Service completed a Diversity Audit of service provision, including the support given to the tribunal members. The audit highlighted the fact that there was insufficient data on the particular needs of panel members. In order to collect this information the Appeals Service is currently undertaking a disability survey of all appeals tribunal members. The results will be available in the new year.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to undertake research into the take-up of disability living allowance among deaf people. [22029]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 511W.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what studies he has conducted into overseas(a) experience and (b) practice in connection with vocational rehabilitation. [20806]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: We have commissioned a review of published evaluation evidence of vocational rehabilitation programmes in Europe, North America and Australia. We expect to publish the findings of this review in February 2002.

  The Disability Services Research Partnership is undertaking a study of good practice in work preparation that will include lessons from international research. This project is expected to run until March 2002.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the report of the British Society for Rehabilitation Medicine "Vocational Rehabilitation— The Way Forward". [20800]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: We welcome the contribution of the British Society for Rehabilitation Medicine to the debate on how to keep those people with an illness or disability in touch with the labour market and to reduce the numbers claiming incapacity benefit. We have fed ideas from the report into the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots, which are in the final stages of design.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what studies he has conducted into the cost-efficiency of(a) early and (b) interim (i) rehabilitation and (ii) work preparation after (A) trauma, (B) illness and (C) degenerative conditions of employees. [20799]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: In 2002 Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots will be implemented which will help people in work affected by the onset of a long-term illness or disability. These pilots will test the effectiveness of intervening early with work focused help provided by health, employment and other agencies. The pilots will focus especially on people who complete six weeks on statutory sick pay, and who at that stage are at risk of not working again.
  617W
  The evaluation of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots will provide information on the cost effectiveness of a range of interventions aimed at maintaining in work people in the early stages of a potentially long-term illness or disability.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve liaison with(a) the Department of Health and (b) relevant agencies in connection with the delivery of (i) vocational rehabilitation and (ii) occupational health services. [20803]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Ministers from both Departments expect to meet soon to discuss possible arrangements for joint working to take forward work on vocational rehabilitation.

  We have also been working closely with the Health and Safety Executive and Health Development Agency and we have had discussions with a number of representative organisations, companies and individuals.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for(a) establishing a centre of excellence for and (b) disseminating good practice in vocational rehabilitation. [20804]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: We have examined existing vocational rehabilitation services in the UK and it is apparent that some of the work being undertaken is of high quality. We are looking for ways to make best use of this work and centres of excellence are one of the options being considered. Disseminating best practice is key to developing such complex strategies, and we expect the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots to inform us about what works, and at what cost and why. We are still looking at how a possible UK vocational rehabilitation strategy might be structured and the organisations that will be involved.

  Disability Employment Advisers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of changes in the workload of disability employment advisers; and what plans he has to improve resources for this activity. [20801]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Over the past year Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs) have been affected by two major developments. The new deal for disabled people network of job brokers was launched in July this year and a full network was in place by September. The Access to Work (AtW) Process Review has led to the setting up of regional AtW business centres. The AtW role previously carried out in many regions by DEAs is now delivered through specialist AtW Advisers. These changes mean that DEAs are able to place a greater focus on helping disabled people claiming jobseeker's allowance and activities such as placing, assessment and advisory work with individuals and employers.

  These changes, together with the radical modernisation programme being introduced through Jobcentre Plus, will help ensure a major overall improvement in the service provided to disabled people.
  618W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve training of disability employment advisers with particular reference to developments in(a) medical practice and (b) assistive technologies. [20802]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The training needs of both Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs) and Access to Work (AtW) advisers are regularly reviewed and changes made where necessary.

  DEAs focus on helping disabled people get or retain work and develop close links with health professionals, including GPs and occupational health workers. The information DEAs obtain from health professionals is used to help identify what employment might be suitable for the individual. This is based on what a person can do and what they might be capable of, with appropriate support or training, and also any continuing medication needs that need to be taken into account in agreeing goals.

  AtW advisers attached to the new AtW business centres are able to use and pool their knowledge and expertise, and have access to expert external advice and assessment of need in relation to assistive technologies.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was(a) the total expenditure of his Department and its agencies and (b) the total expenditure on counter-fraud work within his Department and its agencies in the last year for which figures are available. [21734]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the Department's total expenditure is provided in Table 4 of the 2001–02 Departmental Report.

  The Department set out its strategy for tackling fraud and error in the paper 'A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security' (Cm4276) published on 23 March 1999. The overall aim of the strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments. It is therefore not possible to account for the cost of anti-fraud work separately.

  Remploy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Remploy 21 board strategy for business development. [21517]

  Maria Eagle
  We welcome the progress being made in implementing the Remploy 21 strategy. We have been encouraged by Remploy's ability to adapt its business and take advantage of new opportunities, for instance in white goods recycling and call centre services. We also welcome the new emphasis on learning and development and the very encouraging increase in the numbers of disabled people being helped to progress to unsupported work outside Remploy.
  619W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with trade unions in connection with(a) delivery of the Remploy 21 strategy and (b) partnership working with management to deliver agreed objectives for that business. [21518]

  Maria Eagle
  None. Remploy is responsible for all discussions with its trades unions on its future strategy.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who became newly entitled for the 2000–01 winter fuel payment but did not make a claim before the cut-off date. [21935]

  Mr. McCartney
  According to our estimate about 1.5 million people could have been entitled to claim winter fuel payments in 2000–01 for the first time, and about 1 million have been paid.

  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the numbers who have not claimed because the estimate of those newly eligible was based on sample data. It is up to the individual, where a claim is necessary, to decide whether or not to make that claim.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who became newly entitled for the 2001–02 winter fuel payment and made a claim before 21 September. [21934]

  Mr. McCartney
  Our estimate is that some 500,000 people could be newly entitled to winter fuel payments in 2001–02. Of this figure, at least 255,000 are being paid automatically. By 21 September, 170,000 claims had been received. This figure had risen to 195,000 by 30 November.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of eligible people who have not received backdated winter fuel payments for the first three years of the scheme and the value of such payments. [21937]

  Mr. McCartney
  An estimated 1.9 million people were eligible for backdated payments for the first three years of the scheme. Around 1.2 million payments have now been made.

  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the numbers of unclaimed backdated payments, because the estimate of those eligible was based on sample data. There is no time limit on claiming backdated payments.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer from those who were newly entitled to the 2000–01 winter fuel payment and did not claim before the cut-off date. [21936]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is not possible to estimate reliably the value of unclaimed winter fuel payments for this group, because the estimate of those newly eligible was based on sample data. It is up to the individual, where a claim is necessary, to decide whether or not to make that claim.
  620W

  Passported Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if recipients of the guarantee credit will be entitled to the same passported benefits as recipients of income support. [21651]

  Mr. McCartney
  Subject to the agreement of the devolved Administrations and parliamentary scrutiny of the State Pension Credit Bill and the new Tax Credits Bill, we propose that recipients of the guarantee credit should be entitled to the same passported benefits as recipients of income support.

  Minimum Funding Requirement
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the time limits for scheme minimum funding requirements. [21442]

  Mr. McCartney
  The minimum funding requirement (MFR) was introduced from April 1997, and requires pension schemes to which it applies to correct underfunding within specified periods. During the transitional period, which ends on 5 April 2002, schemes which are underfunded on the MFR basis have until 5 April 2003 to bring funding up to 90 per cent. of the MFR level, and until 5 April 2007 to bring funding up to 100 per cent. of the MFR level.

  We are currently consulting on a set of draft regulations which will introduce changes to the current MFR in advance of its replacement. One of the proposed changes will extend these periods to allow three years for schemes to reach the 90 per cent. level, and 10 years to reach the 100 per cent. level. The consultation ends on 10 December, and we plan to introduce new arrangements before April next year.

  Pay Gender Gap
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the pay gender gap; what measures he has taken to address the issue; and if he will make a statement. [16871]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The pay gap is at its lowest ever, and has halved since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970. The new Earnings Survey 2000 indicates that women currently earn 81 pence for every pound a man earns.

  Earlier this year the Government asked Denise Kingsmill to examine and report on possible measures to improve women's employment prospects and so reduce the pay gap. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office and I welcome this report, published on 5 December, which examines non-legislative and cost effective measures to improve women's employment prospects and participation in the labour market and to achieve greater equality of pay.

  A number of Government initiatives are already under way to tackle this important issue, including key elements of the Employment Bill. The Government's full response to the 14 recommendations made in the Deputy Competition Commissioner's report is available in the Libraries of the House.
  621W

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on new bereavement benefits; what efforts have been made to publicise this benefit to the public; and under what circumstances someone would be eligible for the benefit. [20962]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Bereavement Benefits were introduced on 9 April 2001 and are available to both men and women for the first time. They concentrate the help available where and when it is needed most, on immediate needs and on families with children. Entitlement is based on the National Insurance record of the deceased spouse.

  Since March 2000 the Department has issued leaflets on the new bereavement benefits to doctors' surgeries, Post Offices and benefit advisers. Articles explaining the new benefits were placed in a variety of magazines prior to their introduction in April 2001. In addition, to ensure that as many men as possible were able to claim Widowed Parent's Allowance from the outset, the Department identified over 11,000 potential male beneficiaries from the Child Benefit computer system and sent them claim forms in March 2001.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much of the proposed expenditure on the pension credit in 2003–04 is attributable to(a) the guarantee credit and (b) the savings credit. [21099]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: It is estimated that our proposals for the Pension Credit will increase benefit expenditure by approximately £1 billion in 2003–04 when Pension Credit is introduced in October 2003. This expenditure is in addition to the expenditure of approximately £2¼ billion on the Minimum Income Guarantee which has been forecast for the same period.

  Of the additional expenditure of £1 billion: approximately £220 million is attributable to the changes to Housing and Council Tax Benefits; approximately £450 million is attributable to the savings credit; and, the remainder is attributable to the other proposed changes such as the way in which capital is treated.

  Savings Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate (1) the annual cost of extending entitlement to the savings credit to all those aged 60 years or over; [21104]

  (2) the number of pensioners who would gain if the lower age limit for eligibility for the savings credit were reduced to 60 years. [21650]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: No.

  As our response to the consultation exercise "The Pension Credit— the Government's proposals" makes clear, the qualifying age for the savings credit has been set at age 65 because we are required by law to treat men and women in the same way. Age 65 is the first point at which the state pension, including the State Earnings
  622W
  Related Pension Scheme, is available to both men and women. So this is the earliest point at which the savings reward can be paid without discrimination.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assumptions he proposes to make about the increases in claimants' pensions during the period between an initial pension credit claim and a routine reassessment of that claim. [21649]

  Mr. McCartney
  We propose to automatically uprate the pension credit each year taking into account changes in the state and non-state pensions the pensioner normally has during the five year assessed income period. The calculation will be based on information provided by the pensioner at the start of the award.

  Severe Disability Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate (1) the cost of abolishing the rule which withdraws severe disability premium from those who are cared for by someone who is receipt of ICA; [16765]

  (2) the number of people who would benefit from abolishing the rule which withdraws severe disability premium from those who are cared for by someone who is in receipt of ICA. [16766]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]:The information is in the table:

  Estimated cost and potential gainers in the event of a change to regulations

  Benefit

  Costs (£ million per annum)

  Potential gainers

  Income Support (including Jobseeker's Allowance (income based))

  70

  35,000

  Housing Benefit

  5

  10,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  less than 2.5

  10,000

  Total

  75

  —

  Notes:

  1. The costs and potential gainers have been estimated from a Policy Simulation Model which models the benefit rules in 2001–02.

  2. The estimates are based on data taken from the 1999–2000 Family Resources Survey, uprated to 2001–02 prices, benefit and earnings levels.

  3. Costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million except for Council Tax Benefit where the cost would be less than £2.5 million. Potential gainers are rounded to the nearest 5,000. Costs and gainers include estimates for people who would become newly entitled to the income-related benefits in the event of such a change.

  4. Potential gainers cannot be summed to a total because of overlap across the different benefits.

  5. The estimates are based on small sample sizes and are therefore subject to a degree of uncertainty.

  Working Time Directive
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU on the working time directive. [19176]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.
  623W

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Meetings (Minutes)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish in the Official Report the guidance available to civil servants minuting meetings between Ministers and others. [21357]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The Civil Service Code requires all civil servants to undertake their official duties with integrity, impartiality and honesty. This applies to all activities including the minuting of ministerial meetings.

  Royal Succession
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will amend the Act of Settlement 1700 to allow a non-protestant to succeed to the throne. [21537]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have always stood firm against discrimination in all its forms and will continue to do so. We have no immediate plans to legislate in this area.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to repeal the Royal Marriages Act 1772. [21536]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to do so at present.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that succession to the throne is henceforth based on primogeniture irrespective of gender. [21534]

  The Prime Minister:
  There are no plans to legislate in this area at present.

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Prime Minister what the revised terms of reference of the Senior Salaries Review Body are. [22329]

  The Prime Minister
  The terms of reference of the Senior Salaries Review Body have been revised as follows to allow the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales and the Greater London Authority to ask for advice on the pay, pensions and allowances of their members and office holders.

  The Review Body on Senior Salaries provides independent advice to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration of holders of judicial office; senior civil servants; senior officers of the armed forces; and other such public appointments as may from time to time be specified.

  The Review Body also advises the Prime Minister from time to time on the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament and their allowances; on Peers' allowances; and on the pay, pensions and allowances of Ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. If asked to do so by the Presiding
  624W
  Officer and the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament jointly; or by the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly; or by the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales; or by the Mayor of London and Chair of the Greater London Assembly jointly; the Review Body also from time to time advises those bodies on the pay, pensions and allowances of their members and office holders.

  In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
  "the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities;
  Government policies for improving the public services including the requirement on Departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services;
  the funds available to Departments as set out in the Government's departmental expenditure limits;
  the Government's inflation target."

  In making recommendations, the Review Body shall consider any factors that the Government and other witnesses may draw to its attention. In particular it shall have regard to:
  "differences in terms and conditions of employment between the public and private sectors and between the remit groups, taking account of relative job security and the value of benefits in kind;
  changes in national pay systems, including flexibility and the reward of success; and job weight in differentiating the remuneration of particular posts; and
  the need to maintain broad linkage between the remuneration of the three main remit groups, while allowing sufficient flexibility to take account of the circumstances of each group."

  The Review Body may make other recommendations as it sees fit:
  "to ensure that, as appropriate, the remuneration of the remit groups relates coherently to that of their subordinates, encourages efficiency and effectiveness, and takes account of the different management and organisational structures that may be in place from time to time;
  to relate reward to performance where appropriate;
  to maintain the confidence of those covered by the Review Body's remit that its recommendations have been properly and fairly detennined; and
  to ensure that the remuneration of those covered by the remit is consistent with the Government's equal opportunities policy."

  The Review Body will take account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations.

  Euro
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Prime Minister if the results of a future referendum on UK membership of the euro will be broken down by each(a) nation and (b) region of the UK. [21779]

  The Prime Minister:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 2 November 2001, Official Report, column 883W.

  Stephen Byers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will investigate the circumstances surrounding the decision taken by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for
  625W
  Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), to expend departmental funds to pursue an action against Associated Newspapers and Simon and Schuster. [21741]

  The Prime Minister
  The circumstances are set out in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 646W.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to require persons raised to the peerage on his recommendations to serve as Ministers in the House of Lords, to relinquish their peerage when they cease to be Ministers of the Crown; and if he will make a statement. [22284]

  The Prime Minister:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 26 November 2001, Official Report, column 626W.

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in(a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [22006]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Further to my written answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 92W, six letters were replied to in under 15 days; one in under 20 days; and two in under 30 days.

  Budd Report
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the implications for private clubs and societies in Scotland of the proposals in the Budd report. [21538]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have recently carried out a public consultation on the Budd report. During this consultation, a number of representations were made about the recommendation in the report that jackpot machines should be removed from private clubs. The Government will put forward their proposals on the law relating to gaming once we have fully considered the points made in the consultation. The Scotland Office, and the Scottish Executive, are keeping in close touch with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in this area.

  Fishing
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) licensed fishing boats and (b) people employed directly in offshore fishing there were in Scotland in each of the past 10 years. [21539]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a devolved matter, for which the Scottish Executive is responsible.
  626W

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  County Court Judgments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many orders were made in county courts in England setting aside county court judgments in the last three years; and how many of the judgments had been obtained by(a) Government Departments, (b) utilities and (c) others. [20938]

  Mr. Wills
  Specific figures concerning the setting aside of county court judgments are not collected in a way that makes them readily identifiable. Such information will be held within the individual court records and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received in 2001 from(a) the Countryside Agency and (b) the rural advocate on proposed closures of magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement. [21451]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has received one representation from(a) the Countryside Agency, and two representations from (b) the rural advocate, on proposed closures of magistrates courts.

  It is the Government's policy that decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates courts are for each magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority or authorities.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by the Lord Chancellor's Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [22022]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  According to departmental records, the percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by the Lord Chancellor's Department which received a holding answer, during the parliamentary Sessions 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, was 7.8 per cent. The figures for each parliamentary Session are provided in the table.

  Percentage of named day PQs receiving a holding reply in the last three parliamentary Sessions

  Session

  Number of PQs

  Number of named day PQs

  Number of holding replies

  Percentage

  1998–991

  925

  159

  51

  5.5

  1999–20002

  837

  206

  74

  8.8

  2000–013

  402

  131

  44

  10.9

  1 December 1998 to November 1999; sitting days 149

  2 November 1999 to November 2000; sitting days 170

  3 December 2000 to May 2001; sitting days 83

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Expenditure
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total
  627W
  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 his 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 he will make a statement. [6934]

  Mr. MacShane
  The known expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the categories listed by the hon. Member was:

  Table 1: Expenditure on each category

  £

  Advertising

  Design consultants

  Publications

  Photographs

  1995–96

  0

  547,193

  2,188,776

  not known

  (639,508)

  (2,558,036)

  1996–97

  0

  366,383

  1,465,534

  not known

  (415,078)

  (1,660,313)

  1997–98

  54,038

  687,199

  2,748,800

  330,634

  (59,391)

  (755,270)

  (3,021,084)

  (363,385)

  1998–99

  1,029,850

  364,640

  1,458,564

  227,040

  (1,101,033)

  (389,844)

  (1,559,380)

  (242,733)

  1999–2000

  54,498

  329,833

  1,319,336

  228,074

  (56,877)

  (344,232)

  (1,376,931)

  (238,031)

  2000–01

  52,950

  355,374

  1,421,497

  235,225

  (53,249)

  (364,258)

  (1,421,498)

  (241,106)

  Note:

  Figures in brackets show expenditure in real terms relative to 2001–02 prices.

  Table 2: Annual percentage increases in spending on each category

  Year

  Advertising

  Design consultants

  Publishing

  Photographs

  1995–96 to 1996–97

  n/a

  -33

  -33

  not known

  1996–97 to 1997–98

  n/a

  +88

  +88

  not known

  1997–98 to 1998–99

  +1,906

  -47

  -47

  -32

  1998–99 to 1999–2000

  -1,890

  -10

  -9

  +0.5

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  -4

  +8

  +8

  +3

  Note:

  Percentages are rounded.

  Table 3: Expenditure as a percentage of total FCO running costs

  Year

  Advertising

  Design consultants

  Publishing

  Photographs

  1995–96

  n/a

  0.13

  0.5

  not known

  1996–97

  n/a

  0.09

  0.35

  not known

  1997–98

  0.013

  0.16

  0.66

  0.08

  1998–99

  0.235

  0.08

  0.34

  0.052

  1999–2000

  0.015

  0.09

  0.35

  0.062

  2000–01

  0.012

  0.08

  0.33

  0.055

  Note:

  Percentages are rounded.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office incurred no expenditure on 'polling' or 'focus groups' in the years concerned.

  Catering expenditure is not separately identifiable in the FCO accounting system: to ascertain the figures would involve disproportionate effort and cost. The figures for publications include expenditure on public diplomacy, consular publications and annual reports. In addition to the expenditure identified, there was minor additional
  628W
  expenditure in London and overseas in the years concerned. This cannot be ascertained without disproportionate effort and cost.

  The figures quoted for photographs were spent on still photographs used to promote Britain overseas; additional expenditure was incurred in the years concerned on photographs used in publications and exhibitions here in the UK. It would require disproportionate effort and cost to establish this expenditure.

  The Government are committed to using only whatever channel is judged to be the most cost-effective way to deliver the publicity necessary to support the implementation of policy. Paid advertising is only resorted to after careful consideration of the cost-benefits. The figures for advertising include expenditure on consular publicity but exclude expenditure on advertising for recruitment, as identifying this expenditure would entail disproportionate effort and cost. The advertising figure for 1998–99 includes £1 million spent on a consular advertising campaign in the run-up to the World Cup 1998 in France.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years; [17560]

  (2) what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; and what was their value. [17561]

  Mr. MacShane
  We do not keep records of purchases that fall into the fair trade category. Much of the tea and coffee consumed in the Department is purchased by individuals for their own consumption.

  Renunciation Certificates (British Citizenship)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the service provided by the High Commission in Harare to those seeking certificates of renunciation of British citizenship. [20179]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The British High Commission in Harare has received three representations on renunciation—two from individuals, and one in the form of a petition signed by a number of individuals. It has also received thousands of inquiries—by telephone, fax, letter and personal call—about the procedure for renunciation.

  The British High Commission in Harare has widely publicised the procedures for renunciation, through the Zimbabwean press, its website, through the Consular Section and in briefings. The FCO has set up a procedure with the Home Office to enable dual nationals for the UK and Zimbabwe to speedily divest themselves of British citizenship in order to comply with the 6 January 2002 deadline set by the Zimbabwean Government in the recent amendments to Zimbabwean nationality law. This means that certificates of renunciation can now be issued within 10 working days.
  629W

  ABM Treaty
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the ABM Treaty. [20507]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty is first and foremost a matter for the US and Russia as parties to the treaty. We welcome the US and Russian commitment to ongoing discussions on strategic issues, including both offensive and defensive systems. We are encouraged by this, and their declared mutual intention to make real reductions in nuclear forces, confirmed by President Bush and President Putin at their recent meeting in the US.

  Mr. Jeremy Parks
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Colombian Government asking them(a) to bring to justice those involved in the death of Mr. Jeremy Parks and (b) to establish the facts behind his death. [20755]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are liaising closely with the judicial authorities in Colombia. The tragic death of Mr. Jeremy Parks is being investigated by the Technical Investigation Corps of the Fiscalia (The Prosecutor's Office), under the supervision of a magistrate. This is the normal procedure in cases of violent or unexpected death. The magistrate' s report has not yet been finalised.

  Terrorist Attacks (Israel)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of how many Israelis have been killed by terrorist attacks in the nine months from 7 March; and how many were killed in such attacks in the nine months preceding that date. [20767]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Casualty figures can be unreliable. Deaths and injuries are sometimes included which are not necessarily the direct result of violence. Israeli Government figures show that approximately 65 Israelis were killed in the six months before 7 March, and 166 since that date.

  Tracey Housel
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the State of Georgia, USA, regarding the proposed execution of Tracey Housel; and if he will make a statement. [20855]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have taken and will take all the steps we properly can to ensure that Mr. Housel, a dual US/British national on death row in Georgia, USA, is not executed. The FCO is in close contact with Mr. Housel's legal team and the Georgia authorities are aware of our opposition to the death penalty.

  Mr. Housel's final appeal is due to be heard by the US Supreme Court early next year. International law prevents us intervening in the judicial procedures of another sovereign state. However, if the court rejects Mr. Housel's appeal, we will immediately urge the Georgian authorities to commute his sentence to a term of imprisonment.
  630W

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for Gibraltar to be(a) a constituency and (b) integrated into UK constituencies for the purposes of voting in the 2004 European parliamentary elections. [21763]

  Peter Hain
  We are committed to extending the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar in time for the 2004 European Parliament elections and we are seeking legislative time in order to introduce domestic legislation for this purpose. We have taken no decisions on the modalities.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what joint statements with the Spanish Government were made regarding the sovereignty of Gibraltar during the talks in Barcelona on 20 November. [R] [21547]

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he will use to assess success in talks with Spain over the future status of Gibraltar. [21663]

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further aspects of self-Government for Gibraltar have been discussed during talks with(a) Spain and (b) the Government of Gibraltar since the start of the Brussels Process. [21544]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 187W. A copy of the joint press communiquée issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs when they met under the Brussels Process in Barcelona on 20 November has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action he has taken in respect of the resolution on Gibraltar passed at the European Council in Gothenburg. [R] [21423]

  Peter Hain
  The Gothenburg European Council conclusions state that"The European Council recalled the importance of the Single Sky initiative and noted that contacts are under way between the relevant member states on the question of its territorial application. It hopes that these contacts will produce early agreement".

  The UK Government came to such an agreement with Spain enabling the Commission to bring forward its proposals on 12 October.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 1 November 2001, Official Report, column 811W.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held with the Government of Gibraltar about the future status of Gibraltar before the date for the talks under the Brussels process was agreed. [R] [21424]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I discussed the resumption of talks under the Brussels Process and
  631W
  issues concerning the future of Gibraltar with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar before the date for talks under the Brussels Process was agreed. In addition normal official contacts continued throughout this period.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the laws by which Gibraltar is a member of the European Union allow for its inhabitants to have access to health and education services in other European Union countries. [R] [21418]

  Peter Hain
  Yes.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions Spain is attaching to removing Gibraltar's suspension from the EU(a) Single Sky Agreement and (b) Regulation on Aviation Security. [R] [21420]

  Peter Hain
  The terms of the clause which the Government have agreed with Spain should be inserted in the Single Sky and Aviation Security Regulations provided that the application of the measures to Gibraltar Airport will be suspended until the arrangements in the joint declaration made by the Foreign Ministers of Spain and the United Kingdom on 2 December 1987 have come into operation. Neither measure has yet been adopted by the Council and the European Parliament.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the laws by which Gibraltar is a member of the European Union allow for the free movement of(a) goods and services and (b) people between Gibraltar and the rest of the European Union; [R] [21419]

  (2) what changes will be required in the laws of Gibraltar for it to achieve full rights of membership of the European Union. [R] [21421]

  Peter Hain
  The EC Treaty applies to Gibraltar by virtue of Article 299(4) TEC. But certain provisions of the Treaty do not apply by virtue of the UK's Act of Accession.

  Article 28 of the Act of Accession excludes Gibraltar from the Common Agriculture and Fisheries policies and provisions on VAT. Gibraltar is also excluded from the Common Commercial policy and the Community Customs Territory and, in consequence, Community rules on customs and free movement of goods do not apply to Gibraltar.

  The Treaty would have to be amended in order to revoke the derogations specified above and apply the EU Treaties fully to Gibraltar. Legislative changes would also be needed to give effect to any new Treaty provisions in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Spain to allow direct flights to Gibraltar from airports outside the UK to overfly its airspace. [R] [21545]

  Peter Hain
  We are not aware of any Spanish policy to refuse to allow civilian aircraft flying to Gibraltar from airports outside the UK to overfly Spanish airspace. As was made clear in the memorandum submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 30 March 1999, in response to the Committee's Fourth Report, under Article 1 of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement to which both Spain and the UK are party,632W
  aircraft of other contracting parties performing scheduled air services are granted the privilege of overflight. A right of overflight is accorded to aircraft performing nonscheduled (charter) services under Article 5 of the 1944 convention on International Civil Aviation to which both Spain and the UK are also party.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether legislation giving the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in the 2004 European parliamentary elections will require the(a) unanimous approval and (b) approval of the other member states of the European Union. [21530]

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if European legislation will be required to ensure that the people of Gibraltar have the right to vote in the 2004 European elections in addition to domestic legislation. [21662]

  Peter Hain
  We are committed to extending the EP franchise to Gibraltar in time for the 2004 European Parliament elections. The Government have now decided to seek legislative time in order to introduce domestic legislation for this purpose. The content of this legislation is a matter for the UK alone: it does not require the approval of other member states. There will be no additional EU legislation. Consultations are already underway between the Government and the Government of Gibraltar on the practical arrangements.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when consultations will begin with the Government of Gibraltar to ensure that the people of Gibraltar have the right to vote in the 2004 European parliamentary elections. [21531]

  Peter Hain
  We have been in contact with the Government of Gibraltar and are seeking an early meeting to establish exactly what will be required, in terms of legislative and practical arrangements, to ensure that the European Parliamentary franchise is extended to Gibraltar in time for the 2004 elections.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what jurisdiction the International Court of Justice has over the status of Gibraltar. [21747]

  Peter Hain
  Any dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain with regard to the status of Gibraltar can only be referred to the International Court of Justice with the agreement of both sides. Spain does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with regard to Gibraltar.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to amend the Brussels Process to allow the Government of Gibraltar a veto over changes in the status of Gibraltar. [21706]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2001,Official Report, columns 88–92WH. The Government will stand by the constitutional commitment to Gibraltar set out in the preamble to the Order in Council that established the 1969 Constitution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterated this in response to a question from the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on 27 November 2001, Official Report, columns 822–23.
  633W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a date for further talks with Spain under the Brussels Process has been arranged; and if he will make a statement. [21707]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 312W.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last requested the Spanish Government to produce evidence of smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain; and what was the outcome of that request. [21434]

  Peter Hain
  We have repeatedly asked the Spanish Government to make available to us any current evidence that they have of cross-border smuggling. HMG with the Government of Gibraltar will investigate any such evidence.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes in the status of Gibraltar within the European Union are being considered [21435]

  Peter Hain
  Our objective is to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar, with greater self-government for the territory and better relations with Spain. If change in the status of Gibraltar within the EU could help advance these objectives, we are prepared to consider this.

  Spain
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last spoke to his counterpart in Spain; and what was the subject of discussion. [R] [21548]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's last formal meeting with his Spanish counterpart was on 20 November 2001, as part of the Brussels Process talks on Gibraltar. However, they also meet regularly in the margins of other EU and international meetings, such as the 6–7 December North Atlantic Council, to discuss a range of foreign policy issues.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in(a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [21996]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 88W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Staff Costs
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate total annual staff costs for her Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6859]
  634W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated staff costs for the Department for Education and Skills by region of the UK are as set out. The figures reflect the machinery of government changes that took place following the June 2001 general election, including the transfer to the Cabinet Office of responsibility for the Government Offices for the Regions. The Department does not have staff outside England.

  Region

  £ million

  North East

  11

  North West

  10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  29

  London

  58

  Citizenship Lessons
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were qualified to teach citizenship lessons in secondary schools in September. [8406]

  Mr. Timms
  This information has not been collected centrally. Citizenship does not become part of the secondary schools curriculum until September 2002.

  Teacher Statistics
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers of non-EU nationality are employed in British schools. [8835]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teacher Recruitment (East Sussex)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been recruited from overseas to fill teaching posts in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in East Sussex in the past year. [9860]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on(a) the margin of failure and (b) the reason for failure to meet the public service agreement target of a 2 per cent. reduction in unit price per work-based trainee in 1999–2000 over 1998–99. [14053]

  John Healey
  The unit price per work-based trainee in 1999–2000 was £2,933 compared with £2,734 in 1998–99. This represents a real terms increase of 4.7 per cent.

  Departmental plans for 1999–2000 were on the basis of a 2 per cent. overall efficiency gain. The consequential unit price was passed out for local negotiations to establish the actual local unit prices, within training and

  635W
  enterprise councils' agreed flexibilities. The range of young people being helped and the mix of occupational training delivered however also influenced the overall unit price. In 1999–2000, the average numbers on higher value and quality modern apprenticeships were 10 per cent. higher than in 1998–99 and numbers on higher value and quality national traineeships (now foundation modern apprenticeships) increased threefold. The result of negotiations and the factors for 1999–2000 was that training and enterprise councils delivered a more expensive menu of training than in the previous year and the overall unit price reflects this.

  Average expenditure per student on student loans in the United Kingdom; average expenditure per student on fees and maintenance in England and Wales1,2: Academic years 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Academic year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Student loans2

  Total value of loans (£ million)

  69.9

  139.2

  226.5

  316.7

  538.8

  700.8

  877.2

  941.0

  1,233.5

  1,823.0

  Average loan per student3

  390

  530

  660

  740

  1,040

  1,250

  1,490

  1,530

  1,870

  2,520

  Student Fees4

  Total fee expenditure (£ million)

  843.8

  1,281.3

  1,536.6

  1,549.2

  970.5

  984.3

  977.5

  986.9

  678.8

  555.5

  Average fee per student (£)3

  1,700

  2,250

  2,310

  2,100

  1,250

  1,250

  1,250

  1,260

  870

  700

  Student maintenance grants1,5

  Total maintenance expenditure (£ million)

  713.4

  859.7

  1,045.8

  1,202.0

  1,158.6

  1,074.8

  948.2

  931.6

  782.8

  347.5

  Average maintenance grant per student3

  1,480

  1,550

  1,610

  1,670

  1,520

  1,390

  1,240

  1,210

  1,030

  1,150

  Additional allowances/grants/loans6,7,8

  Total expenditure on additional allowances/grants/loans

  79.2

  104.2

  137.4

  173.6

  196.5

  190.7

  179.3

  171.2

  164.9

  164.1

  Average additional allowance/grant/loan3

  330

  360

  400

  420

  460

  450

  440

  450

  470

  420

  1 Totals include both students funded under the mandatory scheme and those funded under the new student support scheme. New student support arrangements were introduced from academic year 1998–99. New students in 1998–99 received support for maintenance through income-assessed grants (comprising about a quarter of the support available) and non income-assessed student loans (comprising about three quarters of the support available). (The ratio for existing students is roughly 50 per cent. income-assessed grant and 50 per cent. non income-assessed student loan). In 1999–2000, students who entered higher education from 1998–99 onwards received support for maintenance entirely through loans, of which three quarters of the value was non income-assessed. Loans made under these arrangements are repayable on an income contingent basis.

  2 Student loans are available to eligible students normally domiciled in the United Kingdom. From 1999–2000 student loans have been made available to those aged 50 to 54 who plan to return to work after studying. A time series of data for England and Wales domiciled students is not available.

  3 Average loan, fees, maintenance grant and additional allowance/grant/loan rounded to the nearest £10.

  4 Most new students in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 were expected to contribute up to £1,000 and £1,025 respectively to their fees depending on family income.

  5 Maintenance shown in 1999–2000 relates to mandatory awards scheme students only.

  6 Up to academic year 1999–2000 data on additional allowances/grants/loans are included in the maintenance grants information, totalling will therefore include some double counting. 1999–2000 data relating to mandatory awards scheme students will also be included in maintenance grants, however those relating to students funded under the support scheme will not, as these students received support for maintenance entirely through loans.

  7 Students may receive more than one additional allowance/grant/loan. The average figures shown will include an element of double counting of student numbers. The profiles of additional allowances/grants/loans have not remained constant over the time period and this accounts for some of the variation in the average values shown.

  8 For student support scheme students, grants for living costs are no longer available except for some limited allowances, eg for students with dependants; single parent students; and disabled students. Grants for students with dependants and single parents students will be income-assessed but the disabled students allowance will not.

  Source:

  The Student Loans Company; F503G survey of local education authorities.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what method of auditing applies to the administration of student loans. [19810]

  Margaret Hodge
  Student loans are paid and administered by the Student Loans Company (SLC). The SLC is a Non-Departmental Public Body. It is also a private limited company, and so subject to external audit. The SLC's external auditors are KPMG. The SLC
  636W

  Student Finances
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department has spent per student on(a) loans, (b) grants and (c) other maintenance support in each year since 1990. [16188]

  Margaret Hodge
  The table shows how much the Department has spent per student on average on higher education student loans, grants and other maintenance support in each academic year 1990–91 to 1999–2000 (latest data available).

  publishes audited accounts each year in its Annual Report. In addition, as an NDPB, the SLC is required to have an internal audit function which meets the Government Internal Audit Standard (GIAS). The SLC has an audit committee which is chaired by one of its non-executive directors.

  Copies of the SLC's Annual Report and Accounts are placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and are sent to Companies House.
  637W

  Staff Turnover
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) head teachers and (b) university lecturers have left the profession in each of the past five years. [19645]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available data are given in the following tables.

  Head teachers leaving1 the maintained school sector in England

  Heads leaving in year prior to March:

  Number

  1995

  1,940

  1996

  1,900

  1997

  2,300

  1998

  2,420

  19992

  1,490

  1 The figures exclude head teachers who remain in the maintained sector but who step down to a lower grade.

  2 The effect of the change in the Teachers' Pension Scheme as from 31 August 1997 was that many more teachers (including heads) took early retirement in 1997 than in previous years. In the year prior to March 1999, there was a decrease in the number of heads retiring, and an increase in the number remaining in the sector but stepping down to a lower grade.

  Full-time, wholly institutionally financed academic staff1 leaving UK higher education institutions2

  Academic year

  Leavers

  1995–96

  3,800

  1996–97

  4,770

  1997–98

  3,930

  1998–99

  3,910

  1999–2000

  3,670

  Time series of total research income1

  Data are for England only

  Subject group

  1995–96 (£ million)

  1996–97 (£ million)

  1997–98 (£ million)

  1998–99 (£ million)

  1999–2000 (£ million)

  Change in income2 (Percentage)

  Clinical medicine

  463.2

  501.0

  521.8

  562.7

  603.6

  30.3

  Engineering

  287.7

  298.1

  313.8

  335.2

  338.3

  17.6

  Sciences

  670.1

  684.2

  737.7

  803.9

  854.3

  27.5

  Subjects allied to medicine

  130.4

  130.6

  148.1

  165.0

  181.2

  39.0

  Total sciences

  1,551.4

  1,613.9

  1,721.3

  1,866.7

  1,977.3

  27.5

  Arts

  16.9

  20.5

  26.8

  32.3

  38.6

  128.9

  Education

  50.1

  50.6

  49.0

  60.2

  62.3

  24.4

  Humanities

  103.2

  102.9

  107.0

  115.3

  118.5

  14.9

  Social sciences

  206.2

  212.1

  224.8

  245.9

  262.7

  27.4

  Total arts

  376.4

  386.1

  407.6

  453.7

  482.2

  28.1

  Total

  1,927.7

  2,000.1

  2,129.0

  2,320.4

  2,459.5

  27.6

  1 External grants and HEFCE funding

  21995–96 to 1999–2000

  HESA Finance Statistics Returns and planned HEFCE research funding allocations as announced in recurrent grant circulars or as subsequently amended.

  Tuition Fees
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total annual public funding is for academic institutions which charge student tuition fees. [19720]

  Margaret Hodge
  The planned annual public funding for Further and Higher Education in England in 2001–02
  638W
  1 Includes staff whose primary employment function is teaching or teaching/research. Staff whose primary function is research are not included.

  2 Staff who moved to other HE institutions, either in the UK or overseas, have not been classed as leavers and are therefore excluded from the table.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual staff turnover has been in Further Education colleges in the last five academic years. [20104]

  John Healey
  The Department does not collect information about the annual rates of staff turnover in the further education sector.

  A survey carried out in 2001 on behalf of the Association of Colleges and further education unions, and partly funded by the Department, found that, in 1999–2000, the rate of staff turnover was 10 per cent. for lecturers and managers and 14 per cent. for support staff. We are not aware any comparative figures for earlier years.

  University Resources
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collected on growth in research income for universities in(a) the sciences and (b) the arts over the last five years; and if she will publish the figures for such growth, broken down by department. [19458]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is laid out in the following table. These figures represent total research income from HEFCE and external sources over five years.

  is £4,029 million and £5,8261 million respectively. However the Further Education figure is included within the overall budget for the LSC and it will be for the LSC to decide how to allocate their budget.

  1 Publicly planned funding comprises institutional funding paid via the Higher Education Funding Council for England and tuition fees but excludes public funding from Research Councils, other Government Departments and the National Health Service.
  639W

  Portable Buildings
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the cost of implementing Statutory Instrument 2718 and the guidance notice relating to portable buildings. [19898]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Statutory Instrument 2718 is The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001. This order amends the planning guidelines relating to telecommunications masts, and has no relevance to portable buildings. There has thus been no assessment of the cost of implementing this Statutory Instrument.

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

  Further education funding (2001–02 prices)

  £ million

  1995–96 Outturn

  1996–97 Outturn

  1997–98 Outturn

  1998–99 Outturn

  1999–2000 Outturn

  2000–07 Original plans

  2001–02 Planned

  Total FE funding cash

  3,000.5

  3,130.7

  3,131.4

  3,101.6

  3,299.8

  3,502.1

  4,028.5

  of which:

  FE core participation funding

  3,000.5

  3,130.7

  3,131.4

  3,101.6

  3216.4

  3,323.1

  3,609.5

  additional capital grant

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  40.0

  70.0

  140.0

  FE Standards Fund

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  34.9

  80.0

  165.0

  FE Teachers' Pay Initiative

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  65.0

  Other additional grants

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  8.5

  29.1

  49.0

  Total FE funding 2001–02 prices

  3,506.5

  3,546.7

  3,441.3

  3,316.0

  3,443.7

  3,589.7

  4,028.5

  of which:

  FE core participation funding

  3,506.5

  3,546.7

  3,441.3

  3,316.0

  3,356.7

  3,406.2

  3,609.5

  additional capital grant

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  41.7

  71.8

  140.0

  FE Standards Fund

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  36.4

  82.0

  165.0

  FE Teachers' Pay Initiative

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  65.0

  Other additional grants

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  8.9

  29.8

  49.0

  Notes:

  1. FEFC/LSC administration funding and FE student support funding excluded from all figures.

  2. Additional employer contributions excluded (£35 million in 1999–2000 and £60 million in each 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  3. Figures up to 2000–01 based on cash resources made available to the FEFC by the Department.

  4. Figure for 2001–02 based on planned FE funding included in the Learning and Skills Council resources. Final decision on levels of funding are for the LSC to take.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the impact of house prices on the recruitment and retention of further education college staff in the south-east of England. [20742]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Turnover of staff in the further education (FE) sector in the south-east of England averages 11 per cent. for lecturers and 17 per cent. for support staff. Recruitment and retention difficulties arise from competition from other institutions and the wider economy.
  640W
  There is nothing in the guidance in the Approved Document that indicates that portable buildings will have to be disposed of after five years. It indicates that there are no restrictions at all on portable buildings that are moved from one place to another on the same site. With regard to buildings moved from one site to another the guidance is that a building constructed from external fabric sub-assemblies obtained from other premises or from a stock manufactured before 31 December 2001, would normally be considered to meet the requirement if the fabric thermal resistance or the prospective annual energy use will be no worse than the relevant performance standards given in the 1995 edition of Approved Document L.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what core funding was awarded each year to further education colleges in England from 1995–96, adjusted for inflation; [20692]

  (2) what funding was allocated to further education colleges in England from 1995–96, adjusted for inflation. [20693]

  Margaret Hodge [holding answer 4 December 2001]
  Funding allocated to further education colleges in England from 1995–96 adjusted for inflation is as follows.

  We recognise that staff in the further education sector need to be able to find affordable homes within a reasonable distance from their work place. The average house price in the south-east of England is £161,748 compared with £124,379 for England as a whole. By 2003–04 capital investment in housing will have risen to more than £4 billion compared with planned spending of £1.5 billion in 1997–98. The Government plan to provide 100,000 new or improved homes for low cost renting or ownership over the next three years and to review the planning guidance to local authorities in order to help them to negotiate more affordable housing. Eligibility for loans or cash grants will be dependent on local arrangements.
  641W
  We have also introduced a number of initiatives aimed at tackling recruitment and retention difficulties in the FE sector: the Teaching Pay Initiative, more than £300 million over the next three years, to reward high calibre teaching staff and create a proper career structure for teaching in the FE sector; and additionally, pilot initiatives such as Golden Hellos, student loan write-offs and training bursaries will all attract new staff to the profession.

  Curriculum and Staffing Survey
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if a timetable has been established for the next curriculum and staffing survey; [8838]

  (2) when she will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on 18 October, Ref 73. [20827]

  Mr. Timms
  A timetable has not been established for the next curriculum and staffing survey.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the total spent by her Department on central(a) advertising and marketing and (b) administration of education action zones; and what each of these amounts are as a proportion of total departmental expenditure on education action zones. [20829]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has spent currently this year £130,000 on publicity for Education Action Zones, which is 0.15 per cent. of the total annual departmental expenditure on Education Action Zones.

  The total central administration cost of all Statutory Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities Action Zones is £577,000. This is the annual running cost budget, which is 0.7 per cent. of the total annual departmental expenditure on education action zones.

  Health and Safety
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department has spent on health and safety in the workplace in each year since 1997. [21270]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Separate records are not kept for total annual spend on health and safety in my Department. Most expenditure on statutory and beneficial health and safety issues is subsumed within on-going works programmes covering a wide range of building maintenance and improvement projects.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was to her Department of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [21261]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
  642W

  Sacred Heart High School, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether she proposes to approve the conventionally financed capital allocation for the Sacred Heart High School, Newcastle. [20292]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The application put forward by Newcastle local education authority on behalf of Sacred Heart High School, is being considered, together with all other applications submitted on behalf of VA schools, against the criteria published as part of the guidance for the 2002–03 Schools Capital Allocation Round.

  My noble Friend the Minister for Education in the Lords, who has responsibility for capital funding issues at voluntary aided schools, plans to announce successful projects later this month.

  It is not appropriate, therefore, to comment on the likely outcome of an application in advance of the announcement.

  Specialist Colleges
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list specialist colleges in the secondary school sector by subject area. [20976]

  Mr. Timms
  A list of the 685 specialist colleges currently operational, grouped by specialism within each LEA, has been placed in the Library.

  Schools (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Romford are not opening for a full five-day week on a regular basis. [21011]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department is not aware of any schools in Romford that are operating on less than a full five-day week.

  Education and Youth Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Education and Youth Council held in Brussels on 29 November; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [20363]

  Margaret Hodge
  I represented the UK at the morning (Education) session of this Council meeting; my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Minister for Children and Young People) and Jane Davidson AM (Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales) represented the UK at the afternoon (Youth) session.

  Education

  The Council discussed the follow-up to the report on "Concrete Future Objectives of Education and Training Systems" (presented to the Stockholm European Council in March 2001) and adopted Conclusions setting out a number of principles concerning follow-up as well as a proposal timetable for taking work forward. The UK supported these principles, stressing the need for a coherent approach to work in this and other fields such as lifelong learning.
  643W
  The Council also discussed co-operation with third countries in the field of higher education, in the context of a Communication from the Commission on that subject.

  Ministers adopted without debate a
  "Resolution on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001";
  and an
  "Opinion concerning education and training issues in the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for member states' employment policies for 2002".

  The Council received information from the Commission on its Communication "Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality"; and on the proposal for a
  "Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the European Year of Education through Sport 2004".

  Youth

  The Council discussed the recently adopted Commission White Paper "A New Impetus for European Youth." Given the very short time scale since its publication on 21 November 2001, Ministers offered only an initial view of its content. The UK supported the generally positive response to the proposals in the White Paper and endorsed the suggested open method of co-operation as being an appropriate way of taking the policy forward.

  Ministers adopted without debate a
  "Resolution on the added value of voluntary activity for young people in the context of the development of Community action on youth."

  The Council received information from the Commission on the Evaluation Report of "Youth for Europe" and "European Voluntary Service" Community programmes for the period 1995 to 1999, and from the German delegation on the European Conference "Youth for Tolerance and Democracy" held in Berlin from 21 to 23 October 2001.

  A copy of the Council minutes will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Pre-Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what basis the period of funding of places at privately run pre-schools is set at 33 weeks. [20610]

  Margaret Hodge
  The 33 week entitlement is a minimum requirement and was decided following advice from the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA).

  Private Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children between the ages of 5 and 18 years who are domiciled outside the United Kingdom were educated within the private sector for each of the years 1997–98 to 2000–01. [21362]
  644W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Information on pupils who are domiciled outside the United Kingdom and educated within the private sector is not available centrally.

  Learning Mentors
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role learning mentors play in supporting gifted and talented students. [21815]

  Mr. Timms
  Learning Mentors can help gifted and talented students to overcome barriers to learning, such as bullying, truancy or disaffection. We encourage partnerships to ensure that the different strands of Excellence in Cities are mutually supportive.

  14 to 19 Education
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will undertake to publish her Department's consultation paper on 14 to 19 education before relevant clauses of the Education Bill have been considered in Committee. [21856]

  Mr. Timms
  We set out our outline plans for the development of a more coherent and flexible 14–19 phase of learning in our Green Paper, "Schools—Building on Success" and White Paper, "Schools—Achieving Success". The consultation document on 16–19 organisation and inspection provided further details.

  During any Parliamentary debate on these clauses we will ensure that the Committee receives as much relevant information as possible on how the clauses relate to the wider policies on 14–19 learning.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in(a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [22008]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, the Department for Education and Skills replied to a total of 903 items of Ministerial correspondence. The Department replied:

  Number of replies sent

  Percentage of replies sent

  (a) in 15 working days and under

  640

  71

  (b) in 16–20 working days

  133

  15

  (c) in 21–30 working days

  104

  11

  (d) in 31 working days and over

  26

  3

  Total

  903

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by her Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22011]
  645W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The percentages of parliamentary questions tabled to the Department for Education and Employment during the last three Parliamentary Sessions for which a holding answer was provided are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1998–99

  26

  1999–2000

  48

  2000–01

  62

  Learning and Skills Council
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the resources available to the Learning and Skills Council. [22277]

  Margaret Hodge
  Today, the Secretary of State issued the annual grant letter to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). In 2002–03, the Council will have available a resource budget of £7,310,890,000 to deliver the challenging objectives set out in the remit letter of November 2000 and the targets in the Council's corporate plan.

  The Council has taken over many of the functions previously carried out by the Further Education Funding Council and TECs, as well as various activities carried out by the Department for Education and Employment and Government Offices. Our most recent estimate is that these organisations spent in total between £270 and £280 million on administering the functions which are now the responsibility of the LSC.

  The Council takes on significant new responsibilities in 2002–03, including the funding of school sixth forms, further action to raise basic skills, and decisions at local level about the allocation of funds for young people's and adult learning provision. In total the new budget represents a 33 per cent. increase in funds compared with 2001–02, and even without school sixth forms represents a 6 per cent. real terms increase compared with the previous year.

  In the light of these responsibilities, and the different VAT regime to which the LSC is subject compared with TECs, the Secretary of State has agreed to a £25 million increase in the administration budget of the LSC for 2001–02 and 2002–03, to £213 million and £218 million respectively.

  This delivers the commitment given to Parliament during the passage of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 that there would be administrative savings of at least £50 million compared with previous arrangements.

  Scottish Expenditure
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (I) if she will list, in real terms, for each year since 1979(a) the total sums of money spent directly by her Department in Scotland and (b) the total sums of money allocated by her Department for spending in Scotland through (i) the Scottish Office, (ii) the Scotland Office and (iii) the Scottish Executive; [16181]
  646W
  (2) when she will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Beckenham (ref. 16181) of 14 November. [21659]

  Estelle Morris
  Expenditure in Scotland on programmes now administered by the Department for Education and Skills was estimated at some £2 million (real terms) in each of the years 1996–97 to 2000–01, most of which was for career development loans. No information for the years prior to 1996–97 is available.

  Most education and skills expenditure in Scotland is not the responsibility of DIES: it is devolved to the Scottish Executive. Prior to devolution this expenditure was the responsibility of the Scottish Office.

  New Deal
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the young people in Wiltshire who found employment through the new deal have found sustained unsubsidised work. [18405]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  Up to the end of September 2001, the new deal had helped 1,888 young people move into work in the Wiltshire Employment Service district. 72 per cent. of the jobs secured were sustained and unsubsidised.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Daily Mail (Stephen Byers)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the action initiated by her predecessor against the Daily Mail in respect of comments made in that newspaper on 19 March; for what reason the action initiated was not pursued to the courts; what assessment was made of the likelihood of a successful outcome to the action before it was embarked upon; and if she will make a statement. [21740]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 2 April 2001 my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), replied to a question from the hon. Member for Lewes as follows:I have engaged the solicitors Goodman Derrick to act on my behalf in response to the Daily Mail allegations made on 19 March. These allegations related entirely to my conduct as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In line with Treasury advice published in response to a Public Accounts Committee Report in 1993 which states "it is appropriate to use public resources to deal with matters arising in the course of, or as a direct result of, the official duties of Ministers and civil servants", the reasonable costs of my present action will be funded publicly. (20 April 2001, Official Report, column 7W).

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North subsequently lodged a complaint with the Press Complaints Council on 26 April. The outcome was that the Daily Mail published a clarification on 5 October in which the newspaper accepted that the account given by my right hon. Friend of his involvement in the inquiry into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson represented the true position.
  647W
  I have no plans to make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost met from public funds of the legal action taken by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) against Associated Newspapers. [21668]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 6W.

  Portland Cement
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Portland cement sold in the United Kingdom was(a) domestically produced and (b) imported in each of the last five years. [20517]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Sources of grey Portland cement sales in the United Kingdom

  Percentage

  Produced domestically

  Imported

  1996

  91.2

  8.8

  1997

  92.2

  7.8

  1998

  90.4

  9.6

  1999

  91.1

  8.9

  2000

  89.4

  10.6

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Portland cement consumption per capita was for the United Kingdom in the last 12 months. [20605]

  Mr. Wilson
  During 2000 for the United Kingdom, the per capita consumption of grey Portland cement was 222 kg.

  Nuclear Waste Transportation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is her intention that the effect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill will make publication of routes along which(a) nuclear waste and (b) spent nuclear fuel is transported illegal. [20445]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: In relation to nuclear material which is being transported, an offence would be committed under clause 80 of the Bill, only if an intentional or reckless disclosure of information is made that could prejudice the security of nuclear material being transported to or from a nuclear site in the UK used for a purpose mentioned in section 1(1) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 or being carried on board a UK ship. Whether an offence has been committed will depend on the facts of the case. The courts would have to assess whether the disclosure was capable of prejudicing security and whether the requirements of intention or recklessness have been met.

  MOX Plant, Sellafield
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account she took of a potential terrorist threat before giving authorisation to the MOX fuel plant at Sellafield. [20176]
  648W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The decision on the justification for the manufacture of MOX fuel was announced on 3 October by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In reaching their decision Ministers took full account of all relevant information including advice from the UK's civil nuclear security regulator, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS).

  Energy Review
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from BP in relation to her Department's energy review; what has been the nature of such representations; and if she will make a statement. [21401]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) of the Cabinet Office, not the Department of Trade and Industry, that is carrying out the energy review. The PIU is due to report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the end of the year and as such it would be inappropriate for me to make a statement at this time. BP has made two submissions to the energy review, both of which are on the PIU website.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20673]

  Ms Hewitt
  Decisions on the funding of wage costs for 2002–03 will be taken as part of my Department's internal resource allocation process early in the new year. It is therefore not possible to say how much of any increase in the departmental expenditure limit will be accounted for by wage costs.

  However, figures on my Department's spending plans for 2001–02 and 2002–03 were set out in the 2001 Expenditure Plans Report (Cm 5112), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Over the 2001–02 to 2002–03 period, pay costs for the Department (including gross and net controlled agencies and ACAS but excluding trading funds) were planned to increase from £256 million to £271 million, as shown in table B9.

  EU Procurement Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the estimated cost to public funds of the proposed EU directive on procurement. [20361]

  Ms Hewitt
  The proposals to amend the EC procurement directives are still under discussion. The emerging proposals are unlikely to have any net costs for public funds. As they stand the proposals for amending the rules provide the flexibility needed for the award of effective contracts, in particular the dialogue that is necessary when involving the private sector in the delivery of public services.
  649W

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed by her Department under the new deal for over-25s; and at what cost to public funds in 2001–02. [21680]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has employed 13 members of staff under the new deal for the over-25s during the current financial year. None was based within my executive agencies. New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot readily be identified.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21327]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department currently employs six members of staff under the new deal for young people, with a further 12 being employed within my executive agencies. New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot readily be identified.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was to her Department of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [21247]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not readily available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days were lost owing to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21337]

  Ms Hewitt
  Average number of staff days lost per staff year through sick absence in the DTI group:

  1996: 8.8

  1997: 8.2

  1998: 8.0

  1999: 7.8.

  The DTI Group, in addition to DTI HQ, consists of: ACAS, Companies House, Patent Office, Insolvency Service, National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Employment Tribunals Service, and The Radiocommunications Agency.

  The figures are taken from the annual reports on public sector sick absence commissioned by the Cabinet Office each year. Various adjustments are made to the figures to take account of factors such as flu epidemics that may occur in any given year.

  The figure for the year 2000 is not yet available.
  650W

  Sub-Post Offices
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, what the criteria are for financial support for projects to refurbish and improve rural sub-post offices; and if this support is a one-off payment. [20029]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The £2 million sub-post office start-up capital subsidy fund is intended to support initiatives by volunteer or community groups to maintain or reopen post office facilities in areas where the traditional post office is closing or has recently closed. The scheme provides a framework for payments of top-up grants towards the initial capital cost of setting up a sub-post office as many proposals to save rural sub-post offices fail because of lack of a small amount of start-up capital. Eligible costs are widely drawn to cover all categories of one-off costs necessary to secure the future of the sub-post office. The scheme is flexible, recognising that every case for funding will be different and will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

  This scheme is one part of a package of measures designed to secure the future of the post office network. Funding arrangements for the rural network beyond 2003 are being developed in the context of advice recently received from the Postal Services Commission on the best way to channel financial assistance to rural post offices from 2003. The £2 million fund targets a specific problem that exists now but will cease to exist when those longer-term funding arrangements are in place from 2003.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the measures taken by Consignia to prevent sub-post office closures in the Huntingdon constituency; and if she will make a statement. [17481]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]The formal requirement placed on Consignia last November to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures remains in place and will apply in the first instance until 2006. Post Office Ltd. has set up a team of rural transfer advisers to explore all options for keeping rural sub-post offices open and is administering the £2 million Government fund to assist volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or re-establish post office services in rural communities. Through such measures, Post Office Ltd. is continuing its efforts to reopen sub-post offices where there have been recent closures in the Huntingdon constituency.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the measures taken by Consignia to prevent sub-post office closures in the constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale; and if she will make a statement. [18032]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The formal requirement placed on Consignia last November to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures remains in place and will apply in the first instance until 2006. Post Office Ltd. has set up a team of rural transfer advisers to explore all options for keeping rural sub-post offices open and is administering the £2 million Government fund to assist

  651W
  volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or re-establish post office services in rural communities. Through such measures, Post Office Ltd. is continuing its efforts to reopen sub-post offices where there have been recent closures in the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to obtain structural funds assistance for UK domestic routes. [20210]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: I have no such plans since the structural funds programming documents for the current period 2000–06 have all been agreed, and there is no specific provision in them for assistance for UK domestic routes.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of structural funds are available from the European Union for subsidising domestic UK flights. [20211]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: None of the structural funds programming documents for the period 2000–06 includes specific support for subsidising domestic UK flights.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the experience of France, Spain and Greece in gaining European structural funds for their domestic flights. [20213]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: No such assessment has been made, nor is one envisaged.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria have to be met by an air route in order to receive European structural funds. [20212]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]Whatever its sector of activity, for a project application to be successful in gaining European structural funding, the programming document for the region concerned has to include the ability to fund such a project. The project would have to be wholly contained within the region, and score highly against the selection criteria which have been agreed for each of the sectors within the programming document.

  Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council held in Brussels on 26 November; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [18900]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Commission presented two reports concerning tourism, highlighting a need for a more systematic and co-ordinated approach among tourism stakeholders through a package of 10 activities. The Commission acknowledged the long-term impacts of September 11 on tourism.

  The Council reached political agreement on the Seventh amendment to the Cosmetics Directive which will introduce a EU-wide ban on animal testing of cosmetic
  652W
  products. This means that cosmetic products cannot be sold in the EU if the finished product, or any of its ingredients or combinations of ingredients, have been tested on animals, once an alternative to that test has been accepted and published by the OECD

  The Council reached political agreement to amend Directive 76/769/EEC on dangerous substances, which would introduce a ban on certain carcinogenic azodyes. There was also a common approach agreed on the ban of carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction (CMRs)—22 substances would now be banned under this directive. A progress report on phthalates was also discussed

  The Presidency gave an oral progress report on the proposal for the establishment of the European Food Authority. The Commission said that it would report in about a year's time on the implementation of the Data Protection Directive.

  The Council adopted a draft Resolution on consumer over-indebtedness, and the Presidency gave a short report on the October Brussels conference on consumer involvement in the Single Market.

  The Council discussed the principles of the Community patent focusing in particular on the role of National Patent Offices and the language regime.

  The Council agreed draft conclusions on the Commission's proposals to make a negotiated agreement (rather than introduce legislation) with car manufacturers to make cars less dangerous for pedestrians.

  Commissioner Byrne gave an account of the green paper on Consumer Protection. He spoke on the opportunities of the internal market, the Euro and e-commerce being dependent on consumer confidence and said that enforcement at EU level was particularly important. The green paper would be open to a formal hearing and in-depth consultation.

  The Council discussed simplification of the regulatory environment focusing on the Commission's Action Plan and the report by the intergovernmental Mandelkern Group. Member states welcomed the Mandelkern report and the Presidency concluded there would be further discussion of this at Laeken.

  The two proposed directives on public procurement (which aim to simplify, clarify and modernise public procurement) were subject to a progress report, and the Commission called on the Council to aim for a common position as soon as possible.

  The Council reached political agreement on the insurance intermediaries directive. This aims to create a passport for insurance intermediaries to operate throughout the EU and to set minimum professional standards and information requirements to ensure consumer protection. Political agreement was also reached on the proposed regulation concerning cross border payments in euro—which proposes that the price of retail cross-border payments in euro should be the same as the price of equivalent domestic payments.

  The Council agreed conclusions on Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) which envisaged a new framework on state a id and SGEI; an examination of the case for a horizontal Directive based on Article 16; steps to improve the evaluation of SGEI.
  653W
  The Council took note of the joint work programme of the three Presidencies (Belgium, Spain and Denmark) and there were presentations on the Single Market Scoreboard, the Commission's Services Strategy and the Commission's Internal Market Strategy.

  The Council reached agreement on the following legislative items: political agreement was achieved on cosmetics directive, dangerous substances directive covering azocolourants, CMRs, the insurance intermediaries directive and the regulation on cross-border Euro payments, all of which the UK supported. The Commission's voluntary agreement with industry on pedestrian protection was approved again with UK support.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to commission new nuclear reactors at existing nuclear power stations in the south-west. [20281]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has no plans to commission new nuclear power stations either in the south-west or elsewhere nor has it received any application from others to do so.

  EU Chemicals Strategy
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the names and positions of(a) Ministers, (b) officials and (c) political advisers in her Department who communicated with UK MEPs prior to the European Parliament's vote on the Schoerling report on the EC White Paper on Chemicals on 15 November; and if she will make a statement on information given by them to MEPs on this matter. [20856]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation; Lord Sainsbury, has been in contact with Glyn Ford MEP to explain the overall UK position on the EU Chemicals Strategy. The UK position which he set out was entirely consistent with the overall Government policy on this issue, on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads. The UK Government support the aims and objectives of the EU Chemicals Strategy. We wish to see a workable strategy which protects the environment and human health by targeting chemicals of most concern through the authorisation process while at the same time minimising animal testing, encouraging innovation and maintaining the competitiveness of the chemicals industry. We support the inclusion in the authorisation process of chemicals which are at the same time persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBTs) and which are very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB), once the necessary criteria for identification of PBTs and vPvBs are established; and also the inclusion of known endocrine disruptors when agreed scientifically valid test methods and criteria are established to identify these substances. Background briefing was also provided to Glyn Ford MEP in early September on a range of DTI issues, including on the EU Chemicals Strategy. This again was entirely consistent with the Government policy as set out above.
  654W

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by her Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22020]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following is the information requested.

  Year

  Percentage

  1998–99

  62

  1999–2000

  52

  2000–01

  47

  Ariane Programme
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the termination of the UK's involvement in the Ariane programme on the manufacturing and service sector; and what effect this will have on Government funding for the Galileo project. [21678]

  Ms Hewitt
  There has been no reduction in the UK's involvement in the Ariane programme. Our contribution was decided upon at the European Space Agency Ministerial, which was hosted by the UK recently in Edinburgh.

  There is therefore no effect on other programmes.

  EGNOS Projects
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the relationship between the(a) amount of funding provided by European Space Agency member states to the EGNOS project and (b) amount and quality of work won by contractors from each ESA member state; if this assessment will affect UK funding for the Galileo project; and if she will make a statement. [21679]

  Ms Hewitt
  The amount and quality of work won by contractors under ESA contracts is in direct proportion to the investment made by member states due to the application of juste-retour to all ESA contracts.

  The UK took a 20 per cent. stake in the EGNOS programme to secure key elements of the infrastructure (i) to ensure that UK industry secured high technology contracts, and (ii) to maximise our influence in the eventual operation of the system. I believe that we have been successful in achieving both these objectives.

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

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish details of the research underlying the statement in her press release number 250/01 dated 21 November on the proportion of households without a gas supply living in fuel poverty. [19628]
  655W
  Mr. Wilson
  The information on the number of fuel poor households without mains gas is included in the report of the working group on extending the gas network. This report will shortly be published on the Department of Trade and Industry website http://www.dti.gov.uk and copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial losses have been made by BNFL plc in each of the last two years; and how have these losses been financed. [19252]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL Group's independently audited annual report and accounts stated that BNFL made a loss for the financial year after exceptional items of £46 million in the year to 31 March 2001 and £262 million in the year to 31 March 2000.

  The annual report and accounts also included an equivalent amount transferred from accumulated reserves in each year to cover the losses.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report,column 163W, on BNFL, where BNFL Inc.'s accounts are published in the United States; and if she will make a statement. [19409]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL's Inc.'s accounts are not published in the US. BNFL Inc. is part of BNFL plc's Nuclear Clean UP and Decommissioning Business Group for which segmental information is published in BNFL's annual report and accounts.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultants have been retained by her Department to advise on the review of BNFL's nuclear liabilities. [19258]

  Mr. Wilson
  Work carried out by the Department on the future of BNFL included reviewing the management of BNFL's liabilities. The work was done with the assistance of the following advisers:

  Credit Suisse First Boston (financial advice); HSBC (financial advice);

  Slaughter and May (legal advice);

  Arthur Andersen (strategy and accounting advice (jointly to DTI and BNFL);

  Deloitte and Touche (accounting advice);

  Lane, Clark and Peacock (actuarial advice); and

  Mercers (strategy advice).

  Arthur D Little also conducted an independent assessment for DTI of BNFL's 1999–2000 liabilities review.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total remuneration, including bonuses, paid in the last financial year to(a) Paul Miskimin, President of BNFL Inc. and (b) Charles Pryor, President and Chief Executive Officer of Westinghouse Electric. [19257]

  Mr. Wilson
  This information is a matter between the companies and those individuals. Details of their remuneration are not a matter of public record.
  656W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 163W, on BNFL, by how much the final cost of constructing the Sellafield MOX plant differs from the carrying value in the latest BNFL published account. [19329]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information relating to the construction costs of the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) was included in the report produced by the independent consultants A. D. Little assessing BNFL's business case for operation of the plant. This was published in July 2001 with certain commercially sensitive information excised.

  As can be seen from figure 21 of the report, A. D. Little noted that PA Consulting's earlier 1997 report on the economic case for SMP considered that the construction costs were at least £300 million. A. D. Little assessed that at the time of their own 2001 report, commissioning having continued since the PA Consulting report, sunk costs in respect of SMP were around £470 million. BNFL's annual accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2001 give a carrying value for SMP of £473 million.

  Please note that my answer of 20 November contained an error. It gave the carrying value of SMP in BNFL's latest annual accounts as £462 million. This value was in fact taken by mistake from BNFL's accounts for the previous financial year ending 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what annual operational cost savings have been achieved in(a)electricity generation and(b)reprocessing as a result of the integration of BNFL and Magnox Electric. [19254]

  Mr. Wilson
  The merger of BNFL and Magnox has brought integrated management of the Magnox fuel cycle as well as a sensible relationship between the component parts of the business. There is also now a clear strategy on Magnox power station lifetimes. Detailed information about operational costs is a commercial matter for BNFL. However, information about the commercial performance of BNFL's Magnox Generation Business is provided in BNFL's annual report and accounts.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her assessment is of the total amount of money BNFL Inc. has lost in(a) the Hanford River Protection project, (b) the East Tennessee Technology Park,(c)BNFL Savannah River Corporation,(d)Rocky Mountain Remediation Services and (e) the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment project in Idaho Falls. [19256]

  Mr. Wilson
  Details of the financial performance of individual contracts are commercially confidential. Information on the losses incurred on the East Tennessee Technology Park contract was disclosed on page 51 of the BNFL Annual Report and Accounts 2000 because, in the company's view, that was an exceptional item as described in the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has carried out an independent assessment to determine the future commercial viability of BNFL Inc. [19255]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has received independent advice on many aspects of BNFL's business, including BNFL Inc., as part of the work undertaken by the
  657W
  Department. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 28 November 2001,Official Report,columns 990–96, the conclusions to this work.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report,column 163W, on BNFL, if she will list the reasons for the commercial sensitivity and whether throughput capacities of BNFL's other production plants are publicly available. [19331]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information about throughput capacity of BNFL plants is generally considered to be commercially sensitive. The A. D. Little report on BNFL's economic case for operation of the Sellafield MOX Plant was published in July 2001. As was stated in the decision document published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, the only information withheld from the published report was"that judged to be commercially sensitive for BNFL, the publication of which would prejudice BNFL's commercial opportunities with respect to the manufacture of MOX fuel."

  Nevertheless, the published A. D. Little report does note at paragraph 1.4.3 that the nominal design capacity is 120 tonnes of heavy metal per year. A. D. Little state in a footnote to paragraph 1.4.3 of their report that the plant operating capacity is commercially sensitive but that the figure is less than 100 tonnes of heavy metal per year.

  Liabilities Management Authority
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will appoint the head of the Liabilities Management Authority. [20974]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Liabilities Management Authority will be established by a Bill which will be brought forward in due course. The LMA's head will be appointed in accordance with the Code and Guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments following the LMA's establishment.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the terms of reference for the Liabilities Management Authority. [20454]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Liabilities Management Authority will be responsible for Government's interest in the discharge of public sector civil nuclear liabilities. It will provide the driving force and incentives to get on with the job of systematically and progressively reducing the hazard posed by legacy facilities and wastes. It will have a specific remit to develop an overall UK strategy for decommissioning and clean-up.

  A Bill to establish the LMA will be brought forward in due course. More detailed proposals for the operation of the LMA will be set out in a White Paper to be published in the Spring.

  Nuclear Liabilities Review
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of reference are for the review of 658W
  nuclear liabilities being undertaken by her Department; and which other Government Departments are involved in the review. [19259]

  Mr. Wilson
  The management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities was considered as part of the quinquennial review of the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

  The terms of reference for the review were announced on 19 April 2000 by the then Minister for Energy on 19 April 2000, Official Report, column 548W. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House on 28 November 2001 Official Report,columns 990–96, about the future management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities which reflected the outcome of this work.

  Copies of the QQR report have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report identifies the wide range of Government Departments and other stakeholders which were consulted in the course of carrying out the review.

  Regulations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations affecting business have been abolished since 1997. [20126]

  Ms Hewitt
  Records relating to the regulations introduced since 1997, which would provide details of how these regulations related to existing regulations, showing how they amended or abolished them, are held not centrally but by the management units responsible for the policy areas concerned. They could be assembled and analysed only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Supply (Middle East)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of energy supplies and the middle east in response to the events of 11 September; and if she will make a statement; [19768]

  (2) what percentage of the UK oil supply comes from middle east countries; what percentage comes from each such country; which other countries supply the UK with oil; and if she will make a statement. [19766]

  Mr. Wilson
  Although the UK is a net exporter of crude oil, significant quantities of particular grades of crude oil are imported for processing in UK refineries. The table provides the full detail requested. Of the total of 88 million tonnes of crude oil and refinery feedstocks processed in the UK during 2000, 44 per cent. was of crude oil from the UK sector of the North sea, 37 per cent. from the Norwegian sector, with crude oil from middle east countries accounting for 3 per cent. of total UK refinery throughput during the year. Of this, the majority came from Saudi Arabia.

  In light of the events of 11 September I am keeping security of energy supplies under constant review. Despite the response of the coalition against terrorism to the tragedy in the US on 11 September there has been no impact on oil and gas supplies from the middle east or from elsewhere in the world. As mentioned above, the UK has a low reliance on the middle east as a source of oil supplies.
  659W

  UK imports of crude oil and refinery feedstocks in 2000

  Country of origin

  Thousand tonnes

  As a percentage of total UK refinery intake

  Saudi Arabia

  2,053

  2.3

  Syria

  234

  0.3

  Other near and middle east

  144

  0.2

  Total middle east

  2,431

  2.8

  Norway

  32,317

  36.7

  Russia

  2,775

  3.2

  Egypt

  1,412

  1.6

  Libya

  1,362

  1.5

  Denmark

  1,345

  1.5

  Estonia

  1,331

  1.5

  Venezuela

  1,092

  1.2

  Sweden

  747

  0.8

  Mexico

  729

  0.8

  France

  654

  0.7

  Algeria

  564

  0.6

  Netherlands

  472

  0.5

  Belgium

  323

  0.4

  Germany

  276

  0.3

  Ireland

  265

  0.3

  Lithuania

  214

  0.2

  Switzerland

  140

  0.2

  Other countries

  936

  1.1

  Total imports

  49,386

  56.1

  Source:

  Data supplied to DTI by UK oil companies

  Caspian Oil Pipelines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make an assessment of the Russian-Kazakhstani pipeline schemes for the Caspian oil fields; and if she will make a statement. [19767]

  Mr. Wilson
  Kazakhstan is the second largest oil producer (after Russia) among the former Soviet republics and is committed to the development of multiple oil pipelines from the country to international markets. Currently, Kazakhstan sends the majority of its oil exports via Russia using three main existing pipelines:

  (i) the 691 km pipeline from Atyrau in Kazakhstan to Samara in Russia, capacity of which is being increased to c.300,000 barrels per day (bbl/d);

  (ii) the Kenkyak-Orsk (Russia) pipeline, which transports oil from the Aktyubinsk fields in western Kazakhstan to the Orsk refinery in Russia, capacity of which is c.130,000 bbl/d, and;

  (iii) the 1,580 km Tengiz-Novorossiisk (Russia) pipeline, which was officially opened recently on 27 November. This pipeline has an initial capacity of c.600,000 bbl/d, which could eventually be increased to 1.3 to 1.5 million bbl/d.

  These pipelines, and other projects in the Caspian region which do not involve Russia, help to provide more diverse regions of world oil supply.

  Natural Gas
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures are in place to ensure that the energy(a)policy and (b)regulation of Great Britain does not discriminate against the Northern Ireland natural gas Industry. [18613]

  Mr. Wilson
  The energy market in Northern Ireland is separate from that in Great Britain. However, both the Department of Trade and Industry and Ofgem consult 660W
  widely on all proposals and there is an opportunity for Northern Irish companies to comment if they believe they may be affected. Ofgem and DTI also keep their counterparts in Northern Ireland informed of relevant proposals.

  Women Entrepreneurs
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help her Department is offering to women entrepreneurs; and if she will make a statement. [17329]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department recognises the increasingly important contribution that women entrepreneurs make to the nation's economy. It also recognises however that relatively fewer women set up business in the UK than in comparable countries such as the US. Through the Small Business Service (SBS) my Department is therefore working to research and better understand their needs and tackle any specific barriers that they may face in starting and running their own businesses.

  Women who are thinking of setting up or who are already running their own businesses are able to make use of the full range of services provided by the SBS through Business Link operators. In addition the SBS:
  has undertaken research about the characteristics of women entrepreneurs, including the sponsorship of a three day conference at Durham University on female entrepreneurship ("Shifting the Gears" 10–12 September 2001).
  is responsible for the Phoenix Development Fund, which is looking at various innovative ways of providing business support and training to women entrepreneurs. All 96 Development Fund project are available to women and of these 16 have women as their main focus. Details of all of these projects can be found at www.sbs/phoenix/devbid.asp
  is providing specific advice to women as part of the Business Link website, at "http://www.businesslink.org/cgi-bin/bvl/ index j sp?urlid=5&P COID=-9156&subtupe=4#gohere" which also provides links to other relevant organisations.

  First Class Post
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the achievement of the Government target for first class post being delivered next morning. [18920]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: T It is the Postal Services Commission and not the Government which is responsible for setting and enforcing standards of service. It has, on the advice of Postwatch, set a target for the average performance in February and March 2002 of 92.1 per cent. of first class post to be delivered next day. An assessment of whether the target has been achieved will be made by the Postal Services Commission with Postwatch.

  Atomic Energy Police
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the operational value is of running three Volkswagen, two Mitsubishi and one Peugeot vehicle for the Atomic Energy Police. [19758]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Constabulary employ their vehicles on patrol and escort duties. Two of the four-wheel drive Volkswagen Transporter Synchro vehicles are employed as dog patrol vehicles and one is employed on general
  661W
  patrol duties. The Mitsubishi products are armoured vehicles performing duty as escort vehicles for special material convoys. The Peugeot Expert van is another general patrol vehicle.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the advantages are of(a) not operating and (b) operating a central purchasing policy for the Atomic Energy Police. [19757]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary (AEAC) operates a Central Purchasing Policy. Vehicles are purchased through the Home Office Framework Arrangement for the purchases of vehicles and spare parts by the Police and Fire Authorities. The advantage of operating such a policy is the value for money that this provides. The negotiation with the various manufacturers is made on behalf of the entire Police Service and the rates of discount are applied across the Service. Rates of discount available outside the framework arrangement are nowhere near as beneficial. In relation to clothing, the Constabulary purchases from a consortium with other forces, again being able to take advantage of the benefits that buying on a larger scale brings. Both of these initiatives are supported by the Police Authority as best value initiatives.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what personal vehicle is available to the Chief Constable of the Atomic Energy Police. [19759]

  Mr. Wilson
  A range of vehicles is available to the Chief Constable up to a certain value. He has selected a Mercedes 'C' class saloon.

  Small Business (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding from her Department has been allocated to help start small businesses in Chorley in each of the last five years. [19756]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Link North West Lancashire spends £270,000 per year (12 per cent.) of core funding on "Starting Out".

  In the Chorley area, the most recent figures on the number of businesses assisted to start up are 23, 35 and 51 for years 2001–02 (until August), 2000–01 and 1999–2000 respectively.

  Engineering and Technology Board
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the role of the Engineering and Technology Board is; who the chairman is; and if she will make a statement. [21504]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Engineering and Technology Board (ETB) has been set up to be responsive to the needs of the "wider engineering and technology community" and reflect the interests of key stakeholder groups, including business and industry, registered engineers, professional institutions, academia and the rapidly developing technology sector. It is based on extensive preparatory work undertaken by The Hawley Group and an ETB `Shadow Board'.
  662W
  The ETB starts work formally in the new year and high on the ETB's list of priorities will be issues such as: skills; the importance and attractiveness of engineering and technology-based careers; and the needs of the rapidly growing technology sector.

  The first chairman of the Engineering and Technology Board is Dr. Robert Hawley, who also chaired the shadow ETB and the Engineering Council. On 1 January 2002 Sir Peter Williams will replace him as ETB chair.

  A second organisation, the Engineering Council (UK) (ECUK) took over the former Engineering Council's regulatory functions at the close of the 6 December Engineering Council Senate meeting. Professor Patrick Dowling was named as the first EC(UK) chair.

  Ministerial Visits (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times since November 2000 Ministers from her Department have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet with locally based businesses. [19073]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 3 November 2000 the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry attended a lunch with local business people at Gisborough Hall in Guisbourough and visited Tetley Teas in Eaglescliffe near Stockton-on-Tees that same afternoon.

  Security (Protec)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what security services at British nuclear facilities are provided by Protec. [20159]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: SDA Protec Ltd. in the UK is a Government approved security company that has carried out work across the nuclear industry, including UKAEA, BNFL and British Energy. It is not appropriate for me to comment on individual commercial contracts.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on what discussions her Department has had with oil companies regarding oil exploration projects in central Asia in the last 12 months; [19411]

  (2) if she will make a statement on what discussions her Department has had with Shell UK on their interests in central Asia in the last 12 months; [19412]

  (3) if she will make a statement on what discussions her Department has had with representatives of BP in the last 12 months. [19410]

  Mr. Wilson
  Over any 12-month period, there are numerous discussions between DTI and Trade Partners UK (TPUK) ministers and officials, and representatives of all UK oil companies, including BP and Shell. These discussions take place in the UK, and in our overseas posts around the world.
  663W
  Central Asia, in particular Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, is currently a major region for international oil company investment. Many of the DTI and TPUK discussions with UK oil companies over the last 12 months will have covered their activities in, and plans for, this part of the world.

  Enron
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the current trading status of Enron on utilities in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [20750]

  Mr. Wilson
  Four of Enron's businesses in the UK are now in administration. Enron Direct and Teesside Power continue to operate. Ofgem and DTI are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Project title

  Contract start date

  Contract end date

  Call-Off Contract for Advice on Energy Grasses

  16 February 2000

  16 February 2002

  Trial of the Suitability of Switchgrass and Reed Canary as Biofuel Crops under UK Conditions

  1 August 2000

  31 March 2005

  Evaluating Grasses as a Long Term Energy Resource

  5 January 2001

  4 January 2003

  Development of a Prototype Specialist Shuttle Vehicle for Chipped Woodfuel

  1 November 2001

  30 April 2003

  Coppice Establishment—Consultancy

  1 July 1998

  31 October 2002

  Evaluation of Low-cost Establishment Systems for Short Rotation Coppice

  1 January 1999

  30 June 2003

  Miscanthus—Practical Aspects of Biofuel Development

  9 April 1999

  8 April 2003

  Yield Models for Energy Coppice of Poplar and Willow—Phase IV

  1 June 1999

  31 May 2005

  Short Rotation Coppice (Task 1)

  17 April 2000

  16 April 2002

  Short Rotation Coppice (Tasks 3 and 4)

  17 April 2000

  16 April 2002

  Short Rotation Coppice (Task 5)

  17 April 2000

  16 April 2002

  Maintenance of First Generation Coppice Plots- Phase 2

  1 March 2000

  28 February 2003

  Negotiation of Land Use Agreements for Mature Coppice Plots

  29 February 2000

  31 January 2003

  Development of an Integrated Wood Fuel Supply System to Deliver SRC from Field to Power Station

  15 March 2000

  31 March 2002

  Storage of Forest Residues and Short Rotation Coppice in Compressed Fiberlogs

  1 May 2001

  31 January 2003

  Identification and Characterisation of Factors Affecting Losses in the Large-scale, Non-ventilated Bulk Storage of Wood Chips and Development of Best Storage Practices

  5 February 2001

  5 August 2002

  A Further Evaluation of Herbicides for Post Emergence Use in Short Rotation Coppice

  7 June 2001

  7 April 2002

  An Evaluation of the Optimum Timing for Planting Short Rotation Coppice

  9 March 2001

  1 May 2004

  Investigation of Single Stem Tree Plantations for Bioenergy

  1 April 2001

  30 June 2002

  Investigation of Low-till Systems for the Establishment of Willow Coppice in Grassland

  1 January 2001

  28 February 2003

  The Effects on Flora and Fauna of Converting Grassland to Short Rotation Coppice

  1 April 2001

  31 December 2005

  Willow Varietal Interactions in Mixtures, Contributing to Optimum Sustainability

  1 November 2001

  31 October 2004

  Adding Value to Wood Fuelled Heating in Commercial Glasshouses

  1 July 2001

  31 December 2002

  Improving Willow Breeding Efficiency

  1 November 1998

  30 September 2002

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) interim payments and (b) final payments have been made to former miners and their estates under the chronic emphysema and bronchitis compensation scheme in (a) the Wansbeck constituency, (b) Northumberland and (c) the UK. [199401]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has made interim and full and final payments in respect of compensation for respiratory disease in the above regions as follows:

  Number of

  Region

  Interim payments

  Full and final payments

  Total damages paid (£ million)

  (a) Wansbeck constituency

  569

  215

  3.29

  (b) Northumberland1

  881

  361

  5.41

  (c) UK

  42,053

  13,351

  226.7

  1Northumberland as defined by the areas denoted by the following postcodes: NE 15, 18–20, 23–26, 41–49, 61–71 and TD 12, 15

  664W
  Ofgem is closely monitoring Enron's trading position. It is working with all parties involved to ensure security of supply.

  Arrangements exist in the event of a supplier's failure for Ofgem, the independent regulator, to ensure that customers continue to receive a supply.

  Sustainable Energy
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent research her Department has in place into energy production from agricultural products. [20628]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under the Department's Sustainable Energy Programme, we have 24 projects in place into energy production from agricultural products. The total value of these projects is £4.7 million of which the Department is contributing £2.6 million. A list of the projects follows.

  Constituency and headline statistics can now be found on the Department's website at www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation claims have been made to date in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in(a) the Wansbeck constituency, (b) Northumberland and (c) the UK. [19936]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has registered claims in respect of compensation for respiratory disease in the above regions as follows:

  Region

  Number of claims registered

  (a) Wansbeck constituency

  2,564

  (b) Northumberland1

  4,243

  (c) UK

  171,087

  1 Northumberland as defined by the areas denoted by the following postcodes: NE 15, 18–20, 23–26, 41–49, 61–71 and TD 12, 15

  665W
  Constituency and headline statistics can now be found on the Department's website at www.dti.gov.uk/ coalhealth.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average length of time taken between receipt of a claim under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema compensation scheme and an offer being made to the claimant in(a) the Wansbeck constituency, (b) Northumberland and (c) the UK. [19938]

  Mr. Wilson
  Claims are not all processed at the same rate. Claims are being handled, as set out in the handling agreement, agreed with the claimants' solicitors, whereby the most elderly and ill claimants are prioritised. Widows are also being dealt with first, wherever possible and are given priority over estates' claims. The time taken to settle a claim will therefore depend on the number of priority points allocated to it. The problems there have been getting the scheme up and running also affected the time taken to deal with claims.

  The Department is unable to provide the average length of time between receipt of a claim for compensation for respiratory disease and an offer being made to the claimant. There is, however, no discrimination on where the claimant lives.

  It should also be noted that across the 171,000 claims registered to date, each claim is different and the time taken to settle claims accurately and fairly will vary widely.

  Wind Farm, Wales
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason her Department did not allocate the funding requested by the Awel Amen Tame to develop Wales' first community owned wind farm. [166631

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department provided £70,000 of funding for Awel Aman Tawe for the initial phase of their community wind farm development programme. This was used to fund a number of awareness raising and information dissemination activities and culminated in a local referendum to assess the level of local support for the proposed wind farm.

  A further request for funding of the second phase of the project was received in response to a call for proposals for our new and renewable energy programme. That was assessed and rejected by a panel of independent assessors and by our programme managers. Broadly, much of the work content was concerned with normal development activities and only some elements seemed novel.

  Of the £100 million for renewables announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in March, it has been decided to allocate £10 million to support community developments across a range of technologies. Once this scheme has been developed, Awel Aman Tawe may be interested in applying for further support.

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 541W, on Sellafield, what assessment she has made of how long it would take a
  666W
  commercial passenger plane flying at 2,200 ft above sea level two nautical miles from Sellafield to crash into Sellafield. [15572]

  Mr. Wilson
  No such assessment has been made.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations have been undertaken since 11 September with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) independent academic experts on the security of nuclear installations and nuclear materials in transport by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security; and what were the (i) dates and (ii) matters covered in the meetings. [19871]

  Mr. Wilson
  There have been no consultations since 11 September 2001 between the Office for Civil Nuclear Security and non-governmental organisations or independent academic experts on the security of nuclear installations and nuclear materials in transport.

  Nuclear Reprocessing (Toxic Effects)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the report published on 23 November by the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Programme on possible toxic effects from the nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague, France. [19874]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. The subject matter of this report—which was prepared by an organisation called WISE-Paris—appears to relate to assessment of the possible environmental impacts of reprocessing. In the UK such matters fall to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs to whom I understand my hon. Friend has addressed a similar question.

  I am aware, however, that the objectivity and scientific validity of the study produced by WISE-Paris have been called into question by Members of the European Parliament and that, in view of this, the European Parliament body that commissioned the report in response to a request from a separate committee formally sought from three experts an independent evaluation of the report.

  The Chairman of the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel (STOA) makes clear in a letter written as a cover to the study on its publication that publication of the document
  "does not imply adoption of its contents and these do not necessarily reflect the views of members of the STOA Panel or the European Parliament".

  The letter goes on to state
  "the STOA Panel expresses regret that WISE-Paris saw fit to break the confidentiality clause in its contract by making public parts of the study prior to its publication. This behaviour of WISE-Paris is not in line with the long-standing tradition of STOA, which has always endeavoured to associate its work with the highest scientific and ethical standards".

  As the letter explains, at its meeting on 23 October the STOA Panel took note of the WISE-Paris study and decided to publish it
  "as a first contribution to the scientific debate".

  STOA also decided to make public the assessments of the WISE-Paris work that STOA obtained from the independent experts.
  667W

  Energy Policy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what dates the Energy Minister attended meetings of the performance and innovation unit inquiry into energy policy; and on what further dates this year he expects to attend such meetings. [17936]

  Mr. Wilson
  I attended and chaired meetings of the PIU steering group on 16 July, 17 October and 22 November of this year. There was also a meeting of the PIU steering group on 25 September which I was unable to attend. No further meetings of the PIU steering group are currently planned.

  Nuclear Industry (North-West)
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's estimate is of the value of the nuclear industry to the output of the economy of the north-west region(a) in real money value and (b) as a percentage of overall north-west output in the last 12 months; and what predictions her Department has made of the future value of the industry. [17353]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The DTI does not hold this information. The DTI has not made any prediction of the future value of the nuclear industry to the north-west.

  Civil Nuclear Liabilities
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is her estimate of the(a) current and (b) projected liabilities arising from radiological contamination owned by (i) BNFL, (ii) UKAEA and (iii) the oil industry; and if she will make a statement on what steps she plans to take to deal with these liabilities. [19881]

  Mr. Wilson
  As at 31 March 2001, BNFL manages some £35 billion liabilities (undiscounted) of which it is financially responsible for £24 billion (undiscounted). It was announced on 28 November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the liabilities will be increased by some £1.9 billion (discounted at 2.5 per cent.) due to the recently completed review of historic waste management by BNFL.

  As at 31 March 2001 UKAEA manages some £7.4 billion liabilities (undiscounted) (excluding those at BNFL sites).

  The figures represent current best estimates of lifetime liabilities and do not take account of the potential cost of changes in regulatory and policy requirements.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House on 28 November about the future management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities.

  The Government do not have an estimate of the oil industry's liabilities arising from radiological contamination.

  Railtrack
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department is undertaking investigations into potential insider dealing regarding 668W
  Railtrack shares in the period immediately before the suspension of shares in Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [19784]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not the policy of my Department to comment on the affairs of particular companies. However, in view of the Department's concurrent responsibility with the Financial Services Authority for insider dealing from 1 December, the Department is willing to consider, in conjunction with the Financial Services Authority, any information the hon. Member may have suggesting insider dealing in Railtrack shares.

  Low-cost Electricity
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she has reviewed the impact of the Competition Act 1998 on the provision of low-cost electricity for persons over 60; and if she will make a statement; [19654]

  (2) for what reason the stay warm scheme which provides electricity at a lower price is being offered in every area of the nation apart from the east of England; and if he will make a statement. [19653]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: TXU Energi has not made its Stay Warm tariff available to its "home" customers in the north-west and east Anglia, although I understand that it is considering whether to do so. The standard licence conditions for electricity introduced on 1 October 2001 removed remaining restrictions on incumbent suppliers such as TXU operating in their "home" areas. Like other suppliers, TXU remains subject to the operation of competition law, including the Competition Act 1998, which protects competitors and consumers from companies' abuse of a dominant position. It is for TXU, like companies in other markets, to judge whether offers to particular groups of consumers could be deemed anti-competitive. The Competition Act 1998 provides the opportunity for companies to seek guidance or a direction on schemes from the Office of Fair Trading.

  Employment Regulation Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the annual cost to employers of implementing the(a) Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1833), (b) employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1996 (i) excluding and (ii) including firms with between 15 to 20 staff, (c) national minimum wage, (d) reduction in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to one, (e) Public Interest Disclosures Act 1998, (f) rise in the upper limit for compensation for unfair dismissal from £12,000 to £51,700, (g) Maternity Leave etc. Regulations 1999 and other rights for parental leave and (h) the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. [19760]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government prepare regulatory impact assessments when proposals for new legislation are introduced. The table summarises the quantified annual costs to employers together with the benefits (both quantified and non-quantified).
  669W

  Policy costs

  Implementation costs

  Benefits

  Working Time Regulations

  £2.3 billion1

  £1.5 to £3 million1

  2 million employees get increased rest periods. 3.5 million night workers get right to health assessments. 3.1 million employees get four weeks paid annual leave (or pro rata for part-time workers).

  Disability Discrimination Act Employment provisions

  excluding employers with 15 to 20 staff including employers with 15 to 20 staff

  £3.25 million2

  £1 million2

  All disabled employees gain from fairer treatment and greater employment opportunities.

  including employers with 15 to 20 staff

  £3.4 million2

  £1 1million2

  0.4 million disabled employees in small enterprises benefit from being treated on the same basis as disabled employees in larger enterprises.

  National Minimum Wage (original 1999 Regulations)

  £2.4 billion2

  £2 to £3 million2

  Workers benefit from higher pay (£2.4 billion).

  Increase in youth rate for NMW (2000)

  £45 million2

  Nil2

  Workers benefit from higher pay (£45 million).

  Increase in adult rate for NMW (2000)

  £180 million2

  Nil2

  Workers benefit from higher pay (£180 million).

  Increase in NMW (2001)

  £635 million3

  Nil3

  Workers benefit from higher pay (£635 million).

  Reduction of qualifying period for unfair dismissal

  £2.5 to £10 million2

  £2.5 to £4 million2

  2.8 million employees gain from increased security.

  Public Interest Disclosure Act

  Negligible

  Negligible

  Society gains from greater exposure of wrongdoing.

  Rise in the upper limit for compensation for unfair dismissal

  Minimal

  Nil

  Potential benefits to a few employees who are wrongly dismissed.

  Enhancement to maternity leave

  £16 million2

  Negligible

  85,000 mothers have their leave increased and spend more time with their new-born child.

  Parental leave

  £42 million2

  £0.2 million2

  2.7 million employees gain the right to parental leave. Improved family life.

  Time-off for dependants

  £7 million1

  £0.1 million1

  Employers benefit from improved commitment and reduced turnover. 0.6 million employees benefit directly and 2 million benefit indirectly.

  Part-time workers (prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations

  £23 million2

  £4 million2

  400,000 part-time workers benefit directly from improved pay and conditions (£23.4 million), 6 million indirectly through greater security. Employers benefit from increased labour supply.

  1 1998 prices

  2 1999 prices

  3 2001 prices

  Rural Petrol Stations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure the continued supply of road transport fuels at affordable prices in rural areas that are disadvantaged through the closure of retail filling stations. [13262]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am at present considering whether there is a case for putting in place more effective mechanisms to support the objectives discussed by my hon. Friend.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure that those employers who lost out because of the improper implementation of European Directive 77/187 in the TUPE regulations of 1981 will receive compensation; and if she will make a statement. [21938]

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure recompense for those affected by the UK breach of its obligations under the 1977 Acquired Rights Directive. [20890]
  670W
  Alan Johnson
  The Government have admitted that, until the TUPE Regulations were amended in 1993, the Acquired Rights Directive was not implemented correctly, and that this was a sufficiently serious breach of the UK's EC obligations to give rise to a liability for damages, where anyone suffered losses as a result. The Government are therefore prepared to compensate anyone affected provided that they can show that they suffered loss as a result of that breach.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of(a) BAE Systems' decision to close the Regional Jet RJ and RJX programme; and (b) the impact the closure will have on (i) the future prospects and competency of the UK's civilian aerospace industry and (ii) the aerospace component supply industries. [20353]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government regret the recent announcements of job losses within BAE Systems and the Department is maintaining a close dialogue with the company to evaluate the situation. Officials of the relevant Government Departments and local support agencies are
  671W
  working with the company to mitigate the effect of the Regional Jet closure. I understand that Employment Services met the company on 5 December.

  The Government deeply regret any job losses announced as a response to the downturn in aviation. BAE System's announcement is essentially a commercial decision and is partly in response to the downturn in aerospace sector exacerbated by the impact of events of 11 September.

  The prospects for the aerospace sector in the medium to long term remain robust.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the job losses in the textile industry for each year since 1991. [20250]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information is not available for job losses.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public appointments she has made since 7 June. [20248]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the period between 7 June and 30 November 2001 a total of 167 ministerial appointments were made to bodies for which my Department is responsible, of which 99 were re-appointments of serving members.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the(a) DTLR and (b) DTI regarding the environmental impact of third generation mobile phone masts. [19303]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: None. The Association of National Park Authorities, together with the Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, have written to me to raise concerns about telecommunications in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I have asked officials to initiate joint discussions with DTLR and DTI to consider the issues raised.

  Recycling
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the penalty arrangements which will apply in the event of local authorities failing to meet the Government's targets for recycling. [18541]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The statutory performance standards for household waste recycling and composting are demanding but realistic targets that each local authority should be able to achieve, and ideally exceed, without need for penalties. Nevertheless, the performance standards have been established under the best value regime and this provides extensive powers for direction and, if necessary, intervention in the event of targets not being reached.
  672W
  I have made it very clear to all local authorities that the Government expect them to achieve their targets and will use the power available, if necessary, to ensure that they are met.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of UK municipal waste was recycled in the last 12 months. [19051]

  Mr. Meacher
  Annual recycling data for UK municipal waste are not available. Information on the percentage of municipal waste that was recycled or composted in England and Wales is obtained from the Department's annual Municipal Waste Management Survey. The latest available data from 1999–2000 show a recycling rate of 11 per cent.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets the Government have set for domestic waste recycling. [19052]

  Mr. Meacher
  "Waste Strategy 2000" announced challenging targets to increase the amount of municipal waste recycled and composted in England and Wales. These targets are:

  To recycle or compost at least 25 per cent of household waste by 2005

  To recycle or compost at least 30 per cent. of household waste by 2010

  To recycle or compost at least 33 per cent. of household waste by 2015.

  To ensure that local authorities contribute to achieving these targets, the Government have set Statutory Performance Standards for recycling and composting for individual authorities. These can be found in the Government's "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies", published in March 2001. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library and from the DEFRA website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/
  index.htm

  Waste Directive
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the average cost to farms of applying the provisions of the EU waste directive; and if she will make a statement. [18875]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: We are preparing the regulations necessary to apply the provisions of the Waste Framework Directive to those types of agricultural waste which are not excluded from control under Article 2. On completion, we will issue a draft of the regulations for consultation with the farming industry and other interested groups. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is also being prepared. The RIA will form part of the consultation paper and will assess the average cost to farms of applying the Directive's provisions. I will ensure that a copy of the consultation paper is sent to the hon. Member when it is issued.

  Departmental Strikes
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to
  673W
  her answer of 28 November 2001, Official Report, column 1029W, (Ref 17635), on strike action, how many staff have been engaged in industrial action; and in which divisions of her Department. [20685]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: On 28 September, the last day on which PCS members in all DEFRA offices were asked to take action, 2,102 members of staff took action. Since then there has been further action but this has affected only a limited number of DEFRA offices, and thus staff, on any particular day.

  Most divisions which have staff in PCS grades who are covered by the proposed pay settlement for staff formerly in MAFF have lost some staff days due to industrial action.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 30 November 2001,Official Report, column 1172W, on industrial action, if she will list the targets on service standards that are likely to be missed. [21361]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: It is recognised that the current industrial action could potentially put at risk our ability to meet all our service standard targets. However, it is not possible to predict which of those targets might be missed.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 30 November 2001,Official Report, column 1172W, on industrial action, if she will list the (a) total and (b) per capita amount of payments by category that have been delayed since the dispute began. [21360]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: All payments are currently being made within the payment periods set in the EU regulations.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the value of payments due to farmers which have been delayed by industrial action in her Department; and what was the value on the last day of each month since May. [20665]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Industrial action, which commenced in August, has mainly affected the Arable Area Payments Scheme. Payments under this scheme are made in a payment window running from 16 November to 31 January. In a normal year 60–70 per cent. of the aid would be paid out in the first two to three weeks. This year the figure is likely to be a little over 50 per cent.

  Dioxin Emission Limits
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to apply the same dioxin emission limits to cement kilns burning waste as apply to purpose built incinerators. [18542]
  674W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Environment Agency already applies the same dioxin emission limit to that portion of gas generated by burning hazardous waste in cement kilns as for waste burned in incinerators. This is in accordance with the pro-rating rules of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive (91/689/EEC).

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to permit forage movements between livestock farms under force of restrictions and farms which have surplus stocks of fodder. [18030]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: This matter is currently under consideration. We are looking to allow such movements subject to appropriate safeguards.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to provide financial assistance to farms which were subject to Form D restrictions. [11735]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Farms subject to Form D restrictions are eligible for assistance from the Farms Business Advice Service which was launched last year with a budget of £5.25 million. It provides free on-farm advice for up to three days to farmers to help them develop better business practices, diversify or decide to leave the industry. An additional £1.5 million was made available in November.

  These farmers may also seek help through the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

  Under the EU state aid rules, we are unable to offer additional financial assistance to these farmers through the Business Recovery Fund, established to help a range of businesses following the impact of FMD.

  Environmental Management
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the EU eco-management and audit scheme is one of the measures of environmental management standards recognised by her Department as demonstrating a commitment to responsible environmental performance; and if she will make a statement. [20513]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department acknowledges the importance and value of the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). The EMAS regulation, in its recently revised form, incorporates the international standard for environmental management systems, ISO 14001, to manage environmental risks and impacts and improve performance. Significantly, EMAS additionally requires the publication of independently validated information on environmental performance. EMAS therefore focuses on performance by providing for disclosure that helps to meet stakeholders' interests in openness and transparency.
  675W

  Refrigerators
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 993W, of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on refrigerators, what progress has been made in publishing guidance for (a) retail outlets who previously have collected old refrigerators when supplying new refrigerators to customers and (b) small retail businesses who have previously collected old refrigerators from large retail outlets and then sold them as secondhand items. [20746]

  Mr. Meacher
  Retailers have been kept informed of the impacts of EC Regulation No. 2037/2000 through a series of stakeholder meetings (both general and specifically for retailers). My Department has also written to small retail businesses through a number of trade associations to outline the impacts of EC Regulation No. 2037/2000 on the management of waste fridges and freezers. My Department's website also contains information on the requirements of the regulation with regard to these issues.

  Ozone Levels
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 425W, on ozone levels, (1) if she will list the number of days per site in rural areas on which pollution levels were (a) at and (b) below national air quality standards in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999 and (v) 2000; [18832]

  (2) if she will provide a breakdown of (a) the different measures of pollution and (b) their levels in rural areas in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999 and (v) 2000. [18833]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: Levels of ozone are measured as part of the UK national urban and rural air pollution monitoring network. There

  Table 1: Automatic rural network stations—29 November 2001

  Name

  Location

  Pollutants measured

  Start date

  Wicken Fen

  Cambridgeshire

  O3, NOx, SO2

  15 October 1997

  Ladybower

  Derbyshire

  O3, NOx, SO2

  15 July 1988

  Yarner Wood

  Devon

  O3

  26 June 1987

  Lullington Heath

  East Sussex

  O3, NOx, SO2

  4 October 1986

  Rochester1

  Rochester

  O3, NOx, SO2, PM10

  26 January 1996

  Weybourne

  Norfolk

  O3

  20 May 2001

  High Muffles

  North Yorkshire

  O3

  16 July 1987

  Harwell

  Oxfordshire

  O3, NOx, SO2

  22 June 1976

  Somerton1

  South Somerset

  O3

  26 January 1996

  Sibton

  East Anglia

  O3

  1 July 1973

  Lough Navar

  Northern Ireland

  O3, PM10

  2 April 1987

  Eskdalemuir

  South Scotland

  O3

  23 April 1986

  Strath Vaich

  North Scotland

  O3

  18 March 1987

  Bush

  South Scotland

  O3

  1 April 1986

  Narberth1

  Pembrokeshire

  O3, NOx, SO2, PM10

  10 March 1997

  Aston Hill

  Mid-Wales

  O3

  26 June 1986

  1 Affiliate site

  Notes:

  Ozone —O3

  Nitrogen dioxide —NO2

  NO, Sulphur dioxide —SO2

  PM10
  676W
  are currently 120 automatic monitoring sites within this network that also measure a range of other pollutants. The number and location of monitoring sites are predominantly determined by the reporting requirements as set out in the Air Quality Framework Directive and the Air Quality Daughter Directives. The UK has been divided into air pollution monitoring areas (zone or agglomerations) for the purposes of the First Air Quality Daughter Directive.

  Sixteen national monitoring sites are located in rural or remote areas. These sites measure particulates (PM10), nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and ozone. However, not every site measures every pollutant. Table 1 lists the pollutants currently monitored at each rural monitoring station.

  The independent Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) has developed recommendations on natural air quality standards. The standards are based on assessment of the health effects of each pollutant. When air pollution levels are above the standard mild effects, that are unlikely to require action, may start to be noticed by sensitive people. Table 2 lists the air quality standards.

  Table 3 shows the number of days at rural sites on which levels of ozone were above the national standard of 100 μg/m3 measured as a running eight hour average mean. Ozone episodes are caused by a combination of sunlight reacting on volatile organic compounds and nitrogen dioxide. These pollutants can be transported long distances and a proportion of the ozone measured during these episodes is likely to have originated from continental sources.

  Table 4 shows the number of days at rural sites on which levels of PM10 were above the national standard of 50 μg/m3 measured as a running 24 hour average mean.

  Table 5 shows the number of days at rural sites on which levels of sulphur dioxide were above the national standard of 266 ¼g/m3 measured as a 15 minute mean.

  The nitrogen dioxide standard (287 μg/m3 measured as a one hour mean) has not been exceeded at any rural site at which monitoring is undertaken.
  677W

  Table 2: Current UK air quality standards

  Pollutant

  Concentration

  Standard measured as

  Benzene

  16.25 ng/m3

  Running annual mean

  1,3 butadiene

  2.25 ug/m3

  Running annual mean

  Carbon monoxide

  11.6 ug/m3

  Running 8 hour mean

  Lead

  0.25 |ig/m3

  Annual mean

  Nitrogen dioxide

  287 u.g/m3

  1 hour mean

  Ozone

  100 ug/m3

  Running 8 hour mean

  PM10

  50 ug/m3

  Running 24 hour mean

  Sulphur dioxide

  266 u.g/m3

  15 minute mean

  Table 3: Days on which ozone levels were above the national standard at rural sites

  Site

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Aston Hill

  24

  24

  11

  22

  20

  Bush Estate

  12

  II

  3

  8

  3

  Eskdalemuir

  10

  17

  6

  17

  6

  Harwell

  27

  39

  13

  30

  12

  High Muffles

  25

  27

  15

  31

  15

  Ladybower

  20

  28

  8

  21

  7

  Lough Navar

  6

  5

  3

  6

  7

  Lullington Heath

  40

  54

  27

  49

  28

  Narberth

  —

  27

  12

  27

  —

  Rochester

  28

  42

  20

  38

  18

  Sibton

  28

  31

  17

  23

  13

  Somerton

  40

  38

  23

  34

  26

  Strath Vaich

  11

  12

  10

  26

  10

  Wicken Fen

  —

  —

  11

  31

  10

  Yarner Wood

  28

  21

  20

  34

  14

  Table 4: Days on which PMIO levels were above the national standard at rural sites

  Narberth

  Rochester

  1996

  —

  —

  1997

  0

  6

  1998

  3

  4

  1999

  0

  1

  2000

  1

  1

  Table 5: Days on which sulphur dioxide levels were above the national standard at rural sites

  Site

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Harwell

  2

  —

  5

  2

  4

  Ladybower

  6

  1

  7

  0

  0

  Lullington Heath

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Narberth

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Rochester

  18

  6

  3

  2

  1

  Wicken Fen

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Departmental Targets
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many targets set for her Department she(a) will and (b) will not meet by the set date. [20947]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The Department is responsible for the Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets previously published for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and for the work transferred from the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. DEFRA is on course to meet all its PSA targets.
  678W

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage biodiversity in British agriculture. [20751]

  Alun Michael
  Many of DEFRA's activities are intended to conserve and enhance farmland biodiversity. Most notable among these are our agri-environment schemes, which we are expanding greatly under the England Rural Development Programme. Other measures include:

  delivery of free conservation advice to farmers, focusing especially on priority BAP species and habitat;

  cross-compliance measures to ensure good environmental management of set-aside land and to tackle over-grazing and inappropriate supplementary feeding of livestock;

  support for planting of trees on former agricultural land through the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme;

  controls on approval, storage, marketing and use of pesticides; flood management measures;

  a biodiversity and conservation management research programme worth over £2 million a year;

  our contribution to the many UK Biodiversity Action Plans for which agricultural management is a factor and, in particular, our lead partner role for the Habitat Action Plans for cereal field margins, ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows and upland hay meadows.

  We are also leading the campaign for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. One of our objectives is to shift its emphasis away from production subsidies and towards support for rural development and more environmentally-friendly farming practices. The England Biodiversity Strategy, which will be published next summer, will consider how biodiversity delivery can be further improved in the agriculture sector.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by her Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22010]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was created on 8 June 2001, therefore the historical information requested is not available. However, according to our records from Monday 25 June 2001 to Monday 10 December this Department received a total of 2,795 parliamentary questions, of which 905 were named day written questions, of which 73 per cent. received a holding answer.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of household waste was recycled in(a) the UK, (b) the North East and (c) South Tyneside in each year from 1998 to 2001. [20969]

  Mr. Meacher
  Data are available for England and Wales from the Department's annual Municipal Waste Management Survey. The percentage of household waste recycled is listed.
  679W

  Percentage

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  England and Wales

  8.8

  10.3

  North East

  3.7

  4.3

  South Tyneside

  3.7

  4.2

  2000–01 data are currently being collected from local authorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to reply to the letters of 25 June, 10 July, 5 October and 6 November from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, concerning a constituent, Ms Cann Beumer, Finance Director of the Natural Health Company (International) Ltd., Hitchin, over her Department's handling of the company's applications for standard certification of bovine sourced product. [15725]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden on 6 December 2001.

  Arable Farmers (Compensation)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors underlay her decision not to draw upon EU moneys to compensate UK arable farmers. [20629]

  Mr. Morley
  We considered the case for payment of optional agrimonetary compensation to the arable sector, the cost of which would largely have been borne by the UK Exchequer. While we acknowledge the difficulties that the sector is facing, we decided not to draw down these funds given the many competing demands on the Exchequer, not least the cost of eradicating foot and mouth disease. The arable sector will, however, be receiving £28 million in compulsory agrimonetary compensation this autumn.

  Landfill
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what impact she anticipates(a) the increase in landfill tax in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002, (b) national recycling targets for local authorities, (c) the implementation of the EU directive on fridge recycling, (d) the implementation of the EU directive on end-of-life vehicles and (e) the implementation of the EU directive on landfill will have on the level of council tax in English local authorities; and if she will make a statement. [19594]

  Mr. Meacher
  The amount of council tax individual authorities choose to raise is a matter for individual councils to decide. Spending Review 2000 looked at pressures on local authority services funded through the Environment, Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS) block, which included increases in landfill tax and the 2003–04 statutory targets for recycling and composting of household waste. SR2000 provided an increase in EPCS Standard Spending Assessment of £1.1 billion over the period covered by the spending review.
  680W
  Regarding the cost of managing waste fridges, my Department has announced an extra £6 million in the local government finance settlement. This will help local authorities with the extra costs of handling fridges to the end of this financial year.

  It has not yet been decided how the take-back and treatment of end-of-life vehicles under the directive will be funded between 2002 and 2007. The Government are now assessing the responses to their consultation on options for implementing the directive, and will take these into account when deciding the way forward.

  Spending Review 2000 will establish future levels of local authority funding for 2003–04 to 2005–06 with regard to the pressures they will face.

  Flooding
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings she has had in 2001 with agencies involved in flooding; what assessment she has made of the performance of flooding agencies(a) in relation to the reconstruction work made necessary by the winter 2000–01 flood damage and (b) the work done to prevent a recurrence of these events this winter; and if she will make a statement. [21648]

  Mr. Morley
  I hold regular meetings with the Environment Agency which is the principal flood defence operating authority and which exercises a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence.

  Last year's flooding was truly exceptional and followed the wettest autumn on record. Flood defences damaged last year have all been repaired and reinstated, and in some cases improved. This means that communities are now at least as well defended as they were before the floods, and are often better defended. Longer term work to improve defences is under way in many areas. The arrangements for responding to flooding, which proved to be effective last year, have been further improved in the light of lessons learned.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement of her policy on a ban on tests and experiments on live animals in the United Kingdom. [17757]

  Mr. Meacher
  In line with Government policy on experiments on live animals, the policy of my Department is to seek a reduction in such experimentation wherever possible, consistent with the protection of human health and the environment. We take the view that, while a complete ban is not yet achievable, much more can and should be done to reduce the numbers of animals used in determining the environmental fate and effects of chemicals.

  We have made it clear to the Commission of the European Communities and to other member states that a key objective of the EU Review of Chemicals legislation must be to keep the need for animal experimentation to an absolute minimum. This should include:

  requiring companies to share information about chemicals

  prioritising chemicals for testing

  finding and validating test methods which do not require the use of animals.

  681W

  International Trade (Agricultural Products)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the reform of international trade in agricultural products. [20753]

  Mr. Morley
  I am delighted that the WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha last month agreed to pursue a further programme of agricultural trade reform. The agreement commits members to:"comprehensive negotiations aimed at: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support".
  and to conclude a new Agreement on Agriculture by 1 January 2005.

  Sellafield
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the representations(a) made to and (b) received from the European Commission in respect of the Sellafield MOX Plant since 1 January. [19408]

  Margaret Beckett
  We received two responses to our July 2001 consultation paper, "Assessment of BNFL's Business Case for the Sellafield MOX Plant", from Mr. D. Taylor and Mr. M. M. Deffrennes at the European Commission. Copies of all responses to our consultation papers can be read at the DEFRA Library in Ashdown House, 123 Victoria street, London SW1.

  A copy of the responses from Messrs. Taylor and Deffrennes has been made available in the Library of the House today.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss combined heat and power and the climate change levy. [10425]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: I am in regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of matters that affect the business of my Department. We are both members of the cabinet committee that meets to discuss environmental matters.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment meets regularly with Treasury Ministers to discuss a whole range of matters related to energy and environmental policy. CHP and the climate change levy have featured in these discussions.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to address the change in export of power from combined heat and power since the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA). [16774]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government recognise the economic difficulties faced by CHP.

  Ofgem's Report to DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators issued on 31 August 2001, indicated that the export of power from
  682W
  CHP has reduced by around 60 per cent. since the introduction of NETA. Ofgem suggested the lower export prices for electricity were one factor, but that higher costs (especially gas prices) may also have contributed.

  On 1 November 2001, I issued a consultation document in response to Ofgem's reports "The New Electricity Trading Arrangements—Review of the First Three Months" and "Report to the DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators" of 31 August 2001. This consultation closed on 1 December 2001.

  The Government's key proposals are, broadly, to ensure imbalance prices are genuinely cost reflective; and to ensure that effective consolidation services emerge. I have proposed setting up a working group to look at obstacles to consolidation, and to report back to me by 31 January 2002.

  The Government also invited views on other proposals put forward by industry. The Government are considering responses to this consultation carefully.

  Of course the Government welcome reductions in electricity prices but have been concerned by the effect the increase in gas prices has had on the competitiveness of industrial gas consumers, including CHP operators.

  I am actively pursuing a three-part strategy intended to address higher gas prices, including continuing to push for liberalisation across Europe, improving market functioning and tackling any anti-competitive behaviour. As part of taking forward this strategy, on 2 November 2001 I published a consultation document on gas issues entitled "A consultation into Concerns About Gas Prices and Possible Improvements to Market Efficiency". This is available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/ gasconsult/gascondoc.pdf.

  In addition, DEFRA is developing, in close collaboration with other Departments, a draft CHP Strategy, which will set out the measures needed to achieve the Government's target of at least 10,000 MW of installed CHP electrical capacity by 2010. This is expected to be published in the coming months.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) farm cash flow and (b) farmers' livelihoods of delays in the (i) despatch and (ii) processing of (A) livestock and (B) ESA scheme claim forms and payments from the Rural Payments Agency in Worcester; and if she will make a statement. [20022]

  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) office at Worcester closed as a processing centre at the end of October but remains open as a drop-in centre for the receipt of forms. RPA work previously undertaken at Worcester is now undertaken by other RPA offices. Agri-environment schemes are dealt with by the Rural Development Service.

  Payments of livestock claims by RPA are expected to be made within the stipulated time frames. However the impact of FMD, the need to develop computer software upgrades incorporating changes to the payment arrangements and the need to conduct FMD cross checks

  683W
  to establish entitlement to payment mean that rather more claims than normal will be paid towards the end of the period.

  For some ESA cases there has been a delay in despatching claim forms because of queries that need resolution. However the majority of claim forms were sent out in September. This is about one month later than normal and was due to the restructuring of ex MAFF regions. Payments are however expected to be made within the two month Citizen Charter target. Farmers' cash flows and livelihoods should not therefore be significantly affected.

  Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the Fresh Produce Consortium, (b) the Horticultural Development Council and (c) Government Departments on proposals to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables by the population; and if she will make a statement. [20138]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government aim to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables, including improving access and awareness, through the five-a-day programme as part of the NHS plan. This Department liaises closely with the Department of Health on many aspects of this, most notably the National School Fruit Scheme; as well as with the Fresh Produce Consortium, the Horticultural Development Council and other stakeholders. The contribution of fruit and vegetables towards a healthy diet is well recognised and setting a trend for increasing consumption will also provide welcome opportunities for growers.

  Potatoes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of this autumn's weather conditions on the storage of this year's national potato crop; and what advice her Department has issued to growers and producers on the correct conditions for the mass storage of potatoes. [20136]

  Mr. Morley
  The assessment of the impact of this autumn's weather conditions, and advice to growers on potato storage, have been undertaken by the British Potato Council (BPC). This non-departmental public body was established in 1997 as a statutory levy funded development council. The BPC has kept growers informed of conditions throughout harvesting and warned of the necessity for careful store management and monitoring to overcome the effects of poor field conditions. The Council has also set up a telephone helpline to provide storage advice, published storage advice sheets and regularly updates storage advice on its website.

  Hunting
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the results of her consultation on the permit conditions to allow resumption of hunting with hounds. [22052]
  684W
  Alun Michael
  The period in which interested parties were invited to make comments on the permit conditions ran until 7 December. Ministers are considering the comments which have been made. The final details of the permit scheme will be published and placed in the Library of the House by the time the temporary permit system opens on 17 December.

  Horticulture Research International
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to conduct a quinquennial review of Horticulture Research International. [22256]

  Margaret Beckett
  I am today announcing a quinquennial review of Horticulture Research International. The terms of reference are as follows:"To conduct an evaluation of the performance of Horticulture Research International since the last Review in 1996;
  To consider in the light of this evaluation and the views of customs and other stakeholders whether executive NDPB status remains the most cost-effective way of achieving its own and Departmental aims, as well as Government-wide aims such as those relating to science policy, sustainable development and Modernising Government. As part of the review, to consider the sponsorship arrangements between HRI and DEFRA, including funding.
  In reaching a view about HRI's status, to consider whether the current arrangements are:

  responsive to the needs of the UK horticulture industry and HRI's other stakeholders;

  financially sustainable; and

  operationally flexible so as to be able to adjust easily and quickly to changes in technology, industry requirements, consumer demands and funding opportunities.

  If the review concludes that HRI should continue to function as an NDPB, then to consider what changes, if any, are required to its Management Statement in the light of the findings of the review. If, however, the review concludes that a different delivery system would provide high quality, more effective and better value for money services, then to set out the rationale and to recommend appropriate costed options to Ministers".

  The review will be conducted by a Review Team attached to DEFRA's Science Directorate working in consultation with the Cabinet Office, Treasury and the Office of Science and Technology.

  Interested parties are invited to submit their views to the Review Team by 22 March 2002. Details of how to contact them are contained in DEFRA's news release issued today.

TREASURY

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his target for the proportion of purchases of residential properties in disadvantaged areas with stamp duty exemption for each income quintile. [20483]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such target has been set. The areas qualifying for this stamp duty exemption were identified on the basis of each country's most recent Index of Deprivation. The effect of the exemption will be monitored and evaluated.
  685W

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made for dealing with disciplinary cases that a regulator had started before the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 came into force on 1 December. [22445]

  Ruth Kelly
  The right hon. Sir Roy Beldam has been appointed President of the Interim Tribunal which has been set up under Article 86 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Partly Completed Procedures) Order 2001 (S.I. No. 2001/3592) to hear outstanding disciplinary cases that were started before commencement of the main provisions ("N2") of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Sir Roy, who became a judge in 1981, was Chairman of the Law Commission (1985–89), Lord Justice of Appeal (1989–2000) and was, up until N2, Deputy Chairman of the Securities and Futures Authority Panel of Tribunal Chairmen.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the provisional underspend for 2000–01 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was money allocated to improving transport infrastructure. [13199]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The 2000–01 Appropriation Accounts for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be published early in the new year.

  Smuggling (Andorra)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the incidence of smuggling from Andorra to the UK and the consequent loss to the Exchequer in each of the last five years. [19134]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: Customs do not produce estimates of the incidence or the revenue evaded related to smuggling from Andorra to the UK.

  Imports (Preference)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action is being taken by Customs and Excise to stop goods produced in illegal settlements in the west bank and Gaza being imported into the UK under preference by being labelled "Made in Israel"; [20095]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications for the work of Customs and Excise of the decisions of the European Commission regarding the import, under preference, of goods produced in illegal settlements in the west bank and Gaza but which are labelled "Made in Israel"; [20092]

  (3) what action is being taken by Customs and Excise to investigate allegations that goods produced in illegal settlements in the west bank and Gaza are being imported into Britain under preference and labelled "Made in Israel"; [20094]
  686W
  (4) what action is being taken by his Department to inform importers of goods produced in illegal settlements in the west bank and Gaza that they cannot use preference irrespective of whether they are labelled "Made in Israel". [20093]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of an EC-wide exercise, Customs and Excise will be taking all appropriate steps to ensure that the origins of imports from these areas are properly declared.

  This will include providing advice to importers via the Joint Customs Consultative Committee, the Customs website, the computerised entry processing system noticeboard, and articles in trade magazines.

  Customs will also be taking steps to identify and monitor imports from these areas, will initiate post-clearance verification inquiries with the competent authorities and take appropriate action dependent on their responses.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the compliance of the aggregates levy with article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights; [20200]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compliance of the aggregates levy with the (a) World Trade Organisation agreement on subsidiaries, (b) articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty and (c) article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [20189]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The UK Government are currently pursuing with the European Commission the state aid case for phasing in of the levy in Northern Ireland; the aggregates levy otherwise complies with the provisions of articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.

  The aggregates levy is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and all relevant international agreements and treaties.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions has he had with(a) the Quarry Products Association, (b) the British Aggregates Association and (c) other representative bodies on the subject of the proposed aggregates tax. [20705]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Quarry Products Association and British Aggregates Association are among the industry representatives who form part of the aggregates levy consultation group established by HM Customs and Excise. This group has met regularly since the introduction of the aggregates levy was announced.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he has undertaken of the impact of the aggregates tax upon the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom. [20708]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: All imports will be subject to the aggregates levy. Exports of aggregate from the UK will not be subject to the levy. This will protect the international competitiveness of the UK's quarrying industry.
  687W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to simplify the regulations for the new aggregates tax. [20707]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Government will ensure that the aggregates levy regulations are as straightforward as possible.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish studies he has undertaken of the impact the new aggregates tax will have on public sector infrastructure projects. [20709]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: An increase in the price of aggregates will provide an incentive to use aggregates efficiently and encourage wider use of recycled aggregates, regardless of whether they are being used in public or private sector projects.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation he has made of the impact of the proposed aggregates tax on(a) the rural economy and (b) rural employment. [20710]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The rural economy will benefit from the levy funded 0.1 percentage point reduction in employers' national insurance contributions and the new £35 million Sustainability Fund which will deliver local environmental benefits to areas subject to the environmental costs of aggregates extraction.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research the Treasury has undertaken into the impact upon Northern Ireland of the introduction of the aggregates tax. [20717]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 200I]: The Government have looked closely at the impact of the levy on the producers of processed aggregate products (such as precast concrete) in Northern Ireland and recognise that they are at greater risk of increased international competition than their mainland counterparts, because of the land boundary with the Republic of Ireland.

  As announced in the pre-Budget report, the Government are proposing to address this by phasing the levy in over five years in Northern Ireland, beginning with a complete exemption in 2002–03. This will provide further time for affected businesses to adapt. This is subject to EU state aid approval.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the full list of exemptions from the aggregates list will be published. [20716]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Details of all the exemptions from the aggregates levy are contained within the Finance Act 2001. A list of prescribed industrial and agricultural processes which will be relieved under section 30 will be published shortly as part of the aggregates levy general regulations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the reasons are for the levy of £1.60 per tonne on the extraction of(a) sand, (b) gravel and (c) rock. [20706]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Independent research has verified that there are significant environmental costs associated with quarrying that are not already covered by regulation, including noise, dust, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to
  688W
  biodiversity. The levy will bring about environmental benefits by making the price of aggregates better reflect their true social and environmental costs, and encouraging the use of alternative materials which would otherwise have to be landfilled, thus reducing the amount of extraction.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what environmental impact assessment he has undertaken of the effects of the introduction of the new aggregates tax; and if this includes the cost of the disposal of unsaleable secondary aggregates. [20711]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Independent research has shown that there are significant environmental costs associated with quarrying which are not already covered by regulation, including noise, dust, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to biodiversity. The levy will make the price of aggregates better reflect these social and environmental costs and encourage efficient use of aggregates, as well as the increased use of recycled aggregates and other alternatives to virgin aggregate, thus reducing the amount of extraction.

  In the pre-Budget report the Government announced that in consultation with the aggregates industry, they are examining proposals to deliver additional environmental benefits through the aggregates levy by encouraging the use of aggregates waste.

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implication of judgment of the European Court of Justice against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-338/98) for(a) the policy of HM Customs and Excise with regard to input-VAT deductions for taxable employers on the expenses of their employees and (b) annual irrecoverable VAT revenue for HM Treasury; and if he will make a statement. [20387]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Customs and Excise are exploring the implications of this decision with the European Commission, and will consider whether any changes are required to ensure the UK's VAT rules are compatible. The Government will consult UK businesses closely about these implications, but are not prepared to impose any unnecessary costs or burdens on them. In the meantime, UK businesses can continue to rely on current UK law, policy and practice.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the ratio of value added tax receipts to consumptions was, setting out the variation between the forecast VAT/ consumption ratio and its actual outturn, in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [20219]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: As the hon. Member will be aware, since pre-Budget 1997 the VAT receipts forecast is governed by a National Audit Office assumption that the VAT/Consumers' Expenditure ratio declines by 0.05 per cent. per year.
  689W

  VAT/consumers' expenditure ratio

  implied by forecasts for respective Budgets

  Ratio outturns

  1997 –98

  9.69

  9.51

  1998 –99

  9.77

  9.24

  1999 –2000

  9.46

  9.44

  2000 –01

  9.59

  9.36

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the tax relief he proposes to extend to community and amateur sports clubs will include mandatory relief from business rates; [20946]

  (2) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) of 30 November 2001, Official Report, column 1150W, on sports clubs, if he will list the taxes paid by community and amateur sports clubs on which he intends to grant tax relief. [20945]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Community amateur sports clubs (CASCs) pay a range of taxes depending on their circumstances. The Government recognise the valuable and important role CASCs play in promoting the health and cohesion of their local communities. The consultation document "Promoting Sport in the Community" seeks views on the best way for tax relief to help CASCs that make a positive contribution to their local communities, and is held in the House Library.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment has been made of the number of community amateur sports clubs which would qualify for(a) charitable status and (b) Inland Revenue administered tax relief under the proposals contained in the consultation paper; [21718]

  (2) what criteria, additional to those required by Inland Revenue administered tax relief a community amateur sports club must comply with to qualify for charity status under the proposals contained in the consultation paper. [21719]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the revenue which will be forgone following implementation of the Charity Commission's proposals on community amateur sports clubs; [21698]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total revenue which would be forgone if the Government implemented their proposals to reform the taxation of community amateur sports clubs as set out in paragraphs 21 –22 of Promoting Sport in the Community. [21699]

  Mr. Boateng
  The consultation document "Promoting Sport in the Community" seeks views on the best way to help CASCs that make a positive contribution to their local communities. The cost and number of clubs which would qualify depend upon the outcome of the consultation.

  The Charity Commission has decided to recognise as charitable
  "the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities for the playing of particular sports".
  690W
  CASCs would need to meet the Charity Commission requirements to qualify for charitable status. The revenue forgone will depend upon the number of clubs given charitable status.

  Drug/Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis Customs and Excise allocate staff members to tackle(a) drug trafficking and (b) tobacco smuggling; and if he will make a statement. [20405]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Law Enforcement function of HM Customs and Excise presently has around 7,000 staff—based across the UK and overseas—and broadly divided between detection, investigation and intelligence arms. A great many of these staff, particularly uniformed officers at ports and airports, are trained to act multifunctionally in order to deal with detections of drugs, tobacco and all other contrabands. Customs deploys its enforcement staff on a flexible resourcing-to-risk basis with a view to delivering the strategic outcomes to which it is committed in the drugs and tobacco areas as well as meeting its commitments in other tax fraud and criminal areas in which it has a responsibility. National. regional and local intelligence assessments inform the day-to-day allocation of resources to specific tasks at specific locations.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to assess the impact of the climate change levy on employment in the manufacturing sector. [20467]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy only became operational in April this year and the first payments are still being received by Customs and Excise. It is too early to assess its impact.

  However, the impact on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors, including:

  The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.

  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded national insurance contribution cuts.

  The number of energy intensive firms in that sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement.

  The use that firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt 'new' renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Entrepreneurs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the total cost of researching and producing the book on entrepreneurs referred to in the Budget Red Book 2000, HC 346, para. 3.73; [20460]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the book on entrepreneurs referred to in the Budget Red Book 2000, HC 346, para. 3.73; [20459]

  (3) on what date he commenced writing the book on entrepreneurs referred to in the Budget Red Book 2000, HC 346, para. 3.73. [20463]
  691W
  Mr. Boateng
  A range of options for the format of the publication, including book and magazine styles, is currently under consideration. As these matters are still under consideration the book has not yet been published and no costs have yet been incurred.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the most recent figures relating to manufacturing investment; [20473]

  (2) what assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of manufacturing investment in the economy. [22075]

  Mr. Boateng
  The world economy is experiencing its first synchronised slowdown for three decades, and the Government fully appreciate that manufacturers are exposed to faltering global demand and heightened uncertainty. In these circumstances it is more vital than ever that we maintain the conditions for domestic growth and stability that our macroeconomic frameworks have established.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when was the last meeting between Treasury Ministers and Ministers of the National Assembly for Wales. [20594]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers meet on occasion with Ministers of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Trader Fraud (VAT)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the methodology used to calculate value added tax missing trader fraud in 2000–01. [20332]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to pages 18 and 19 of the Customs and Excise paper "Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud" that was published on 27 November 2001, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he will publish the review by Sir Gareth Roberts into the supply of scientists and engineers; and if he will make a statement; [21506]

  (2) if he will list the main areas in which the Roberts Review into the supply of scientists and engineers will make recommendations. [21507]

  Mr. Boateng
  Sir Gareth Roberts is expected to send his final report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in February 2002, at which time arrangements will be made to publish the report.

  Chapter 3 of the 2001 pre-Budget report included a section that set out the main areas that Sir Gareth Roberts has indicated he intends to cover in his recommendations. Copies of the pre-Budget report are available in the Library. Additional information relating to Sir Gareth Roberts' Review was included in a document, "Review of
  692W
  the Supply of Scientists and Engineers; A Summary of the Responses to the June 2001 Consultation Paper", published alongside the pre-Budget report. Copies of this document, too, are available in the Library.

  The Government welcome the independent assessment provided by Sir Gareth and look forward to receiving his proposals for addressing issues highlighted by the review.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with members of the Scottish Executive since 3 May on free care for the elderly in Scotland; and what was the outcome of such discussions. [21629]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Discussions take place on occasion between the Treasury and the Scottish Executive on a number of issues. Free care for the elderly in Scotland is a devolved matter which the Scottish Executive are responsible for taking forward.

  Barnett Formula
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Barnett formula was last reviewed as regards Northern Ireland funding, with particular reference to regeneration in areas of civil disturbance; and if he will make a statement. [21681]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The funding arrangements for the devolved Administrations, including the Barnett formula, were published in the updated Statement of Funding Policy in July 2000. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how to allocate their assigned budget.

  VAT (Education)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying his policy on charging VAT on the operations of(a) further education colleges and (b) schools. [19619]

  Mr. Boateng
  VAT is not charged on the educational operations of further education colleges and schools.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22018]

  Mr. Boateng
  The proportion of named day written questions answered substantively on the nominated day is as follows:

  Percentage

  1998 –99

  35

  1999 –2000

  59

  2000 –01

  63

  2001 –021

  71

  1To date

  693W

  Customs Union
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which areas within the European Union are not part of the Customs Union. [21443]

  Mr. Boateng
  The treaty establishing the European Community applies to the 15 member states and their territories as set out in Article 299. The extent of the customs territory of the Community is set out in Article 3 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92).

  Article 3 lists the following exclusions from the customs territory:

  the Faroe Islands and Greenland;

  the Island of Heligoland and the territory of Büsingen;

  Ceuta and Melilla;

  the French overseas territories and `collectivités territorials';

  the municipalities of Livigno and Campione d'Italia and the national waters of Lake Lugano which are between the bank and the political frontier of the area between Ponte Tresa and Porto Ceresio.

  In addition, the Customs Code does not apply to territories for whose external relations a member state is responsible, such as Gibraltar.

  Sport Clubs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when HM Customs and Excise intends to issue revised guidance on the implications of VAT for sport clubs and associations. [21714]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise are currently modernising their external guidance and making it available on the internet. A new version of the VAT Notice for sports clubs will be published early in 2002.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in(a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [21993]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 63W.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations the Treasury has made to(a) London Underground and (b) the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the incentive regime for public-private partnership in the last three months. [21742]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury, DTLR and London Underground officials are in regular contact about various aspects of the PPP. London Underground is responsible for negotiating the PPP contracts.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual volume of(a) cigarettes,
  694W
  (b) cigars and (c) rolling tobacco legally brought into the United Kingdom by other EU nationals for their personal use on short-stay visits in the UK. [22040]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs does not produce estimates of the annual volumes of tobacco products legally brought into the UK by other EU nationals on short-stay visits.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the debts of Railtrack will appear in the national accounts if Railtrack is in administration next April. [21060]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Railtrack is a private sector company. During administration it will continue to be classified to the private sector in national accounts. Its debts will be recorded as a financial liability in the balance sheet of the private corporations sector.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from(a) British and (b) foreign public sector investors regarding the administration of Railtrack; [15041]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely impact on the level of US investment in the United Kingdom that will result from the impact on US investors affected by the administration of Railtrack; [15267]

  (3) what representations he has received from (a) US investors, (b) US investment companies and (c) US investor representative bodies regarding the administration of Railtrack; [15268]

  (4) What assessment he has made of the impact the administration of Railtrack on US investors will have on the terms on which future US investment is made in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [15270]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers receive representations from organisations outside the Government on a regular basis. DTLR has lead responsibility for matters relating to Railtrack.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was taken to place all HIV positive applicants for(a) leave to remain and (b) asylum in a group awaiting policy guidance; and how many such cases there now are (i) in total and (ii) in each category of applicants. [20901]

  Angela Eagle
  The policy on handling applications for leave to remain by overseas nationals on the basis of being HIV positive or suffering from AIDS was reviewed last year in the light of recent developments in drug therapy and to take account of developments in European Convention on Human Rights case law. A decision was taken in September 2000 to stockpile about 80 cases pending clarification of the new policy. These have now been considered and a further 258 applications have been received.

  There are no parallel arrangements to deal with asylum applicants who may be HIV positive.
  695W
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to ensure that applicants for asylum who are refused permission to stay and who disappear from the system are(a) caught and (b) deported. [19951]

  Angela Eagle
  We are taking a range of measures to apprehend and remove failed asylum seekers. These include a substantial increase in the number of caseworkers and immigration officers engaged on removals work, expansion of the detention estate, creation of additional immigration arrest teams and development of a network of reporting centres.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites for accommodation centres for asylum seekers have now been identified; where they are located; and when the location of the others will be secured. [19112]

  Angela Eagle
  Further to the Home Secretary's statement to the House on 29 October, the Home Office plans to establish a number of accommodation centres for asylum seekers with a total capacity of 3,000. My officials are currently looking at a number of potential sites, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of his Department's preferred providers of accommodation for asylum seekers there are; and what conditions they must(a) fulfil and (b) maintain in order to qualify for their status. [19113]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has 21 contracted accommodation providers. All contractors are expected to fulfil the terms of their contract. Contracted accommodation must meet a strict specification laid down by NASS in consultation with others including the Refugee Council. The NASS Housing Management Team conducts random inspections of properties throughout the country on a weekly basis. In addition NASS Contract Managers are responsible for ensuring that contractual obligations are met.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were held in Wandsworth Prison on 26 November. [20438]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 September 2001. As at that date, 60 persons (to the nearest five) who are recorded as having claimed asylum at some stage were being held in Her Majesty's Prison Wandsworth, which includes 15 persons detained under dual Immigration Act and other powers.

  Under the withdrawal plan, no new cases have been sent to Her Majesty's Prison Wandsworth since 12 November, and it is currently planned to withdraw totally from the prison by 15 December.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 31 December 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time for processing a visa for indefinite stay in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and
  696W
  (d) 2000 and (e) 2001 to date; and how many staff were employed processing visa applications other than for asylum seekers in each year from 1997 to 2001. [18403]

  Angela Eagle
  The average time, in days, to decide applications for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom was 53 in 1997 and 72 in 1998. The average time excludes those cases where indefinite leave to remain is refused but limited leave is granted in some capacity. Comparable data for later years are not available.

  The number of staff in post, full-time equivalent, to process after entry applications, excluding asylum applications, was 402 in 2000 and 462 in 2001. Earlier figures are not available as the casework functions were not broken down to enable identification of work.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants have been seconded from other Government Departments to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate this year to help reduce the immigration casework backlog; and at what Civil Service grade. [19935]

  Angela Eagle
  There are currently 18 staff on loan to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as a whole from other Government Departments, helping it to achieve its key business objectives. The grades (or equivalents) are as follows: four members of the Senior Civil Service, one Grade Six, five Grade Sevens, six Senior Executive Officers, one Higher Executive Officer (D) and one Higher Executive Officer.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how many caseworkers at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have been increased in the last 12 months. [19933]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of caseworkers in the Integrated Casework Directorate (the casework directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate) increased by 463 between 19 February 2001 and 31 October 2001. Information to distinguish casework staff was not collected prior to 19 February.

  Art and Antiques Squad
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources have been provided since 1999 to finance the Art and Antiques Squad and the national database relating to stolen works of art. [R] [20007]

  Mr. Denham
  The only police art and antiques unit is that operated by the Metropolitan police, which is financed from the general resources provided to the Metropolitan Police Service. There is no national database relating to stolen works of art, although the Metropolitan police art and antiques unit does maintain a database of stolen works of art which may be used to provide information for other police forces.

  Metropolitan Police
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers left the service in the last month for which figures are available; and how many of these(a) retired for

  697W
  reasons other than sickness, (b) retired sick, (c) transferred to another police force and (d) left early to take other employment. [20388]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the number of officers set out in the table left the Metropolitan Police Service in October 2001.

  Reason for leaving

  Number1

  Retirement

  43.5

  Medical retirement

  9.67

  Transfer to another force

  39.36

  Resignation

  42.15

  Other

  8.0

  Total

  142.7

  1Full-time equivalents

  The force does not hold information to show how many of those who resigned did so in order to take other employment.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police recruits there were undertaking 18 weeks training and 10 weeks street duty course in the last month for which figures are available. [20391]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that on 23 November 2001 (the date of the last passing out parade) there were 933 recruits undertaking the 18 week training course.

  I understand that the Metropolitan Police Service does not keep central records of the number of officers undertaking the 10 week street duty course.

  Visa Applications
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 958W, if he will investigate the handling of Mrs. Allen's case. [20206]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: I am satisfied that Mrs. Allen's case has been dealt with in accordance with established procedures.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reply to the letter of 25 September from the hon. Member for Poole on behalf of Avtaz Singh, reference 51037677. [20546]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: We are considering the representations made by the hon. Member and expect to reply to his letter soon.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days; [18583]
  698W
  (2) how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in (a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [21997]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The available information on public correspondence relates solely to volumes and the number and proportion of replies sent within target. The information is not held in such a way to provide the more detailed breakdown requested. The volume of letters received from members of the public between 20 June and 20 July was 3,556. Of those, 2,736 or 76 per cent. were replied to within the target of 20 days.

  The following tables give the information requested for MPs' correspondence. Information on letters on Immigration and Nationality matters, which make up roughly half the postbag, is set out in Table B. Non-Immigration and Nationality correspondence is set out in Table A.

  Table A: Letters from MPs received between 20 June and 20 July (non-Immigration and Nationality correspondence)

  Number

  Percentage

  Number and percentage of replies:

  Under 15 days

  189

  40

  Under 20 days

  266

  57

  Under 30 days

  380

  81

  Under 40 days

  416

  89

  Over 40 days

  52

  11

  Table B: Letters from MPs received between 20 June and 20 July (Immigration and Nationality matters)

  Number

  Percentage

  Number and percentage of replies:

  Under 15 days

  199

  22

  Under 20 days

  334

  37

  Under 30 days

  414

  46

  Under 40 days

  455

  51

  Over 40 days

  445

  49

  My Department receives large amounts of correspondence from hon. Members and members of the public. We aim to send a substantive reply to all letters as soon as possible. I am determined to achieve a high level of performance in dealing quickly with correspondence.

  We are working with our Information Technology partners to develop next year a Customer Contact Centre which will radically change the way we handle letters, e-mails and telephone inquiries. In the short term we are implementing a number of organisational and process changes to bring about improvements in the quality and timeliness of replies and to prepare for the Contact Centre.

  Police Response Vehicles
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police response vehicles have been in road accidents while on operational duty in(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996, (d) 1997, (e) 1998, (f) 1999 and (g) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [20617]
  699W
  Mr. Denham
  The table sets out, from police force returns to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the number of accidents involving police vehicles which were engaged in immediate/emergency response or pursuit at the time of the accident.

  Year

  Number of accidents

  1994–95

  5,386

  1995–96

  6,611

  1996–97

  4,972

  1997–98

  5,057

  1998–99

  5,037

  1999–2000

  5,382

  2000–01

  5,969

  Note:

  Four forces did not submit a return in 1994–95, two forces in 1995–96, two forces in 1996–97, and one force in 2000–01.

  Chief officers of police share fully the Government's view that everything possible must be done to minimise the risk of accidents involving police vehicles, while recognising the need to ensure a prompt response to emergencies. The police are taking forward a number of initiatives to help to achieve this, including the implementation of recommendations from an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) report on police pursuit driver training. In addition, ACPO has produced a guide to pursuit management to be used by forces, and a new police driver training course, launched December last year, introduced a universal standard for driving in England and Wales which recognises the need to give priority to public safety above all other considerations.

  It is police practice to consider continuously the consequences of a pursuit and whether to break it off. Other operational measures employed to avoid or curtail pursuits include the use of helicopters, the early deployment of tyre deflation devices across the carriageway, and the use of tactical pursuit and containment, where a number of police vehicles box in a target vehicle to bring it safely to a halt.

  Prison Officer Housing Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officer housing units are available for allocation to prison officers in England and Wales. [20433]

  Beverley Hughes
  Entitlement to occupy quarters was ended for Prison Officers in 1987. Since that time quarters have been sold either to occupying officers under discount sales schemes or, where vacant on the open market. Fifty quarters are retained for occupation by Chaplains who continue to have a quarter entitlement. Also, approximately 400 quarters retained on security or operational grounds are available for occupation by prison staff, and these are reallocated by Governors upon becoming vacant.

  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils are being held in(a) detention centres and (b) prisons in the United Kingdom awaiting removal from the UK for immigration offences; and if he will make a statement. [20439]
  700W
  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information on persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 September 2001. The number of Sri Lankans being held in detention centres and prisons as at that date is given in the table.

  Place of detention

  Sri Lankan Immigration Act detainees as at 30 September 20011

  Immigration detention centers

  10

  Dedicated Immigration Service wings2

  20

  Prison establishments3

  20

  Total persons detained in detention centres and prisons3

  55

  1Figures rounded to the nearest five, and may not sum due to rounding. Excludes persons detained at Oakington Reception Centre.

  2Persons detained at the dedicated Immigration Service wings at Haslar, Lindholme and Rochester.

  3Includes 10 persons detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  It is not possible to separately identify how many of these persons are Sri Lankan Tamils. Information on how many of these persons were awaiting removal from the United Kingdom for immigration offences on 30 September 2001 is not available and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 31 December 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Rape
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of rape were reported in England and Wales in 2000 that resulted in charges being made against the alleged perpetrators. [20435]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The requested details are not collected centrally. Of the 8,593 offences of rape recorded in England and Wales in the year ending March 2001, 3,992 were detected. During the 2000 calendar year a total of 2,046 individuals were proceeded against at magistrates courts for rape. As the recorded crime figure relates to offences, and the proceedings figure relates to individuals, who may be prosecuted for more than one rape offence, these figures are not directly comparable.

  Home Office Research Study 196 'A question of evidence? Investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s' found that 42 per cent. of a sample of recorded cases of rape of a female in 1996 resulted in a charge.

  Police Corruption
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were cautioned in the course of an investigation for corruption in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [20499]

  Mr. Denham
  The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and to seek this information from all police forces would involve a disproportionate cost.
  701W

  Hoax Emergency Calls
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of hoax calls to the emergency services he estimates to be made from mobile telephones; and if he will require mobile telephone operators to co-operate with the investigation and prosecution of hoax callers. [20487]

  Mr. Denham
  Making a hoax call to the emergency services constitutes improper use of a public telecommunication system and is an offence under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Data on the number of prosecutions for malicious abuse of the public telephone system are not collected centrally.

  Accidental calls, characterised by silence on being answered, account for some 20 per cent. of 999 calls. Silent calls are now routed to a recorded message requiring confirmation that emergency services are required. Oftel is working with manufacturers to improve mobile phone design to reduce the risk of accidental engagement of 999.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for reducing the fear of crime. [17314]

  Complaints received by the police

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  976

  1,035

  852

  871

  845

  Bedfordshire

  217

  247

  161

  207

  194

  Cambridgeshire

  458

  473

  410

  390

  281

  Cheshire

  489

  600

  597

  556

  495

  Cleveland

  375

  342

  326

  400

  318

  Cumbria

  -419

  315

  289

  286

  283

  Derbyshire

  384

  443

  400

  421

  298

  Devon and Cornwall

  760

  911

  798

  645

  704

  Dorset

  185

  164

  165

  239

  267

  Durham

  166

  163

  181

  168

  181

  Essex

  573

  559

  510

  538

  549

  Gloucestershire

  323

  328

  272

  296

  258

  Greater Manchester

  2,149

  2,181

  2,211

  2,281

  1,807

  Hampshire

  948

  897

  654

  594

  523

  Hertfordshire

  312

  466

  416

  502

  491

  Humberside

  431

  444

  425

  410

  364

  Kent

  657

  675

  624

  678

  620

  Lancashire

  886

  848

  850

  918

  682

  Leicestershire

  292

  266

  280

  315

  333

  Lincolnshire

  169

  141

  310

  328

  313

  London City of

  133

  126

  69

  63

  60

  Merseyside

  2,028

  2,270

  1,429

  1,312

  911

  Metropolitan Police

  9,122

  8,037

  7,154

  6,611

  5,830

  Norfolk

  423

  519

  326

  433

  365

  Northamptonshire

  294

  331

  256

  212

  221

  Northumbria

  650

  671

  629

  668

  661

  North Yorkshire

  370

  343

  363

  441

  441

  Nottinghamshire

  754

  812

  689

  817

  770

  South Yorkshire

  473

  454

  551

  666

  582

  Staffordshire

  587

  598

  511

  629

  803

  Suffolk

  287

  308

  268

  374

  229

  Surrey

  497

  561

  639

  477

  460

  Sussex

  864

  1,076

  1,153

  1,734

  1,814

  Thames Valley

  742

  604

  768

  756

  768

  702W
  Mr. Denham
  The target is to ensure that by 2004 levels of fear of crime in the key categories of violent crime, burglary and car crime are lower than in 2001. The measure is the British Crime Survey, and the 2001 survey provides us with a baseline against which to measure progress against this target. The 2001 baseline is: 22.3 per cent. of the population fear violent crime; 16.5 per cent. fear burglary and 18.5 per cent. fear car crime.

  Tackling the fear of crime is critical to improving the quality of life for many. The British Crime Survey shows that fear of crime has been falling in the key crime categories over a number of years, although we know that some individuals, communities or groups may be more susceptible to fear than others. Our crime reduction programme aims to secure substantial reductions in the level of fear of crime by 2004, as we achieve real reductions in actual crime levels.

  Police Complaints
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were(a) registered and (b) upheld and what the level of complaints was as a percentage of the effective strength of each police constabulary in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [20370]

  Mr. Denham
  Available information is for England and Wales only. Complaints and discipline statistics are published annually in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The latest statistics relating to 2000–01 were published on 14 November 2001 in issue number 21/01. Details are given in the tables.
  703W

  Complaints received by the police

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Warwickshire

  165

  180

  206

  194

  205

  West Mercia

  506

  517

  454

  578

  410

  West Midlands

  1,681

  1,676

  1,590

  1,868

  1,884

  West Yorkshire

  966

  864

  796

  871

  795

  Wiltshire

  162

  185

  259

  230

  266

  Dyfed-Powys

  202

  183

  180

  148

  157

  Gwent

  427

  446

  505

  557

  487

  North Wales

  392

  353

  381

  439

  297

  South Wales

  965

  723

  752

  733

  747

  England and Wales

  33,859

  33,335

  30,659

  31,854

  28,969

  Complaints against the police upheld

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  26

  28

  16

  27

  Bedfordshire

  14

  3

  11

  9

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  42

  15

  28

  18

  Cheshire

  16

  11

  17

  11

  10

  Cleveland

  13

  2

  12

  0

  5

  Cumbria

  2

  1

  7

  7

  0

  Derbyshire

  26

  5

  8

  2

  7

  Devon and Cornwall

  14

  38

  26

  24

  22

  Dorset

  3

  6

  7

  3

  5

  Durham

  7

  5

  1

  5

  4

  Essex

  14

  22

  25

  6

  12

  Gloucestershire

  12

  12

  3

  11

  5

  Greater Manchester

  22

  20

  20

  30

  40

  Hampshire

  30

  22

  24

  22

  20

  Hertfordshire

  15

  12

  10

  8

  20

  Humberside

  8

  18

  9

  14

  14

  Kent

  27

  26

  24

  26

  63

  Lancashire

  30

  12

  15

  13

  26

  Leicestershire

  10

  15

  10

  5

  13

  Lincolnshire

  12

  6

  6

  5

  7

  London City of

  7

  5

  6

  4

  3

  Merseyside

  11

  7

  12

  6

  36

  Metropolitan Police

  203

  236

  146

  168

  138

  Norfolk

  26

  11

  28

  11

  17

  Northamptonshire

  9

  1

  6

  9

  7

  Northumbria

  8

  12

  6

  3

  12

  North Yorkshire

  13

  10

  27

  20

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  13

  1

  12

  26

  South Yorkshire

  3

  13

  11

  18

  14

  Staffordshire

  7

  9

  6

  20

  34

  Suffolk

  12

  11

  24

  11

  5

  Surrey

  7

  5

  17

  7

  17

  Sussex

  33

  23

  31

  54

  79

  Thames Valley

  27

  32

  23

  37

  45

  Warwickshire

  6

  6

  4

  6

  9

  West Mercia

  14

  6

  23

  13

  11

  West Midlands

  23

  61

  47

  26

  38

  West Yorkshire

  54

  26

  13

  13

  19

  Wiltshire

  2

  27

  5

  3

  11

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  3

  1

  5

  4

  Gwent

  7

  3

  5

  3

  8

  North Wales

  5

  9

  14

  7

  13

  South Wales

  28

  17

  11

  13

  17

  England and Wales

  834

  850

  745

  714

  903

  Complaints received as a percentage of police strength

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  33

  35

  29

  29

  29

  Bedfordshire

  19

  23

  15

  20

  19

  Cambridgeshire

  37

  36

  32

  31

  23

  Cheshire

  24

  29

  29

  27

  25

  Cleveland

  26

  23

  22

  28

  23

  704W 705W

  Complaints received as a percentage of police strength

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Cumbria

  38

  28

  25

  25

  26

  Derbyshire

  22

  25

  23

  24

  17

  Devon and Cornwall

  26

  32

  27

  22

  25

  Dorset

  15

  13

  13

  19

  20

  Durham

  12

  11

  12

  11

  12

  Essex

  20

  19

  17

  19

  20

  Gloucestershire

  29

  29

  25

  27

  23

  Greater Manchester

  31

  32

  32

  33

  27

  Hampshire

  28

  26

  19

  17

  15

  Hertfordshire

  18

  26

  24

  29

  28

  Humberside

  21

  22

  21

  21

  19

  Kent

  21

  21

  19

  21

  19

  Lancashire

  28

  26

  26

  28

  21

  Leicestershire

  15

  14

  14

  16

  17

  Lincolnshire

  15

  12

  26

  29

  28

  London City of

  15

  15

  8

  8

  8

  Merseyside

  46

  54

  34

  31

  22

  Metropolitan Police

  33

  30

  27

  25

  23

  Norfolk

  30

  36

  23

  31

  26

  Northamptonshire

  26

  28

  22

  19

  20

  Northumbria

  18

  18

  17

  17

  17

  North Yorkshire

  28

  26

  27

  33

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  33

  35

  30

  37

  35

  South Yorkshire

  15

  14

  17

  21

  18

  Staffordshire

  27

  27

  22

  28

  37

  Suffolk

  25

  26

  23

  31

  20

  Surrey

  30

  35

  40

  29

  26

  Sussex

  28

  35

  38

  61

  64

  Thames Valley

  20

  16

  20

  20

  21

  Warwickshire

  17

  19

  22

  21

  23

  West Mercia

  25

  25

  23

  29

  22

  West Midlands

  24

  24

  22

  26

  26

  West Yorkshire

  19

  17

  15

  17

  16

  Wiltshire

  13

  16

  22

  20

  24

  Dyfed-Powys

  20

  18

  18

  14

  15

  Gwent

  41

  36

  41

  45

  39

  North Wales

  28

  26

  27

  32

  21

  South Wales

  32

  24

  25

  25

  26

  England and Wales

  27

  27

  25

  26

  24

  Complaints upheld as a percentage of police strength

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  0.5

  0.87

  0.94

  0.53

  0.92

  Bedfordshire

  1.24

  0.27

  1.02

  0.86

  0.58

  Cambridgeshire

  1.86

  3.23

  1.16

  2.20

  1.46

  Cheshire

  0.80

  0.54

  0.83

  0.53

  0.50

  Cleveland

  0.92

  0.14

  0.81

  0.00

  0.36

  Cumbria

  0.18

  0.09

  0.60

  0.62

  0.00

  Derbyshire

  1.47

  0.28

  0.45

  0.11

  0.39

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.48

  1.33

  0.88

  0.83

  0.77

  Dorset

  0.24

  0.47

  0.53

  0.23

  0.38

  Durham

  0.50

  0.34

  0.07

  0.32

  0.26

  Essex

  0.49

  0.74

  0.85

  0.21

  0.43

  Gloucestershire

  1.06

  1.06

  0.27

  1.00

  0.45

  Greater Manchester

  0.32

  0.29

  0.29

  0.44

  0.59

  Hampshire

  0.90

  0.64

  0.69

  0.63

  0.58

  Hertfordshire

  0.88

  0.68

  0.57

  0.46

  1.13

  Humberside

  0.39

  0.88

  0.45

  0.71

  0.72

  Kent

  0.87

  0.80

  0.74

  0.81

  1.97

  Lancashire

  0.95

  0.37

  0.46

  0.40

  0.82

  Leicestershire

  0.52

  0.77

  0.50

  0.25

  0.65

  Lincolnshire

  1.05

  0.50

  0.50

  0.44

  0.63

  London City of

  0.81

  0.58

  0.73

  0.51

  0.41

  Merseyside

  0.25

  0.17

  0.28

  0.14

  0.88

  Metropolitan Police

  0.74

  0.88

  0.56

  0.64

  0.54

  Norfolk

  1.86

  0.77

  1.96

  0.80

  1.23

  Northamptonshire

  0.78

  0.08

  0.51

  0.79

  0.63

  Northumbria

  0.22

  0.33

  0.16

  0.08

  0.32

  North Yorkshire

  0.98

  0.75

  1.97

  1.50

  1.25

  706W 707W

  Complaints upheld as a percentage of police strength

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Nottinghamshire

  0.65

  0.56

  0.04

  0.54

  1.18

  South Yorkshire

  0.10

  0.41

  0.35

  0.57

  0.44

  Staffordshire

  032

  0.41

  0.26

  0.89

  1.57

  Suffolk

  1.05

  0.93

  2.02

  0.92

  0.44

  Surrey

  0.43

  0.31

  1.06

  0.42

  0.95

  Sussex

  1.07

  0.75

  1.03

  1.90

  2.80

  Thames Valley

  0.73

  0.87

  0.61

  0.99

  1.20

  Warwickshire

  0.61

  0.65

  0.43

  0.66

  1.00

  West Mercia

  0.69

  0.29

  1.14

  0.64

  0.58

  West Midlands

  0.32

  0.86

  0.66

  0.36

  0.53

  West Yorkshire

  1.05

  0.50

  0.25

  0.26

  0.39

  Wiltshire

  0.16

  2.34

  0.43

  0.26

  0.98

  Dyfed-Powys

  0.10

  0.30

  0.10

  0.49

  0.38

  Gwent

  0.67

  0.24

  0.41

  0.24

  0.63

  North Wales

  0.36

  0.66

  1.00

  0.50

  0.93

  South Wales

  0.93

  0.57

  0.37

  0.44

  0.58

  England and Wales

  0.67

  0.68

  0.60

  0.58

  0.74

  Note:

  Police strength as of 31 March before the beginning of each financial year

  Ethnic Minority Police Officers (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are in Coventry; how many are from ethnic minorities; and what measures there are to encourage more people into the police service. [20957]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the chief constable of West Midlands police that there are 830 police officers in Coventry and that 33 are from the ethnic minorities.

  The Crime Fighting Fund was established to provide chief officers with resources to recruit 9,000 extra officers, over and above their previous recruitment plans for the three-year period from April 2000 to March 2003. West Midlands police has been allocated 523 Crime Fighting Fund recruits over the three years.

  The first ever National Recruitment Campaign for the police service was launched in August last year to assist forces to meet their recruitment targets. By 25 November 2001 there had been more than 45,000 expressions of interest in joining the police service. 1,837 of these have been passed to West Midlands police for further action.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [22025]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In the last three parliamentary Sessions, 4,749 named day parliamentary questions (the only type for which holding replies are used) have been tabled to the Home Office. Of these, 1,015—or 21 per cent—were given a holding answer. The figures for each session are given in the table.

  Session

  Percentage of answers given Session holding replies

  1998–99

  15

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–01

  30

  708W
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Beckenham of 14 November (ref. 16179) [21661]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am replying to the question from the hon. Member today. I apologise for the delay.

  Styal Women's Prison
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates there were in Styal women's prison in each of the last 20 years. [18441]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of prisoners in Styal prison 30 June 1982 to 2001

  Number

  1982

  226

  1983

  239

  1984

  278

  1985

  261

  1986

  270

  1987

  276

  1988

  272

  1989

  226

  1990

  186

  1991

  193

  1992

  196

  1993

  175

  1994

  226

  1995

  237

  1996

  249

  1997

  267

  1998

  281

  1999

  446

  2000

  449

  2001

  424

  The step change in population from 281 in 1998 to 446 in 1999 was due to the opening of an additional houseblock in April 1999 and the transfer of prisoners from Risley.
  709W

  Departmental Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, in real terms, for each year since 1979(a) the total sums of money spent directly by his Department in Scotland and (b) the total sums of money allocated by his Department for spending in Scotland through (i) the Scottish Office, (ii) the Scotland Office and (iii) the Scottish Executive. [16179]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information requested is not readily available. Public expenditure information by territory and function is available in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2001–02 (Cm 5101) for the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000, and earlier years are available in previous PESA publications. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  My Department does not allocate money for spending in Scotland through the Scottish Office, the Scotland Office or the Scottish Executive.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if employees of local authorities who carry out duties within Dungavel Detention Centre have(a) been fingerprinted and (b) had photographic records taken. [21817]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not current policy to fingerprint or photograph visitors to Dungavel Detention Centre, who are on official business including representatives from local authorities.

  From

  To

  Date

  Subject

  Private Secretary to the Home Secretary

  Rt. hon. Denzil Davies MP

  23 November

  SIAC and appeals

  Private Secretary to the Home Secretary

  Mark Fisher Esq. MP

  27 November

  Definition of "terrorist"

  Lord Rooker

  Lord Dixon-Smith

  28 November

  Disclosure of information

  Lord Rooker

  Lord Philips

  28 November

  Disclosure of information

  Beverley Hughes MP

  Humfrey Malins CBE MP

  29 November

  Security of pathogens and toxins

  Beverley Hughes MP

  Tam Dalyell MP

  29 November

  Security of pathogens and toxins

  I will ensure that copies of these letters are placed in the Library.

  Victor Dan Iliescu
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on the application for leave to remain by Victor Dan Iliescu (HO Ref. JS33533/3(S); PO 01423/01). [19643]

  Angela Eagle
  Mr. Iliescu has now been granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom until 30 November 2006.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) use and (b) role in punishment and rehabilitation of young offender institutions run by the Army. [20958]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Army do not run young offender institutions for the Home Office. They do, however, operate the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) in Colchester. The
  710W

  Community Relations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Home Office policies to improve community relations in areas which have suffered from recent disturbances. [5672]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government took immediate steps in response to the disturbances last summer. In the short term, we made available £7 million to fund additional summer activities for young people. In addition £3 million has been made available to fund the appointment of community facilitators for those areas most in need.

  Other measures taken by Government and proposals for further action are set out in the report of the Ministerial Group on Public Order and Community Cohesion. That report will be published tomorrow together with the report of the independent Review Team, led by Ted Cantle, announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement of 10 July 2001, Official Report, column 663. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the letters of reflection that are to be prepared by Ministers as a result of the scrutiny of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, indicating in each case when the letter is to be deposited in the Library.[19872]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Taking into account the consideration given to the Bill up to and including the second day of Lords Committee (29 November, 2001), the following letters have been prepared:

  MCTC is a detention facility for men and women of the armed forces who have been sentenced to undergo a period of corrective training in accordance with the provisions of the Imprisonment and Detention (Army) Rules 1979.

  MCTC also provides rehabilitation training for those personnel that are to be discharged from the service, on completion of sentence, so that they develop their potential for self-sufficiency and responsible citizenship

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in the past four years in respect of British summer time being retained throughout the year. [21501]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date, I have received two representations calling for British summer time to be extended throughout the year.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce GMT plus one hour in England and Wales throughout the year. [21500]
  711W
  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no current plans to introduce GMT plus one hour in England and Wales throughout the year.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations the UK has made to the USA in respect of bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force before the end of this year. [20508]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  In order for the CTBT to enter into force, it requires the signature and ratification of 44 named states. At present, 31 of these countries, including the UK, have done so. The UK has consistently urged all states that have not yet done so to sign and/or ratify the Treaty. We continue to make our support for the Treaty clear to the US and others, most recently on 11 November in New York when the Foreign Secretary addressed the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

HEALTH

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department has collected on the operation of the extra contractual referrals system. [21006]

  Mr. Hutton
  The extra contractual referral system ended on 1 April 1999. Extra contractual referral income and expenditure information was collected in the financial monitoring returns of national health service trusts and health authorities. A table has been placed in the Library covering the years 1995–96 to 1998–99.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three sessions of Parliament. [22016]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of named day parliamentary questions

  Percentage receiving holding answers

  1998–99

  1,271

  25

  1999–2000

  1,441

  35

  2000–01

  1,825

  47

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the question of the hon. Member for Maidenhead on bed blocking tabled for answer on 2 November (No. 12240). [21724]

  Jacqui Smith
  I replied to the hon. Member today.
  712W

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total expenditure on the NHS and (b) the total expenditure on counter-fraud work within the NHS in the last year for which figures are available. [21733]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total net expenditure on the national health service in the year 2000–01 was £44.6 billion. The total expenditure of the NHS Counter Fraud Service during the same period was £4.45 million.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the latest estimate for EU countries' expenditure on health in 2005 in(a) cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the relevant GDP. [21939]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is the most reliable source of data for making comparisons of international health expenditure. The latest full set of figures published by the OECD is for 1998. The OECD figures do not include forecasts. The table shows the latest available figures.

  1998

  Total health spend (US$million, PPP1)

  Total health spend as a percentage of gross domestic product

  Austria

  15,299

  8.0

  Belgium

  20,920

  8.6

  Denmark

  11,300

  8.3

  Finland

  7,782

  6.9

  France

  118,776

  9.3

  Germany

  193,697

  10.3

  Greece

  12,594

  8.4

  Ireland

  5,682

  6.8

  Italy

  98,806

  7.7

  Luxembourg

  958

  6.0

  Netherlands

  33,768

  8.7

  Portugal

  11,996

  7.7

  Spain

  46,798

  7.0

  Sweden

  15,328

  7.9

  United Kingdom

  89,432

  6.8

  1Purchasing Power Parity

  Source:

  OECD Health Data 2001

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 16 October from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (ref. POH (4) 5009/18). [21716]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 6 December 2001.

  Care Homes (Inspections)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local authority(a) the sum spent on regulation of inspection of care homes in 2000–01, (b) the sum budgeted for regulation of inspection of care homes in 2001–02 and (c) the sum top-sliced for regulation of inspection of care homes in 2002–03. [21731]
  713W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested for the sum spent and the sum budgeted for regulation of inspection of care homes is not available centrally. Total expenditure on registration and inspection by each local authority in England in 1999–2000 is available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/ public/pss—stat.htm, but this includes expenditure on the regulatory function for children under eight transferred to OFSTED.

  £87 million has been transferred from the personal social services standard spending assessments for the National Care Standards Commission to reflect the transfer of the remaining registration and inspection function. This is shown for each authority in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Occupational Therapy
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures his Department collates on waiting times for NHS occupational therapy treatment; and if he will list these for each of the last five years. [21701]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not routinely collect data on waiting times for national health service occupational therapy treatment.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to review the wheelchair voucher scheme; and if he will make a statement. [R] [21792]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently no plans to review the wheelchair voucher scheme introduced in 1996.

  Early Intervention Teams
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and in what manner he intends to announce the outcome of the comprehensive review of progress on the development of plans for early intervention teams. [11527]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Local implementation teams have completed their comprehensive reviews of services including early intervention mental health teams in readiness to deliver the new services required in the NHS Plan. The reviews have been instigated to support local planning, the outcome of which will be detailed in the local implementation plans.

  There is no intention to publish these local reviews on a national basis.

  Bed Blocking
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the additional funding to be provided to local authorities to tackle bed blocking will be ring-fenced; and what categories of expenditure will be permitted for the funding. [12240]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: All of the additional funding will be ring-fenced. Further information can be found in the grant determination under section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000 of the Building Care Capacity Grant for 2001–02 which was published in November and placed on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/delayeddischarge.
  714W

  Coronary Heart Care (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been made available to improving coronary heart services in hospitals within the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [14731]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over the last three years, over £27 million has been made available specifically for improving coronary heart disease (CHD) services in London. The information is in the table.

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Capital

  1—

  10,802

  22,027

  Revenue

  1—

  8,519

  5,888

  Total

  19,321

  7,915

  1No specific allocations

  2Estimated allocation to national health service trusts

  Capital funds shown are based on allocations to NHS trusts in London and revenue funds based on allocations to London health authorities.

  The £27 million is to support the delivery of priority areas identified in the National Service Framework for CHD that was published in March 2000.

  Health authorities will also have used their overall unified allocation to invest in coronary heart services. In addition to the above, over £2 million capital has been allocated specifically for primary care developments.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance indicators to be used for the measurement of the appraisals by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in pursuit of its public service agreement with his Department. [14903]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on 5 November 2001,Official Report, columns 118–20W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for the production of appraisals by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence by 31 March. [14904]

  Mr. Hutton
  The public service agreement which formed part of the 1998 comprehensive spending review settlement included a target of establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by 1 April 1999 with a view to it producing at least 30 appraisals of new or existing technologies and guidance per annum from 2000–01. NICE was established and in 2000–01 published 21 appraisals, many of which covered more than one technology.

  The public service agreement incorporated in the 2000 spending review settlement does not contain specific targets for the production of NICE guidance.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what strategy is in place to meet an epidemic of smallpox caused by terrorist action. [15466]
  715W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has contingency planning in place to mitigate the effects of a bioterrorist act and to ensure response and recovery in conjunction with other Government Departments, the national health service and key public health agencies.

  Guidance has been issued to senior managers in the NHS on procedures to be followed in the event of a release of a biological agent, including smallpox.

  There are strategic stocks of vaccine which would be rapidly deployed for use as appropriate to the incident to contain any outbreak.

  Lymphoedema
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the level of health care administered by local health authorities to sufferers of lymphoedema. [166831

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what system is used in the funding of lymphoedema clinics; if he will take steps to encourage a uniform service; and if he will make a statement. [18303]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is the role of health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups and trusts, to decide what services to provide for their populations including those with lymphoedema. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  We are currently developing a National Service Framework (NSF) for long-term conditions. The precise scope of the NSF has not yet been decided. Although it may not address lymphoedema directly, the NSF is likely to set general standards which will improve the quality of treatment and care for all people living with long-term conditions. It will help overcome problems of patchy provision of services. The Department is consulting the Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance, of which the Lymphoedema Support Network is a member, on the development of the NSF.

  Performance Assessment System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the measures of cost efficiency developed by his Department as part of the performance assessment system. [16943]

  Mr. Hutton
  The performance indicators were published in July 2000 on the Department's website: www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators. This includes a number of efficiency indicators:

  day case rate;

  average length of stay;

  maternity unit costs;

  mental health unit costs; and

  percentage of prescribing on generic drugs.

  Since the indicators were published, the Department has carried out a wide ranging consultation exercise with a view to improving the quality and range of the indicators. An updated set of indicators is now being developed for publication before the end of the year.
  716W
  In addition, a new public service agreement target for value for money was agreed as part of spending review 2000:
  The cost of care commissioned from trusts which perform well against indicators of fair access, quality and responsiveness, will become the benchmark for the NHS. Everyone will be expected to reach the level of the best over the next five years, with agreed milestones for 2003–04.

  The aim of this new target is to ensure that cost-savings are not at the expense of service quality. The year 2001–02 is the first year covered by this new public service agreement target. We will be monitoring progress against this new target as data become available.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the costs in(a)2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of the Medical Devices Agency. [16936]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Gross Expenditure

  9,020,000

  9,682,000

  Income

  352,000

  305,000

  Net Expenditure

  8,668,000

  9,377,000

  1Estimated

  Diabetes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the advice available to diabetics on the safe disposal of their used needles; and if he will make a statement. [17458]

  Jacqui Smith
  We would expect a person with diabetes who injects insulin to be advised by their doctor or pharmacist about the safe disposal of their used syringes and needles. Because of the potential hazards to refuse collectors, used syringes and needles should not be disposed of in the domestic waste. Local authorities have a duty to collect clinical waste on request, although they may levy a reasonable charge for doing so. Some general practitioner practices, hospitals and pharmacists also provide a collection service for clinical waste. GPs may prescribe the 1 litre "Sharpsbin" for the disposal of needles and contaminated waste.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Diabetes National Framework Standards by the end of November. [R] [19552]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will be publishing the Diabetes National Service Framework Standards this year.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure on diabetes was in each year since 1997 in the Tees health authority. [20939]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Information is not collected on disease based costs in the format requested. It is not possible, therefore, to identify total health authority diabetes related costs.
  717W
  In the particular instance of diabetes a whole range of services are involved in the treatment of patients where the condition is a result of diabetes, for example ophthalmic services, renal services, general surgical services, primary care treatment and prescribing costs.

  The table shows the general medical services non-discretionary expenditure on the chronic disease management programme for diabetes, that was incurred by Tees health authority in each financial year since 1997–98.

  GMS non-discretionary expenditure on CDM Diabetes 1997–98 to 2000–01—Tees health authority

  £

  1997–98

  115,711

  1998–99

  113,665

  1999–2000

  121,508

  2000–01

  125,096

  Note:

  2000–01 data are provisional

  Source:

  Annual financial returns for health authorities

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken of the complexity of cases referred to Hammersmith hospital for cardiac surgery in producing the performance tables. [17372]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department recently produced comparative data on mortality following a coronary artery bypass graft which were published by Dr. Foster alongside their own version of the same indicator. The Department's data are adjusted to take account of variation between trusts in the age and sex of patients treated and whether the patient is admitted to hospital as an emergency case or for a planned operation.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) alter the remit and (b) review the framework of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and if NICE includes the therapeutic requirements of specific diseases in its assessments of the efficacy of individual drugs. [17433]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 416W.

  The precise methodology used in appraisals of individual therapies is for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence itself, but the institute's recommendations always take account of the specific features of the conditions in which the therapies are to be applied.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with tuberculosis in Arundel and South Downs in each year since 1990. [18323]

  Ms Blears
  Information on statutory notifications of tuberculosis (excluding chemoprophylaxis) is available from the Public Health Laboratory Service.
  718W
  The Department collects information on tuberculosis as part of the hospital episodes statistics (HES) system, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in national health service hospitals in England.

  The nearest available data for Arundel and South Downs are for local authority district, Arun. The numbers of patients treated in Arun is shown in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCES)1 by main diagnosis NHS hospitals England 1990–91 to 2000–01 Arun (local authority district—area of residence)

  Tuberculosis

  Number

  1990–91

  2—

  1991–92

  9

  1992–93

  2—

  1993–94

  2—

  1994–95

  2—

  1995–96

  10

  1996–97

  10

  1997–98

  2—

  1998–99

  2—

  1999–2000

  9

  2000–01

  2—

  1An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within a year.

  2Means a figure between 1 and 5.

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

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) Department of Health

  Nursing and Residential Care Beds
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care(a) homes and (b) beds have closed in Arundel and South Downs in each year since 1997. [18324]

  Ms Blears
  The number of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with the number of new registrations, are presented in the table. Information is not available centrally on the number of beds associated with closures or new registrations.

  Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in West Sussex

  Year ending 31 March

  Residential1

  Nursing2

  Number of establishment closures

  1999

  38

  10

  2000

  45

  23

  Number of new registrations

  1999

  41

  10

  2000

  15

  17

  1Information presented for West Sussex county council.

  1Information presented for West Sussex health authorities.

  Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey
  719W

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in each quarter in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, how many hospital beds were unavailable in Arundel and South Downs to incoming patients as a result of their occupation by (i) delayed discharge patients who were awaiting social services funding and (ii) delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social services packages arranged. [18321]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Quarterly information for West Sussex health authority, for patients aged 75 and over, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in Arundel and South Downs, in each quarter in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, as a result of hospital beds being occupied by (i) delayed discharge patients who are awaiting social services funding or assessment and (ii) delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social services packages arranged. [18320]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Statistics on the number of operations cancelled for non-medical reasons in each health authority are collected on a quarterly basis. Copies are available in the Library. The latest figures are for quarter 1 (April-June) of the 2001–02 financial year.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients contracted hospital-acquired infections in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 in Arundel and South Downs. [18318]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  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.

  Haemoglobinopathies
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will assess the effectiveness of the neonatal screening programme for haemoglobinopathies to be introduced next year; and what criteria he will use. [19103]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS plan sets out our commitment to introduce by 2004 a new and effective screening programme for women and children including a new national linked antenatal and neonatal programme for haemoglobinopathies.

  The effectiveness of the programme will be assessed by factors such as the uptake of screening, the effect of follow up treatment and experiences of the people using the service.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bone marrow transplants were carried out in the United Kingdom during the past five years in relation to(a) sickle cell, (b) thalassaemia and (c) other haemoglobinopathies; and with what success rate. [18902]
  720W
  Jacqui Smith
  The latest figures at April 2001 show that 99 transplants for haemoglobinopathy have been reported to the United Kingdom Children's Bone Marrow Transplant Registry since 1993. 17 children have received transplants for sickle cell disease, 16 are alive (94 per cent.) and 15 (88 per cent.) are cured. 77 children with thalassaemia have been transplanted and have undergone 82 procedures. 69 are alive (90 per cent. ) and 62 (81 per cent.) are cured.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Standing Medical Advisory Committee has to issue a further report on sickle cell, thalassaemia and other haemoglobinopathies. [18892]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Standing Medical Advisory Committee has no plans to issue a further report on sickle cell, thalassaemia and other haemoglobinopathies.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government expenditure on directly commissioned research into(a) sickle cell, (b) thalassaemia and (c) other haemoglobinopathies was in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [18901]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. In 1999–2000, the MRC expenditure on all haemoglobinopathies was £815,000. In 2000–01, the MRC expenditure was £823,000.

  The Department funds research to support policy development and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. Research programme and project details can be found on relevant websites, especially that of the National Research Register (NRR), all of which can be accessed through www.doh.gov.uk/research.

  The Department core funds the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and 22 Cochrane Review Groups, one of which, on cystic fibrosis and genetic disorders, covers this area. Details of reviews can be found on the National Research Register and outputs can be found on the research findings register and/or the Cochrane Database.

  The financial information requested for Department of Health funded projects could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Management of much of the research supported by NHS research and development programmes is devolved. Expenditure at project level is not held centrally at this level of detail.

  Consultants
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many more hours per week newly qualified consultants will be required to work in the NHS during their first seven years than before. [19181]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our proposals for the new consultant contract, published in February, envisage that for an initial period, perhaps seven years, the terms of the contract would prevent those newly appointed consultants engaging in similar work outside the national health service.

  These proposals, alongside the British Medical Association's own proposals, form the basis of continuing negotiations.
  721W

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to spend the £510 million that was allocated to his Department for 2000–01 but not spent. [19522]

  Mr. Hutton
  All underspends from 2000–01 are planned to be spent in the current financial year.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the viability of a West Mercia Strategic Health Authority based on Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. [19577]

  Mr. Hutton
  The consultation on proposals detailed within the "Shifting the Balance of Power" consultation document ended on 30 November.

  In considering the responses to consultation, Ministers will take account of views for and against the original options proposed, as well as other alternatives proposed during the consultation process.

  Unallocated Funds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [19447]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's Departmental Annual Report for 2001–02 contains the departmental unallocated provision (DUP), set for the present financial year in Annex A3 (current) and annex A4 (capital). Draw down of part of this DUP has been reported to Parliament at winter supplementary estimates.

  The amounts still left for the Department to draw down are £51.9 million capital and £4.8 million current provision.

  All doctors-England

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  All doctors

  All countries of qualification

  86,580

  100

  89,620

  100

  91,840

  100

  93,980

  100

  96,320

  100

  United Kingdom

  61,240

  70.7

  62,00

  70.2

  64,470

  70.2

  65,810

  70.0

  67,150

  69.7

  Rest of EEA

  4,590

  5.3

  4,700

  5.2

  4,690

  5.1

  4,890

  5.2

  4,790

  4.97

  Elsewhere

  20,760

  24.0

  22,010

  24.6

  22,670

  24.7

  23,290

  24.8

  24,380

  25.3

  of which:

  General practitioners (excluding GP Retainers)1,2

  All countries of qualification

  29,120

  100

  29,390

  100

  29,700

  100

  29,990

  100

  30,250

  100

  United Kingdom

  23,410

  80.4

  23,560

  80.2

  23.860

  80.3

  24,110

  80.4

  24,330

  80.4

  Rest of EEA

  930

  3.2

  1,000

  3.4

  1,020

  3.4

  1,100

  3.7

  1,170

  3.9

  Elsewhere

  4,770

  16.4

  4,830

  16.4

  4,820

  16.2

  4,770

  15.9

  4,760

  15.7

  HCHS medical and dental staff

  All countries of qualification

  57,470

  100

  60,230

  100

  62,140

  100

  63,990

  100

  66,070

  100

  United Kingdom

  37,830

  65.8

  39,350

  65.3

  40,610

  65.4

  41,690

  65.2

  42,820

  64.8

  Rest of EEA

  3,660

  6.4

  3,700

  6.1

  3,670

  5.9

  3,780

  5.9

  3,620

  5.5

  Elsewhere

  15,980

  27.8

  17,180

  28.5

  17,860

  28.7

  18,520

  28.9

  19,620

  29.7

  722W
  Outturn against six-month forecast for each request for resources will be published in the winter supplementary estimates summary request for supply as usual.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what interim measures he plans to take to ensure continuity of service for those who have benefited from digital hearing aids in the 20 trial hospitals while awaiting the evaluation report from the Institute of Hearing Research. [19536]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients who have been fitted with digital hearing aids as part of the pilot project will be followed up. This is an important part of the modernised service specification. Decisions about funding for a continued digital hearing aid service in these sites will be made in enough time to enable providers to plan services effectively for the next financial year.

  Ambulance Trusts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department issues to ambulance trusts on the need to ensure interoperability of radio systems with other emergency services. [19703]

  Ms Blears
  It is our intention to nationally procure a digital radio network for all national health service ambulance trusts in England. A fundamental requirement of the new radio network will be the fullest possible operational interoperability between the emergency services.

  Overseas NHS Workers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank in terms of(a) numbers and (b) as a percentage of the total those countries whose citizens are employed by the NHS as (i) nurses, (ii) doctors and (iii) other professional clinical staff in the most recent years for which figures are available. [19601]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for nurses and other professional clinical staff is not collected centrally. Validated information for doctors is available only for United Kingdom/European Economic Area/other. This is shown in the table.
  723W

  1All practitioners (excluding GP Retainers) includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contract GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA), and PMS Others. GP Retainers were collected for the first time in the 1999 census; for comparability purposes they have been excluded.

  2The 1996 figures include estimates for 179 Assistants whose first country of qualification is unknown.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Percentages are calculated using unrounded figures

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census as at 30 September

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics as at 30 September 2000 and 1 October in previous years

  National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) membership and (b) remit of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group. [19923]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group (NSCAG) is chaired by Dr. Mike Gill, the Regional Director of Public Health for South East Region.

  The current membership of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group is as follows:

  Dr. Mike Gill, NSCAG Chairman and Regional Director of Public Health, South East RO

  Dr. Chris Bayliss, Consultant Radiologist, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital

  Professor Carol Black, Clinical Vice President, Royal College of Physicians

  Ms Jenny Brown, Director Nursing, Hull and East Yorkshire Health Authority

  Professor John Cox, President, Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Dr. Bernard Crump, Director of Public Health, Leicester Health Authority

  Dr. Keith Dodd, Consultant Paediatrician, Derbyshire Children's Hospital

  Professor George Elder, Pathologist, College of Medicine, Cardiff

  Mr. David Flory, Chief Executive, Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority

  Ms Linda Hamlyn, Chief Executive, West Hertfordshire Health Authority

  Mr. James Johnson, Chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee

  Mr. Eamonn Kelly, Director of Health Policy and Strategy, Coventry Health Authority

  Sir Peter Morris, President, Royal College of Surgeons

  Mr. Nick Relph, Chief Executive, Berkshire Health Authority

  Professor Stephen Tomlinson, Faculty of Medicine, Manchester Royal Infirmary

  Professor Kent Woods, Director of HTA, Leicester.

  NSCAG was established in 1996 to advise Ministers on the identification and funding of services where central intervention into local commissioning of patient services is necessary for reasons of clinical effectiveness, equity of access and/or economic viability. It superseded the Supra Regional Services Advisory Group (SRSAG).

  The terms of reference of NSCAG are as follows:
  To advise Secretary of State on:

  (a) the identification and funding of services under the Supra Regional Services arrangements;

  (b) the identification and funding of specialised services not qualifying for Supra Regional Service designation, but where there is an economic and/or clinical justification for contracting centrally for their delivery.

  724W

  (c) the commissioning of purchaser guidelines for specialised services where purchasing is best arranged through local purchasers by means of lead purchaser or purchaser consortium arrangements; and

  (d) funding the service costs of new developments, in those services for which it is likely to become the purchaser, to enable full evaluation to take place.

  Psycho-Geriatricians
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how may psycho-geriatricians there were in England and Wales at the last date for which figures are available. [19924]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data collected for England are shown in the table. The information relating to Wales is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Hospital medical staff within the old age psychiatry specialty

  England at 30 September 2000

  Number

  All staff

  860

  of which:

  Consultant

  330

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of health 2000 medical and dental workforce census.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 largest hospitals in the United Kingdom, by number of beds. [20245]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 10 largest hospitals in the United Kingdom, by bed numbers are:

  Hospital

  Actual beds

  Queen's Medical Centre UHN NHS Trust, Nottingham

  1,366

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  1,172

  St. James's University Hospital, Leeds

  1,157

  Leeds General Infirmary

  1,135

  Northern General Hospital, Sheffield

  1,100

  Southampton General Hospital

  1,088

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  1,050

  The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, London

  1,008

  Derriford Hospital, Plymouth

  975

  University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff

  960

  NHS Morale
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on morale in the national health service. [20268]
  725W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on morale in the health service. [19968]

  Mr. Hutton
  We recognise that staff work hard for the national health service, often in challenging environments, and we are committed to ensuring that staff feel properly valued. We have initiated a wide range of initiatives to improve the working lives of all staff in the NHS which are outlined in the NHS Plan.

  GPs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are due to retire in the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement on the effect on the health service of these retirements. [20263]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information about retirement intentions of general practitioners. All unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) have to retire as a principal by the age of 70. Around 2,200 UPEs will reach 70 by 2011.

  In addition there are a further 8,880 doctors who are currently aged between 48 and 58. We might expect a proportion of these doctors to also leave by 2011. A number of doctors continue to work in the national health service after they have claimed their NHS pension until they retire fully.

  The target increase in the NHS Plan for GPs is at least 2,000 more by 2004. The increases are based on an assessment of what is deliverable given the numbers expected to come out of training, and what is achievable through action on recruitment and retention. This assessment is set against the number of staff we expect to leave the NHS (leavers and retirements).

  Linear Accelerator (Royal Shrewsbury Hospital)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for a second new linear accelerator at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. [20238]

  Mr. Hutton
  The provision of a second linear accelerator service to replace the existing cobalt unit was approved in 2000. The new linear accelerator is expected to begin treating patients in spring 2002, forming part of the trust's plan to improve cancer services.

  Future decisions on service provision will be made through the North West Midlands Cancer Network, of which the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service Trust plays a key part. Each trust has been asked to prepare a cancer service delivery plan that will become part of the network wide facilities strategy.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in South Tyneside were registered with an NHS dentist in each of the years 1998 to 2001. [20357]
  726W
  Jacqui Smith
  The number of patients registered with a dentist in the general dental service (GDS) in Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority at 30 September for each of the years 1998 to 2001 is shown in the table.

  GDS: Number of registrations in Gatesliead and South Tyneside HA, 1998 to 2001 (as at September each year)

  Children

  Adults

  Total

  1998

  50,553

  138,018

  188,571

  1999

  51,604

  139.808

  191,412

  2000

  50,905

  139,565

  190,470

  2001

  50,618

  142,949

  193,567

  New Hospital, Worcester
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for funding the provision of the extra beds for the new hospital in Worcester. [20524]

  Mr. Hutton
  Significant investment has been made available nationally to accommodate the required increase in National Health Service capacity to ensure improvements in waiting times for elective surgery and the rapid treatment of emergency inpatients. This has recently been quantified in the national beds inquiry work.

  I am advised that in Worcestershire it has been agreed that 86 additional beds will be required in April 2002 over previous plans. This will be financed by additional resources earmarked to meet NHS planned targets. Local health groups are looking at the extent to which these could be replaced in the longer term with alternative facilities in the community. In the meantime, three wards in the Aconbury (East) Unit on the Newtown site of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust have been designated as medical beds.

  Worcestershire Health Authority
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health and if he will make a statement on the claim by Worcestershire Health Authority of a loss in value of its fixed assets in its 2000–01 Annual Accounts before the proposed sale of land and demolition of buildings. [20525]

  Mr. Hutton
  The recognised accountancy bodies have a financial reporting standard (FRS11) that requires that an annual review of the buildings, plant and equipment of an organisation be undertaken where a change has occurred or is expected to occur in the use, and therefore the value of, the asset. These financial reporting standards issued by the recognised accountancy bodies are expected to be applied by all commercial organisations in the United Kingdom in the preparation of their annual accounts.

  This is known as impairment of fixed assets. FRS11 requires that the accounts should recognise the change in the value immediately.

  During the period 2000–01, the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust declared that there had been an impairment in the value of the Kidderminster Hospital Bewdley Road site due to the planned reconfiguration of service provision to develop the new diagnostic and treatment centre. The impairment was deemed to have been incurred when the trust's

  727W
  balance sheet was drawn up in June 2001 as there is 'a commitment by the trust's management to undertake significant reorganisation'.

  Gutkha
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that Gutkha style products carry a health warning as required by the Tobacco Products Labelling (Safety) Amendment Regulations 1993. [19991]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Oral tobacco products such as Gutkha are all required to comply with United Kingdom regulations and carry health warnings.

  However, we wish to ensure that people have full information and we are, therefore, seeking to develop greater awareness of the health risks associated with oral tobacco as part of our tobacco information strategy. Our Asian tobacco campaign launched in August, focused on high risk ethnic minority populations, to address the health risks of smoking and the use of oral tobacco in order to decrease demand for these products. It is envisaged that an important element of this campaign will be the close involvement of local community organisations and many of these groups are already involved in the planning process. We have funded a training pack for trading standards officers on oral tobacco.

  Gynaecological Cancer Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures are available to(a) contest and (b) appeal the decision by the Mid Anglia Cancer Network NHS to move gynaecological cancer surgery for women in Mid-Essex from St. John's hospital, Chelmsford, to Ipswich hospital, Suffolk; [20205]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the decision (a) not to enhance gynaecological cancer surgery at St. John's hospital Chelmsford and (b) to transfer the service to Ipswich hospital. [20290]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The decision to centralise specialist gynaecological cancer surgery is in line with national guidance which specifies that specialised surgery for gynaecological cancers should be in a single centre of excellence serving a population of 1 million.

  The Mid Anglia Cancer Network currently carries out such work in Ipswich, Colchester and Chelmsford. The recommendation to establish the centre in Ipswich is based on Ipswich hospital having the facilities and capacity for development whereas Chelmsford or
  728W
  Colchester, the other sites serving the network, would have to wait for approximately five years for the completion of major capital schemes.

  Public consultation on setting up the Mid Anglia Cancer Network has already taken place. A main feature of this was that specialist services would be centralised and this was accepted and supported by the local community health councils, and others, after wide consultation.

  Further local public consultation, via the CHCs, will take place from January 2002 on the implementation of centralising gynaecology as the first of the rarer cancers and hon. Members' views would be welcomed.

  Care/Support Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to improve the management and training of care and support workers following the King's Fund report 'Future Imperfect'; [20345]

  (2) what action he intends to take to improve care and support services provision in accordance with the recent report of the King's Fund 'Future Imperfect'; [20347]

  (3) if he will take steps to change the titles of care and support services staff to personal care assistants or community care workers; and if he will make a statement on the promotion of their role. [20348]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: We welcome the publication of the King's Fund report "Future Imperfect" which contributes to the important debate about how to improve social services. We are already working with local councils and other agencies to raise standards across care. For example, on 9 October we published "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care" which encourages the development of a wide range of services to meet the diverse needs of communities.

  As part of the National Training Strategy for Social Care in England, the National Training Organisation for Social Care (TOPSS) are working on the development of a comprehensive framework of national occupational standards for the social care workforce. These standards describe the tasks that a worker undertakes and determines their position in the career structure that is being developed with the qualifications framework. At present there are numerous different titles given to care and support services staff. However, by relating the work that they undertake to the relevant national occupational standards there will be a national understanding of the tasks that they are undertaking.

  On 19 October 2001, we announced a £1.5 million recruitment campaign, which is designed to increase the number of people interested in careers in social work and social care work. As well as tackling recruitment problems, this campaign is designed to raise public awareness of the work that is undertaken by staff in the social care workforce.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Baroness Hylton-Foster—Baroness Hylton-Foster— Took the Oath.

Anthrax: Treatment
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they are giving to doctors regarding antibiotic use in the event of exposure to the anthrax bacillus.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, advice to doctors on the treatment of those with anthrax symptoms and those potentially exposed to spores is available through the Public Health Laboratory Service. Specific guidance is available on the PH LS website, including on the use of antibiotics. Arrangements have also been made to draw the attention of GPs and other clinical staff to the guidance as appropriate.
Lord Soulsby of Swaftham Prior: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is encouraging. The Public Health Laboratory Service guidelines suggest that penicillin is used as a prophylactic and even in therapy. However, the strain of anthrax that has been disseminated in the United States and a number of strains in the wild are also producers of penicillinase, and hence can lead to resistance. Will the Minister assure the House that the guidelines are updated to take account of the abilities of these organisms?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, antibiotic-resistant anthrax is a known phenomenon. Tests in the US indicate that the strains of anthrax identified there were susceptible to penicillin and to ciprofloxacin and doxicyclin. In the UK, the antibiotic of choice is ciprofloxacin, which is considered to be the most effective antibiotic in these circumstances.
In any incident, it is clearly important to test the anthrax for antibiotic resistance, as that cannot be predicted. Such testing will continue as the incident unfolds in case more than one strain of anthrax is used. This will then confirm the treatment. Laboratories, including the PHLS, are well able to undertake such tests as a matter of routine.
In relation to the guidance, I have checked with advisers and have been informed that it is consistent with the relevant information that is now available. I should be happy to discuss the matter further with the noble Lord.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Question was also directed towards the prophylactic use of
1132
antiobiotics against anthrax. What action is the department taking to prevent such use or to discourage it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the guidance issued by the PHLS recommends., at page 8, prophylaxis after exposure. In that case, ciprofloxacin is recommended as the antibiotic of choice.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the cascade of information from the Government to NHS trusts and GPs has been very effective. However, the difficulty remains of diagnosing the first index case. What measures are in place to ensure a continuous cascade of information so that it does not fall from the front line of the minds of those clinicians who might be faced with seeing the index case and who would be key in diagnosing it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the guidance was originally available on the PHLS website on 11th October. GPs and other clinicians had their attention drawn to that advice in a letter from the Deputy Chief Medical Officer on 11th and 15th October. More detailed guidance was issued on 17th October to all health authorities. I very much take the point that the noble Baroness has raised. I can assure her that the PHLS will update guidance as appropriate. We have an effective way of then ensuring that that reaches front-line clinicians.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the Minister indicated, strains of anthrax can vary in their susceptibility to antibiotics. In view of that, what are the Government doing to ensure that rapid methods are available to detect antibiotic resistance in a strain of anthrax arid, therefore, to give rapid advice when it is needed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I believe I said in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, tests are undertaken and it is very important to carry those out as quickly as possible. Testing continues to take place in relation to specific incidents in case more than one strain of anthrax has been used. Therefore, the purpose of testing is to confirm whether anthrax has been involved and, if so, which strain. Tests are then carried out to determine whether that strain of anthrax is resistant to a particular antibiotic. Therefore, a hierarchy of responses ensures quick and continuous testing and, if anthrax is confirmed, it identifies whether the strain would be resistant to a particular antibiotic.

Faith Schools
2.44 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the experience of Northern Ireland in inter-denominationally integrated schools is taken into account in England

1133
and that parents are consulted about inter-faith education when new religious schools are proposed in the state sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we shall require promoters of new faith schools to have local support and to demonstrate how they will be inclusive and work in partnership with other schools. We consider that approach to be more appropriate than directly copying Northern Ireland's integrated school system. Promoters of new schools must carry out detailed consultation with the local community and interested parties.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Will she note that I was not suggesting a direct copy of Northern Ireland? Would she be prepared to consult her ministerial colleague there on this whole matter, and does she agree that inter-religious schooling in England is highly desirable?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, we consult colleagues in all departments on issues that are appropriate and relevant. We acknowledge that there are 20 or so existing Roman Catholic and Church of England schools in England, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to existing joint-faith schools which bring together children of Christian faith. It is worth noting that a key aspect of the success of these schools is their ability to work together on shared aims through mutual respect in order to secure the best education for their children.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the lessons of Northern Ireland is that educating children separately has a damaging effect on community relations and on the attitude of one religion towards another? Does she accept that the concerns in relation to a move to faith schools are that such schools would not easily be inclusive and that they might lead to increased segregation in this country without necessarily following any Northern Ireland model?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Dubs knows well, at present 4 per cent of Northern Ireland's pupil population attends integrated schools. The general policy in Northern Ireland is that children should be educated in accordance with their parents' wishes. That is reflected in the different schools which exist in Northern Ireland, including maintained, controlled, integrated and Irish medium schools. All schools, regardless of whether they have a particular religious designation, should further understanding of the diversity of national, religious and ethnic identities in the UK and the need for mutual respect and tolerance. That is exactly how we would approach this issue in England.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that there is a long tradition of
1134
Church schools in England, which serve the whole local community and not only the children of practising Christians?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is, indeed, a long-standing and widely accepted tradition of faith schools in this country. Christian faith schools have a significant history as part of the state education system and play an important role in its diversity. We consider that it would be wrong to deny members of other faiths access to schools of their faith.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the committee of the Church of England that recommended an increase in the number of that Church's secondary schools. Is the Minister aware that at a meeting of the General Synod of that Church last month a resolution was passed which welcomed an ecumenical approach to those additional schools? The resolution stated that the schools should serve the whole nation and should be open to children from the diverse communities that they serve.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am aware of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and of the resolutions that were passed by the General Synod. The Government welcome the emphasis that the noble Lord gave in his report to the Archbishops' Council to the principles of social and religious inclusiveness. We were delighted to see that that was reinforced in a resolution of the General Synod on 14th November which noted that Church schools should be open to the diverse communities that they serve. That is an important part of education in this country.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Northern Ireland is diametrically opposed to that which obtains in England; namely, it has de facto religious education with a very small integrated school element? Here, by and large, we have a large integrated school element and relatively few faith schools. Does she agree that the experience of Northern Ireland, as outlined by the noble Lord. Lord Dubs, suggests that we should be very wary about the development of faith schools in this country?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I ask noble Lords to be cautious in suggesting that somehow faith schools are a cause of other things. We should be careful about heaping on to the heads of schools responsibility for other aspects of segregation. Many socio-economic factors lead to tensions in our community. We need to be clear that faith schools should play an important role in their communities in terms of working in partnership with schools of faith and of none. That is something that we would be keen to see and to promote.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has spoken about community

1135
involvement and community consultation. Can she explain what will be the role of school governors in the new schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know from being a school governor, school governors play an important and vital role in all schools. We would expect them to be mindful of the ethos of the school and of the way in which we expect those schools to participate in their local communities. It is a longstanding tradition for schools of all kinds to be part of their community. We expect school governors to ensure that their school participates in the community with schools of other faiths, that the teaching of citizenship is fully carried out within the school and that the ethos of tolerance is part of how every school develops.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as one who arrived at Eton having never knowingly met a Conservative, does the Minister agree that segregation of any kind makes the life of schoolchildren harder than it need be?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Earl puts his question extremely well. It is important to be clear about what we mean by segregation and to understand that children need to grow up with traditions, understanding and tolerance. But they do so from a background of history, tradition and culture. For many children, that includes a religious background. Therefore, we need to ensure that they meet as equals; that all our children are educated and are able to be educated without fear in the school system; and that we have respect for the diversity of education in this country.

Asylum System
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the asylum system in the United Kingdom to be working effectively.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, this Government are committed to delivering an effective asylum system and we have made significant progress towards achieving this since coming to office. In the past financial year the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) at the Home Office made 132,840 initial decisions on asylum applications and there were 8,930 removals. The backlog of undecided asylum applications stood at 43,000 at the end of September this year.
Measures to increase the effectiveness of the system were announced by the Home Secretary in another place on 29th October. Further details will have to await the publication of the White Paper, which we expect to be in late January.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The Home Secretary recently
1136
admitted that the asylum system was not working, and the latest figures show that of the 30,000 failed applicants due to be removed by March, only about 5,000 have been removed. Therefore, what progress is being made in identifying quickly both genuine refugees and potential terrorists?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that we do not necessarily associate asylum seekers with terrorism in a global fashion, as implied in the question. The process needs to be speeded-up. Our target is to achieve 60 per cent of initial decisions in two months. At present, we are achieving about 50 per cent, so we are not too far off. We come closer each month to reaching our target.
The removals programme is a large one. To remove 30,000 people a year would mean removing 2,500 per month. We expect to reach 2,500 per month by the spring of next year. To do that sensitively and carefully without causing disturbance in communities requires enormous planning. That is taking place at present. It also requires an extension of the detention estate. We need to be able to detain prior to removal to make that effective.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the Government's latest press release, which talks about new categories of work permits to boost the UK economy. Does the Minister consider that skilled asylum seekers already in this country could benefit from this radical reform of the existing approach to migration?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are not planning that. One of the reasons for that is because the belief that asylum seekers with English language can work here is such a pull factor for the people traffickers.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I refer to a debate we had in your Lordships' House one month ago. Will the Minister give some thought to the introduction of an American-style green card system and the opportunity, therefore, for at least some of those who come to this country for economic reasons to stay here for licit and legal purposes? Can he tell the House what monitoring of the dispersal system is taking place and how many of those dispersed to other parts of the country return to London within the first six months or so of dispersal?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall first answer the latter part of the noble Lord's question. Once we have dispersed some 30,000 people in about 18 months under the National Asylum Support Service, some pressure will be taken off the South East, and Kent in particular. Once the initial decisions are given or people enter the appeal process and come off support—they may be given exceptional leave to remain—we do not track people. We shall not know how many have returned to the South East. However, there is anecdotal evidence, which I have picked up in the East Midlands, in particular, that many people do not necessarily return.

1137
As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, the White Paper will set out proposals for managed migration; that is, through more than one scheme. People will have an opportunity to come to this country to work. In some cases that may lead to settlement, and in other cases that will be for temporary purposes. The objective will be partly met—it will not be fully met. Those who wish to come to the country to work, as opposed to using the asylum system to seek to do that, will have an open and transparent means of doing so. We shall thereby remove the pull factor from the people traffickers.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House who pays for the cost of travel; that is, of getting 2,500 people out of this country to wherever they are going? I do not imagine such people have the money to do that. Do the Government pay or someone else, such as the carriers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the cost of removing people from the country is funded by my department. At present the figure is about 200 per week, some 800 per month. We are some way short of reaching the target. Such removal is done in many ways. Sometimes we charter aircraft because it is the cheapest way.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, last week I met a lady from the Congo who came to this country eight years ago to apply for asylum. She, her husband and her children, two of whom were born in this country and have no other home to go to, have still not had an initial decision. The Home Office wrote to her last February stating that still she would have to wait. At the same time I met several other people who have been here for several years. Would it not be sensible for the Government to clear the backlog of people who have been here several years by giving them an amnesty and leave to stay in this country? To remove them in such circumstances would be utterly inhumane.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not necessarily agree with the last point raised by the noble Lord. I regret that former constituents of mine, who have been in this country longer than the lady in the example given by the noble Lord, have not had a satisfactory decision. I agree that such cases are difficult and complex, given the phenomenal increase in the past few years. It is clear that we are targeting those on whom it is easier to make a decision. The easiest ones to remove will be those who have been here for a short time. That is self-evident. If the noble Lord writes to me with details of the case he mentions, I shall have it looked at. We regret the present situation, which is due to the lack of investment in the past. We have doubled the number of staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to speed up decisions. The system was chaotic and had been so for several years. That is why people such as those in the example given by the noble Lord have fallen through the net.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that my reference to potential
1138
terrorists arose from reports that some of the atrocities that had been committed abroad had been planned by people in this country, some having come here as refugees?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, of course that applies to some. I did not want the question and answer to pass without qualification because I believe that it would send the wrong signals to those outside. That is one of the reasons why we take fingerprints and check identities as far as possible. We are calling people into the reporting centres in a more rigorous, systematic and better managed way than we have ever done before. Part of the argument heard in this House in the past few days touches on the motives that people have for being here and the deeds they are planning abroad. That is one of the reasons for the anti-terrorism Bill.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, are the Government stepping up their response to abduction of children for sexual exploitation and trafficking of such children in this country?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. Work is being done in that respect. There is little evidence of people being brought into this country for sexual exploitation in respect of children. There is some evidence that they are brought to this country for onward transfer to other European countries, which I shall not name. There is a good deal of active work being done at present, together with our partners in Europe and elsewhere.

Northern Ireland: Community Policing
3 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their policy is in regard to organised crime and community policing in Northern Ireland.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government's policy is to attack organised crime in a systematic way and to promote community policing in Northern Ireland. The Organised Crime Task Force has been in operation for just over a year with very considerable success.
Our policy is to support, in every possible way, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Service of Northern Ireland in order to deliver effective community policing.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. In view of the serious problem, and the fact that a large number of senior police officers have taken advantage of early retirement and that absenteeism in the force is unacceptably high, can he give an assurance that the phasing out of the reserve force will not take place while the terrorist threat and the high level of intimidation and organised crime remain? Further, can he assure the House that the Government

1139
will do everything they can to enhance the effectiveness of the Special Branch in carrying out its anti-terrorist operations?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly the Chief Constable is very alert to the management of the reduction of officers at senior ranks. Plainly, we take a good deal of advice from and we pay a good deal of attention to the Chief Constable. In my experience it is extremely difficult to contemplate an effective fight against terrorism without using all intelligence capacity, which includes Special Branch.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, do the Government have any evidence that there is any connection between organised crime and terrorist groups in Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a good deal of evidence to show that that is precisely the situation. The line between organised crime and alleged political activity is thin to the point of disappearance on many occasions.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree with the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force that more than half the groups involved in drug dealing in the Province have paramilitary affiliations? Further, does he agree that the police in Northern Ireland must continue vigorously to pursue all paramilitary groups, whether they claim to be on ceasefire or not, if Northern Ireland's drug problem is to be arrested?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time, I am in substantial agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. There is no justification for trying to draw a distinction between politically motivated crime in Northern Ireland at the present time and crime which is motivated by the usual criminal motive, which is greed. As I said in a previous answer, it is not possible to draw the line. We do the community a disservice by pretending differently.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to the success achieved by the task force in just over a year of its operation. When will it next make a public announcement to tell us about its successes or the problems that it continues to face? In particular, with regard to community policing, how is it endeavouring to deal with the kind of violent demonstrations that occurred yesterday in both Belfast and south Armagh?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the police have a very difficult task to carry out in Northern Ireland. We should not view that with equanimity. The truth is that no police force is capable of operating in any community without the whole-hearted support of all parts of that community. The task force has been extremely effective. It will be a longer haul to get cross-community acceptance that the new Police Service of
1140
Northern Ireland is there to serve the entire community—every single part of it and every single individual in it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether, in the context of community policing, we can be assured that there will be no giving way to Sinn Fein's demand that former paramilitaries should be allowed to represent the community in the new DPPs, the local community police organisations? It has been widely reported that that is what it wants. But that does not coincide in any way with the recommendations of the Patten report which specifically said that it would not recommend that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know of the recommendation in the Patten report. I do not know of any plans to deviate from its conclusions.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend say what preparations the Government are making to prevent organised crime from using the new euro notes and coins for nefarious purposes? Further, does he agree that if the euro is useful for criminals, why cannot the rest of us use it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we shall adopt exactly the same stratagems and policies to deal with euro-crime in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Many commercial organisations in this country are quite happy to use the euro following 1st January. If the noble Lord has any francs left, he needs to change them before 17th January.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the historic reasons for disaffection and disengagement from the institutions in Northern Ireland—not least from the Royal Ulster Constabulary but also from the civic institutions—and the motives for boycott and disengagement have been removed by the creation of these new policing arrangements and civic institutions? We need to be far more proactive in promoting, especially within the nationalist community, reasons for engagement and involvement.
Further, can the noble and learned Lord tell us what is being done to encourage young nationalists to think about a career in the Northern Ireland Police Service?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is an extremely important point. It is gratifying that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has positively encouraged members of that faith community to come forward. The SDLP has done the same. It is legitimate for us to say, "Where are you?" to Sinn Fein. The recent intake, as the noble Lord will know, will be 50 per cent from the Roman Catholic community and 50 per cent from the non-Roman Catholic community. They should be trained and fully operational by early next year.
Baroness Blood: My Lords, this subject is very opportune for me. I have just returned from the United

1141
States. I went with a senior group of police officers from Northern Ireland and members of the new policing board to look at community policing. Does the Minister agree that community policing is a sexy term? Everywhere we went community policing was put forward as being the answer to problems. Yet we never heard exactly what was meant by community policing. I prefer to call it community-orientated policing because in Northern Ireland "community policing" meant the soft side of policing. If this becomes part of the Government's policy I am fearful that policing will not be seen in real terms.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that community-orientated policing is any more or less sexy than other community policing. If one has a description for any form of activity, the more often it is used the more it tends to become jargon. There are many models in England and Wales where community policing has been extremely effective. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, that one cannot just take two words—community policing—and regard those as a panacea for all ills. As I said earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, it will be a very long haul in Northern Ireland to overcome many generations of fear and suspicion.

Business of the House: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the event that the Third Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is taken on Tuesday 11th December, Standing Order 48 (Amendments on Third Reading) be dispensed with to allow the House to consider amendments to the Bill tabled before 12 noon on that day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 111 [Implementation of the third pillar]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 77ZA:
Page 66, line 5, at beginning insert "At any time before 1st July 2002,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, I undertook on behalf of the Government further to consider the serious concern raised by many of your Lordships about the justice and home affairs enabling power set out in Clauses 111 and 112. It was clear to the Government that the power had raised a genuine and deeply felt concern—mainly over the scope of the third pillar measures that could, in theory, be implemented through secondary legislation under such a power.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was concerned that legislation on racism and xenophobia could be adopted in that way. No measures in the European Union's terrorism road map adopted on 20th September contain provisions against xenophobia. As the noble Lord pointed out, such provisions might arise in relation to third pillar legislation, but not under the powers in the amendments.
Other noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, whom I do not see in his place, were concerned that the enabling power could be used to enact the European arrest warrant, which is due to be agreed at the Laeken European Council this week. The House will be aware that several issues are to be negotiated before the European arrest warrant can be adopted, but the Government have made absolutely clear that we have no intention of implementing it through the enabling power.
The Government remain of the view that it is right to seek that power. Measures agreed by the JHA Council of the European Union make a significant contribution to the fight against terrorism. We must be able to implement them swiftly. We remain of the view that it is right to introduce such measures, which are, after all, binding agreements made at European level through secondary legislation. But we recognise that the power would be a new method of dealing with business in that area, which must be considered seriously. We have also carefully considered the views expressed by your Lordships.
We therefore propose two key amendments to address the concerns that have been raised. The first is Amendment No. 77ZA. That ensures that the power will run for six months only, until the end of June. That period will allow us to implement the key measures contained in the European Union's anti-terrorism road map. However, I want to be absolutely clear to the House that we will look for a suitable legislative vehicle before that period is complete by which to return to the issue.
The second key change is contained in Amendment No. 78, which sets out in absolutely clear and precise terms what we intend to use the power to implement. I hope that that will allay your Lordships' fears and enable all—or most—of your Lordships to support the measures. The measures covered by the amendment

1143
are part of the European Union's road map on terrorism, agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20th September and endorsed by the European Council on 21st September. We should, be absolutely clear that that constitutes Europe's response to the terrorism outrages of 11th September.
The measures include, first, the framework decision on asset freezing. For a specified list of offences, including terrorism, that measure allows orders to be enforced in the minimum possible time. The rapid execution of freezing orders could be vital in securing terrorist assets that might otherwise be dissipated or destroyed. It may therefore make the difference between, on the one hand, securing a conviction or freezing terrorist assets and, on the other, allowing terrorists and their money to go free.
The second measure is the European Union framework decision on combating terrorism. That will introduce common definitions of terrorism offences and minimum penalties across the EU. That framework decision constitutes progress, but let us be under no illusion that it is sufficient on its own. More needs to be done.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. She could materially assist her case were she able to give the House one further assurance: that the Government have no plans to introduce between now and 1st July 2002 the proposal in the White Paper on House of Lords reform that this House should lose the power to reject statutory instruments.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl will not be surprised to know that I cannot give an assurance of that nature. If I may finish the points that I wish to make, the noble Earl may find that I can give the House many assurances. I recognise his point—it was made when your Lordships last discussed the matter—but I cannot give that specific assurance now.
To return to the second measure, the European framework decision on combating terrorism, I said that we felt that more needs to be done on the matter.
The third measure is the European framework decision on setting up joint investigative teams to fight organised crime, especially terrorism, drug trafficking and trafficking in human beings. That will provide the framework for police officers across Europe to work together against terrorism and organised crime. The power will also be used to implement the 1995 and 1996 conventions related to extradition between member states.
I hope that that will allay fears that the Government will use the power to implement measures that have nothing to do with terrorism—one point that exercised many of your Lordships when we discussed the matter last week. One thing that we have learnt since 11th September is that we still have a great deal more to do—often in areas that do not immediately and obviously appear to do with combating terrorism. We need to be able to break down the barriers behind
1144
which terrorists hide: bureaucratic delays in executing court orders; procedural barriers that stop effective police co-operation; and bureaucratic delays that mean that by moving around Europe, a terrorist can always keep one step ahead of the law; nor can we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of tackling terrorism in isolation from the crimes off which it feeds. Drugs trafficking, arms dealing and the miserable trade in human beings, of which we are all too well aware, are all crimes that are inextricably linked to terrorism.
So the power will not be used for measures against racism and xenophobia—important though such measures may be; nor will it be used to implement the European arrest warrant—essential though that is. These government amendments make no attempt at what has been described as Christmas tree antiterrorism legislation; nor will the power remain on the statute book indefinitely; rather, it will be used for a strictly limited period to implement a strictly limited—series of measures. We believe that it will be of great use in tackling terrorism across Europe.
I turn to the two amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Before she moves on, I had the impression—which was shared by several of my noble friends—that she mentioned Amendment No. 78, which is tabled in my name. I should be interested to know whether she was actually referring to that amendment, and if so, what she said.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, forgive me if I misspoke, but the amendment that I meant to mention was Amendment No. 78A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker.
I shall now address Amendments Nos. 77BB and 77CB standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I assure your Lordships that we shall not between Royal Assent and the date of the sunset clause—30th June—specified in Amendment No. 77ZA introduce measures further to those listed in subsection (1A) by any means other than primary legislation.
I hope that I have been able to put some substance behind the arguments that I put to your Lordships last week. We are not trying, as I think that one of your Lordships put it last week, to "smuggle through" additional provisions that might not have a direct relationship to terrorism over and above the ones that we feel that we need. I hope that I have been clear in saying that we shall have to return to the issue. Nevertheless, we feel that the Government have listened very carefully to what has been said in your Lordships' House, and that we have now introduced amendments that I hope and believe will address the very substantial issues that we discussed last week. I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out this latest group of amendments, which we on this side of the House have examined with very great interest and care. I should say straightaway, in answer to her more general remarks, that we are united with the Government in seeking enactment of effective legislation against terrorism. We are not, however, united or enthusiastic when it comes to measures and powers that we believe have very little or nothing to do with terrorism. We are even less enthusiastic when it comes to measures in relation to which there would be completely inadequate or almost non-existent parliamentary accountability. That is our starting point in considering the amendments.
I confess that it was with a modest amount of relief that I watched the amendments coming out of my fax machine late on Friday night, which was perhaps a little late in the day. The amendments did, however, envisage a change of heart to some degree by the Government. Nevertheless, we on these Benches would like to probe a little further, to gain the reassurance that the Government mean what they say.
The proposal on a six-month cut-off date seems to be clear enough. As for the issues in Amendment No. 78A, however, we must yet again seek assurances. I have heard everything that the noble Baroness has said, and we welcome what I understand to be a firm undertaking that the European arrest warrants project will be dealt with in future, proper primary legislation—possibly in an extradition Bill, if there is one, although it does not seem to be having a very happy start. If there is such legislation, it will be handled in that manner. Whether such an arrangement would be adequate parliamentary involvement is for another debate at another time—personally, I do not think that it would be—but at least it is not being proposed that such provision should be pushed through by this Bill's provisions and the move to secondary legislation. None the less, may we be assured beyond peradventure that that matter will be dealt with in that manner, and that we shall not find in a few months that the position has changed?
If these new amendments are now the Government's proposals, we would like to be reassured that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Amendment No. 78A will be the only proposals in the pipeline between now and next June and that no other matters or framework decisions will suddenly appear from nowhere. We would like an assurance that we are dealing only with these two matters and with the framework decision on,
"the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, on joint investigation teams. or on combating terrorism".
Although that provision sounds a little broad, may we be assured that it will not be a holdall or a loophole for a whole lot of other measures?
We seek those key assurances, which I think that we have already been given by the noble Baroness. However, I would like her to confirm them in her reply, after my noble friends and other noble Lords have spoken to this group of amendments.
1146
I confess that we are still left with considerable unease about this whole episode. Moreover, as the old saw goes, nothing lasts like the provisional: this legislation is provisional, but how long will it last, and what will be the arguments next June? We also face the forthcoming debate on EU arrest warrants. I note that it is now being proposed that, if Italy will not play ball, that proposal should be achieved by the process of enhanced co-operation, as authorised in the not-yet-ratified Treaty of Nice. I do not know how that process will work, but we shall have to debate it later.
It would still not be entirely satisfactory even if these truly sensitive matters of policing and criminal justice were dealt with in future, after June, in primary legislation. As my noble friend Lord Kingsland said in last week's debates, and as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee suggests in its superb report, regardless of whether those decisions are made in primary or secondary legislation, they are reached virtually irrevocably by a type of prerogative treaty process.
In theory, this Parliament decides yes or no on those matters, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, if it is primary legislation, there can also be small changes to them. In practice, however, the whole thing is dumped on our Parliament. The process is inconsistent with the aim that Ministers and the Prime Minister have repeatedly stated, that we need to bring national parliaments more closely into the process not only of legislation, but of pre-legislation and decision making. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, who, last week in Committee, said that inter-governmental third pillar measures should be decided by parliaments. That is not happening. It is not really happening even in relation to primary legislation, and it is certainly not happening in relation to secondary legislation.
Let us hope that my interpretation of the Government's proposals is the correct one. We shall need absolutely firm reassurances from the noble Baroness—perhaps the Attorney-General should give us these cast-iron assurances—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Howell of Guildford: Perhaps I shall be lucky. I am very glad to see the Attorney-General on the Bench; it gives me some reassurance. We shall need those cast-iron reassurances. When we have heard them we shall be able to take a final position on how we view the Government's amendments and how we view our own amendments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches have two major concerns about Clause 111, the first of which is on scope, and the second on timing. This terrorism legislation is being pushed through as an emergency measure. We wish therefore to insist that it does deal only with terrorism and that it is limited to the immediate emergency. It seems that the amendments that the Government have now offered meet those concerns.

1147
We were also concerned that the Government should not attempt at any later stage to expand for any reason whatsoever the interpretation of the narrow scope that is now spelled out in the amendments. That was the purpose of Amendments Nos. 77BB and 77CB tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Consequently, we shall not be moving those amendments, nor Amendments Nos. 77A, 77B and 77C.
We thank the Government for those concessions and for Friday's negotiations. That seemed to us a model way to use our time to consider the Bill in Committee and on Report. The purpose of the Committee stage is indeed to examine and discuss each clause in detail, and the purpose of the Report stage is to consider what concessions the Government are willing to make, and if necessary to vote.
That is the proper role of Parliament and it does not help if sonic among the Government describe the proper role of this House in terms of sabotage by naive, silly, aristocratic people. Some of us do not think that we are particularly aristocratic when it comes to it. We need reasoned debate on Bills of this complexity in which we ask the Government to justify their proposals and we do our job in holding up their proposals to careful scrutiny. Sadly, on this occasion, the other place failed to fulfil that role and it has therefore fallen to this Chamber to fulfil much more of it in its turn. When it comes to discussing further the reform of the House of Lords, it is clear that we shall have to discuss the reform of the House of Commons, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to the Prime Minister's declared intention to increase the role of national parliaments, which he has repeated on a number of occasions. As originally proposed, the amendment would have decreased the role of national parliaments. We on these Benches have much to be unhappy about in respect of the third pillar. Much of what is now under the third pillar we would be happier to move into the first pillar, because apart from anything else it provides a proper lengthy process through which proposed legislation moves.
When I was chairman of Sub-Committee F there were a number of occasions on which third pillar proposals moved remarkably rapidly from initial proposal through to acceptance because no careful block clauses occurred under the first pillar. The position was made a good deal more obscure by the British Government's declared opting out from the Schengen convention and subsequent opting in to a great many of the clauses under it. That may confuse the Daily Mail and it certainly confuses many of us within this House.
Having said that, however, we accept this useful clarification. We accept the careful, further assurances which the Minister gave in her opening speech on the meaning arid intent of the clause. Therefore, we do not wish to move our amendments and will accept the clause.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, at this and earlier stages I have tabled amendments to delete Clauses 111 and 112 in their entirety. I want to welcome with perhaps greater warmth and enthusiasm than the noble Lord, Lord Howell, could express, the care and trouble the Government have taken to meet our concerns in their amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that that is a most satisfactory conclusion to the proceedings of this House.
I want to ask only two questions. First, is it entirely clear from what the Minister said that the power will be used only to implement those measures which are already contained in the European Union road map on terrorism? Secondly, I want to ask the Government a little more about the European arrest warrant. I gather that last week the passage of that was defeated or delayed by the intervention or participation of the Italians. Without in any way making any form of racist remark, it is perhaps a sorry day that the British people have to look for the protection of their liberties to the Italian Government and not to their own Government.
Notwithstanding that defeat, why are the Government so keen to press ahead so quickly with a measure which is still under scrutiny by the Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament and has not been released and on which this House has already expressed its enormous concerns? It has nothing to do with the fight against terrorism and would be much better considered at proper length and with proper care. Why can that not wait?
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, my interest in the amendment is as chair of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. It had immense reservations about the original proposals; in fact, reservations as strong as it had on any issue in the almost seven years during which I have chaired it. I welcome the amendments, particularly in so far as they limit considerably the scope of the application to introduce third pillar measures by secondary legislation and have a tight sunset clause.
However, in welcoming them, perhaps I may say a few words about the principles. They are important and they will be important when the issue is considered again, as the Minister has said it will be, in a comparatively short time-scale. Furthermore, the committee was, as always, assisted by the careful and open memorandum put forward by the Government and their response to our report. That enables me to say with some confidence that with the help of the memorandum I hope that there is total agreement that the third pillar powers are potentially wide-ranging enabling powers, many of which have still to be exercised in ways of which we in the House are totally uncertain.
Secondly, they cover the extremely sensitive areas of policing and criminal justice. They create the potential for new offences to be introduced into our domestic law by agreement at ministerial level and punishable by very significant terms of imprisonment. That would

1149
be a novelty in our law where serious criminal offences have always been introduced by primary legislation. The Government memorandum very fairly makes clear that such regulations to implement third pillar measures would often require the amendment of existing primary legislation. In other words, there would be frequent use of Henry VIII powers across a potentially broad front. If at some stage in the future we adopted what we were initially invited to adopt, the only limit would be that we were accepting whatever fell within the broad perimeters of the third pillar.
The Government's justification, which they set out for us, was the principal one; that the European Communities Act 1972 provided a similar method of legislation in regard to directives introduced within what was then the European Community. It was, in other words, by secondary legislation. The Select Committee's report pointed out that there were very significant points of difference. The first was that the 1972 Act considered social and economic measures. It did not concern itself with policing and criminal justice which are often critically concerned with the liberties of individuals.
The second point of difference was that the European Communities Act deliberately limited itself to permitting the introduction of offences in the areas in which it was operating punishable by imprisonment of up to two years. Not so the scope of the present proposals, which provide for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment.
The third point of distinction is that there is less democratic control over third pillar measures. European Union measures under the first pillar go to the European Parliament, with co-decision powers with the Council of Ministers, and so have a measure of democratic control. By contrast, the third pillar is simply an agreement between Ministers and there is no such control.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform recognised that some measures introduced under the third pillar might be of less importance than others. We suggested that in properly drafted legislation there would be included a schedule of those measures, principally procedurally, which could be incorporated into our law by secondary legislation, and a clear exclusion of other more important measures. In his response to the Committee's report the Minister fairly recognised that point. He said:
"The Government is satisfied, therefore, that the enabling power can be justified as part of the Government's emergency proposals. We recognise that it will be used to implement important measures and that if the Government was bringing them forward as purely national measures this would be effected by primary legislation. These measures are not, however, purely national measures. Third Pillar measures are EU level measures that are binding on the UK and have to be implemented".
That appeared to be the case in principle for implementation by secondary legislation. I do not follow that. If such matters are important enough to require parliamentary scrutiny, surely they are
1150
important enough to require the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as is given to other important measures in our domestic law.
I accept that this point will not call for further discussion on the amendment before us today, but as we shall have to return to it at a later stage, I alert the Government and the House to what I believe will be fundamental issues of principle. I would like to see pre-legislative scrutiny so that the measures can be thought through properly.
With that comment on the original proposals and hoping to be constructive for the future, I welcome the way in which the Government have responded to the Committee's report and the concerns of the House, and the way in which they have brought forward these amendments.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have gone a considerable way towards meeting the concerns expressed by so many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon referred to the fact that the European Communities Act 1972 allowed the creation of new offences, but new offences that carry a term of imprisonment of not more than two years. Noble Lords were concerned that Clause 111 or Clause 112 allowed the creation of offences carrying unlimited terms of imprisonment.
I would like elucidation on one outstanding matter.
Amendment No. 78A (1A)(c) makes reference to measures "combating terrorism". Even after the Government's amendments and after the considerable distance that they have gone to meet the concerns expressed, Amendment No. 78A would still allow, in theory, the creation by secondary legislation of new offences that would carry unlimited terms of imprisonment. If that is so, will my fears be allayed by the Government telling me that, although that is the case under Amendment No. 78A, there is nothing in the roadmap that will result in the creation of new offences carrying unlimited terms of imprisonment before next June?
It is extremely important that that matter is cleared up. If this amendment allows, and if the roadmap still allows, the creation of offences carrying unlimited terms of imprisonment, the point made by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon is underlined. We are treading on dangerous territory and creating dangerous precedents—we may say that we have moved on from the 1972 Act—if we now seriously consider that it is correct for a government to create new offences that carry unlimited terms of imprisonment by delegated legislation. I believe that that would be a serious departure from the way in which we have always made law in this Parliament.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I genuinely thank the Government for moving a long way towards understanding the concerns raised by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I know that it was a hard decision for Mr Blunkett. He made noises about an

1151
unelected House and he was especially rude about people like myself whom he has recently allowed to continue to be Members of this House.
What offences do the Government have in mind to bring in under these powers? We produced a terrorism Act after Omagh; we produced a terrorism Act in 2000 and we are dashing through a terrorism Act now. Against our will we are giving the Government powers to bring in new offences under the European aegis. What offences do the Government intend to introduce? Can the House be given some indication what new offences will be produced under this plan?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify a point about which I have asked a question before. I welcome the concession of a sunset clause that allows us to review our position in six months' time, but what will be the status of whatever we agree at Laeken. Suppose at Laeken we say, "We agree with this, but we would like to think about it again in six months' time", but the EU says, "No, this is an EU decision that is reached jointly and it cannot be rescinded". My understanding is that we cannot rescind EU legislation once it has been agreed.
I refer the Minister to Clause 18(4) which allows the Secretary of State not to disclose information to a public authority abroad. He is restricted in his powers to this extent:
"A direction under this section shall not have the effect of prohibiting … the making of any disclosure in pursuance of a Community obligation".
Shall we be undertaking obligations which cannot be rescinded even though, after six months' experience, we decide we do not want to go along with them? I cannot believe that we are free to make a community decision and to go back on it six months later. I shall be delighted to be reassured that my concerns are baseless.
Can the Minister also tell the House whether methods of combating terrorism, as listed by the noble Baroness, include the proposals for Europol, about which I have inquired several times?
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords on this side of the House in welcoming these amendments put forward by the Minister. They seek to meet a genuine concern, which is a simple one to express. Our tradition of democracy in this country is that serious criminal law is enacted by the people's elected representatives through primary legislation. Clauses 110 and 111, as they were, sought to introduce on their face an apparent extension of government powers at the cost of that tradition. I say "apparent" because it is clear from the government amendments tabled today that they recognise the concern and have chosen to act to remedy it. The concern will not go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, made clear, this is a constitutional matter of great importance on which I can reflect simply.
A decision by the Council of Ministers on serious criminal law affecting the Community may be the result of unanimity. That is numerically impressive but
1152
it is not thereby endowed with democratic virtue. The virtue of criminal law enacted by the people's representatives is that it commands the respect of the people. I am sure we shall return to that debate; today is not the occasion for it.
I welcome the refocusing of this use of European law to combat terrorism in its four objectives. I said at Second Reading that the freezing of assets was a critically important method of combating terrorism. Secondly, the framework decision which the Council of Ministers has been agreeing seeks to implement that to which we as a nation have already committed ourselves, in spirit if not in letter, in the various conventions of the United Nations to combat terrorism. Thirdly, on extradition, it is, to put it mildly, totally unsatisfactory that an extradition hearing in our country can drag on for three or four years before the person is extradited. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the need to have the investigative forces liaising in this campaign.
My congratulations on the good sense of these amendments are coupled with a practical question. We have debated the constitutional significance of these clauses. We were told that they were being implemented because action was necessary. With regard to each of those four objectives, when can we expect secondary legislation—I am sure we shall readily endorse it—to aid in the fight against terrorism?
I close by noting again—I did so at Second Reading—the good sense of the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that the passing of legislation of this kind in an emergency meets the objective of the security of the people but must also meet the objective of protecting democracy. The public will forget quickly the political spats about these amendments. What they will want to remember is whether Parliament passed legislation that commanded the confidence of the country. It is by accepting concerns and putting forward these amendments that they command that confidence. I heartily endorse the amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish briefly to welcome the amendments brought forward by the Government. I am not sure whether they go far enough. But I am certain of this. They have already altered the climate in which we discuss important issues, and that makes a major difference. I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. What is the standing and worth of decisions which will now be made under these powers and before the sun sets on them? I have been concerned throughout the debates by the apparent tendency—I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at Second Reading—to ignore the powerful opinions and advice offered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The opinions of that committee do not seem to have been fully digested by Ministers in another place. That committee commands huge respect. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how grateful I feel to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon for what he has

1153
done in the past and for what he said today. His contribution has been important in bringing about an improved climate.
I find puzzling and disappointing some of the remarks the Home Secretary is reported to have made during the passage of the Bill. I have great respect for the Home Secretary. He seems to be one of those people, rather rare in our time, who says what he thinks and means without bothering about a disagreeable, odious veneer of political respectability. However, there seem to be times when he goes dangerously far. I wonder whether some his colleagues who are Ministers in your Lordships' House might play a small part in persuading the Home Secretary that the large and massive votes of last Thursday were not brought about by energetic powerful whipping. That is a somewhat self-defeating exercise in your Lordships' House and it certainly did not have any effect on the results of the Divisions last Thursday. Nor was it the result of any forgetfulness of the horror of the events of September 11th. No one in your Lordships' House does not have those events fresh in his or her memory; nor would he or she be influenced into forgetting the appalling shock which those events gave to the whole civilised world.
I add only one comment and do so with some caution. The Home Secretary should not attribute those massive majorities on Thursday to any sudden uprush of love and admiration between the various Opposition parties in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howell has been accused of not being perhaps 100 per cent enthusiastic about all the government amendments to this part of the Bill. My experience is that governments are at their trickiest when they have just discovered that they are wrong. On this part of the Bill, I believe that they were most wrong of all.
We welcome very much what the Government have done. Watching a television programme yesterday lunchtime I was lost in admiration for the endurance and enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He did extremely well, busily convincing the public that the Government were doing the most wonderful thing. They have done a lot, but we shall have to wait for six months to decide how third pillar business will be implemented in this country. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon—he is chairman of the Select Committee and I am a member—identified again the issues for your Lordships. However, in six months' time we shall have to decide in Parliament the difference between matters coming under the third pillar which are extremely urgent because of counterterrorism activity and what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, described, in a most remarkable speech, as serious law.
I wonder whether it would be possible on each occasion for Parliament to decide on a Motion whether or not business could be treated in secondary legislation. It may be that the kind of schedule the Minister foresaw will do the trick, but it will be very
1154
difficult to decide. As she has said, the line between that which is purely a terrorist matter and that which is not is very thin indeed. It may be that there is a more solid way than simply a schedule that may or may not stand the pace over the years. We are grateful, however, for what the Minister has done.
My noble friend Lord Peyton is a little unkind when he says that the Minister took a long time to say that he would do something. He did say it right at the beginning in this House and, to be fair to the Government, because of the timing the House of Commons did not have a chance to look at the committee's report when they discussed the matter. They have responded as best they can. Had they not been in such a rush, they could have done it all now and not in six months. Nevertheless, I welcome what they have said.
4.00 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the reputation of this House will not in the end depend on what people, however distinguished, say about it from outside, nor indeed what we say about ourselves today. It will depend on the work we do today and the result which it produces.
Unlike my noble friend Lady Park, I believe that the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Minister to make regulations which will be permanent for six months. They will remain permanent, and the temporary nature relates merely to the window of time in which he can make changes. The statutory instruments that come before us in the next six months will therefore be of critical importance. I am relieved to see that they are at least under the affirmative procedure, so that we shall have to consider each as it comes through. They may come rather thick and fast, because the Government have only a little time in which to act. It is reassuring, however, because it means that afterthoughts cannot be dragged in after the six months are up.
The second limb of the amendment limits not the time but the scope to the three things listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). My eye has fallen with some alarm, as it did with my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Waddington, on the very last words of the very last paragraph, "or on combating terrorism". It strikes me as a very extensive catch-all phrase, particularly as the Government have said countless times that one cannot distinguish between terrorist crime and other crime. Given the definition used for this subject, those words embrace almost any form of criminal activity, provided it is within the third pillar.
There is some odd terminology before us. There is something called a road map, which I understand is a list of the things being considered under the third pillar at present and which may be brought forward. I shall listen with very great care to what the noble Baroness says in reply to my both of my noble friends, to her explanation of what is caught by this phrase, and what the Government will therefore be enabled to enact by secondary legislation.

1155
Secondary legislation cannot be amended. To throw it out would he a very drastic move, and we will not be able to temper what the Government propose by secondary legislation if we think it goes too far. We will only be able to refuse it or accept it. This definition is therefore of considerable importance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would prefer that Clauses 111 and 112 were not in the Bill at all. Having said that, however, I appreciate that the Government have come a long way in meeting the concerns which were rightly expressed in Committee in this House.
What concerns me most is that, had this House not had the time and the ability to scrutinise it, the legislation would have gone through. It is a matter of concern that a Bill containing 126 clauses should be sent to this House without most of them having been properly considered. It is no good the Home Secretary or any other Cabinet Minister complaining about this House, when it has done its job—a job which should have been done by the House of Commons in the first place, it having been elected to do so. It is entirely reprehensible that an elected House of Commons should have less concern than this House for the freedoms and the rights of the people of this country.
I believe that Mr Blunkett is doing a good job, is speaking his mind, guiding people along a road of less political correctness. However, he has to understand that, unless the House of Commons does its job, this House has to spend a great deal more time on the Bill—more than three times as much—and has to do the job for it.
I think that I speak for most members when I say that we would prefer to be at home in our beds than sitting here at one or two o'clock in the morning, doing a job for which the other people along the corridor are properly paid.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to confirm beyond doubt that any provisions arising from the exercise of Article 31 will require unanimity in Brussels. I say that because Article 31, as it stands in Title VI of the Treaty and on its own, contains no reference to whether the provisions under it will be reached by unanimity or qualified majority voting.
The article is controlled by Article 24 of the TEU, which the Government now wisely wish to leave out of the Bill, but Article 24 is itself amended by the Treaty of Nice from unanimity to qualified majority voting, if that treaty is to be ratified.
Article 34 is clearer and does appear to come under unanimity. Article 31, standing on its own as it now does, is silent on the matter and it would be very helpful to have confirmation from the noble Baroness that these new provisions will require unanimity in Brussels before they are brought here by regulations.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the whole House is clearly united in seeking effective legislation against terrorism, although I am bound to
1156
say probably not quite so united in enthusiasm for the amendments which Her Majesty's Government have brought forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, sand that the six months sunset clause was clear, and I hope that is clearly set out in Amendment No. 77ZA. Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that I am in a position to assure the noble Lord that the European arrest warrant legislation will not be brought under this Bill. Indeed, we have made it clear that it never would be. It now cannot be brought under this Bill, because of Amendment No. 78A. Even if we had wanted to—which we did not—we now cannot. I hope that that has closed off a line of argument which perhaps has occupied your Lordships rather more than it should have done. It will be dealt with through separate primary legislation.
I turn to the points raised in regard to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) set out in Amendment No. 78A. The noble Lord asked whether any further proposals were in the pipeline. I should say that I do not know what will happen over the coming six months; that is, whether we shall see a further terrorist outrage or an incident that might prompt further emergency legislation. Sadly, we live in such times. However, I have given a specific assurance in relation to the Liberal Democrat amendment that Her Majesty's Government would not seek to bring forward through secondary legislation any further baubles, so to speak, to add to the Christmas tree following the passage of the Bill through this House. I hope that that point is clear. Any further action that needed to be taken would be dealt with through primary legislation, excepting those matters covered by subsection (1A), which we have already discussed in relation to the Liberal Democrat amendment.
I was grateful for what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I believe that the Government have listened carefully to the exchanges in Committee. That stage is for the purpose of detailed and reasonable discussion. On this occasion, I believe that the House discharged that function in an exemplary manner.
Perhaps I may move on to the second point raised by the noble Viscount in relation to the Italian position. It is a fact that Her Majesty's Government disagree with the position adopted last week by the Italian Government. I should tell the noble Viscount that every other member state also disagrees. We shall need to discuss this further at Laeken where we very much hope to reach agreement.
Italy's position has made clear a very important point; namely, that decisions are taken by member states not, as many noble Lords fear from time to time, by the Commission or by the European Parliament. It is important that such decisions ultimately rest with member states themselves.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the matter of the European arrest warrant, when primary legislation is brought before this Parliament, can she tell the House whether

1157
we will be able to amend what may have been agreed at Laeken or wherever? Alternatively, is it the case that once Ministers have agreed the new European arrest warrant in Laeken or Brussels, our powers to amend it will be negligible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot say that we shall be able to amend the powers of the European arrest warrant. As is the case when discussing other European treaty matters, I believe that we shall need to look at a treaty and consider whether noble Lords feel able to agree with it and, similarly, whether another place feels able to agree. The legislation will be dealt with in a way that is familiar to noble Lords.
Perhaps I may move on. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, raised a number of points relating to the two-year cut-off point for offences. Given our amendments, the reference to creating offences with a penalty of more than two years only in practice will apply to the framework decision on combating terrorism. Even in that case it is unlikely that we shall need to impose a cut-off point of more than two years because in most cases UK law will already have in place severe penalties for terrorism. We shall do the minimum required to implement the framework decision. We are looking in particular at the need to impose sentences over two years in relation to offences committed abroad which may not be covered by existing UK law. I hope, at least to some extent, that the position has been clarified for the noble Lord.
I was very grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that my noble friend Lord Rooker and I have asserted from the beginning that we recognise the well-argued reservations of the Delegated Powers Committee. My noble friend made that point clear in the debate on Second Reading and I hope that I did the same in Committee. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for alerting Her Majesty's Government to the fundamental matters of principle which were laid out in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I can assure the noble Lord that we wish to discuss this matter again with the committee before any further legislation is brought forward. I believe that one of the strengths of your Lordships' House is its capacity to undertake such tasks. We are grateful for the wisdom that the noble Lord's committee is able to bring to bear on such issues.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked what we had in mind to bring forward under Amendment No. 78A. The 1995 and 1996 extradition conventions will simplify the extradition procedures between EU member states. The noble Earl may be interested to know that the United Kingdom is one of only five member states not to have implemented those conventions. That will have to be achieved through what I believe a noble Lord described as the "window of opportunity" we shall have over the coming six
1158
months. Indeed, secondary legislation on the extradition conventions will be brought forward next week.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I believe that we are in danger of getting into a serious muddle. As I understand it, over the coming six months we shall have new primary extradition legislation. We have said that we shall not have the European-wide extradition warrant. Now we are saying that, yes, there will be a certain amount of extradition law introduced under this arrangement. Can the noble Baroness tell the House exactly what that will be? I am in a serious muddle over this and I hope that I am not unique.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the extradition conventions were agreed in 1995 and 1996 by the then Conservative Government. We have an obligation to bring forward those conventions by the end of this year. That may be seen as stepping through the window of opportunity created by the legislation over the coming six months. We have an obligation in respect of those two conventions to complete the process before the end of the year.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, concerned whether we would then be in a position to retreat from the legislation. It is the opportunity for taking such secondary legislation which would then close down as a result of the sunset clause, as was kindly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, the secondary legislation so created will not die with the sunset clause. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Baroness and endorses the issue spotted by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Furthermore, I hope that that answers the point put forward by the noble Earl.
I turn now to the convention on mutual legal assistance which will enable us to provide video evidence. That will prove extremely useful if a witness is unwilling to travel or if we do not want such a witness to travel. It offers a clear advantage as regards expediting proceedings against terrorists either here or abroad. Furthermore, there are other issues as regards the framework decision on asset freezing. I hope that those three bundles of issues at least give the noble Earl an idea of the kinds of matters that we shall be bringing forward.
I hope that I have responded to the points put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in relation to the sunset clauses. They provide an opportunity to bring forward the secondary legislation that will close on 1st July of next year. Thereafter we would introduce further legislation. We would not turn our backs on secondary legislation that, it is hoped, will be created during the period between now and 1st July of next year.
The noble Baroness also raised a point with regard to Europol. I have asked Home Office Ministers to write to the noble Baroness in answer to her question. Again, I shall return to the attack on behalf of the noble Baroness.

1159
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for the compliment she paid to my noble friend who, perhaps I may say, richly deserved it. As I indicated in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, we shall consider carefully the robust points that were put forward in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss them.
I hope that I have answered the substance of most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He went on to ask what constituted an act of terrorism. We have covered this ground in the past few weeks. Amendment No. 78A is specific on the sorts of issues that are covered, such as decisions on,
"freezing property or evidence, on joint investigations teams, or on combating terrorism",
for acts of terrorism with which we are becoming all too dismally familiar. It is important, for example, that the placing of bombs—sadly seen so recently—is specifically covered as an act of terrorism.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The phrase, "combating terrorism" at the end of proposed new subsection (1A)(c) continues to create a little unease. Can the Minister assure us that the enabling powers brought forward during this limited period will be confined to terrorism, or are the Government still mired in the difficulty that they cannot define where terrorism ends and other forms of crime begin, so that they cannot give undertakings on the matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: To some extent the noble Lord is right. We are talking about freezing property, evidence and other matters closely related to terrorism. That brings us back to the discussion we have been having in the past few days. Her Majesty's Government thought that it was right to have a broader definition so that we would not get into legalistic arguments. Your Lordships said that that was not satisfactory and would prefer something that was related to terrorism. So the Government sought to meet that point. The reference is to the Council framework declaration; that is all that the amendment is intended to be. The measure has been more narrowly drawn, as your Lordships wanted, but I freely acknowledge that there are a number of ways in which it could he interpreted. That is the crux of the argument we have been having in our debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who is now in his place, raised another point. All the measures listed in Amendment No. 78A will be decided under Article 34, so they are subject to unanimity. I hope that that is a satisfactory answer.
I appreciated the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. We have tried to enter into the genuine spirit of what a Report stage should be, listening carefully to what is said and trying to answer the points raised rationally and sensibly. We aim to meet the genuine concerns
1160
that have been expressed by your Lordships. In that spirit I hope that we can proceed in agreement on these amendments and clauses.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 77A and 77B not moved.]
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 77BA:
Page 66, line 7, leave out from "under" to "or" in line 8 and insert "any third pillar measure"
[Amendment No. 77 BB, as an amendment to Amendment No. 77BA, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77C not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 77CA:
Page 66, line 11,1eave out "the third pillar" and insert "any third pillar measure"
[Amendment No. 77CB, as an amendment to Amendment No. 77CA, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B:
Page 66, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following are third pillar measures—

(a) the 1995 Convention drawn up on the basis of Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union on Simplified Extradition Procedure between the Member States of the European Union,

(b) the 1996 Convention drawn up on the basis of Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union relating to Extradition between the Member States of the European Union, and

(c) any framework decision adopted under Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, on joint investigation teams, or on combating terrorism."

Page 67, line 14, leave out "the third pillar" and insert "any third pillar measure"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 112 [Third pillar: supplemental]:
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 113 [Use of noxious substances to cause harm and intimidate]:
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 68, line 25, at beginning insert "In England and Wales or Northern Ireland,"
The noble Duke said: This subject was touched on at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on the suggestion of the Law Society of Scotland. I have the feeling from what the Minister said at col. 719 on the fourth day of Committee that he is also aware of the issue of the common law of Scotland.
This group of amendments seeks to disapply Clauses 113 and 114 from Scotland. Clause 113 creates a new statutory offence in relation to the use of, and

1161
threats involving dangerous substances. It offers as a penalty a maximum prison sentence of six months, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both on a summary conviction, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, a fine, or both, on conviction on indictment. Clause 114 creates a new statutory offence in relation to hoaxes involving noxious substances, with equal penalties.
These are suitable subjects to be included within the framework of legislation when dealing with modern terrorism. Presumably they are seen as providing strength to the statutory law of the United Kingdom. The problem for Scotland is that these activities are all capable of being regulated under the common law, and in this case under a charge of fraud or breach of the peace. The penalty for being found guilty under this offence is a maximum of life imprisonment or an unlimited fine.
The common law is a far greater deterrent, and unless the Government feel that terrorists in Scotland should be dealt with more leniently than at present, I submit that these amendments are required. The other irony of the situation may be that statistically one might find a larger number of people angling to be charged as terrorists after a rowdy night out in Scotland because they feel assured that there is a fairly low penalty if they are found guilty. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Law Society of Scotland is probably right. I imagine that the drafting needs some attention as I think that there needs to be a consequential amendment to Clause 126. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: During the devolution debates, I stressed the value of devolution in giving Scots law, and Scots criminal law in particular, its own Parliament. I am therefore inclined to support the amendments proposed by the noble Duke, as this type of legislation would be better dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. Both offences can be classed as breaches of the peace and the almost unrestricted punishments would be more effective.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Scottish Parliament debated and agreed the way forward proposed in the Bill on 15th November. To remove Scotland from the Bill in the way proposed would cause problems. The whole of the United Kingdom will be affected by those who use noxious substances to cause serious harm. The effects would be felt in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff as equally as they would be in London. Bearing in mind that the Scottish Executive has agreed the policy, which was agreed by the Scottish Parliament after the debate on 15th November, I hope that noble Lords will think twice about pressing the amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the debate was as to whether or not a Sewell Motion should be passed rather than a full debate on the contents of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh is
1162
looking very cross with me—whether it is the case that the Scottish Parliament had asked Scottish Members of the House of Commons and noble Lords—particularly on the advice of noble Lords based in Scotland—to do what they think is best? It is a perfectly legitimate request. I thought perhaps the Government might accept it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government are not accepting it. The policy has been agreed by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. Whichever way one looks at it, they have agreed the way forward proposed in the Bill.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, as I understand it, the Scottish Parliament has asked us to debate what should be in the Bill. We have the power to put in and take out whatever we want. The amendments do not remove Scotland from anything other than Clauses 113 and 114. However, if this is not clear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 68, line 27, after "has" insert "or is likely to have"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 82, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 89. I shall be extremely brief.
As drafted, it is not precisely clear in the Bill that Clause 113 would cover the circumstances where an action set out in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) has been disrupted before it has had chance to take effect—for example, where the police intercept a package of anthrax spores designed to kill the recipient before it reaches its target. It is obvious that such cases must and should be caught by the offence. Amendment No. 82 seeks to clarify this by providing that the action need be only "likely" to have the effect. Amendment No. 84 is a consequential amendment: Amendment No. 83 is necessary to ensure consistency; and Amendment No. 89 is necessary to ensure consistency with Clause 114. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we need to get this right. If the substance is intercepted it will not be "likely" to have the effect that we are trying to prevent. Therefore, surely, the wording should not be "is likely to have" but "is intended to have"? The noble Lord will perhaps think about this matter between now and the next stage.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are always in thinking mode. I shall not rewrite the amendment on my feet. I am fairly confident that I could have explained this from the longer and extensive note that I have and could have used. However, if we have it wrong, we have tomorrow to put it right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 68, line 31, leave out "falls" and insert "has an effect falling"
Page 68, line 37, leave out "is likely to induce" and insert "induces"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Clause 114 [Hoaxes involving noxious substances or things]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 69, line 25, leave out "likely to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Meaning of racial hatred]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Meaning of fear and hatred]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 20, line 16, at end insert—
"(8) The Attorney General may issue guidance as to conduct in respect of which he will not institute proceedings for an offence under Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64), or consent to the institution of such proceedings, on the grounds that the conduct consists of the legitimate expression of religious belief."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 92A, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group which relate to Part 5 of the Bill.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 93 to 98 would be to remove a substantial part of Part 5 from the Bill. I shall recap, first, why the Government sought to introduce Part 5, recognising as I do so that, by not moving Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, it is accepted in the House that at least part of what the Government have done is acceptable.
Some noble Lords previously suggested that Part 5 had nothing to do with 11th September and that it was not a measure in response to those events. But we cannot and should not forget that ordinary people in our streets face hatred and harassment because others hold misguided prejudices about their beliefs. At the weekend, the Guardian outlined some individual cases: the Muslim schoolteacher, in a headscarf, who was asked on a Manchester train, "Do you think you will live until 9 o'clock tonight?"; graffiti on a wall reading, "Avenge USA—Kill a Muslim Now!"; a child in Cambridge attacked because his mother was wearing hijab; leaflets posted through letter-boxes across the country claiming that Islam stands for intolerance, slaughter, looting, arson and the molestation of women. It is a sad indictment of our society, but it is also the reality that faces many people today.
There is a weakness in our law because it deals with racial groups, not religious groups. As I have previously noted, some religious groups—Jews and
1164
Sikhs—can also be considered as racial or ethnic groups, and, as a result, are protected by the additional safeguards of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The current situation is anomalous. On a website run by a disreputable and hateful organisation, there could be the same message about three different groups—the Sikhs and the Jews, which would be prosecutable as incitement, and the Muslims, which would not be. That is an anomaly which needs to be resolved, and the events of 11th September require that resolution quickly. That is why these provisions were included in the Bill and that is why they should remain in the Bill.
Let me identify some of the support that there has been for these provisions being in the Bill. The Muslim Council of Britain, the leading Muslim representative organisation, issued a statement confirming its support in principle for both incitement to religious hatred and religiously aggravated offences. The Board of Deputies of British Jews—although, as I have indicated, the Jewish people are considered a racial group—also supports the extension of the law to religious groups. It noted that in the month after 11th September the number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the Jewish community in Britain doubled. Justice, in its paper to the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place, stated that it broadly supports the extension of incitement to racial hatred to cover religious hatred. It said that this will act as an important measure to protect vulnerable minority communities. The Law Society paper to the Select Committee on Home Affairs welcomed in principle the proposal to create an offence of religious hatred. The second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated at paragraph 58:
"There would be little difficulty in establishing a pressing social need for action".
The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations earlier this month on the United Kingdom's latest periodic report, noted the recent upsurge in religious harassment and attack and urged the UK, among other things, to extend its criminal legislation to cover offences motivated by religious hatred.
In Committee, the proposal received support from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who is in his place today, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I hope that we shall hear at least from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark today.
The second general point raised by noble Lords and others is that Part 5 will limit freedom of expression and will stop criticism of religions and hinder religious discussion and debate. My noble friend the Minister and I have sought to explain existing law and the safeguards in the Bill. I shall trespass on your Lordships' indulgence and mention them again and then return to Amendment No. 92A.
The first of the six safeguards is that the law requires that before an offence has been committed, a person must use threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. Secondly, there must be a mental element—an intention to incite religious hatred or a likelihood that

1165
the conduct or words will do so, coupled in that case with an intention that the words should be insulting, threatening or abusive.
Thirdly, the offence is directed at hatred—a strong word. The dictionary definition "hatred" is not defined in the Bill—is more than contempt or ridicule. Fourthly, the offence deals not with hatred of a religion but of a group of people who are defined by their faith or lack of it.
Fifthly, the conduct has to enter the public domain. The offence is not directed at purely private expressions of any sort. Sixthly, no prosecution can be brought unless it is instituted by the Attorney-General or with his consent.
The Government do not underestimate the concern expressed in this House and in the other place that a person should not be prosecuted for expressing a legitimate religious belief. I have made that clear, as has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In Committee, I undertook to consider how best to ensure that such prosecutions do not occur. We carefully examined the amendments tabled in Committee and in another place but concluded that they would not be effective. The difficulty is that providing exclusion from prosecution or a specific defence—where, for example, a person cites a religious text—creates a loophole that could be exploited by persons who deliberately seek to incite hatred and who are the very people we want the legislation to catch.
We have seen examples where extremists have used quotes from holy books out of context to incite hatred. It is not difficult for the devil to cite scripture for his own purposes. Amendment No. 92A will provide guidance, which will give reassurance, on the kind of conduct that, by being a legitimate expression of religious belief, is not likely to amount to an offence of inciting religious hatred. I hope that that provision, in conjunction with existing safeguards, will reassure those persons who feared that expressing truly held beliefs could inadvertently lead to them being prosecuted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, guidance is obviously important when dealing with a new criminal offence that will interfere with freedom of expression. Will the House see that guidance before concluding its proceedings on the Bill this week, so that it will know how prosecutorial discretion will be guided one way or the other?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I hope to persuade your Lordships that the offence should be left in the Bill. The intention is that the offence will come into effect once Royal Assent is given. It is important that guidance is available by that date, so that the public know the consequences. I am hesitant to promise that the guidance, which has not yet been drafted, will be available by Thursday. I shall give thought to that question as I continue.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Attorney-General agree that it is important, as a
1166
matter of parliamentary accountability, that Parliament knows what it is doing before creating a controversial offence? Would it not be in the interests of democratic, responsible and accountable government for the House to see the guidance that the Government contemplate?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is guidance that I shall give as the prosecuting authority—as the prosecutor with the authority to say whether or not an offence should be committed. That is not the same as government guidance amending, in any way, the offence. I shall consider further the noble Lord's comments. I thoroughly share his views about the importance of democratic accountability. I shall return to the question of precise timing.
Amendments Nos. 95 to 97 deal with the penalties for incitement to racial or religious hatred. Amendment No. 95 would retain the proposed increase from two to seven years but only for racial offence, not religious offences. Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 would remove the provision.
The Government believe that the penalty for the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred as well as the new offence, if it is included, of incitement to religious hatred should be seven years—which would match the penalty set by Parliament for racially aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 98 relate to aggravated offences, where there is a criminal element already but the crime is made worse by being aggravated by a racial element. It is not acceptable to use violence to cause harassment or to damage property because of hostility towards a person's religion. It is one thing to dislike a person for their religion; it is one thing to dislike the religion itself; it is quite another thing to punch a person because they hold a religious belief that one does not like. Sadly, those kinds of offences have increased since September 11th and we need to send a message now that that is unacceptable.
Noble Lords will recall that there was support from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for this measure in 1998 when racially aggravated offences were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act. Both parties opposite called on the then Home Secretary to include religiously aggravated offences. The Government undertook to keep that under consideration and that was happening when September 11th occurred. Those events made clear that religiously motivated offences are a reality and that we need to act now. That is why we have brought forward Clauses 40 and 43. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will support the inclusion of those offences.
In conclusion perhaps I may quote an Attorney-General, albeit an American, Robert Kennedy, who said in 1963,
"What is objectionable about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents".

1167
The Government's position is clear. We need to protect our communities and the people in this country from religious hatred. The provisions in Part 5 of the Bill will do that. We are not creating something entirely new. We are expanding existing offences with the same criminal thresholds and safeguards that have been in place for years. Where there have been concerns we have listened, examined the possible options, and in the case of Amendment No. 92A, we have brought forward a solution.
My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both made it clear that the United Kingdom has no argument with Islam or Muslims. The vast majority of British Muslims are law-abiding citizens who condemn terrorism in all its forms. It is unacceptable in our society for innocent people to be subjected to hatred simply because another person equates their religion wrongly with terrorist activity. The Government believe that this part of the Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring freedom of speech, which we prize dearly in this country, and ensuring that innocent and law-abiding people are able to practise their religion and to go about their daily business without being subjected to hatred or threats.
With the support for this provision and the safeguards for it, I believe that there is no good reason to oppose it. It was described by Mr Oliver Letwin in another place as being introduced by the Government with "noble motive". To protect vulnerable religious communities is a noble motive. I hope that noble Lords will now want to join in sending a clear message that this House wants to protect those people, the young woman in Manchester, and British people against unjustified threat and intolerance. It is an opportunity to send a message of tolerance and inclusiveness. There is no justification for hiding behind delay and procrastination.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary did the right thing in including this noble provision in this Bill. The House would do wrong to vote it out. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made a gallant defence of an inclusion in the Bill that is riot a part of the fundamentals of the battle against terrorism. His proposition rests on the assertion that it is. Indeed, it would be wrong of me if I were not say that there is justification for legislation in this field. The question is whether this is the right legislation, the right time and whether the legislation itself is entirely correct.
I shall try to follow the pattern that the noble and learned Lord has followed in his remarks because it might lead me to follow a logical progression, otherwise my thoughts might tend to be slightly scrappy. The noble and learned Lord rightly listed those bodies which support this legislation, such as the Muslim Council of Britain the Jewish Board of Deputies, Justice, the Law Society in principle, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights which says that it will have little difficulty in supporting legislation in
1168
this field. The right reverend Prelates have also supported the principle of this legislation. That is a powerful argument with which we do not quarrel.
The question which I do not believe has been answered by all those bodies is whether in fact they have said that this legislation must he passed now and in this form. With the possible exception of the right reverend Prelates who, by the good fortune of their presence here, have been able to express their view, I doubt whether the other bodies have expressed their support in those specific terms.
We come to the definition of the offence. As the noble and learned Lord said, before an offence takes place there must either be threats or abuse or insults; there must be an intention to incite religious hatred; there must be an intention to insult. The offence must be to create hatred of a group and it must be public and not private.
Those are all valid arguments. I believe I am also right in saying that they are also offences likely to cause a breach of the peace. Under existing law, if it were correctly applied—unfortunately today it is more honoured in the breach—these matters could be dealt with. The question whether the amendments would or would not work I leave to one side.
The noble and learned Lord said that offences under this new part of the Bill would be subject to his ruling as to whether or not they were offences. He intends to issue guidance as to what would or would not be an offence in this matter. I do not wish in any way to call into question the integrity of the noble and learned Lord when I say this. I hope very much that he will not take it that way. But the fact of the matter is that guidance is entirely discretionary. It is not binding It can be set aside, changed, and it is not subject to parliamentary approval.
To return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, even if we have the guidance before us it is not certain that it is necessarily the guidance which will apply three or five years in the future when the noble and learned Lord has perhaps gone on to greater things and some other person is doing his job. So there will always be a question over guidance.
Furthermore, I am not satisfied that we are anywhere close to a proper definition of a "religious group" or a "religion". I have two ways of asking the question. We do not have any particular problem in this country with regard to Mormons. More questionable is the Church of Scientology. I think of a group such as the Baha'is. They are seriously religious, but is Baha'i a religion?
If one thinks back to the early days of the Non-Conformist Church, how should we have dealt with someone like Wesley? He "took on" the established Church in order to establish a new church. These remarks may seem somewhat odd, but the legislation that we pass—subject only to sunset clauses that we may apply to it—will be permanent, unless it becomes the subject of subsequent legislation. So there are deep and serious long-term issues wrapped in these simple little clauses which have been included in the Bill to fulfil a short-term political need.

1169"/>
We do not quarrel with the principle behind the Government's approach; but the method is wrong. It is still wrong, despite the noble and learned Lord's remarkably clear advocacy. I hope that when the time comes the House will support the following amendment in this group, which seeks to remove the clause from the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to the other amendments in the group, especially Amendment No. 93, and therefore speak only once. It is appropriate that we are discussing this sensitive issue on Human Rights Day, when we are concerned with the rights and freedoms of everyone in the country—majorities and vulnerable minorities. The Government's proposals are directed at protecting vulnerable minorities in this country, as the Attorney-General has explained.
As long ago as 1994, during the debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, I sought to persuade this House and another place to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy, which is truly anomalous and is part of the problem connected with this proposed new offence, in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission, made after detailed consultation. I shall briefly explain the significance of that in a moment.
The Attorney-General was kind enough to refer to the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Bill and on this offence. In the report we said that we shared the view of the Constitution Committee that the inclusion of non-emergency measures is inappropriate in emergency legislation required to be considered at speed. We observed also that this was not a proper or sensible way to make legislation. Those observations apply in particular to the proposed offence of incitement to religious hatred. The offence as it has been explained would apply not only to the spoken word but also to the written word, to public performances of plays and to all forms of broadcasting.
Unlike the new statute in the Republic of Ireland, the offence will not cover other forms of hatred—notably hatred expressed against gay men and lesbian women. Ireland has sensibly legislated beyond race and religion to cover that other most vulnerable group in our society.
At paragraph 60 of its report, the Joint Select Committee noted:
"We were … pleased to learn that the Home Secretary is not committed to the view that the present state of the law of blasphemy is in tune with the equality-based and respect-based arguments which would be likely to be used to justify the interference with freedom of expression potentially occasioned by the provisions of the Bill on incitement to religious hatred".
The trouble is that the Home Secretary has explained that he does not consider it appropriate to abolish the vague common law offence of blasphemy in emergency legislation designed to counter the serious threat of terrorism. But he does think it appropriate to create the new offence of incitement to religious hatred
1170
as a matter of emergency. There is no evidence before Parliament that there is any emergency or pressing social need to justify creating this new statutory offence in such extraordinary haste without dealing with the underlying anomalies in existing law.
There are two underlying anomalies to which the Attorney-General has not referred. The first is that the law does not deal with religious discrimination; it deals only with racial discrimination. It does not deal with incitement to religious discrimination; it deals only with incitement to racial discrimination. The second anomaly is that the Church of England is uniquely protected in its tenets by the ancient common law offence of blasphemy against gross forms of insult. That anomaly was abolished by the Supreme Court of Ireland—of all places—a couple of years ago in a judgment in which the Supreme Court said that the ancient crime of blasphemy existed to protect the Church of England, but the Church of England was not the same as the Catholic Church; that in Ireland no such offence was needed and it was too vague to be capable of enforcement.
But the problem is that, to many Muslims in particular, the existence of a common law offence that protects Christianity against gross insult, and Judaism as a branch of Christianity under the curious law that applies to blasphemy—since Judaeo-Christian tenets are lumped together for this purpose in a complicated way—is grossly insulting. As counsel for Viking Penguin in the Satanic Verses case—where it was sought to put people from Viking Penguin and Salman Rushdie in prison for blasphemy in insulting Islam—I learnt that the sooner we get rid of the offence of blasphemy, the sooner we remove a source of legitimate grievance from the Muslim community; and the sooner we stop people who do not believe in freedom of expression, whether they are Muslims, Jews or anyone else—including Christians—from seeking to use arguments based on mere insults of a gross kind as a justification for criminal prosecution.
I am very glad that I shall never be Attorney-General. Whatever guidance he produces, he will be in a catch-22 situation. In the first place, if we do not get rid of the offence of blasphemy, we can be perfectly sure that pressure will be brought to bear on him by some sections of the community to use this new offence when he does not consider it appropriate to do so. If he authorises a prosecution, we shall be in a catch-22 situation. I can say that with confidence because I have worked in race relations since the early 1960s and have watched what happens to the offence of incitement to racial hatred. If a prosecution is mounted and it succeeds, the danger is that one makes a martyr of the person who has uttered evil thoughts in public. If the prosecution fails, the danger is that one legitimises the evil utterances as those who purvey such views are able to say, "A jury has acquitted and this was the speech that was thought to be forbidden or punishable by law".
I do not say that it follows from any of that that we should be opposed to this new offence in principle. Indeed, I am on record as saying, and have said since 1994, that, if we abolish the offence of blasphemy, we

1171
need a new, narrowly drawn criminal offence in its place. I agree with the Attorney-General that, if one were to get rid of the other anomalies to which I have referred, this would be an acceptably, narrowly drawn criminal offence. What is proposed here is what has obtained in Northern Ireland. However, it is never used there because neither of the communities has behaved in the same way as have some on this side of the Irish Sea. It is also similar to a measure that exists in the Irish Republic, although, as I say, it has had the good sense to move beyond race and religion to cover other vulnerable groups.
I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that this matter is very complicated and very sensitive. It requires proper consultation and should not be rammed through via an emergency procedure in Parliament in this ridiculous way. The Law Commission spent a long time in its consultation and, by a majority, came to the view that not only should blasphemy be abolished but nothing should be put in its place.
From what the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary have said, I do not believe that a new manifestation of religious intolerance has arisen since September 11th. I agree that before September 11th there was a continuing manifestation of such intolerance, as we saw in the riots in the cities in the north of this country. I agree that there is widespread racial intolerance, sometimes expressed in religious form, and I entirely agree with the urgent need for effective legislation to counter religious as well as racial discrimination.
Although I would not have expressed it in the same way, I also entirely agree with much of what the Home Secretary said yesterday about the need for social cohesion and the need for everyone to rally round basic civic and political values in this country. Those include the values of a liberal society in relation to free expression as well as mutual respect and tolerance for others and equal treatment without discrimination. I know that the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary share those values. But, speaking with more than 40 years' experience, I shall say to the Attorney-General, who is brilliant but much younger than I am, that it is not sensible to legislate in haste on these complicated matters. Even though I sympathise very much with a large part of what he said about the need for a new offence, let us deal with it properly and not in this hasty way.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I want to suggest a somewhat different approach. I am afraid that it involves leaving out Clause 39. I am encouraged by the remarks made by Mr Blunkett over the weekend in various interviews when he spoke about the problems that we face in this area. I want to suggest that it is extremely unwise of the Government to highlight religion as the root of the problem when in fact it is a cultural problem. It is the problem that some of our citizens have in coming to terms with being a part of this country, rooted as it is in centuries of a Judaeo-Christian culture. It is rooted also in the
1172
problems experienced by others, whose ancestors have lived here for many years, as the immigrant population begins to join in and they see our culture respond to that.
In my view, to highlight this as a religious problem is likely to be counter-productive. We are free in this country to practise and celebrate our own beliefs and religions. But the culture here—a culture rooted in our history, albeit one which evolves as history moves on—provides the setting in which we all live our lives and the setting for our freedoms, whatever our religion.
It is not easy for any of our people to come to terms with and express a cultural problem in terms of religion. It compounds the issue and makes the situation much more difficult if we attempt to do so. The confusion will be compounded even more should the first high-profile case under such a law happen to involve an alleged offender who is a Muslim.
I believe that the Government would be very wise to emulate what the Scottish Parliament has done. I can understand why it has done so because I have received 35 letters, some from south of the Border, but mostly from Scotland and very many from the Highlands and Islands. A shot asylum seeker in Glasgow followed by a church burnt down caused the Scots Parliament to pause for thought. I believe that the Government would be very wise to think again on this matter. I do not believe that the idea of the Government giving us the conditions under which legislation would not be made would help. I believe that that would be a fundamental error.
I should be very interested to know the right reverend Prelate's view on this matter. I have discussed it with a number of his colleagues north of the Border who do not disagree with me that it would be very much better to pause and to return with a Bill which gets to the root of the matter. They agree that we require a Bill which tackles the question of how we live within the existing culture of this country and how we let it evolve without trouble. Religion is linked to culture but it is not the root problem. I ask the Government to consider that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is acceptable that the Attorney-General—there is nothing personal about this—should issue guidance as to the conduct in respect of which he will not institute proceedings or consent to the institution of proceedings as proposed by this amendment. I am concerned only with Amendment No. 92A. Is there any precedent for this situation—a foretaste of the discretion which is exercised by the Attorney-General and which is owed to the whole of Parliament and not to a party? Is there any precedent for that?
Is this not a plain pre-emption of the issue which your Lordships are about to consider as to whether Clause 39 should stand part? If it does not stand part, this amendment is otiose and in the air. We have not yet considered whether Clause 39 should be included in the Bill. If, in your Lordships' opinion—I do not

1173
pre-empt this—Clauses 39, 40 and 41 should not stand part, what are we talking about when we consider this amendment?
If it is not acceptable that Clause 39 stand part, the Attorney-General should have no discretionary power to administer the unacceptable. In a sense this preempts the situation and is an ingenious "fudge" for want of requisite particularity on the face of the statute. It is a departure from the manner in which I have always understood that legislation is and should be presented. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, wrote in The Times today:
"we might as well get the Bill right now".
Surely the noble Lord is right. Surely that is our duty. What on earth are we doing talking about the discretion of the Attorney-General for which there is, as far as I am aware, no precedent?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I voted for the Bill at Second Reading. I believe that governments are entitled to be given support in the kind of circumstances which prevailed. I do not in any way resile from the support I gave the Government then.
Over the weekend suggestions were made about the Home Secretary. He was described as bullying and scaremongering and was accused of driving on some sort of illiberal and authoritarian agenda. Anyone who knows the Home Secretary—I have known him since our days together in local government in two different northern cities—knows that those descriptions are as implausible as they are offensive. He argues, and I agree with him, that,
"to limit a Bill tackling world-wide terrorist networks to the mechanics of causing a terrorist act, rather than the funding, the drug smuggling and the criminal activity behind it, renders it useless".
I am certain that he is right about that. However, this clause on religious hatred falls into none of those categories.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned the article which appeared this morning under the name of my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg. In that article my noble friend also argued that the Bill is effectively hybrid because it contains so much, and that it is not really about emergency legislation or necessary in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. I believe that there is a compelling case, therefore, for a separate measure to deal with this sensitive question, one with which I believe the Attorney-General dealt with great sensitivity from the Dispatch Box earlier on. It is precisely because he showed such sensitivity that he recognises—I think we all do—that wise deliberation and reflection are necessary here.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was right when he said that no emergency issues are at stake. The Attorney-General spoke of the young woman in Manchester. All noble Lords would agree with him that the kind of remarks made to her were
1174
vicious, outrageous and unacceptable in any free society. However, during the past four weeks I have been in Oldham, Bolton and Burnley. There, I have met people who are engaged in education at various levels. I repeatedly heard them arguing for a deepening of commonly-held central civic beliefs, alongside tolerance of different cultural and religious beliefs. I heard no call for measures of this kind. I doubt that this new law will do anything to realise the objective which the Attorney-General has laid before us today, or that it would have prevented last year's riots in Oldham, the recent reprehensible attack in Bolton or the continuing level of one in five votes cast just two weeks ago for a British National Party candidate in Oldham.
By contrast, the painstaking approach, which I saw at first hand in Liverpool, of ecumenism, where first the denominations of the Christian faith work together and subsequently the great faiths have painstakingly worked together in promoting religious toleration and co-existence, seems to me to be a better and longer-term way to proceed. Legislation on religious hatred may simply be used as an excuse to stifle perfectly proper debate about, for instance, forced marriage or female circumcision. Surely, those have to be regarded as legitimate areas for discussion and debate. They are odious practices and words such as "diversity" or "pluralism" become misnomers when used to defend them.
The Home Secretary spoke yesterday about norms of acceptability. If Clause 5 were to be enacted, would he be free any longer to speak in such terms, let alone the rest of us? Earlier today he was accused of offensive remarks because of what he said yesterday. Are we really to force our politicians and other commentators into a form of Trappism because they ask whether arranged marriages are acceptable or whether British citizens should be able to communicate in English?
Our best prospect is to move as Australians and those in the United States have done to the fostering of common civic values, while accepting diversity in religious belief; diversity of dietary codes or the celebration through food, dress or music of an individual's mixed origins. As John Casey wrote in the Daily Telegraph on 4th October 2001, this legislation fails to grasp that,
"Belief in the divinity of Christ or the prophetic mission of Mohammed involves love and reverence, not mere intellectual assent".
Such beliefs can, by their very extraordinary nature, cause outrage and upset, but should that constitute a crime? Every citizen has the right to expect that the law will protect him or her from bodily harm. But the law must also safeguard people's rights to express their views freely and worship in whichever way they wish. The Attorney-General has said that there are people from the Muslim community who have spoken in favour of this provision. But there is disagreement within that community too and opinion is divided. Many Muslims recognise the threat which this legislation poses to the free expression of devoutly-held religious belief. In a memorandum to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Dr Zaki Badawi of the

1175
Muslim College, Dr Syed Aziz Pasha of the Union of Muslim Organisations and six other leading Muslim organisations have declared that,
"The extension of incitement legislation at this particular time is unlikely to protect Muslims. We have grave reservations about the introduction of legislation at this particular time".
They argue that the legislation will have,
"a deterrent and 'chilling' effect on the legitimate free speech of Muslims".
The genuine fears and concerns that have been expressed by the Muslim community and the numerous letters which many of us have received from a variety of Christian denominations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, indicate that we should tread very carefully in this area. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was right to say that we should not proceed in haste. The people who are expressing the very fears I have mentioned are the same people the legislation is supposed to protect.
Among Catholics there has been much debate about the toleration of the right of minority faiths to attack Catholicism in Catholic states. In Britain the state once forbade attacks on the established Church, but also persecuted Catholics for not being members of the state Church. That led to James II introducing a more tolerant rule, with the Declaration of Indulgence. Happily, we have come a long way since those days. I would mention in parenthesis that just 40 years a go the Second Vatican Council's declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, occasioned a change of emphasis with its re-affirmation, as one Bishop put it in January 1998, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, that while error may have no rights, those in error certainly do have rights, including the right not to be unjustly coerced.
Among Anglicans, Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, who referred to the "Islamic mission" in his Gospel and Culture lecture on 1st December 1995 at King's College London, stated:
"If it means discrimination that you make claims and counterclaims with regard to truth, then it destroys all possibility of inter-faith dialogue".
For once I also find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with the Guardian columnist, Polly Toynbee. She is right to express concern that legislation might be used to stifle religious debate or criticism of religious practices and beliefs. We already have laws decriminalising defamatory libel, obscenity, sedition and blasphemous libel. Those are still in force, but rarely invoked. Laws against racial hatred are rarely invoked. For example, five men who were arrested a year ago for allegedly distributing anti-Semitic literature in the ultra-orthodox area of Stamford Hill were freed after the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to proceed with charges of racial hatred. The Jewish Chronicle reported that the police said that the charges were dropped because the material was targeted only at a local Jewish community with little likelihood of any civil unrest. Surely, we should be seeking to enforce existing laws, with suitable revision where necessary, rather than hurriedly introducing ill-defined legislation which will serve only to encourage those who seek to undermine the free expression of devoutly held religious belief.
1176
I turn to my last point. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships. If we are to encourage greater religious and racial tolerance in our society, it will be done through proactive laws which celebrate citizenship, not through reactive laws which demonstrate a failure to appreciate the true nature of religious belief.
Two years ago, while giving the Roscoe lecture at Liverpool John Moores University—I declare an interest, as I hold a chair there—Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary, said that new Britons do not come together as do new Americans to celebrate the bestowing of citizenship. He said:
"We should be doing more to celebrate citizenship, to value those who take on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship by naturalisation and acquisition as well as by birth".
He was right. There are many ways in which we could celebrate and underline the full nature of citizenship, especially the opportunities we enjoy in this country for free speech and religious worship. Jack Straw said that there should be,
"a proper ceremony to mark such a key rite of passage".
Perhaps the taking of an oath to uphold our democratic institutions and the rule of law might underline the significance of becoming a British citizen. But these are big questions which are worthy of proper debate in a Bill which is capable of proper reflection, scrutiny and amendment following widespread discussion. This is not the way to do it. As this part of the Bill is not crucial to the Home Secretary's central objective, I hope that the Government will think again.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, there may be three main reasons to support the group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 93 to 98, which seeks to remove Clauses 39 to 43 from the Bill. I do not find them convincing.
First, there are those of your Lordships who do riot believe that incitement to religious hatred should be outlawed because they feel that religious belief should not be given that kind of protection. I do not agree with that position. For many citizens of this country, their religious belief is one of the most precious things that they possess. That is particularly true for some minority groups which fear that their culture, including their religion, is under threat today.
There are those who do not wish the legislation to go forward because of its damaging effect on freedom of speech; those who feel that the ridicule and criticism of one's own or another faith would be hampered; and those who suspect that the legitimate evangelism of any of the faiths would be constrained. Those are real fears which have been expressed in the House today, but they can be overcome.
It should be recalled that in this legislation we are dealing with hatred. We are not dealing with humour, comedy or even strident criticism. Nor are we dealing with the unfortunate, the accidental or the arguably deliberate misinterpretation of another faith. Words spoken in sincerity by one faith community need not

1177
imply hatred of another. A religious service or the desire to convert others, to share the blessings of one's faith with another, is not an occasion to call up loathing, unless it is seriously abused.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, need have no fear; a modern day Wesley would not have incitement to religious hatred among his armoury, any more than did his illustrious ancestor. Amendment No. 92A standing in the name of the Minister addresses that anxiety. The amendment makes the Bill much easier to support.
Secondly, there are those of your Lordships who feel that the proposed legislation would have their full support if it was separated from the anti-terrorism Bill. It certainly can be argued that the incitement to religious hatred did not commence on September 11th and is not contained by its aftermath. The members of the Inner City Religious Council of all faiths have been arguing for just such legislation for a decade or more.
Nevertheless, since September 11th there are those who have not been slow to stoke up faith tensions for their own reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, at Second Reading suggested that supposed religious hatred is in fact racially motivated and that our existing laws are therefore sufficient. I fear that some racist groups are now more sophisticated than noble Lords might surmise. In my capacity as co-chair of the Interfaith Network for the UK I have received reports of white racist groups seeking meetings with Sikhs or Hindus, using the message:
"Of course you are good citizens, it's the Muslims which threaten us all".
Such white racist groups are more than ready to use religious hatred in their divide and rule policy for weakening minority ethnic communities.
For those reasons, I believe that the proposed legislation can legitimately be found in a Bill dealing with anti-terrorism. But even if I did not believe that, I would agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, at Second Reading that the legislation is better found here than nowhere.
I cannot follow the noble Lords who, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, support the proposed legislation but not in the Bill. We should grasp this opportunity for much needed reform which has been illuminated more clearly since September 11th.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving way. As he was good enough to mention my name, perhaps he can deal with one of my main objections: the anomaly of the offence of blasphemy and the way in which that can distort this new offence unless it is abolished first.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I shall come to that matter before the end of my speech.
In pressing your Lordships to go ahead, I am encouraged that the view that I have expressed is also the viewpoint of the main-line religious leaders of all faiths in this country. As co-chair of the Interfaith
1178
Network for the UK, I am perhaps in a position to help the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, when he questions whether such faith leaders have in fact given their full support. For example, Mr Iqbal Sacrani, the general secretary of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, Mr Neville Nagler, the Chief Executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Mr Indarjit Singh, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, Mr Om Sharma, the president of the National Council of Hindu Temples (UK) and Mr Paul Seito, the co-ordinator of Buddhist organisations in the UK, have been consulted during the past week. They all support this legislation.
Of course there are those who argue contrary to that, but most of the representative religious leaders are of a common mind. It would be remarkable if they were not because for many years they have sought such legislation.
Thirdly, there are members of your Lordships' House who believe that the proposed legislation, limited as it is to incitement to religious hatred, is not adequate; and that it should be withdrawn and become part of a wider Bill which also includes religious discrimination. I totally agree that the legislation before your Lordships' House does not do everything that could be desired, but it is a major first step along the way. The workings of the legislation will give us invaluable experience in the years ahead as it is followed by further legislation tackling religious discrimination. I also add that in such legislation there would be space to deal with the blasphemy law. Its day indeed may have come. It would certainly be easier to view its departure were the clauses regarding the incitement to religious hatred already on the statute book. Certainly, we, from the Church of England, would view the departure of the blasphemy law with much easier hearts were that so.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships that the Bill deals with behaviour and not belief. A wise friend of my acquaintance says of those who mock his ancestry, "It's not them I dislike; it's their behaviour I find difficult". This legislation is about divisive and antisocial behaviour—the incitement to religious hatred. It is not about belief. With that in mind, I hope that your Lordships will not support the amendments seeking to remove these clauses.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we heard and rehearsed the arguments for and against incitement to religious hatred at Second Reading, in Committee and in a debate instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Many of us receive a large number of letters and telephone calls on the subject. They demonstrate that, whichever side of the argument one listens to, the general public—including some members of the ethnic minorities—are adamant that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is not the place for such legislation.
The Attorney-General cited some cases. May I ask him why it was not possible to prosecute when many of them breached the Public Order Act 1986? Some breached the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

1179
My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has the appropriate bible—if I may use that expression—from which to cite all the examples.
At the heart of the debate are a number of important issues. They include the blasphemy laws—as ably demonstrated by my noble friend—the limits of free speech, cultural pluralism and the place of minorities in British society. Many of them are part of an on-going agenda, but that is not to argue that free speech should be valued more or less highly than civil order or racial harmony. That confirms that a public debate and consultation process are necessary before we legislate. That consultation has not taken place.
If we cannot take the public, including the ethnic minorities, with us, the law is bound to fail. That is why, while we broadly support the need for incitement legislation, we believe that it should follow detailed public consultation and take into account matters relating to religious discrimination. We are concerned about matters relating to cases in which the hatred is directed against groups abroad. That will immediately bring the Government into the politics of the subcontinent and the Middle East. As I asked at Second Reading: do we really want those battles to be fought on the streets of London?
The concession that the Attorney-General would be responsible for the decision whether to prosecute does not answer the question of why it is necessary to include it in emergency legislation of this kind. The record on incitement to racial hatred has been poor. In a debate on 21st November, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford pointed to the difficulty that since 1988 only 42 defendants have been successfully prosecuted and in 1999 there were only four prosecutions, resulting in only three convictions. We are now being asked to pass legislation that could have no better outcome.
One argument that is often forgotten, but of which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, well reminded us, is that an extremist hell-bent on violence is not going to ask about one's religious beliefs. We have seen that not only the Muslim community but almost all visible minorities are victims of vile attacks perpetrated by extremists who will circumvent the law so that they can carry out their propaganda against vulnerable communities.
The Home Office must accept that including incitement to religious hatred in this emergency legislation is resented by members of the Muslim community. Despite the Government's denials, they give the impression that that faith is intrinsically tied up with the events of September 11th. That is quite the reverse of what the Government intended, but they have only themselves to blame.
When will the Home Office learn that these measures are resented not because they are inappropriate but because they patronise ethnic minorities, arid the Muslim community in particular? The Home Office should understand that religious hatred is not new. I could have told the Minister about that when I came here in 1956. As early as then, when I was living in Sussex, the Sussex Racial and Religious Preservation Society was formed.
1180
The Government are shortly to produce a consultation document on Article 13 which will take into account discrimination based on religion. The matter needs to be considered not in a piecemeal fashion but as a comprehensive measure that will take into account the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. We need not worry about the statutory definition of religion or belief because practices that are contrary to human rights as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1988 will not be lawful. The Minister would have our full support if legislation were separated from the Bill. That would allow us seriously to consider what was appropriate and how we could command the respect of all our citizens.
For that reason, we support the amendment. We are not alone. Even the Commission for Racial Equality argues that a distinction can be made between anti-terrorism measures that can be justified as necessary in the current situation and those that have wider implications and should be given greater consideration in Parliament.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise—paradoxically, now—rather reluctantly. I wrote to my noble friend the Minister when the provisions first appeared to say that I could not possibly support Part 5 and would vote against it; I intend to do so in its entirety today.
I rise because I regard myself as belonging to a great political party. It would be appalling if, when the history of our time is written, at least one voice did net speak out against what I regard as a thoroughly illiberal measure and one totally alien to the history of the party of which, as I say, I am proud to be a member. At least one voice from our side must say that the Bill is a mistake.
I must admit—this is where I differ from some noble Lords with whom I hope to be voting later—that I would oppose such legislation more generally. I can think of no appropriate form of the legislation in respect of which I could put my hand up and say that it is compatible with liberal parliamentary democracy or the open society. Indeed, the main thought in my mind as I listened to those supporting the provisions is that the terrorists have won. If we pass this part of the Bill, we will undermine a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy. That is the business that the terrorists are in: the destruction of parliamentary democracy.
Further than that, returning to my early days as a student, when I had the great honour of being taught by Karl Popper, I believe that the open society is the essence of what we, the Americans and others do. The crime of religious hatred—whatever that means, and I still have great difficulty following my noble friends' explanations of what it means—is incompatible with the open society.

1181
The provisions have nothing to do with the protection of individuals against abuse, threats, and all that sort of thing. We have a legal system to do that; we have people who speak up for such people. I agree that sometimes, especially in the case of race, not enough is done. The lesson to learn from that is that we should enforce our existing laws properly, not invent this one.
Finally, Amendment No. 92A, which I know that my noble and learned friend proposes honourably and with a desire to help, really gives the game away. My right as a citizen of this country cannot possibly depend on what the Attorney-General—and I do not mean this specific Attorney-General but the office—decides are grounds for conduct that consists of the legitimate expression of religious belief. I decide what I regard as a legitimate expression; I do not require the office of the Attorney-General either to tell me or to be in a position to tell me.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I shall be so brief. I hate a caste system, which condemns someone to be a hewer of wood or a drawer of water, that is religious-based. I hate the concept that a widow can be forced to commit suttee. I hate forced marriages. I hate female circumcision. I hate the concept that people should be stoned to death for adultery. I hate that hands should be chopped off because of thieving. I hate that people should be forced to wear burkas so that they cannot be seen. I hate the rantings of Protestant extremists against the evil of sodomy. I hate the Wahhabite system of law. I hate all of those because they are wrong. I also think that it is wrong that I should be criminalised for hating, and encouraging others to hate, something that is held to be religious by a large group of religious people when I know those things to be wrong.
The Attorney-General shakes his head and says, "No, that's not it". If that is not the point, what is the point? Will I be able to say that I hate a religious doctrine? That is the dilemma that faces us all. Let us leave it to the laws of harassment, sedition and offensive behaviour; let us not pursue these religious lines. The issue is too difficult. Let us also remember that the Pope rescinded the Great Papal Bull Regnens in Excelsis, which absolved all Roman Catholics from loyalty to the United Kingdom, only in 1967, or so the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley—a totally reliable source—told me.
Let us be very careful about making things that I hate illegal to hate.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I shall give one very brief example, which appears in the current edition of the Economist, to demonstrate the dangerous territory that the Bill is entering into. There is apparently a radio station called Premier Christian Radio, against which a complaint was made by the Mysticism and Occult Federation. The Radio Authority, which judges such complaints, found some of the federation's criticisms valid, and it criticised the radio station for referring to other religions as full of superstitions and
1182
absurdities; for derogatively referring to non-Christian faiths as "Buddhism, Hinduism and rheumatism"; and for publishing an advertisement from a Church promising certain listeners deliverance from "occultism".
The Radio Authority is not concerned with religious hatred, it is concerned with good taste and decency. The above example, however, shows how difficult it is, both currently and in the future, to draw a line between hurting feelings and what amounts to inciting hatred. It could well be that, when feelings run high, regardless of the guidance that is issued by the Attorney-General, those who make certain types of statement will be prosecuted, freedom of speech will be suppressed, and the type of situation that we saw when a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie may well be repeated.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I want briefly to comment on Amendment No. 92A. The fact that the Attorney-General moved the amendment demonstrates that he is not 100 per cent confident that the Bill's current definition is clear to everyone who might be affected by it. It is an indication that, so far, the Bill's definition of the crime in question is not very adequate. I am sure, as has been said more than once, that it is a very difficult issue. The Law Commission examined the issue and concluded that it would be wise to have no provision at all to address it, although it reached that conclusion against the background of a different time and in considering whether the law of blasphemy should be removed from our common law.
I want to put one question to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—whose thoughts on the issue must be fairly right, as he said that guidance would have to be available when this emergency Bill receives Royal Assent. I am sure that your Lordships recollect the debates that we have had over the years on various provisions on abortion. The most recent such debate was on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the scope of which made it possible for the first time to include this type of amendment in a government Bill.
The difference between those who agree with abortion and those who disagree with it is a religious one. Generally, those who disagree with it have the view that human life exists from the time of, or very shortly after, conception. That is in the nature of a religious belief. Those who are against it hold the view that those in favour of abortion are killing babies by the hundred. I think that most people would regard killing babies by the hundred as a fairly hateful matter. Therefore, if I say that those who are in favour of abortion are in fact promoting the killing of babies by the hundred, surely I am inciting hatred against them as a group, as those who perform the abortions are said to be murderers, and those who agree with abortion are said to be supporters of murderers. The example demonstrates that we are seeking to legislate on a rather difficult subject.

1183
It may be that the Law Commission, having long and very carefully considered the matter, has reached the right conclusion after all. Regardless, it seems that we cannot properly go down this road as quickly as an emergency Bill would seem to require.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I should like to follow up the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, by drawing attention to Amendment No. 92A, which states:
"The Attorney General may issue guidance as to conduct in respect of which he will not institute proceedings for an offence … or consent to the institution of such proceedings, on the grounds that the conduct consists of the legitimate expression of religious belief".
That is an extraordinary power to confer on an office-holder. The Attorney-General can issue guidance, and presumably he can amend his guidance. If he can issue it, he must be able to say, "I have changed my mind" and revoke it. Therefore, we are effectively saying that the scope of the operation of these provisions depends on the opinion that is formed from time to time by the Attorney-General. That cannot be a proper way in which to legislate. If we wish to express something as being a criminal offence, we should be capable of defining it. It is totally unacceptable, and to my knowledge unprecedented, to allow the definition or scope of provisions of an Act of Parliament to depend on the opinion from time to time of a single officer.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to support Amendments Nos. 93 to 98. As I have consistently made clear, I do not like Part 5 of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, put his finger on my primary concern about Amendment No. 92A: the lack of clarity on whether future guidance from the Attorney-General will expand the scope of the provision although we do not agree to expand it.
I am not concerned about specific individuals. As we know, however, British tabloids can drive us to a political frenzy, such as on the issue of dangerous dogs. I can very easily imagine a situation in which, as in the Salman Rushdie case, there is frenzy-driven tabloid propaganda saying that the Attorney-General must immediately take a given course of action. There will be no stopping once we start down such an illiberal road.
I still believe that, if we want to stop attacks on Muslims or arty other minority, we shall have to find a better way of defining those groups than by resorting to the label of religion. That is the wrong label. However, we can do that only if we put together all the religious issues—for instance, discrimination, blasphemy and hatred—and perhaps have a special committee of your Lordships' House to examine the matter in detail. After that, we should return to the legislation and deal with it properly. Bad legislation in this respect will be extremely harmful.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and my noble and learned friend Lord
1184
Mackay of Clashfern seem to have torpedoed completely the palliative Amendment No. 92A, which was intended to persuade your Lordships to go down this route.
I rise as a loyal member of the Church of England in order to try to persuade the right reverend Prelate to have at least a moment of doubt about what he advises us. There are only 24 hours—perhaps a few more; 30 hours—in which an alternative amendment can be tabled. Under ordinary procedure, not only would we have had weeks of discussion between stages so that our positions could have been fully realised, but we would have a full three days in which to carry out further discussions in order to find an alternative palliative amendment.
Therefore, while I agree with the right reverend Prelate that something must be done, that is far from saying that anything will do. I do not believe that this will do and under this procedure I do not see how we can arrive at anything which will do. It follows, does it not, as we have been saying all along, that this is the wrong place for this provision? It should comprise a Bill of its own and not be in this one.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I am well aware that many of our faith community leaders are in favour of the legislation being passed. However, it has been expressed to me on the basis of half a loaf being better than none. It is said that it will go some way towards helping against what they feel to be an injustice; that some parts of the community are protected and that they are not. I am not convinced by that argument. Our faith communities and all religions deserve better than to be put in that negative light. We have consistently said that the events of 11th September and the conflict are not religiously based, so I cannot see the justification for including the provision in an anti-terrorism Bill.
I hope that we shall pass the amendments. The Government are committed to examining religious discrimination, which involves religion and belief. That covers an area wider than simple religious understanding. I hope that we shall have considered reflection of, and be able to put in a more positive light, the role that religions play in our community. We should carefully consider how that can be protected as a force for good within our common life.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House and I do not want to disagree with the Home Secretary just when he is coming around to agreeing with me. However, I believe that the clause is out of place not merely in the Bill but in any legislation. Perhaps I may respond to a point which arises from what was said by the noble Baroness. Lady Richardson.
The followers of bin Laden are undoubtedly acting as they do out of a religious belief. I have heard a number of Ministers who could be held to be guilty of causing religious hatred of the followers of bin Laden because of what they do. Those followers say that they do what they do because of their religion. That immediately goes to the definition of a religion.

1185
I notice that the Bill contains a reference to a religious belief or a lack of religious belief. However, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General refers only to
"the legitimate expression of religious belief".
Straightaway, at this stage in this hurried procedure through which we are going, we find inconsistencies in the legislation that is before is.
What is an expression of non-belief? What is an expression of irreligious belief? Are they different? What of cults? Are they protected? Would we think it right to be protecting the local chapter of a Haitian voodoo group? I believe that we are rapidly getting ourselves into a great muddle. It is a great muddle into which we do not need to get.
We can escape all those difficulties simply and easily without requiring any of these definitions; without requiring any discussion of whether a fringe comedian at the Edinburgh Festival could infringe the law; without relying on the whim of successive Attorneys-General to tell us what the law is. We should return to the common sense use of prosecuting for the use of insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace may be caused.
If we were to increase the penalties for such behaviour to, say, seven years, we would have the perfectly flexible and useable weapon; that is, if a comedian went beyond the bounds of good taste or if someone in a pub among his friends of similar quirky beliefs was insulting about people who would never hear what was said, it could all be ignored. But if a hooligan of some kind went into a place where there were members of a religious group and chose to insult them and stir up hatred against them, we could proceed easily and simply with law that has been used for years and is well understood.
We no not want this proposed legislation and we should get rid of it. It is a mess; it is a danger; and it is a disgrace to the legislation which should come from this Parliament.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I am afraid that mine will be a slightly dissenting voice because I have the feeling that many noble Lords are already persuaded by the amendments. However, that is the other side to the story and I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say it.
In the debate on the issue there are four important questions. First, should there be an offence of incitement to hatred'? I believe that the answer is yes. Secondly, should incitement to religious hatred be an offence? The answer seems to me to be yes. Thirdly, as no definition of religious hatred is ever perfect, do we have it just about right? The answer seems to me to be broadly yes. Fourthly, are we right to make it part of an anti-terrorism Bill? Again, in my humble view, the answer seems to me to be yes.
Perhaps I may briefly explain those views. Our democracy is based on the principles of rational debate and dialogue. Obviously, it is incompatible with intimidating and aggressive utterances. That has become
1186
particularly urgent because of our multi-cultural society which requires the sense of a dialogue between civilisations and cultures. It is crucial therefore to save the parameters of the public debate and to ensure that our public life is free of inter-ethnic or inter-religious hatred. Hatred is the enemy of dialogue and declares a war on a section of our citizens.
We must also bear in mind that almost all forms of racial hatred grow out of religious hatred. For centuries, for example, Jews were attacked on religious grounds. Their religion was condemned and they were accused of deicide. It was argued that they were therefore objects of legitimate hatred. That kind of evil way of thinking created a climate whose consequences were exploited by the Nazis in the 1930s. The same was true of the Hindus whose so-called animalistic religion was condemned and whose people were declared legitimate objects of hatred.
In your Lordships' House and elsewhere it is sometimes said that this clause relating incitement to religious hatred, is a sop to Muslims, that it singles them out for special treatment and may even prove counter-productive. I do not see the clause in that way at all. The clause protects no one and no particular community; it protects only our democratic system by banning utterances that are likely to poison relations between different communities. Such inciteful utterances may come from Muslims, as in the past they have tended to do, and so they will face the full rigour of the law. If they come from other groups, those groups, in turn, will receive the full rigour of the law.
Sometimes it is said that the Bill will curtail freedom of expression. Again, I do not see why. The Bill is clearly directed to stop certain kinds of behaviour—not utterances. It deals with utterances only in so far as they are action-oriented.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for giving way. Am I right in thinking that in the Joint Committee on Human Rights he made clear in his questions to the Home Secretary that his position is that the Salman Rushdie novel, The Satanic Verses, should have been prosecuted as a criminal offence? I ask the question because the noble Lord says that this Bill would not threaten free speech. Am I right in saying that that is his position?
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I shall come to that point in support of my argument. The Home Secretary made the matter clear in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In answer to a question of mine he said that the Bill would not have stopped Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. He also said that those utterances that are designed to demean, offend or degrade others are left completely untouched by the provisions of the Bill. In other words, the Bill is concerned with only those utterances that are likely to lead to certain forms of hatred and that are likely to precipitate action against certain groups of people. Therefore, I believe that the Government's intentions are broadly liberal and that any court dealing with the matter would want to take into account the kind of evidence that the Home Secretary gave to the Joint Committee.

1187
Many noble Lords have asked why Part 5 should be included in a Bill dealing with terrorism. I may be totally naive, but I like to believe that the connection is absolutely clear. Terrorism springs from hatred. Of all forms of hatred, religious hatred is the worst because it breeds fanaticism and justifies itself in the name of no less a personage than the Almighty. We have seen that in the Middle East and elsewhere. Religious hatred needs to be stopped or at least discouraged. Hence I see Part 5 as part of a campaign against terrorism in general.
Questions have also been raised about what constitutes a religion or a religious group. Similar questions were raised in the mid-1970s when we were talking about incitement to racial hatred. After all, if race and ethnicity have not proved difficult to define, I do not see why religion should pose a problem. In short, the Bill is directed against religious groups and not against religions. It defines hatred in fairly narrow and tight terms and as far as I can see it has safeguards against indiscriminate use of the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I am inclined to support the Bill and to reject the amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have a few points to add to the debate and I want to speak to Amendment No. 93 standing in my name. The prospect of a new law on religious hatred has attracted criticism from a wide range of groups. The Home Secretary is most concerned to protect Muslims with a new offence, yet Muslims are divided on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already said, in a memorandum to the Home Affairs Select Committee in November, several Muslim groups have expressed grave reservations about the prospects of such an offence. Some of them may have been persuaded by the Home Secretary and the current wording of the Bill, but others have not. Given time, consultation and careful drafting, their fears may be allayed, but as it stands this new offence is still a cause of grave concern to many Muslims, let alone Christians and those of other faiths or no faith.
The Home Secretary has one rather eccentric success in that he has managed to unite atheists and religious believers with comedians and journalists who have come together to condemn this new offence because of the potential effect on freedom of speech. While we all deplore religious hatred, this is not the way in which to deal with it. Many religious people have a real concern that the new religious incitement offence will cause more harm than good. Instead of protecting them, they fear that the new law could be turned against them. Religious people should be free to argue passionately in support of their beliefs as should those with no faith. Free speech and robust debate that pose no danger to anyone risk being caught by the new offence.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that under legislation relating to Northern Ireland there is a provision that is almost word for
1188
word the same as may be enacted if Part 5 is put on to the statute book and that in 14 years there have been only four prosecutions?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am very aware of that. I shall quote directly from the Christian Institute which has said:
"we know about anti-religious sentiment. We deal with cases of individuals who arc mistreated because of their beliefs. To silence those who disagree with us we could easily make use of this new law if it is passed. But we do not believe it would he right to do so".
We are moving in dangerous territory. This issue should be left out of the Bill altogether. These provisions touch on such a sensitive area of our national life and they cannot be dealt with properly in the highly pressurised setting of a Bill on terrorism that is being raced through Parliament in time for Christmas. I entirely agree with my noble friend the Shadow Home Secretary, Oliver Letwin, MP, to whom reference has been made by the Attorney-General. The Government's motive is noble, but with respect, their actions are misguided. The House does not need to oppose or to reject Amendment No. 92A; instead I urge your Lordships to support Amendment No. 93 through which we can remove the offence of incitement to religious hatred from this Bill.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I know the hour is late and I sense the mood of the House, but I want to speak to a few points as there is confusion. I respect some of the views that have been expressed and, with respect, I consider some of the views to be misguided.
Does this House believe that such conduct should be prohibited or condoned? I understand, with few exceptions, that the House is of the view that conduct involving the hatred of individuals because of their beliefs is not appropriate and should not be condoned. Therefore, one has to ask whether it is right to outlaw such behaviour as a criminal offence, in what form and when?
I invite noble Lords to pay the closest possible attention to the views that have been expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who has spoken on his own behalf and on behalf of others. Within the past week he has obtained the views of representative leaders of the British religious communities, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Network of Sikh Organisations, and the National Council of Hindu Temples. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred specifically to the Muslim Council of Britain and to the appendix put in to the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. In that memorandum the views expressed by the signatories was that at the moment they did not want to see legislation. As I told noble Lords, the Muslim Council of Britain has now changed its view on that. After reflection, having seen the provisions—the paper was written before the Bill was published—it has agreed the statement which I mentioned earlier. That is confirmed in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said.

1189
I also ask noble Lords to pay the closest attention to the words of my noble friend Lord Parekh. The views expressed in his study in relation to multiculturalism in this country deserve, I suggest, the closest possible respect.
I respect the view of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and it is important to note it. He spoke of the need for deepening our culture and cultural inclusiveness. I entirely agree with that. However, sadly, the people whose conduct we want to prevent are not susceptible to that deepening of culture and certainly not in the timescale of which we speak.
Let me deal with specific topics. First, are the ingredients of the offence sufficiently defined? I have been at pains at Second Reading, in Committee and today to identify the ingredients of the offence. They are the same ingredients as existing offences: the offences of incitement to racial hatred. They have not been dreamt up for this Bill. Those ingredients are there and it is important to focus on them. I shook my head at the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. He talked about violent disagreement with the tenets of a religion. As I sought to make clear, the ingredient of the offence is inciting hatred of a group of people not of the religion. That is clear from the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and other noble Lords shake their heads. Because of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I had placed in the Printed Paper Office a copy of Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, as it would be amended, which identifies what is meant by religious hatred. It is on the face of the Bill. It means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief not to religion. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, was right in relation to that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord tell us how that would bite on the case of the Muslim woman which he cited at the beginning of his speech? From his example, I understood that the hatred was directed at her.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the hatred is against a group of persons of which she is a part because she is a Muslim. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not understand noble Lords' amusement. I have obviously said something which I should not have done.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that it was a comment on my ability to take in what the noble and learned Lord was saying.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, at least the noble Lord has not been accused of being too young to understand
1190
what the Bill is about. I suppose that I should be grateful that I was not accused of not being a lawyer. That is the other criticism which has been made.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am not accusing the Attorney-General of anything. However, is not the Muslim woman in the case he cited already adequately protected by existing criminal law, including the protection against harassment legislation which we enacted only recently?
Can the noble and learned Lord also deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that his guidelines will not cover those who have no religious belief?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, let me deal separately with those questions. First, when the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that no events had occurred since 11th September, I was going to intervene to ask whether he had read the appendix to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It sets out incident after incident attributed to events since 11th September. The first state-funded Islamic school, Islamia Primary School, in Brent was forced to close after threatening telephone calls since the incident in the USA on Tuesday 11th September. A school secretary wearing a hijab was abused verbally while out shopping. On Monday 17th September, girls in hijabs were spat on. There are examples after examples. Noble Lords who read the appendix cannot doubt that those events have occurred since 11th September.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, are those incidents not punishable under existing criminal law?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on that point. Would not Section 4 of the Public Order Act deal with those very allegations? It states:
"A person is guilty of an offence if he … uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or … distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting".
Making those kinds of abusive comments to a woman in the street wearing a veil would be an offence under that section.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, Section 4 of the Public Order Act makes a person guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words,
"with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him … by any other person",
or that person is likely to believe that such violence will occur. It is a victim orientated offence.
The reason for proposing the amendment was not because the ingredients of the offence are insufficiently defined. It was for another reason. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, it is not because I have doubts as to what the offence meant but for this reason. In another place, Sir Brian Mawhinney raised the question whether or not it would be possible to find a way of putting a reference

1191
to legitimate expression of religious belief in the Bill. In this House a similar point was made. The proposal was to help in this respect.
I make two points about the position of the Attorney-General. It is already the position, as it is under a number of Acts of Parliament, that the consent of the Attorney-General, and in Scotland the Lord Advocate, is required for certain offences to be brought. It does not mean that the Attorney-General identifies the ingredients of the offence. That is for the court. Nothing I say could ever make criminal conduct which is not within the words of the statute. The consent—it has been inserted by Parliament on a number of occasions—filters out cases, to prevent them from going to court, where it is not in the public interest for them to be brought to court. It is a question of public interest not an executive decision. I do not say this because of the accusation of youth. But some noble Lords may recall that in 1924 a Labour Government fell because the Attorney-General of the day gave and withdrew a consent for a prosecution which was believed to have been motivated by political considerations. Ever since that day it has been an absolute tenet of faith to successive attorneys-general that the decision as to whether a prosecution takes place—for example, I give consent to explosive substances cases—is given entirely on the basis of public interest not political consideration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, every noble Lord, by and large, knows about the powers of the Attorney-General. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether there is any precedent for the type of administrative power sought under the amendment to be put in the hands of one man, the Attorney-General?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is not an administrative power. It is a statement that I was offering to publish guidance, to police and prosecutors, as to the circumstances in which I would consent to or institute proceedings. I shall come to precedent. I cannot change the Act. I do not seek to do so. It is not an administrative power to change the ingredients of the offence. It is to give some assurance on what I have said repeatedly in this House: that legitimate expressions of religious belief are not, in my view, criminal and will not be prosecuted. It is for that reason only.
I turn to the third question. Is it necessary to do so now? I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, suggest that it was not necessary to do it now. I have read to noble Lords what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said about this being a pressing social need, noting that the United Nations Human Rights Committee had urged us to introduce such legislation.
Although coupling it with the question of blasphemy, the noble Lord is on record as saying that reforms would protect minority groups such as Jews, Sikhs, Muslims or Hindus from serious public order offences without unnecessarily interfering with freedom of speech and that such a law would not threaten satire and powerful criticism of religious beliefs or the lack of them.
1192
It is said that the Law Commission formed the view that it did not think such an offence was necessary. That is not right. In paragraph 2.35 of the report in 1985 the Law Commission said that,
"if such attacks appear to be or become a real social problem, the appropriate response in our view is not to extend the law of blasphemy but rather to adapt the present offence, penalising the publication of matter likely to arouse hatred towards persons on account of their race, so that it would penalise publication of matter likely to arouse hostility to others on account of their religious beliefs".
In other words, the Law Commission took the view a number of years ago—this is not a new issue—that if there was a pressing social need, then the right way to deal with it would be to introduce some fairness of this sort.
Ultimately, the question is whether to do it now. I urge noble Lords, despite the expressions that I have detected during the course of this debate, to follow what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said. It is now that we can protect our community. It is now that we can send out a message that we want them not to be vulnerable; that we want to be inclusive. To throw this out now would be sending exactly the opposite message. I urge your Lordships not to send that message.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 93.
Leave out Clause 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to speak also to Amendment No. 94 and Amendment No. 95.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if it would help the noble Lord, I think that the House wishes to reach a decision on whether Amendment No. 93 should be dealt with. I think that the House wishes to come to a decision on that now and then, if he wishes to speak to the other amendments in their place on the list, of course he can do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. The essence of the problem—
A Noble Lord: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, Amendment No. 93 has not been moved other than by myself.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if it would help the noble Lord, the debate has taken place around the virtues or otherwise of Clause 39. The House now wishes to reach a decision on whether Clause 39, as amended, should remain a part of the Bill. After the House has taken that decision, it can then move on to the other amendments to which the noble Lord wishes to speak.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment ( No. 93) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 240; Not-Contents, 141.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ezra, L.

Ackner, L.

Falkland, V.

Addington, L.

Fearn, L.

Alderdice. L.

Ferrers, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Flather, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Fookes, B.

Ampthill, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Fowler, L.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-

Freeman, L.

Hamdon, L.

Geddes, L.

Astor, V.

Goodhart, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Attlee, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Greaves, L.

Barker, B.

Greengross, B.

Barnett, L.

Greenway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Bell, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bitten, L.

Hanham, B.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Blackwell.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Blaker, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Higgins, L.

Boardman, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Home, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hooson, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Burnham, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Byford, B.

Hylton, L.

Caithness, E.

Inglewood, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carrington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Jopling, L.

Chalfont, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clement-Jones. L.

Kilclooney, L.

Coe, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Kingsland, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Laird, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lane, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Listowel.E.

Deedes, L.

Liverpool, E.

Denham, L.

Livsey of Talgarth. L.

Desai, L.

Lucas, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ludford, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Luke, L.

Dundee, E,

Lyell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Elles, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Elton, L.

McNally, L.

Erroll, E.

Maddock, B.

1194

Mallalieu, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rogan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Roper, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Russell. E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Saatchi, L.

Methuen, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Sandwich, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Selsdon, L.

Monson, L.

Sharman, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Montrose, D.

Sharples, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Sheldon, L.

Moran, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Moynihan, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Slim, V.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Newby, L.

Stern, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Stewartby, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Noakes, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Northesk, E.

Strange, B.

Northover, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Taverne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Tebbit, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Tenby, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Thatcher, B.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Palmer, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Tope, L.

Peel, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Peston, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vinson, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vivian, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Waddington, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Razzall, L.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

Reay, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Redesdale, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Warnock, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Rennard, L.

Wilcox, B.

Renton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brookman, L.

Alii, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Amos, B.

Burlison, L.

Andrews, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Chan, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Chandos, V.

Avebury, L.

Christopher, L.

Bach, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Berkeley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Crawley, B.

Billingham, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Brett, L.

Dearing, L.

Bridges, L.

Dixon, L.

Brightman, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

1195

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falkender, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mitchell, L.

Filkin, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gale, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicol, B.

Golding, B.

Ouseley, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Parekh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pendry, L.

Gregson, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Grenfell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grocott, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Radice, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B.

Rooker, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Irvine of Lairg. L. (Lord Chancellor)

Thornton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turnberg,L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Varley, L.

Jeger, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jones, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Judd, L.

Weatherill, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Layard, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitty, L.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 40 [Religiously aggravated offences]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Racial or religious hatred offences: penalties]:
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Hatred and fear offences: penalties]:
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Saving]:
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Powers of entry]:
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 26, line 21, leave out from "Scotland" to "is" in line 22 and insert "the sheriff
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am glad to have the chance once again to bring this amendment before the House. It is a particular pleasure to find that I am joined by the Minister, who has been able to reconsider the matter. I am acting merely on the advice of the Law Society of Scotland, but the Minister has the benefit of very distinguished advice. It appears that all are now in agreement. I am sure that tonight I shall receive a more positive response than was the case with my last group of amendments.
In my view, the earlier answers I received to my questions raised a fundamental issue as regards what is to happen when legislation is subject to a "Sewel Motion" in the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord responded by making it sound as though the Scottish Parliament merely had to agree to what the government of the day proposed, whereas it is my understanding that the Scottish Parliament would ask for and accept that the Parliament at Westminster will agree the wording that is appropriate. Thus we do have a right to consider the issues.
Speaking, I hope, with some support from the Minister, it would be good to think that the Scottish Parliament does not have a monopoly on consultation and co-operation between the parties, which they so often like to emphasise.
The amendment would ensure that in Scotland only a sheriff and not a justice of the peace would be entitled to grant the search warrants referred to in the clause. I am advised that the power to grant such warrants should extend only to sheriffs. Often a justice of the peace will not be legally qualified and may be unfamiliar with the criteria needed to grant such warrants. In the interests of justice, therefore, this matter ought to remain within the sole ambit of the sheriff. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the amendment. I certainly prefer the use of the 120 full-time sheriffs rather than justices of the peace. The authorities will find it much easier to get hold of full-time territorial law officers.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that justices of the peace have a somewhat different role from that envisaged in the Bill, so I support the amendments. On the question of the Scottish Parliament, my noble friend on the Front Bench is right that it asked Westminster to do the job. Although we hope not to do anything that the Scottish Parliament would not want to implement, it has given us the job. It is up to the Minister to keep in touch on what the Scottish Parliament wants. I take it that he has consulted on the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I do not know whether noble Lords are trying to convince me to accept the amendment. If your Lordships really want a long debate, that is fine, but we listened to what was said in Committee, thought about it, decided that it was a good idea, and had another think about it. I do not know why I am being criticised for that. We heard your Lordships' views, we listened, and we have changed our minds. We do not want to get into a constitutional debate on who likes the measure in Scotland. We like it down here; it is a reserved matter and we accept it.
While I am on my feet, I shall speak to the other two amendments that are in my name. Amendment No. 99 is a technical amendment. It tightens up the effectiveness of the operation of the Bill by removing a potential source of confusion. It could cause confusion if it were not absolutely clear under which provision a search warrant was being sought or granted. Deleting the reference to "constable" will remove the potential for confusion.
Amendment No. 104A is a drafting amendment to include Part 6 with those other parts of the Bill that will come into force on Royal Assent. Part 6, which creates very serious offences, should come into force as soon as possible. We intended to have a commencement order and another order relating to Part 6. There was an oversight in the original drafting as Part 6 should have been in the same list as the other parts that come into force on the day on which the Bill is enacted. I hope that that meets with your Lordships' approval.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 26, line 24, leave out "a constable or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Pathogens and toxins]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 106, line 26, leave out "White pox"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is straightforward. On the list of "nasties" in Schedule 5, white pox is not really necessary because it is a form of smallpox. Although smallpox is not listed, it is covered by the entry in the schedule for variola virus. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Information about persons with access to dangerous substances]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 30, line 34, leave out "(if any) as may be" and insert "as is"
Page 30, line 37, leave out "and" and insert "or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 65 [Directions requiring denial of access]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 102 and 103:
Page 32, line 3, leave out from "part" to "so" in line 4 and insert "of the premises as is"
Page 32, line 6, leave out "and" and insert "or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 80 [Prohibition of disclosures in relation to nuclear security]:
[Amendments Nos. 103A and 103B not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Repeals and revocation]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 125 [Commencement]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 73, line 25, leave out "5" and insert "6"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause—
"EXPIRY

(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), and without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act—

(a) Parts 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall cease to have effect at the expiry of two years from the date on which the Act is passed; and

(b) Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Act shall cease to have effect at the expiry of five years from the date on which the Act is passed.

(2) If the Secretary of State considers that it may be appropriate that any Part of this Act should continue in force without amendment beyond the expiry of its specified period, he may consult such persons as seem to him appropriate to obtain their views as to whether that Part can safely and properly continue in force without amendment.

(3) If, following such consultation, the Secretary of State certifies that no substantial grounds have been advanced as to why that Part should not continue in force, he may by order provide that that Part of the Act shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding five years.

(4) Where any Part of this Act is extended by virtue of subsection (3) it may be further extended in like manner as set out above.

(5) An order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) or (4) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, after that brisk, delightful canter, we now come to the question of sunset clauses. The concern that the Bill has been pushed through with extreme haste has been patent throughout our debates. There has been no time for reflection and discussion, or for interested parties or those who can impart knowledge to input matters into our thoughts, as would happen in more normal proceedings.
It should be a principle that one does not legislate in haste. If one has to do so, the matter should be reconsidered in a relatively short time, and the Bill should be impermanent so that issues can be properly revisited. To that end, two alternative sunset clauses have been tabled, one of which is in my name and the other in the much more distinguished names of two Opposition Front Benchers.
I shall explain the difference between the two in a moment but, first, I shall deal with the necessity of having such a sunset clause. The Home Secretary said that he would review the Act after a while to see how it was working. I am sure that that should be done, and I have no possible objection to it. If criticisms are made, even if they appear to have some force, the battle will still he whether anyone will find the time to legislate on them. It is necessary to have a provision that the Bill will lapse after a certain time and then the Government can re-enact such parts of it as are efficacious and without problem, and alter those parts that are undesirable.
My amendment specifies two separate periods. The more worrying parts will expire after two years. It is fair to say that that is fairly academic in relation to Part 13 because the House has accepted the Government's earlier sunset clause for that part. Other parts would expire after Five years. I readily confess that I have made the split merely to follow the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others. I have not applied my own mind to the segregation.
When this matter was debated in Committee, the Minister spoke to certain parts of the Bill which he suggested were unlikely to he objectionable and, therefore, did not need a sunset clause. He may have been right about some of those parts; he may have been wrong. My attitude was ideally summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, last Tuesday, when he said:
"We are attempting to deal with the problem. Whether this course provides the right answer, only time will te11".—[Official Report. 4/12/01: col. 744.]
That is the truth of the matter. There may be parts of the Bill which the Minister or, indeed, some noble Lords, think are unlikely to be objectionable; they will probably turn out to be the ones that give rise to the worst problems. There are parts of the Bill about which people have expressed great concern; it may be that some of those concerns will prove to be unnecessary. But we do not know—and that is the product of hasty legislation.
My amendment differs from the one proposed by the Opposition Front Benches in that I have suggested that if the Secretary of State wishes a particular part or parts of the Bill to continue in force, and, as far as he is aware, there is no reason why that should not be done without amendment, then he shall, if he wishes to pursue that course, consult the appropriate people to obtain their views as to whether that part of the Bill can safely and properly continue in force without amendment. By pure chance, that ties in very well with the proposal for a review, because the review will constitute the consultation and reveal whether or not there are objections to that part of the Bill.
If, following that consultation, the Secretary of State is in a position to certify that no substantial grounds have been advanced as to why that part of the Bill should not continue in force, he may continue it through secondary legislation. On the other hand, if there have been any substantial objections to it, he will have to proceed by way of primary legislation. So the contentious will come back to Parliament through primary legislation—as is intended in the amendment
1200
of the Opposition Front Benches—but, in an attempt to satisfy the point made to me by the Minister, my amendment would give the Government power to continue without primary legislation those parts of the Bill to which, after experience, no one takes any real objection.
I hope that this will accommodate the points made by the Minister when we debated sunset clauses on the previous occasion. I see the force of the argument that there is no point in Parliament re-enacting measures which have proved to be wholly unobjectionable. I hope that my amendment will prove to be a suitable compromise and will appeal to the Minister. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Viscount has advanced the cause of Amendment No. 105, with which my Amendment, Amendment. No. 106, is grouped.
The essential difference between the noble Viscount and myself is that he believes that following an informal review—which may or may not produce a fully valid answer—where no questions are raised about certain parts of the legislation, those parts may be continued by affirmative order. He believes that that may be a satisfactory conclusion. We, having filleted the Bill slightly differently, if I may put it that way, have concluded that, because of the emergency process we will have to go through to put the Bill on to the statute book—which is what we are all determined to do—the only way this legislation should continue is through the full parliamentary process.
I do not need to speak for long on this matter. We have always made it plain that this is an emergency Bill, the principles of which we accept and agree. We have disagreed with the detail that was inappropriate for such legislation and we have disagreed with the process. Even now, after seven consecutive days, with a one day interval, this is still an ill-considered piece of legislation. We go to Third Reading tomorrow, for which amendments have to be tabled by midday. After seven solid days of debate on this matter, if we have time to think seriously of what we are about I would be extremely surprised.
Whatever happens after the Bill leaves the House, the chance of any further detailed consideration is remote. We believe that a more severe examination, in due time, is appropriate. That is our reason for tabling Amendment No. 106, which, in relation to the more controversial parts of the Bill, requires a short sunset clause. The less controversial parts of the Bill, in common with the noble Viscount's amendment, could last for a somewhat longer period.
The principle of "sunsetting" the Bill is, in effect, accepted by the Minister's right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The concessions that he has made in this area are welcome but they do not go far enough. It is with that in mind that we have tabled the

1201
amendment. I hope that it will be supported when it comes to a vote and that the noble Viscount will not press his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We believe, in principle, that emergency legislation—unless it is very simple indeed—should have a sunset clause. That is why, for example, the Football Disorder Bill, which was enacted a couple of years ago, is coming back next week in a new form of primary legislation. We believe that is the right course for that legislation, and even more the right course for this Bill.
The more contentious a provision, the sooner the sun should set on it—and aspects of this Bill are very contentious. We have had lengthy debates on such aspects at Second Reading, in Committee and now at Report stage. While the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has analysed the problem correctly, he has come up with not the most attractive solution. Unfortunately, when it comes to the issue of consultation, the Home Secretary can, of course, choose the people with whom he consults. No doubt he can find helpful people, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, with whom he can consult and who can say, "All is well". I shall not suggest the names of those whom he may choose for that purpose.
We believe that it will be much better to take the simple and direct course and to have proper reconsideration of this legislation in Parliament, where we will have a proper opportunity to consider the parts that are contentious and the parts that turn out not to have worked well. We should do that in due course and in proper time. If provisions turn out to be unobjectionable, it will not take any time to put them back on the statute book. If any are contentious or remain objectionable, they need proper consideration—particularly in the other place. We strongly support Amendment No. 106 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which is more or less identical in its effect to an amendment jointly tabled by our parties in the other place. I echo the noble Lord in hoping that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will not press Amendment No. 105 but will allow the House to go straight to a vote on Amendment No. 106.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, what would happen if the Opposition did not like another Bill and chose this measure as a pretext for attacking it? That is possible in either House.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the problem that the noble Lord sees. If the Bill or parts of it come back in new legislation, it will be debated. I do not see how it would be relevant to consider other Bills when dealing with further consideration of the Bill before us.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord has not been in the House as long as I have. I have seen
1202
governments and oppositions use legislation for purposes not directly connected with a Bill. It may be that the current Opposition, faced with a general election that may be only a year away, would see some advantage in a debate when they would not have one otherwise. I believe that the Opposition should not be so rewarded.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it has been customary for years, when emergency legislation has been in the national interest, to ensure that such a measure does not become a permanent part of our law—more especially so, if it had to be rushed through. That is true of most emergency legislation to my recollection, which goes back rather a long way. As I said in Committee, it would normally be highly desirable for members of all Front Benches to agree something. If that has not and cannot be done, it will be necessary to accept a suggestion of the kind proposed by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, which seems ideal in the circumstances. I hope that Members of all parties will be glad to accept it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is the first time since I entered the House that I have witnessed a Cross-Bencher being so squeezed by the two Opposition parties. It is for the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to decide what to do with his amendment, which should not be for the convenience of the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. Not that I am encouraging the noble Viscount to press his amendment.
Amendment No. 105 may not fit parliamentary niceties but it is more intelligent than Amendment No. 106. That is not to disparage the Conservative Opposition—far from it. However, Amendment No. 105 is more practicable because implicit in it is that a good part of the Bill should remain permanently in force.
The amendments would virtually time limit the whole Bill. As the measure has progressed through both Houses, we have introduced two major sunset clauses that time limit the detention and justice and home affairs powers. The amendments would commit Home Secretaries to keep returning to Parliament with new legislation. The big pressure in future will be for more than one Bill. The complaint has been made that the measure's content should extend to two, three or maybe even four Bills—exactly as was said by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. The Act would be used as a proxy to fight other legislation. That tactic is well known in the other place but I imagine that does not happen here.
I am sure that we would want to retain the power in Part 9, which deals with aviation security, to remove intruders from airfields. It beggars belief that towards the end of the sunset, persons should be able to say, "Soon we will be able to get on to airfields because the authorities will not have the power to remove us". We are making sure that civil nuclear sites will be secure from terrorist attack. But will we lift that protection in 2007?

1203
The Bill also outlaws aiding and abetting persons to make nuclear weapons. It is inconceivable that we would want to remove that measure in three, five or 10 years. Is it being suggested that while technicians who work with the Ebola virus will be checked out between now and 2007, we should flag up in advance that we shall not be bothered after then but may try to find some parliamentary time? I shall give way if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, insists.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether it has occurred to the Minister that 2007 might be high time to close the loopholes found during the intervening period.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that that is a serious suggestion. All Bills are amended from time to time. I have said that we took stock across Whitehall to make precautionary moves to close gaps in legislation in the light of terrorists rewriting the rule hook on September 11th. Before that, there had been many little niggles in various legislation but there had been no massive push for parliamentary time.
We acknowledge that the Bill introduces powers that must strike a Fine balance between individual liberty and the security of the state. No one would say that the Bill is perfectly drawn, so we have introduced safeguards. There will also be a review of the mandatory powers in Part 11, if they are ever used. We want to go the voluntary route on data retention but if we go the statutory route that has its own built-in review.
We have included a review of the asylum and detention powers after 15 months, then annually thereafter. Any part of the Bill that amends the Terrorism Act 2000 will therefore be reviewed annually as part of that legislation's requirements where a report on the Act's operation must be laid before Parliament at least once every 12 months. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has been appointed to undertake those reviews.
We are not convinced of the need for more sunset clauses covering parts of the Bill or the whole measure. However, the speed with which this legislation is being passed must he recognised by the Government.
As I have said before, eight days would probably have been par for the course, plus or minus two days. I accept that the root cause of the problem is the gap between the stages of the Bill. As far as Ministers are concerned, the Bill is bad enough without the Opposition getting at it in terms of keeping track of the process between stages where there is no such gap.
Therefore, having the whole Act reviewed is a matter which we wish to take forward and I hope that it will meet with approval. I would not like to be tied to what I say next, but the words are the best I have at the moment. Between 9.30 a.m. and 12 noon tomorrow, noble Lords on all sides of the House will be able to table amendments for Third Reading, which I now discover is a very useful lifeboat in legislation, although it is not available in the other place.
1204
I am proposing a new clause which will sit somewhere in the latter part of the Bill, probably Part 14. but before Clause 122, as it is now. There will be a statutory review of the Act in addition to all the other "sunset" clauses and reviews which already appear on the face of the Bill. It is a small, new clause. The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to conduct a review of the Act. He will seek to secure that at any time there will be no fewer than seven members of the committee. It may be more, but seven is the minimum. Every person on that committee will be there only if they are a member of the Privy Council.
The committee will complete a review of the operation of the Act with full access to all the information including that from the security services and so forth. A report will be sent to the Secretary of State not later than two years after the Act is passed. The Secretary of State will be bound on the face of the Act to lay a copy of that report before Parliament as soon as reasonably practical. We shall then say from the Dispatch Box in this House and the other place that we shall guarantee that the business managers will arrange dates and days in both Houses when the report will be debated. It will be detailed.
It will be no use anyone saying, "Will you accept the recommendations?" That cannot be said at this point. If such a report is laid with suggestions for amendments to the Act, if they are not accepted the Ministers concerned will need to have very good reasons for not doing so, bearing in mind that people will have had access to all the relevant information and had a good review of the operation of the Act over the period of two years. It will then be for both Houses to make a judgment on the content of the recommendations.
Subject to any drafting changes, tomorrow we will introduce a new clause to that effect. I hope that will meet your Lordships' desire. We are rushing the legislation and there are no gaps between the stages allowing for mature consideration of the issues raised. However, in the small gaps, such as over the weekend and not sitting on Friday, we have managed to meet some of the issues raised in debate. We hope to have further proposals to meet some of the conclusions reached last Thursday by your Lordships as regards the defeats that the Bill suffered. On some aspects we are seeking a reversal, but we also hope to bring forward what we believe to be a positive modification of some of the key proposals. We have not completed our conclusions; I do not know whether we shall be able to lay amendments tomorrow in this House or later in the other place. We have not completed our discussions and review.
Therefore, I hope that I have said enough to enable noble Lords not to press either of the amendments and to accept our best endeavours to make sure that the Act receives a thorough review and that both Houses have adequate time to debate the conclusions reached by the review in a reasonable period of time.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. He said that there are offences in the Bill—for example, invading

1205
airfields—which we shall undoubtedly need. The answer to that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We shall want some kind of protection of that kind, but it is doubtful whether the clause in the Bill at the moment will be right. That is why the matter needs to be thought through again.
Obviously, it is helpful that there should be a review of the Act of the kind indicated by the noble Lord. He further indicated that there would be a debate in the House about it. But what he did not indicate—and I am sure that he is not in a position to do so—is that the criticisms then made will be brought forward in legislation. The difference between a review and a "sunset" clause is just that. If there is a "sunset" clause it is inevitable that the matter will have to return to the House—unless the noble Lord likes my amendment which he was kind enough to describe as "intelligent" and which enables him to re-enact more simply matters which were not controversial.
No one will be surprised to hear that I still believe that my amendment is better than that advanced by the Front Benches opposite. Quite frankly, the objection made by the noble Lord, Goodhart, that the Minister could just decide who he consults was fanciful. Quite obviously, he would have to consult Justice, the Law Society and so forth. But pride of authorship will not drive me to pressing my amendment because what is vital is that we should continue to insist that we have a "sunset" clause. It can well run with the review, which we are delighted to have. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 106:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause—
"EXPIRY (NO. 2)

(1) This Act, apart from Part 12, shall (subject to subsections (2) to (5)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) 1 he Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide—

(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months;

(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;

(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.

(3) Parts 1 , 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) Part 4 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

"7.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 200; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Addington, L.

Geddes, L.

Alderdice, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Goodhart, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Goschen, V.

Arran, E.

Greaves, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Greengross, B.

Greenway, L.

Astor, V.

Hamwee, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hanham, B.

Attlee, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Avebury, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Barker, B.

Higgins, L.

Bell, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Biffen, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Home, E.

Blaker, L.

Hooson, L.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Boardman, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hylton, L.

Brightman, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Jacobs, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Jopling, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Burnham, L.

Kimball, L.

Burns, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Byford, B.

Laird, L.

Caithness, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carrington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Chadlington, L.

Listowel, E.

Chalfont, L.

Liverpool. E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Coe, L.

Lucas, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ludford, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lyell.L.

Craigavon, V.

M acGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

McNally, L.

Deedes, L.

Maddock, B.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mar and Kellie. E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dundee, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eames, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Methuen, L.

Elles, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Erroll, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Fearn, L.

Montrose, D.

Ferrers, E.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Fookes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Moynihan, L.

Freeman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Freyberg, L.

Newby, L.

1207

Newton of Braintree, L.

Seccombe, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Selsdon, L.

Noakes, B.

Sharman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Northesk,E.

Sharpies, B.

Northover, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Onslow, E.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stern-B

Oxfuird, V.

Stewartby, L.

Palumbo. L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pearson of Rannoch L.

Strange, B.

Pael, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Phillips of Sudbury,L.

Taverne,L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Tebbit, L

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tenby, V

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Razzall L

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Redesdale, L

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tone L

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Trefgarne L.

Rennard, L.

Trumpington, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Vivian, L

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Waddington, L.

Rogan, L.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rotherwick, L,

Walmsley, B.

Russell, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Saatchi, L.

Weatherill, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Wilcox, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sandwich, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton. L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ahmed, L.

Desai, L.

Alli, L.

Dixon, L.

Amos, B.

Donoughue, L.

Andrews, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Elder, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Attenborough, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gale, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Golding, B.

Bragg, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brennan, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brookman, L.

Grenfell, L.

Burlison, L.

Grocott, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Harris of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

Harrison, L.

Christopher, L.

Haskel, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hayman, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Crawley, B.

Hoyle, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

David, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

1208

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Pendry, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Peston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Jeger, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Jones, L.

Puttnam. L.

Judd, L.

Radice, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Layard, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Richard, L.

Lipsey,.L.

Rooker, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sawyer, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Simon, V.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Thornton, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Mallalieu, B

Turner of Camden, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Varley, L

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L

Mitchell, L.

Warner, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[* The Tellers for the Contents reported 200 names. The Clerks recorded 201 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Carter: My Lords, now that we have completed our consideration of the Bill on Report, the debate on the Unstarred Question can be extended to one-and-a-half hours. Save for the noble Lord, Lord Renton, opening and my noble and learned friend Lord Williams replying—whose time allowance remains as set out—the Back-Benchers now have 11 minutes each, except for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who is speaking in the gap and who therefore gets four minutes.

Acts of Parliament: Drafting
7.38 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to make the wording of Acts of Parliament easier to understand and more certain in their legal effect.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask this Question with even greater pleasure after what the noble Lord the Chief Whip has said.
It is often said that this proposal is a contradiction and that making statutes easier for lay people to understand may destroy their legal effect. But in spite of that risk, I suggest that it is in the public interest that the Government and Parliament should try to improve legislation to make it easier to understand and less ambiguous and to make it more certain in its legal effect.

1209
As long ago as 1547, the teenage King Edward VI pleaded for that to be done, and efforts have often been made since then. However, in the past 30 years the tendency has been to avoid enacting statements of purpose and of principle but to attempt to cover in detail the many hypothetical circumstances which might arise and do not always arise. That system often fails to anticipate some of the circumstances which do arise. The result has added to the problems of interpretation and led to a huge increase in the work of the courts, especially of the Court of Appeal and of the Law Lords in your Lordships' House. I therefore urge the Government to increase greatly the use of statements of purpose and of principle.
Although detailed provisions are sometimes necessary to define people's rights and duties, especially in fiscal legislation but also in some other legislation as well, they should, even when necessary, be preceded by statements of purpose. No harm would be done, and often clarification would be added. Indeed, such statements will always enable detailed provision to be better understood, not only by enabling the drafting of obscurities to be overcome but also by filling in gaps which are left by attempting to legislate simply to cover in detail hypothetical circumstances.
Since 1870 there has been only one official committee to advise government and Parliament on the drafting of Acts of Parliament. That committee sat from 1973 until 1975 and was the Committee on Preparation of Legislation. I was its chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is not in the Chamber at present, was a valuable member. We had an experienced and strong committee, including several leading parliamentary draftsmen who had reached the top in Whitehall or in Edinburgh.
The senior judges who gave evidence before us, including the late Lord Denning and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the then Lord Chief Justice, all recommended that the intentions of Parliament should be made clear by statements of principle.
It is a great advantage that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, will speak in this fairly short debate. He has made a full and brilliant survey of drafting in recent years. It is very long and very detailed, and at its last conference last summer the Statute Law Society benefited from the address which the noble and learned Lord gave. Now that he can speak for longer than six minutes, I hope that he will not feel restrained in the length of speech that he makes, more especially as I shall not speak for the whole of my 10 minutes. And the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who I am very glad is to reply to this debate, may even find that he has a little more than 12 minutes left. I hope so.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that I implore him not to be defensive in the reply that he gives to the debate but to be progressive in this matter, for it is one which affects all the people of the United Kingdom.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have known the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for many, many years. In the other place and in your Lordships' House he has been a ceaseless campaigner on the very important subject of making our laws more apparent, readable and relevant to all those who are affected by them; that is, our citizens.
I am also delighted to know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is taking part in the debate. He has an unrivalled knowledge of the steps taken over the past 125 years to improve the drafting and presentation of legislation. His lecture to the Statute Law Society on 19th June this year on "Drafting Quagmires" is a rich source of information and suggestions. I have read it several times and I refreshed my recollection of it a couple of days ago.
I took part in the consideration of the wording of one of the Acts which the noble and learned Lord quoted in that lecture, to which I shall refer. Clause 1 of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill was debated in your Lordships' House on 17th June 1997. I shall cite that clause as it was first worded:
"Nothing in this section affects the validity of any agreement made by a National Health Service trust if the agreement has not been certified under this section. but would have been an externally financed development agreement for the purposes of this section if it had been so certified".
Can anyone explain that? One tries to imagine how a doctor, an administrator or even a lawyer, if consulted on that clause, would have interpreted it. Mercifully when people asked what it meant, it transpired that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill spelt it out in plain English. The explanation read:
"The validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this section".
After a great deal of pressure was brought to bear on the Government, who at first rejected the suggestion, the wording of the explanatory note was moved as an amendment to take the place of the original drafting. and it was accepted. That is illustrative of one aspect of the need to have our legislation much more clearly defined. The wording of Explanatory Notes can be used in place of archaic and contorted wording that is often unnecessarily obscure. So much of our modern legislation is affected in that way.
I pose a question to noble Lords here: when one looks at a Bill presented in this House, how often does one look at the Explanatory Notes first rather than the clause? The Explanatory Notes are normally written in clear English. I believe that for years campaigning has continued for the use of plain, direct, modern English and for the avoidance of archaic and outdated methods of reference. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord who is to follow me will expand on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who I am sorry is not in his place, in his own inimitable way when a member of the other House spoke on this subject on 3rd November 1975. He said that to describe our modern statute law as often unhelpful to the reader was one of the most charming pieces of

1211
understatement that he had ever come across. Those words are equally true today. It is time that the Government took an initiative and did something effective and drastic.
I had tabled an Unstarred Question in case that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was not selected for debate. In that Question I suggested that there might be a joint committee of both Houses—it would be helpful if that was chaired by a Law Lord or a former Law Lord—to consider the question of whether there should now be guidelines for those who draft our legislation and those who present it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has many achievements behind him and no doubt many ahead of him. However, it would be one of his greatest achievements to ensure that in the future, not only are there debates of this kind in the other place and in your Lordships' House but that action is taken on them to ensure that we have statutes and legislation that can be easily interpreted by the ordinary citizens of this country.
7.51 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for asking his Unstarred Question. He raises an important point, as most legislation is undoubtedly difficult to understand. Sometimes one cannot help thinking that parliamentary draftsmen are a law unto themselves. I know not how they would react to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, of guidelines.
My background is one of industry and not of public affairs, Parliament or law. Some time in the past I had occasion to look up road transport law. I went to the appropriate Act and then to what I now know to be secondary legislation. It was all pretty incomprehensible. My understanding now, nearly 10 years later, is a little better. I now understand what the terms, "The Secretary of State" and "person" mean in legislation.
No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will point out that there are some very good reference books. But sometimes even they are wrong, especially on matters of detail. I shall be surprised if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, does not tonight extol the virtues of the Keeling schedules. I shall not steal his thunder, other than to strongly support his view.
On a related issue I find it hard to understand why it is not possible to consolidate much-amended Acts on a regular basis. If that is thought to be too difficult, surely it means that the current drafting of the original Act, as amended, is not certain. I may be missing something, but I cannot understand why it is not possible to consolidate any Act or statutory instrument with a pair of scissors and glue. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will explain what I am missing; I suspect that I am missing something. If that is too difficult for me to undertake, surely it is an argument in support of the Keeling schedule.
My noble friend's Unstarred Question relates to Acts of Parliament, but similar issues arise with regard to statutory instruments. Some SIs, for instance, the
1212
Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, have been amended many times, but for good reasons. If a copy of the regulations is ordered from the Stationery Office, the original version will be supplied. It is possible to order amended SIs if their reference is known, but amending the original would be a massive undertaking. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House why such important and regularly amended SIs cannot be completely remade at least annually in their fully amended state? Furthermore, it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could explain how from time to time Northern Ireland construction and use regulations are able to be issued fully amended when they read directly from the regulations for England and Wales?
I hope that I shall not be testing your Lordships' patience by raising yet another issue, more applicable to statutory instruments than to primary legislation. Multi-million pound orders are placed on the basis of engineering drawings, which are made according to international standards. Engineering drawings have to be unambiguous. Any mistakes in that regard can be extremely expensive unless detected early on in the tender process. My understanding is that drawings and illustrations are only used in SIs when unavoidable. When I read technical SIs, they are difficult to understand, even though I am a hands-on technical person. However, a drawing or illustration can he quite clear about what is meant. After all, a picture paints a thousand words. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that drawings and illustrations should be encouraged in SIs, and if not, why not?
7.56 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As a relative newcomer it is an example to us all to see a man of his not-so-tender years provide the subject for debate as he has tonight and to be able to look back over a vast life in public service so that. he can even tell us that he was chairman of the last committee properly to review the subject. It is rather strange that one of the few committee reports I received in the early 1970s was from his committee, and it was very important.
Lawyers have always been unpopular, and are unpopular for the reason behind the Unstarred Question.
"Let's kill all the lawyers"
was a cry put into the mouths of the peasants in Shakespeare's Richard—
Lord Goodhart: It was Henry VI.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart corrects me; it was Henry VI. In the Putney debates 1947 the point was made strikingly and forcefully that the laws then were completely beyond comprehension, needed to be written in plain English and were generally unsympathetic to the yeomen and public of England. More in his Utopia envisaged a world without lawyers. I was told today by a Russian

1213
that the first decree that Lenin signed into force in 1917 was one abolishing lawyers. He had to bring them back in 1922, but at least he tried.
The problem of a lack of public understanding of what we do, and certainly a lack of understanding of not only the content of the laws we pass but their number and range, is a pressing problem. It is so difficult to contend with that I sometimes think that we avert our eyes from it. No government ever contemplate the notion of legislating less law. The pressure is always for more law. We then have our own tradition of law-making which, compared with other parts of the world, is specific, concrete and stated. I suppose one could look to some of the continental jurisdictions, which are much more content to deal in generalisations. Each style has its own virtues and defects, although I think that one is driven into the arms of the lawyer either way. Our present law-making has become so complicated—there is so much existing law to have to work it in withthat the complexity of our present law defeats the layman in all but very few cases. There are very few Sale of Goods Acts or Partnership Acts around these days, so that the layman is driven into the lawyer just as certainly he is with the continental style in which, although the generalisation may be understandable, the application really is not.
In making that point I shall comment on the Human Rights Act in two ways. First, it was perhaps of a more continental style but that is not surprising, given its origins. Secondly, I commend the parliamentary draftsmen. The Act was a consummate piece of skilled work on their part. Nothing I say tonight is aimed at the hard-pressed group of parliamentary draftspeople who, by and large, do a sterling task.
However, I want to suggest that we need to stop the rot in our legislation. The amount of new law is fast growing. One only needs to go to the Library of the House to see, simply in terms of shelf space, the feet occupied by primary, secondary and of course European—directives and regulations—legislation. It increases year by year inexorably. The interlocking of existing with new legislation often gives rise to the most arcane difficulties. It is multi-dimensional. In many spheres trying to understand what the law provides is almost like playing 3-D chess. Finally, most of it is additional. One rarely finds that the amount of law jettisoned by a new piece of legislation is anywhere near the length of the new.
The effect of that is to lead to greater specialisation within the legal profession. That adds another vicious impulse to the whole process. One now gets—it is not a conspiracy—highly specialised groups of lawyers whose commercial advantage is in the specialisation and complexity of which they are masters. They are the drivers of further legislative change. They are the only people who understand the existing law, so when any new legislation is contemplated, they are the only people who contribute to the preparation of it, let alone the passage of the legislation concerned.
1214
Therefore, the whole process is becoming incestuous, introverted and largely self-serving. That is highly dangerous. One gets spin-off effects. For example, large companies are the only happy dealers with the new complex world of law because they are the only people who can afford the legal department which can master the regulation that surrounds them. That becomes a problem and a disadvantage for the small and medium-sized companies.
Everything is added to and accelerated by the breakdown in our community and national society life, which in turn creates a greater need for regulation. Regulation has not only the problem that it is complicated, but that if it is not complied with or evenly enforced it becomes counterproductive. The vast majority of the public feel that it is an imposition. In turn that begets further regulation to shore up the ineffective edifice of existing regulation. One then gets into an Italianate situation which fast leads to a break down of public confidence in the law and low level, and not so low level, corruption.
What can we do with Parliament? We could do much more to help legislators in both Houses. For example, today we were given a conformed version of the new legislation on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which simply melded the amendments into the existing law so that it can be read sequentially. A great deal more of that could be done.
There was the Bill dealing with the Nice Treaty that we were trying to deal with recently. What an appalling task it was to try to fit the bits together. That could have been done for us, including showing the omissions as well as the additions. It is no good unless you show both. That is regularly done between solicitors when they are drafting and redrafting documents.
The Explanatory Notes—a great new development, for which we give thanks I am sure—could be improved in two respects: first, there could he additional explanation of difficult parts of new legislation. Again, the anti-terrorism Bill provides many examples of that. It has extremely difficult passages. I refer to Clauses 17, 103 and 104, with which I am particularly involved. I am sure that a great deal more of the work that is done for Ministers could be made available to us. That would help to draw more Peers into the debate. Even in my three and-a-half years, I have noticed a decline in the activists behind debates. Again and again one talks to colleagues who say, "Well, I just can't get my head around it". Everything should be done to make Bills as accessible to as many as possible.
Examples are hugely important. We had the debate last Thursday in relation to Clause 17 where the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave three examples of the workings of some of the amendments. It would have been hugely helpful had examples of all the main clauses been given right at the beginning, so that everyone could get their heads around things.
Further, there is help to the public. Explanatory Notes of legislation that affects the public should be available to them. There should be brochures in

1215
popular form and in plain English. Where legislation deals with changes in sovereignty arrangements, I believe that, as I tried to persuade the House in relation to the Bill dealing with the Nice Treaty, we should send a tabloid to every household in the country which explains and illustrates in a vivid way what will happen to their sovereignty. We need to reach out to the citizens.
In conclusion, we need to cut back on law making. It is an essential prerequisite of everything else that we talk about tonight. We need to review the continental approach and perhaps set up a committee to deal with it. We need to keep lay justices firmly in their saddles because they are the only breakwater to the welling complication of criminal law. We need to take citizenship seriously. That subject is coming on to the school curriculum at the end of next year. That will open up a huge opportunity. We need post-legislative audits and impact assessments to chuck out legislation which does not do what its proponents said it would.
Finally, I suggest a displacement rule: first, that anyone corning to the House with new legislation should say what the cost is not just to the Exchequer but to the public; and, secondly, if at all possible, we should have suggestions as to displacement of existing laws that help reduce the flow in complexity.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising the question of what steps could be taken to make legislation easier to understand and more certain in effect.
If I have time, I should like to add to the proposals already made six steps that might be considered. The order in which I mention them is not intended to signify any particular order of priority.
I mention, first, the avoidance so far as possible and so far as appropriate of legislation by reference, as it is usually called. I mean, of course, the patchwork amendment of a section or subsection by adding words here and removing words there, instead of repealing the whole section or subsection and enacting it in its finally amended form.
A neat example of unacceptable patchwork amending came before this House recently in the form of amendments to Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. The section had already been amended by Acts passed in 1982 and 1994. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was designed to introduce further amendments. Instead of repealing Section 1 of the 1967 Act, which was divided into six subsections, and inserting a new section in its amended form, the reader was left with the following formidable task. Line 2 of subsection (1) was amended by Schedule 11 to the 1994 Act. The rest of subsection (1) was amended by Section 145 of the 1994 Act and Clause 2(3) of the Bill. Lines 1, 2 and 8 of subsection (3) were amended by paragraph 34(a) of Schedule 1 to the 1982 Act. A new subsection (3A) was inserted by paragraph 34(b) of Schedule 3 to the 1982 Act. Subsection (5) was repealed by Section 146 of the 1994 Act. Subsection (6) was inserted by Section 145 of the 1994 Act and amended by Clause 1(2) of the Bill.
1216
Can anyone doubt that it would have been far more helpful to have repealed the already amended Section 1 of the 1967 Act and substituted a new Section 1 incorporating the existing and the proposed new amendments? That story can be read in Hansard of 11th April 2000 at col. 154 and of 13th November 2000 at col. 117.
A second step that might be conside red is the greater use of Keeling schedules. As your Lordships know, that device allows the draftsman to insert in the text of an Act the patchwork amendments that the Government want and to insert in a schedule the relevant section in its finally amended form.
In a complicated case, a Keeling schedule cart be enormously helpful. There is even a precedent for using it to rewrite an entire part of an Act. That was done by Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1996, when an entire part of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was reprinted in its amended form in a five-page Keeling schedule.
A third step that might be considered is a greater use of consolidation Acts. The output of such Acts has suffered a severe reverse in recent years. In the four Sessions of Parliament between 1981 and 1985, no fewer than 37 consolidation Acts were passed. In the last four Sessions there have been only four such Acts. Is that due to a lack of staff, of funds, of initiative or of parliamentary time? I doubt whether it is the latter, because there is a fast-track procedure whereby consolidation Bills pass through both Houses on the nod, after being vetted by a Joint Committee of both Houses.
A fourth step that might be considered is the more frequent inclusion in Acts of an index of defined expressions. Your Lordships will have noticed such an index, admirably laid out, in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill which has just left this House. Section 68 of that Bill is divided into two columns: column 1 lists all the defined expressions used in Part 1; column 2 states the section in which the definition is to be found. That has two advantages. In the first place, the reader can instantly discover whether, for example, a word in common use—the word "document", let us say—is used in its dictionary sense or has a statutory meaning. Secondly, in the latter case, the reader can instantly find out where that meaning is to be found.
A fifth step might be to consider the introduction of drafting guidelines, which have existed in the Community since 1998. Apart from the more obvious directions, such as,
"Overly long articles and sentences, unnecessarily convoluted wording and excessive use of abbreviations should be avoided",
there is also the guideline:
"Preference shall be given to replacing whole provisions … rather than inserting or deleting individual sentences, phrases or words".
My sixth and last suggestion is that the status of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel should be reconsidered. As your Lordships will know, that office is responsible only to the Prime Minister. As I understand it, that means that only the Prime Minister

1217
can give directions to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on drafting policy. If that is right, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is in practice—I intend no offence by this—a law unto itself. These days, no Prime Minister could possibly direct his attention to the drafting of Bills.
I must be right, because any of your Lordships who have researched the origins of the Keeling schedule will have noticed that the instruction given to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to try out that device was given on 26th July 1938 by no less a Minister than Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister.
In the few minutes that I have left, perhaps I could go back to add a little flesh to one or two points. I spoke about the inclusion in an Act of an index of defined expressions. In some quarters there seems to be a strange reluctance to help the reader of an Act of Parliament in that way. In the 1997–98 Session, the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998 were all passed. Each was a long Act. Each Act made use of from 42 to 67 defined expressions. Each Act had a most useful index of defined expressions.
The Competition Act 1998 of the same Session contained 59 defined expressions but no index. I tabled an amendment to add such an index. The Government rejected the amendment. The only reason given for the rejection was that,
"it would not be appropriate".—[Official Report, 5/3/98; col. 1370.]
I probed the matter further by means of a Question for Written Answer. It came back that an index would be,
"unhelpful for users".—[Official Report, 20/7/98; col. W A82.]
How on earth could the inclusion of such an index be helpful in the case of four Acts of Parliament of comparable length, with a comparable number of defined expressions, but unhelpful in the case of the Competition Act 1998? The inclusion of such an index would, I calculated, have cost just one page of print.
The problem of legislation by reference—if I may turn to that for a moment—has a long history. Cabinet papers held at the Public Record Office under the reference PREM 1/284 show that the problem dates back to at least 1875, when a Select Committee of the other place was set up to suggest improvements in the method of legislation. The committee reported that,
"The practice"—
of legislation by reference—
"seems to be increasing, and when carried out to excess makes the statute so ambiguous, so obscure and so difficult of comprehension that the judges themselves can hardly assign a meaning to it".
That was in 1875. In a tax case in 1928, Mr Justice Rowlatt echoed that complaint. He said that five pages of piecemeal amendments to an existing section of a Finance Act rendered that section,
"perfectly unintelligible to any layman or any lawyer who has not made a prolonged study with all his law books at his elbow".
1218
The all-time high of the problem arose in this Session from the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. Having regard to the time, perhaps I could just give the reference. If anyone is interested in reading the story, it is in Hansard of 8th March 2001 at column 338.
I am afraid that I have spilled over my time, but, finally, the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put me in mind of an observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, when moving an amendment to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. He said:
"A few years ago. Sir Ernest Gowers wrote a book entitled Plain Words. It was required reading for all people on joining the Civil Service".—[Official Report, 6/3/01; col. 136.]
I inquired of the Library whether I could borrow that book. The Library could not trace it. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal may be able to institute a search for that book.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I begin by apologising for my incompetence in not being on the List of Speakers for this debate. However, I invite the Leader of the House, with his reputation for radical progressivism, to endorse a change in procedure. I have asked my noble friend Lord Attlee if I might borrow the seven minutes that he did not use, and he was entirely happy with that. Perhaps that will commend itself to the Leader of the House; we shall see.
One aspect of the tragedy of this debate is the quality of the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Renton and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Both of them have been campaigning on this cause for as long as the memory of man runneth, with immense assiduity and immense concentration. If I may, with due modesty, I claim a small role in the paternity of the Renton committee. In 1970–72, I was Solicitor-General and had the task of overseeing the drafting of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, the European Communities Act 1972, the Consumer Protection Act 1971, the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Insurance Companies (Amendment) Act 1973 and companies legislation. Consequently, I was able rightly to persuade the then Prime Minister, as no one else could do it, to establish the Renton committee.
The tragedy is that both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and my noble friend Lord Renton are monuments—I mean this with the greatest respect—to our collective failure to achieve almost anything. This is the third debate of its kind, specifically on this subject, in which I have participated since I became a Member of this House. The debates follow the same pattern, with plenty of examples to be presented, plenty of jokes to be made and plenty of grievances to be aired. However, does anything actually happen? That is the problem. It is not a problem of diagnosis; it is a problem of prescription and procedure. That is why I want the Leader of the House to respond to my second challenge, and be as radical and progressive in that respect as he is renowned for being in the Welsh valleys, where his reputation for radicalism, like that

1219
of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is second to none. That is quite radical enough. There is a challenge for the Leader of the House.
It is possible to design machinery to improve the situation. Without any sense of vanity, I point to the proceedings taking place in the tax law re-write project—in which we are not merely consolidating, but taking apart, putting together, re-indexing and, without changing the law, rewriting in plain English our primary tax legislation. It is a task that can be achieved by setting up a procedure to do it, and also by taking other action. The task is enormously difficult, but one must first clarify what the project is about, spot omissions and re-order it.
Forty people in the Revenue and Parliamentary Counsel Office are working on the tax law re-write project, addressing themselves to 9,000 pages of primary tax legislation. Our total output thus far, after four years, is 333 pages and the Capital Allowances Act 2001, which was passed last March. The task is hugely difficult and hugely time-consuming. However, in the 2001 Act we are making use of tables and sign-posts, giving examples and illustrations, and doing all the things that noble Lords said should happen. We can do that only by "virginalising" the land on which we are working, sweeping away the extraordinary jungle of antique statutes and replacing them with immense care by a new structure. That is the scale of that task to which we have to give still more resources and time. One always comes back to the balance between a hugely excessive volume of legislation and a hugely inadequate application of resources in money and mankind.
We are rewriting 9,000 pages of tax law but have produced 333 pages. Meanwhile, down at the other end of this building, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged on by people on all sides, is annually introducing 600 pages of new legislation. As I have said, it is as though we have been contracted to repaint Brighton pier while the Chancellor and his gang are busy trying to extend it to reach the French coast. That is the scale of the tragedy.
Less legislation entails a hugely determined effort by Prime Ministers and colleagues to identify what need not happen. We need not have had the overseas development legislation, and we probably do not need the export control legislation. We certainly do not need legislation on that scale. That is one issue that has to be tackled. The other issue is the need to have far more resources than have ever been devoted to tackling the first issue. The current constraint on the tax law re-write project is imposed not by the Revenue but by a shortage of draftsmen, despite the yeoman efforts that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has made to try to make people of real talent available to us.
That is where the Leader of the House comes into the act. He is now the channel, the funnel and the lightning conductor for all these untreated grievances to be addressed. I know that he knows that it will not be sufficient for him to go along to the Prime Minister and say, "It's time that we did something about this,
1220
Tony." Although we are talking about very small sums, he will have to mobilise a mammoth effort to build up over years a much larger crew in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It will cost only a few millions more. When I was making my first Budget, the margin of error in the public sector borrowing requirement was a quarter of a billion pounds. So, within that type of framework, the Leader of the House would be able to find enough to make a dozen PCOs.
Ministerial responsibility has to be focused somewhere more effective than at No. 10 Downing Street, although I know not whether it is in the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Law Officers' Department. The point, however, is crucial. All the other efforts, as magnificent and effective as they are, are of no avail in the absence of, for the first time, a truly radical determination to build up a new structure to handle this material.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in this debate. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for having introduced it. I am also very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his speech. Undoubtedly they are the two masters of statutory draftsmanship in your Lordships' House. Both have very long experience of it, and both have developed immense wisdom in handling the difficulties of statutory interpretation and statutory draftsmanship.
I am also very glad to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I have had the privilege, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, of serving as a member of what is now the Joint Select Committee on tax simplification, of which he is the chairman, which oversaw the re-write project of the Capital Allowances Act 2001. That committee shows what can be done. It is a first step towards making tax legislation simpler and easier to understand. It has also made an effective and useful start. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, after four years the committee has managed to deal only with the Capital Allowances Act and has in front of it a great sea of other tax legislation. That demonstrates the difficulty of the matter.
There is no doubt that the situation has grown significantly worse in recent years. Not only tax legislation, but all legislation tends increasingly to be longer, more complex and harder to understand. However, there was a golden age of parliamentary draftsmanship, which I would say ran from about the 1880s to the 1920s. Some of those Acts—several of which are still on the statute book, such as the Partnership Act 1890 and the Sale of Goods Act 1896—were clear, simple, easily understood even by non-lawyers and remained for decades the basic framework on which the law was built. The nature of some of that legislation may be due in part to the fact that Lord Salisbury was the Prime Minister when it was passed in the 1880s and 1890s. As he did not believe in changing the law, the parliamentary draftsmen may have had plenty of time on their hands

1221
which they were able to spend fruitfully in producing some extremely skilful legislation. Going forward in time, we have the masterpiece of the Birkenhead property laws of 1925. Since then, I am afraid that it has been downhill. As has been pointed out, there are all the faults of modern legislation.
There is possibly an even worse problem in that the statutes are not only difficult to understand; they become increasingly difficult to find. So much is amended and one has to trace through not only the original Act but all the subsequent Acts which have amended it. Increasingly, amendments to primary legislation are not only in other primary legislation but now in statutory instruments; the Henry VIII clauses.
I was looking, for example, at the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we discussed earlier today. That makes significant amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000; the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; the Public Order Act 1986; the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the Biological Weapons Act 1974; the Chemical Weapons Act 1996; the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; the Aviation Security Act 1982; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987; the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906; and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I probably missed three or four along the way and a number of other Acts are amended in minor ways. We are therefore presented with an extreme difficulty in finding out what the legislation is.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, pressed for the Keeling schedules. I know that the matter is very dear to his heart. However, it would have been difficult in the anti-terrorism Bill to publish Keeling schedules applying to all the different previous Acts. I am grateful to a distinguished judge from New South Wales, Mr Justice Handley, for drawing my attention to the practice in Australia. He is currently present in this country as the Inns of Court visiting fellow.
Under the Amendments Incorporation Act 1905, which was subsequently amended, it is provided that:
"When any Act has, before or after the commencement of this Act been amended by—

(a) the repeal or omission of certain words or figures, or

(b) the substitution of certain words or figures in lieu of any repealed or omitted words or figures, or

(c) the insertion or addition of certain words or figures,

then in any reprint of the Act by the Government Printer the Act shall be printed as so amended".
Something of that kind seems a valuable step forward. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will be prepared to ask the parliamentary draftsman to consider whether it is possible.
It is extraordinarily difficult to discover what the law is on any given subject at any given time. At present, the Queen's Printer's copies of statutes are never printed in an updated form. It is true that commercial organisations provide updated versions, but surely the Government should do it, too.
1222
It goes somewhat beyond that, because increasingly we use the Internet for the purpose. Government statutes are printed on the Government's website but only in the original form of the statute. So if it is more than about six weeks' old, it is probably out of date. Surely, it should not be beyond the wit of whoever is responsible for government information technology to have a parliamentary website which can provide the text of legislation not only as it was originally enacted but as it is now—and, furthermore, on any date in between. Quite often, a lawyer needs to know not what the law was when it was originally enacted; not what the law is on 10th December 2001; but what it was on 10th December 1995. That is the date of the transaction which is the subject of litigation.
I believe that information technology provides a real opportunity for the Government to update the system of providing information which will enable members of the public, or lawyers, to find out quickly, easily and cheaply what statute law is at any given time. Indeed, I would extend that principle not only to statute law but, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned, to the main statutory instruments.
I am most grateful for the introduction of the debate. As has been said, the situation occurs regularly but nothing seems to be done. I hope that at last the Government will be able, particularly by taking advantage of modern technology, to ensure that legislation is easily available, even if it remains difficult to understand. I hope that we shall receive some helpful answers.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to begin my brief contribution by congratulating my noble friend Lord Renton on persisting in his tireless quest to render the wording of Acts of Parliament both easier to understand and more certain in their legal effect. My noble friend's commitment to these changes is longstanding.
In 1975, while still in another place, as your Lordships are well aware, my noble friend chaired the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation. It was the first thorough investigation into the matter since 1875. Above all, the committee's report recommended in paragraph 11.8 that statements of purpose should be used when,
"they are the most convenient method of delimiting or otherwise clarifying the scope and effect of legislation".
That recommendation was, I might add, unanimous. After all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said in the course of a previous debate in your Lordships' House on the subject:
"It is axiomatic that every Bill has a purpose".—[Official Report, 21/1/98; col. 1589.]
It would be unfair to suggest that no improvements have taken place since my noble friend's report. There has been one of some significance. Explanatory Notes aimed at making legislation more accessible have been published, together with each Bill, from the start of the 1998–99 Session. They represent, undoubtedly, a substantial improvement.

1223
Nevertheless, it is fair to say that my noble friend's principal objective has not found favour with successive governments. That is probably why, in 1992, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House felt compelled to reach its decision in the great case of Pepper v Hart. There, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, noble and learned Lords relaxed the rule that hitherto prohibited the use of Hansard debates and other material as an aid to the judicial construction of statutes.
The judgment was intended to serve precisely the same objective as a statutory purpose clause. It is interesting to note that my noble friend's committee, deliberating between the years 1973 and 1975, was wholly opposed to the approach that the Judicial Committee felt ultimately compelled to adopt. Had my noble friend's committee met with success, it is likely that the judgment in Pepper v Hart would not have been necessary.
Meanwhile, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has made a remarkable contribution to the debate so assiduously initiated and fostered by my noble friend Lord Renton. In his superb lecture, "Drafting Quagmires", delivered to the Statute Law Society on 19th June 2001, the noble and learned Lord illustrates the follies of legislation by reference, of semantic quagmires and of the absence of indices of defined expressions and suggests some enticingly painless remedies.
Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I have no intention of rehearsing the many perspicacious and apposite observations made by the noble and learned Lord in concocting his remedies. They are there for all noble Lords to read. Suffice it to say that I, together with my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, had the honour to represent the Opposition during the passage through your Lordships' House of the Competition Bill 1998. I recall the doughty battle fought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, over the need for an index of defined expressions. How much easier indeed it would be to have such an index when manoeuvring over the especially inhospitable terrain that characterises that Act.
However, as the noble and learned Lord told us in his lecture and has told your Lordships today, the Government asserted in answer to his Written Question that such an initiative would be "unhelpful to users". I hope that the recent acceptance and adoption of a similar index in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill is a clear sign of a change of heart. Surely the time has come to abandon legislation by reference, to place Mr Keeling on his well deserved pedestal and to consolidate legislation as a regular habit.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for bringing this subject before your Lordships. This evening I have not heard anything with which I fundamentally disagree. Perhaps that is the radical approach that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, urged upon me.
1224
Not long ago, when I was able to speak at the end of the gracious Speech, I suggested to your Lordships that interesting as the nature of our composition is, and continues to be, a more fundamental approach is how we carry out our work and whether we should change our working practices. None of the reforms put forward this evening is capable of being put into effect unless we have different working practices.
There is—I stress that this is my personal opinion—no justification at all for having a two-and-a-half month Recess as during that time this interesting, closely-argued work of scrutinising and improving legislation could easily be carried out. I float that as a personal view. If during a Committee stage 40 Members are interested and present, that is a surprise. I believe there are fewer than 40 of us present this evening. If we were able to timetable that efficient, useful work on legislation—the kind that has been described in the debate—during the Summer Recess, that would mean a commitment from each of your Lordships of perhaps one period of three or four days throughout the summer.
At present there is not sufficient parliamentary time to accomplish the ends that have been described this evening. I dissent from none of them: clarity, efficiency and economy in legislation. However, none of that can be brought about unless we are willing to work differently. I hope that we take this opportunity. My right honourable friend the Lord President in the Commons is eager to modernise procedures, not as some tabloid newspapers have foolishly said so that the Commons may work shorter hours, but so that it may work the same hours but to productive purposes.
We could lead the way. In this House there is a substantial body of expertise—and I must not say in parenthesis, expertise which may be lacking elsewhere, and I never thought to express it in any form of conceptual parenthesis. The present spread of legislation has increased and will continue to increase. On two forms of legislation—secondary legislation and European-derived legislation—I offer two innocent questions. Is secondary legislation adequately scrutinised? Is European-derived legislation adequately scrutinised? Both of those categories of legislation may affect the individual citizen in a more direct way than primary legislation. No one will carry out the remedial work if this House does not do it.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to respond to that point in an interrogatory fashion. Is it not remarkable that in this House—without Standing Committees—we are able to carry out more effective scrutiny of primary and European legislation than the other place? The noble and learned Lord has refrained from making the comment, but the fact is that we undertake nearly all the scrutiny. That does not mean that we should not continue to do that, but it indicates that it is a much wider matter for both Houses. Underlying that is the need for better preparation of legislation before it reaches this House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of

1225
Aberavon. Limiting myself to this House, my proposition is that we do not carry out our work sufficiently well because we work in an absurdly archaic manner. When we come to some modest propositions that I hope to be able to put before the House about our working practices, I hope that every noble Lord who is present this evening will support what I say.
It is idle to say that we are a House of volunteers. It is fruitless to say that we have other work to do. If your Lordships want the negative batting-back of all propositions for improvement that have been put forward this evening, I shall say that I have other work to do in the morning and that I am only a part-time volunteer. That is the answer that is offered with the icy hand of history upon it. It is no good noble Lords correctly defining matters, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has done.
We know the prescription, but we do not put it into effect. We will not be able to put anything into effect until we attend to our working practices. That means working sane hours, using the mornings and using two-and-a-half months in the summer and not tottering through the night, as we frequently have. I shall give way to both noble Lords as I intend to be entirely non-controversial. The answer is not to totter through at midnight and at two o'clock in the morning, failing to do our work because we are too tired and exhausted.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I confess that I am puzzled by what the noble and learned Lord has said. Bear in mind that for years we have been making several thousand amendments a year to government legislation that has come to us from the House of Commons. That is a sign of our industry, our expertise and our determination.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I always know, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has the figures at his fingertips. On many occasions the amendments are government amendments and government amendments of a technical and textural kind tend to imply that there has been an original failure and possibly even an original sin.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I believe that there is a distinction between the drafting of legislation and the scrutiny of legislation. As I understand it, this debate is about the drafting of legislation, its clarity and its usefulness to the general public. The noble and learned Lord has raised issues about the scrutiny of legislation and the manner in which this House scrutinises it. I make no complaint about that; but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that there is a distinction. The two issues are obviously related but they are nevertheless distinct.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that for a moment. I do not think that they are distinct. If we continue along that path we shall never achieve decent legislation. I listened most carefully, as I always
1226
do, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. His six categories are irretrievably and rightly linked with drafting because drafting cannot be distinguished from scrutiny. Once we have proper, effective scrutiny in this House, which means changing our working practices, that will have an inevitable consequence. Legislation will be better drafted.
One of the answers is to increase the resource in parliamentary counsel. They are extremely highly skilled technicians. Their work is of the highest quality but there are too few of them. We ask them to do too much too late in the day. One remedy is to increase their number. We have increased the number from 36 in 1997 when this Government came to power to 43 today. We are therefore on target to 47 full-time counsel. They are exceptionally highly gifted and skilled. One of the dangers in all governments is putting too late to parliamentary draftsmen their policy instructions. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in a second, because I do not want to lose my next invaluable pearl.
I put this forward to your Lordships in a genuinely co-operative spirit. One way to improve scrutiny which would undoubtedly improve drafting is to wonder whether the carry-over rule has any sensible function. If we do not have that rigid carry-over rule and, nevertheless, have done extremely good work on Bills, would it not be wiser to accommodate at least some Bills in a carry-over system?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord also think that there is inadequate scrutiny and inadequate time for scrutiny in another place? I recollect from my days in another place that the process there is more streamlined and does not achieve as much. There is, therefore, more work to be done in your Lordships' House. But part of the remedy surely lies in another place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that may well be so. However, at this time when we are defining our functions, our critical function should be the scrutiny of new legislation. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, it may well be the review of existing legislation. One of the reasons why we should be composed differently from the House of Commons—in other words, not wholly elected—is that we bring a different range of skills, experience and expertise to a different category of work. It may well be that the House of Commons fails to give adequate scrutiny but that should be no excuse why we should not redouble our efforts.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the attachment to statutory instruments of diagrams and so on. I put it generally; I think that it is a fair paraphrase. He knows that where appropriate maps and diagrams are sometimes attached. Where they are not, it is because of the fear of ambiguity which, as he knows with his experience, obtain in technical drawings as easily as in verbal descriptions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said that we need the machinery to make these desirable consequences occur. I agree entirely.

1227
But that is in the hands of this House. If we are determined to set up machinery which will work, it means extra financial resources, extra clerking resources for the committee—again, that is a difficult skill—and the extra resource of noble Lords determined to do the work for which we are supposed to be here. I had thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was about to intervene.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I do not question the validity of the noble and learned Lord's point. Of greater importance surely is the continued enhancement on a much larger scale of the offices of parliamentary counsel. It is the time and resources that they are given that enables the product to be in a far better condition when it reaches either House. The six principles of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, have to be applied when preparing the primary product.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that we may have to enhance our own resources. But of far greater importance is the enhancement of the primary workforce.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have already made that point. We are not in disagreement. 1 repeat the figures. There were 36 parliamentary counsel when we came into office. Our target is 47. We have got up to 43. Parliamentary counsel have a distinct and rare skill.
I do not believe that these topics are capable of being distinguished. They must work together. I have heard nothing today with which I fundamentally disagree as a matter of principle. The noble Lord, Lord
1228
Goodhart, said that we do not use IT effectively these days. Most speeches in the House of Lords, siting judicially, are available on the Internet that afternoon. That is a distinct forward step.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who mentioned that Explanatory Notes have been a success. They were somewhat derided by those who were able to remember that it was never like that when they were a pupil. That is normally the conclusive argument that one hears on these occasions. Advance drafting is now more available. Pre-legislative scrutiny is also available. A number of Bills have been the successful objects of pre-legislative scrutiny. Noble Lords will not want me to give too many illustrations but, for instance, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Food Standards Bill were all helped by pre-legislative scrutiny. A vast raft of Law Commission material is still available. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will point out to me that, although it appears non-politically controversial, some of it is: a good deal of it is not and it should be capable of being looked at in the fallow, arid dead times of the summer.
I am sorry that I have gone over my 11 minutes but it was deliberate to address the principled approach your Lordships have all expressed. The gloomy consequence to which I come is that we do not do our work properly. The better, more hopeful, conclusion is that we could. I believe that we can only do that if we attend to the way we work in a rather more efficient, realistic and—dare I say it?—modern way.
House adjourned at four minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Homelessness Bill
  Monday,10 December 2001.
  The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which seems fairly likely. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and then resume after 10 minutes.
  Title postponed.
  Baroness Maddock: Before we proceed, there is a mistake in the list of amendments for today. Under the name of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. In fact, I only tabled Amendment No. 6; Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I was aware of that but it may or may not be, looking at the list of groupings, that these amendments will be called at all. So perhaps we can start with Amendment No. 1 in Clause 1, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
  Clause 1 [Duty of local housing authority to formulate a homelessness strategy]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
  "( ) Any such review or homelessness strategy shall be part of the wider-ranging housing strategy of each authority."
  The noble Baroness said: I disown completely Amendment No. 9, which I do not recall having seen before and which seems to replicate Amendment No. 8 almost in its entirety. Wherever it came from it did not necessarily come from me. I wish to speak to all the
  CWH 2
  amendments in the first group in order at this stage. In addressing Amendment No. 1, I shall also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 8. As I said, Amendment No. 9 can be deleted as I do not know who it belongs to.
  All these amendments are related to the review of homelessness and the subsequent strategy which local authorities will have a duty to prepare. Amendment No. 1 would make it a requirement that any such review should form part of a wider ranging housing strategy and should not be a stand-alone exercise. It will be apparent from the most cursory examination of this Bill that it places a duty to house a much wider range of those in priority need than in the past. It also gives almost unlimited time for decisions to be made and agreed by homeless people. Moreover it takes a very cursory examination of the statutory housing figures available to each authority to realise that they are faced with an almost impossible task in trying to provide all the accommodation predicated as being necessary for those in priority need.
  There are already over 11,000 people in bed and breakfast accommodation alone and those who are currently defined as a priority of the homeless amounted to 114,350 in 2000–01—a rise of 11 per cent over the previous year. By definition, before adding any further categories there is a need for as many permanent units of accommodation as possible, but between 1997 and 2000 the amount of new social housing built amounted to just 95,000 units, which does not in any way match the numbers required.
  In many cases, the extra duties in this Bill will make an impossible task worse for many authorities, even those with the ability to co-operate with other authorities. It must be right, therefore, that all housing authorities' requirements are set alongside the availability of both current and future accommodation so that realistic planning can he carried out. For this reason, it would seem only sensible for there to be a full housing strategy to incorporate the homes review.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 would add a reference to rough sleepers to the requirement to ensure that accommodation is available for the homeless. The Rough Sleepers' Unit is currently responsible for helping people who sleep rough, but it is clear from the debate in the other place that the unit's long-term future is by no means settled and that, in due course, the responsibility may fall back to individual local authorities. For that reason alone, each individual local authority ought to be aware of how many rough sleepers are in its area. In any event, it should be co-operating fully with the Rough Sleepers' Unit to identify and help people. There is no mention anywhere in the Bill of rough sleepers. There must be some recognition of their existence, because in many instances they require permanent rather than just temporary help. As I have already said, the accommodation to which they and other homeless people require access will always be limited and they should be recognised as being part of that need.

  CWH 3
  Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 would define those who would be deemed to be strategic partners of local authorities in the provision of housing and help to the homeless. It is inconceivable that any review of homelessness could be undertaken without all those who have either responsibility for, or a means of, providing housing for the public sector being included as an integral part of the strategy.
  In many authorities, housing provision now relies heavily on approved landlords in the private sector—not only those with houses in multiple occupation, but others who work at the local authority on a regular, if ad hoc, basis who will be part of a landlords forum. Without such co-operation, there would be an even greater deficit of housing than there currently is. No review would be meaningful or accurate without their interests being represented.
  Amendment No. 7 would require the authority to refer in its homelessness strategy to its allocation scheme, including details of how it is drawn up, what is included and what its priorities are. This will become comprehensively important as the Bill progresses and as we see the number of people who will be included in the priority category and the very real difficulties that there will be in housing anybody else who is not within those categories.
  Amendment No. 8 would make it mandatory for local authorities to consult with the Housing Corporation, relevant housing associations and registered social landlords. Without the amendment, the need to consult would be discretionary only. That ties in with other amendments in the group. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I shall speak to my amendments in this group but, first I shall respond to the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I understand her point about including homelessness strategies in the general housing strategy. The Government say in one of their draft codes of guidance that that could happen, if appropriate. It will become more obvious as we discuss the Bill that there has been a lot of bad practice by some authorities. When the Bill is passed, we should encourage local authorities to review their homelessness strategies thoroughly. They should not have to be part of the general strategy, but should be something better. My experience of the 1996 Act and everything that has happened since leads me to believe that this is the correct thing to do.
  On the other issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised, the matters of who local authorities consult with, this is quite important. My honourable friends in another place raised the issue of the role of registered social landlords. Since it was discussed in the other place there has been a good deal of discussion and some helpful letters and correspondence from the Housing Corporation. I hope we can deal with this issue but I am still not absolutely convinced that we have exactly what we need on the face of the Bill. I will be listening with interest to what the Minister says on this point.
  CWH 4
  I now wish to turn to my own amendment, Amendment No.6. I make no bones about it—this is an opportunity for me to talk about an issue that I have been concerned about ever since the Government proposed the Supporting People programme. From April 2003, the programme will totally re-organise support for people living in the community. This particularly affects support services for homeless groups and specialist homelessness groups.
  The groups about which I am particularly concerned are the small voluntary organisations that give support to people who are perhaps going into tenancies, before they get into tenancies, or when they are between living in a group tenancy and then going into their own accommodation. That is the group I am particularly concerned about and I know that the Government, in their good practice guide, their homelessness strategy, point out that voluntary organisations will play an important role in some of these areas.
  Having raised this issue when it was first announced by the Government, as time has gone on and I have increasingly read articles in the housing press, my fears about what might happen have not been allayed. The groups I am particularly concerned about are small voluntary groups. At the moment, a great deal of their revenue—and from my own experience I know this applies sometimes to women's refuges, for example—is based on the benefit that comes their way from the clients in that particular refuge. Organisations like that are often run by a few people on a voluntary basis. The work they are likely to do, to bid into this process, will be quite difficult.
  The Government are continuing—and have been for some time—to send out a constant stream of consultation papers, through questionnaires, draft guidance and discussion papers. Local authorities have recently received their first round of implementation funding and they are now adding to this. They are recruiting teams and setting up new forums and preparing their own questionnaires and consultation papers for local providers. However, I wonder how some of the small organisations I have talked about are managing to deal with this and whether they are engaging properly in the programme. I would argue that it is difficult for many of these groups because they lack capacity within their organisation to do so. I would be interested to know if the Minister and his advisers have any advice to local authorities as to how they can protect these people and help them with the time and resources that will be required to take part in this process.
  The next point I would like to make concerns what will happen after 2003. We know about the budgets until then and there is an interim housing benefit, which I welcome. However, if new schemes are to become available after 2003, it is by no means clear where that money will come from.
  There are other Members of the Committee who will share my concerns, perhaps not here but later in our discussions. There are particular areas such as floating support for people who are in new tenancies for the

  CWH 5
  first time, and support for families who have been homeless. I know that the YMCA is looking at people coming out of foyers, are also concerned about the type of support that it will get. It particularly emphasised the fact that follow up work is essential on all fronts. I believe these types of organisations can sometimes supply it.
  Nevertheless, to be positive, I welcome the fact that the Government have already announced funding this year to help councils prepare and some of that funding has been ring-fenced. Another helpful thing that the Government have done is to decide to pay people supporting grants a month in advance, rather than in arrears and that will help some of the organisations about which I have been talking. However, I have some concerns about this and have spoken to the Minister. I hope that he will be able to reassure me on some of these points.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a couple of questions arising out of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. First, with regard to rough sleeping, I would not for a moment deny the seriousness of the problem, but will the Minister tell us how localised it is? It seems to me, from what I have read, that while it may be a local problem, it is also one that manifests itself in areas other than that from which an individual may have come. It is therefore something that needs to be dealt with on more than simply a district-by-district basis.
  Secondly, when I first read Amendment No. 1—and I do not for a moment disagree with my noble friend—I did wonder how it could be otherwise than that a review or homelessness strategy would be part of a wider ranging housing strategy, because local authorities just as much as central government need to join up their policies. I then began to wonder whether it was not likely to cause some problems to put it in this way, because there are other areas of policy work and strategies that need to have regard to housing strategy for a development plan.
  Having made that point, why is it necessary to provide for the authority to have these two powers at all? If they do not already have powers to review homelessness and to formulate a homelessness strategy, that makes a nonsense of local authority activity and goes to support the arguments my colleagues and I have made for a power of general competence, but I do not believe that that can be the point.
  It is important to get on the record that it is not necessary to spell out a power such as this in legislation, because if it is necessary to say that a local authority has such powers, that must call into question equivalent powers in different areas. For that reason I ask the Minister to confirm that it is convenient as a matter of drafting and readability of the Bill, but not necessary for legislation. There must be other similar powers that, if they needed legislation to spell them out, would be open to challenge as not being within the vires of a local authority.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have heard a lot of good sense in the past 15 minutes, based upon wide experience of being members of committees, chairmen of housing committees and so on. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that that is because of anxiety, not nit-picking or meticulousness. The Minister and the ministry are well served if it can give assurances either that that which is being sought is not necessary, or that that which is being sought has been taken on board and will be taken account of in some other way.
  The great concern of parliamentarians is, of course, to see things written on the face of the Bill. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly pointed out that there may not be a need for some of the things that have been mentioned to be written on the face of the Bill if we can understand what is being asked. It would have been unthinkable up to 10 or 15 years ago to have had a Bill dealing with the homeless. The homeless have always been with us to one degree or another and it is manifest of the Government's interest and determination to tackle the problem that they have found the time to produce this Bill in a very crowded legislative programme. We all know exactly what I mean in that context.
  I accept everything I have heard pleading the case. But I am also willing to listen to the Minister when he tells us, as I am sure he will, that what is being sought is not necessary. Like many Members of the Committee who spoke earlier, I do not believe that a strategy can be complete without a direct reference to the homeless as a segment of our people—"our people" being the people that we try to look after in the committees. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give the assurances that colleagues are seeking and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I agree with my noble friend. We have heard a great deal of good sense in the past 15 minutes and I hope that I shall be able to give the reassurances that noble Baronesses have been seeking in relation to what I suspect have in many cases been probing amendments.
  I shall deal first with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said by way of introduction. She is absolutely right that the effect of the order will be to increase the numbers of people legally in priority need. She is right to say that the number of households now housed in bed and breakfast has gone up to 11,000. She is also right to say that the problem is getting worse. I do not believe for one moment that she is suggesting that the right course is not to acknowledge that the problem is getting worse, nor is it the wrong course to extend the priority need order to those who are genuinely in priority need; for example, 16 and 17 year-olds. We should treat them as priority needs. As a result, the problem with which we are all wrestling is how then one delivers on making the law fit the environment in which we now operate.
  The noble Baroness described "an impossible task" being made worse by legislative changes. I did not understand her to be saying that the legislation was a

  CWH 7
  bad idea, but that it makes us face the difficulties with which we have to wrestle in determining how we deal with homelessness. Those are problems with which we need to deal, but we need to deal with them up-front and recognise that there are real problems that we all need to face.
  I turn to the first amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also addressed. Her first amendment would require local housing authorities to incorporate their homelessness strategy into their wider housing strategy. At the moment there is no statutory requirement on local housing authorities to have a housing strategy although in practice it is necessary under the Housing Investment Programme framework. Because there is no explicit requirement it would be inappropriate to impose a statutory requirement for an authority to make its statutory homelessness strategy part of its wider housing strategy. However, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness is saying; that an authority's statutory homelessness strategy will inevitably be an integral part of its wider housing policy. It has to be. Clear advice to local housing authorities on this matter will be given in guidance.
  The noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Hamwee, both made the point that there would be other strategies as well that might affect homelessness. That is plainly right and the guidance will focus on that as well because it is necessary for people to look at homelessness in a context that is much wider than simply bricks and mortar. I hope that that deals with the first amendment.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 relate to rough sleepers. They are not explicitly mentioned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in her remarks: therefore could we make it clear on the face of the Bill that homelessness includes rough sleepers? I entirely understand her concern. Of course we would want homelessness strategies to deal with rough sleepers. However, I hope that she will accept my assurance that rough sleeping is already covered by the definition of "homeless" employed in the Bill.
  The definition appears in Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 and clearly includes rough sleeping, for it covers those who have no accommodation available for their occupation. Moreover, the Code of Guidance will make it clear that authorities will need to take account of rough sleeping in their reviews and in devising their strategies. The situation is legally covered, but if that is not sufficient—which it probably is not—we will also make it clear in guidance that the homelessness strategies must cover rough sleepers as well as everything else.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee asked specifically how localised it is. Rough sleepers frequently come from other areas. Frequently, people in rough sleepers' accommodation will tell you that they got on the train intending to go to Newcastle, but got off at Nottingham, for reasons that they are inadequately able to explain. The problem moves around. Prevention is vital in addressing all forms of homelessness in the future.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wondered whether you went through Nottingham to get to Newcastle.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That thought occurred to me as I made that comment. I was not sure whether the train line went that way. I should have said the Newark. We hope that prevention will also be addressed.
  Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 8 and 9, would insert further definitions regarding organisations that the local housing authority must involve in its work on a homelessness strategy. The need for the local authority to work in partnership and not alone underlies the amendments. We entirely endorse that approach. A partnership approach is central to our proposals. We require local housing authorities, of which the noble Baroness has experience, to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness.
  Clauses 1 to 3 set up the basis for such a strategy and require that it be kept under review. Amendment No. 3 specifies bodies whose role in tackling homelessness should be considered in the course of a local housing authority's homelessness review. The other amendments, which are to an extent consequential, would allow a housing authority to include references to actions to be undertaken by strategic partners in its homelessness strategy and Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would oblige housing authorities to consult strategic partners and, in particular, the Housing Corporation, housing associations and RSLs, before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy.
  Many agencies are involved with people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless and it is important that those agencies work together to avoid duplication or gaps in provision. Local housing authorities should of course work with other authorities and agencies in conducting reviews and in drawing up strategies. We have in mind social services authorities and departments, health services and those administering housing benefit, among others.
  Registered social landlords will he central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas they provide the majority of social housing and the transfer programme is increasing their importance in delivering services to tenants and in supporting local authorities in the performance of their statutory duties. I held a meeting with the key stakeholder organisations on 21st November to discuss the way forward on homelessness. I am pleased to say that it was agreed at that meeting that the Housing Corporation, the Association of London Government and the Local Government Association would work on an agreed programme for closer co-operation between RSLs and local housing authorities on tackling homelessness. I have asked to be kept informed of progress.
  This morning, I met 15 of the major RSLs to discuss how they can help local authorities to meet their homelessness duties. That will be followed up early in the new year with a joint seminar for RSLs and local

  CWH 9
  housing authorities. A wide range of other bodies should also be engaged, including probation services and voluntary organisations working with young people or with those suffering from mental health problems. Organisations that deal with rough sleepers also have a vital role to play.
  Again, I repeat for the third time that I agree with the noble Baroness that the involvement of bodies cited in her amendment are vital to ensure effective local strategies. As it stands, the Bill enables local housing authorities to ensure that the potential contribution of such bodies is considered at the review stage, that their activities may—with their agreement—be outlined in the resulting homelessness strategy and that they are consulted on the adoption or modification of the strategy. This is by virtue of the references at Clause 2(1)(c) and Clause 3(3)(b) and Clause 3(8), to,
  ""voluntary organisations and other persons".
  Registered social landlords, as non-profit-making bodies, fall under the definition of "voluntary organisations".
  Homeless and multiple occupation landlords, and members of landlords' forums and clearly "other persons", and the housing corporation is a "public authority", so all the persons or bodies mentioned in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, are already covered. From what I have said, I hope that it is clear that we completely share the approach that she outlined in moving her amendment. I can, in addition, assure the noble Baroness that clear guidance will be given to housing authorities as to the organisations they should engage with throughout the process of carrying out homelessness reviews and formulating strategies.
  We should steer clear of placing such detailed and prescriptive requirements on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, would be the first to criticise the Government, quite rightly, for placing too many tick-box requirements on the face of the Bill. The Government are confident that the Bill already achieves what the noble Baroness has sought to ensure by tabling those amendments.
  Let me move to Amendment No. 6, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on supporting people. The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not deal with the detailed drafting of the amendment because she has made it clear, in moving her amendment, that she wishes to use it as an opportunity to raise concerns about the supporting people programme. The noble Baroness stated her concerns about the Government's funding regime for supporting people and the potential effects, in particular but not exclusively, on small voluntary groups. I am pleased to be able to reassure her on this point. Supporting people payments will be determined by contracts entered into between the local authority commissioning body and the service provider, and these contracts will last between three and five years. Supporting people funds are not allocated via a bidding round.
  CWH 10
  My department is very sensitive to the concerns of small voluntary organisations regarding the impact of supporting people and has taken a number of steps to address those concerns.
  These include research into the black and minority ethnic sector, which the noble Baroness did not mention but which is a concern to significant numbers of people, on the basis of which guidance is being produced. This guidance is due to be published in January. Whilst the guide and research was primarily aimed at the black and minority ethnic sector, this is predominantly made up of small organisations and therefore much of the content is equally relevant to all small organisations. The guidance is mainly intended for local authorities but also mainstream providers and black and minority ethnic-led providers.
  My department, through the supporting people programme, has a contract with the Housing Associations Charitable Trust to disperse grant funds to small organisations. This money is intended to enable small local and community-based housing support agencies to participate in the supporting people implementation process, locally and regionally, by building the capacity of the voluntary sector and enabling support service agencies to participate effectively in the supporting people strategies and plans.
  In addition, the supporting people team at the department is currently drawing up a proposal to provide funds for two capacity-building co-ordinators to work with local authorities to assist small organisations to develop their capacity to play an effective role in the provision of services. They will also aim to develop information systems with community organisations so the needs and experiences of their client group can feed into both local and regional supporting people planning processes.
  A number of supporting people workshops have been organised to engage the black and minority ethnic sector in the supporting people programme and to encourage them to start preparing for implementation in 2003. Other events are planned for 2002, so there is a good deal of work going on to try to address the specific concerns. The noble Baroness raised the question of what will happen after 2003 but much of the answer to that will depend on what happens in the build-up to 2003. I shall write in more detail as to what the present proposals are in relation to post-2003. If the noble Baroness has particular concerns about what I have said—and I do not ask her to raise them now as it is quite a dense answer—I suggest she raises them with me. I shall be more than happy to have a meeting with her to discuss any particular concerns that arise out of the detail of what I have said in my answer to her important amendment, because the Supporting People programme has a significant impact on dealing with homelessness, in particular in relation to various preventative measures that we hope will become the norm among local authorities.
  Amendment No. 7 is the last amendment in the group that I have to deal with. This would place a further duty on a local housing authority when it has

  CWH 11
  formulated its homelessness strategy not only to refer to its allocation scheme in that strategy but also to set out the relative priorities that will be accorded to homeless people and others to whom a housing duty is owed by the authority under that scheme. This takes us well beyond the sensible limits of a homelessness strategy. The principal purpose of these strategies is for the housing authority, with the assistance of social services authorities, and in consultation with other bodies, including RSL and voluntary organisations, to set out how it will tackle and prevent homelessness in its area. This is no small task and it will not be made any easier by an unnecessary requirement to address issues relating to the authority's allocation scheme. However, if an authority thinks it wise to refer to its allocation scheme, it will be more than able to do so in its homelessness strategy.
  New Section 167 provides a robust framework for authorities to allocate accommodation. It requires that reasonable preference be given to certain groups, including the homeless; and that the allocation scheme may be framed to give additional preference to particular descriptions of people within the reasonable preference categories; and that the scheme may also contain provision for determining priorities in allocating housing accommodation to people within the reasonable preference categories. I am sure that we shall explore the detail of those allocation schemes later in our deliberations. However, the allocation scheme is the proper place to set out the relevant priorities, not the homelessness strategy. I should also note that authorities are already required to provide information about their allocation schemes under Section 168 of the 1996 Act.
  I very much hope that I have answered all the particular points that have been raised in the course of this short but interesting and important debate. I hope to be able to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I reassure the Minister that I have no intention of asking any questions and, therefore, do not in any way oblige him to rise again but I postponed my remarks until after he had spoken. My remarks will be brief and relate to Amendment No. 1. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made reference to housing history with which we are all familiar. It has always seemed to me that since owner occupation has so steadily crept up towards 100 per cent, the minority of housing that is not in the owner-occupied sector has received both diminished attention and, to some degree, concentrated attention because of its significance and also because it was falling as a percentage.
  In contrast, the underlying description of the problem given by my noble friend Lady Hanham and the Minister concerned the real problem we have now in terms of priority demand on the one hand and inadequate supply on the other. The consequence of that is that, whereas in terms of the general picture the non-owner-occupied sector is a small part of the proportion, in terms of what we are now talking about,
  CWH 12
  those who are homeless constitute quite a large proportion as regards the remaining stock of housing in the country.
  Where the demand is very high in comparison to the supply—and there is no question at all that there are parts of the capital and, indeed, of other areas of the country where that is true—that problem is particularly acute. It is, therefore, particularly important for those who are in housing need in those places to understand why it is that they are being denied housing; that is, because the statutorily homeless and those in housing priority need take so much of the stock.
  If I may illustrate my point briefly with a local example. A few years after the Brixton riots, the Peabody Trust, under the admirable George Barlow, introduced regulations that removed the principle that had given people who had grown up on Peabody housing estates some priority in terms of continuing to live there on the grounds that there were others in statutory need who had to be put first. That was a severe disadvantage in areas where there was a high concentration of Peabody communities and estates, because they were clearly going to be dissipated and broken down by that and the social coherence of the neighbourhood would be reduced.
  My question—this is a rhetorical question and a paving observation rather than a question to which I am seeking an answer—is whether the issue of communicating to the rest of the community why the homeless take up such a large proportion of the available housing should be part of a homelessness strategy or whether it should be addressed from a wider perspective so that it can be positive rather than negative. I dare say we shall be returning to these questions before the Committee stage is over.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for what he himself admitted was a dense reply. I do not mean dense in the sense of stupid—and I do not believe that he did either. We are talking about weaving our way through the thicket. To some extent that is the result of the way the amendments have been grouped, because they do not necessarily follow on one from the other. We could have had interesting debates if they had been carved up. I shall consider carefully the denseness of the reply before deciding what to do about the amendment. However, I should like to throw up one or two other points that have arisen out of the thicket.
  My noble friend Lord Brooke has highlighted a major issue on whether there should be housing strategy that encompasses the homeless review. The more we go through the Bill, the more one sees that very little housing will be available to allocate to anybody who is not on the priority list or vulnerable list of homeless. Somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to prioritise and decide how those priorities are to be recognised. Who is more vulnerable than the vulnerable? I am not sure that that can be done without having some housing strategy that takes into account the amount of housing that is available to any local authority within its own boundaries and

  CWH 13
  externally, now that one can woofle around in other people's housing areas. The requirement must be married up against the actuality. If the housing strategy is not linked to the homeless review, an authority will miss out on what the actuality is. There may be a huge gap in what the local authority will be able to provide or a reasonable match. The one should not be done without the other.
  I shall also refer briefly to the Minister's comments about rough sleepers. Like everyone else here, I am well aware that the Rough Sleepers' Unit is doing an enormously good job. I do not dispute that at all. However, I am not so clear that Section 175 covers the situation as was suggested. It says that a person is homeless if he has no accommodation available for his occupation. We all know of rough sleepers who have accommodation. They have left home and the comforts of home. They have walked out on their families. For some reason or another, they have decided to abandon the accommodation that they had. I would therefore be very tentative about taking Section 175 as a rationale or absolutely assuming that rough sleepers' well-being will be taken into account. I should still like to see that included. We have so many categories bobbing up in this Bill now, one or more less would not make much difference and it would be helpful to keep that in for the time being.
  On the question as to whether we ask or suggest that the strategic partners are identified, I understand that you can identify some, identify them all or identify some and miss some. As the Bill stands at the moment, Clause 3(3)(a) and (b) touch on the matter but do not help. Clause 3(3)(a) states,
  "by any public authority with functions".
  Why have that? It does not identify who these other people are. It does not necessarily lead you to housing associations, to other RSLs or to people who are using housing in multiple occupation in conjunction with the local housing authority.
  It is clear, as the Minister himself admitted, that many housing authorities now do not have any housing. Some authorities have transferred everything and they are working by influence as well as by co-ordination with other bodies. The matter is pretty vague. Clause 3(3)(a) refers to "any public authority" and Clause 3(3)(b) refers to "any voluntary organisation". Therefore I still hanker after having a little more direction within that.
  I would like to go through the Minister's reply closely, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  4.15 pm
  Clause 2 [Homelessness reviews]:
  [Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Homelessness strategies]:
  [Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 6:
  Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
  "( ) In particular, the authority shall have regard to their Supporting People strategy (or shadow strategy, if appropriate) when formulating their homelessness strategy and ensure that, as far as is practicable, each strategy is complementary to and consistent with the other."
  The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister for his reply and say that I may come back to him. I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 4, line 2, at end insert "provided that the authority are satisfied that the exercise of this discretion shall not significantly reduce their opportunities to offer accommodation to such persons as are mentioned in section 167(2)(c), (d) and (e) of the 1996 Act (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme), as amended"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. Clause 5 brings us, under subsection (1), to the new provision for securing that accommodation is available for occupation by those who are homeless but not in priority need or considered to be intentionally homeless. The provisions go well beyond the duties in Section 192 of the 1996 Act, which are to give advice and help to someone who is in danger of becoming homeless.
  By the addition of subsection (3) of Clause 5 to Section 192 of the 1996 Act there is a further category for whom the local authority may potentially have to provide or ensure that housing is available in addition to those under this Bill who will be considered as being in priority need or vulnerable. It starts to beg the question that we have just touched on about how local authorities are to exercise their new discretion so far as this is concerned and balance that alongside those already included later, under Clause 15(3).
  The mind boggles as to how local authorities are to begin to ascertain who will have priority under the new provisions because prioritisation there will have to be. Indeed, the Bill is so far silent on how councils will be able to do this.
  Amendment No. 10 will amend proposed new subsection (3) to Section 192 of the 1996 Act by giving local authorities some room to decide that to help by providing accommodation to a person who was not on the priority list was likely to put into jeopardy their responsibility to others. Therefore in consequence, there would be discretion as to whether or not they could or should be given preferential help beyond the advice available under the current Act. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 amends the duties owed in section 195 of the 1996 Act to those who are not in a priority category

  CWH 15
  and who are threatened with homelessness unintentionally. The provisions enable a local authority to intervene to help ensure that existing accommodation remains available to the applicant.
  Amendment No. 11 would provide some safeguard for the interests of either the registered social landlord or private landlord in the case where efforts are being made to protect such accommodation, since it may be that they have a justifiable reason for trying to repossess the property. However, in any event they must be given an opportunity to be party to any agreement rather than having one forced upon them, which could be construed as being an outcome, under these provisions. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: The situation for local authorities—housing authorities—up and down the country is different in different places, which is why the legislation should remain as stated in this Bill. For example, there are places where there is hard to let accommodation that might be suitable for single people. Until now, single people have not been eligible for housing by local authorities or registered social landlords. If we are to make best use of housing in some parts of the country—I recognise that this may not be the situation that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, finds in her area—we should not pass these amendments. In areas of high demand I realise that such provisions will never be enacted unless more affordable housing is somehow made available throughout the country rather than just within specific areas. In some areas, it may be that local authorities could help key workers with their hard to let properties. Some of the properties were built a long time ago, not to the standard that we tend to build today, which is why they are hard to let. Nevertheless, some younger, single people would be grateful for some of the properties I am referring to. I am afraid that I am not mindful—I sincerely hope that some of my colleagues agree—to support the amendments.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. Different conditions apply in different local authority areas depending, as the noble Baroness says, on whether it is an area of high demand, as is the case obviously in the borough that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, knows best. Places such as Knowsley, Liverpool or parts of Manchester present a totally different picture.
  Having said that, I appreciate the concern that those who have been accepted as statutorily homeless should not be given undue priority over those in housing need who seek local authority housing, particularly in the case of homeless people who do not have a priority need for housing.
  I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that the new power in Clause 5(1), which she seeks to amend by Amendment No. 10 does not affect the preference or priority which must be given to applicants under an authority's allocation scheme. The new power, which will only be discretionary, will be equivalent to the duty owed to families and vulnerable persons who
  CWH 16
  have become homeless through no fault of their own. It will allow the authority to arrange for accommodation to be made available by another landlord or for the authority to provide accommodation itself. Where the authority chooses the latter course, the accommodation will generally be made available on a non-secure—that is, a temporary—basis. I say "generally" because that is the default position under the legislation whenever an authority provides accommodation in pursuance of a homelessness function, and that will apply equally to the new power in Clause 5(1).
  Having said that, it would be open to an authority to decide to allocate a secure tenancy to a non-priority need homeless applicant, as now but, where it did so, the allocation would, as now, have to be made in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the 1996 Act and in accordance with the authority's published allocation scheme. It does not affect how it operates this allocation scheme, but it gives the local authority a greater power than it has now, and as now such allocations would not in future depend on the new power in Clause 5.
  Amendment No. 11 relates to the new power inserted by Clause 5(2). This extends the existing provisions of Section 195 of the 1996 Act. Currently, where the authority is satisfied that the applicant is a priority need and is not satisfied that he became threatened with homelessness intentionally, then the authority is placed under a duty to take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.
  The new power enables an authority to take similar reasonable steps in cases where the authority is not satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and is not satisfied that he became threatened with homelessness intentionally. An authority might discharge this duty or exercise the new power through the provision of mediation in cases of relationship breakdown or in helping resolve delays in the payment of housing benefit where these have led to rent arrears. Where the authority is successful in doing those things, then homelessness is averted, to the benefit both of the applicant and his landlord.
  Amendment No. 11 would secure that in a case of accommodation not under the control of the authority, the authority could not exercise the proposed discretionary power unless all persons having an interest in the property in which the accommodation is located are in agreement with those steps.
  Where an authority takes the reasonable steps I have just outlined and is able to promote a satisfactory resolution—satisfactory to all sides—then an unnecessary case of homelessness is averted. Having to secure the agreement of all persons having an interest in the property would significantly hinder the authority's ability to avert what would be on the hypothesis identified as an unnecessary case of homelessness. That is why Amendment No. 11 would not be helpful in that respect.

  CWH 17
  I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will consider my remarks and not press these amendments at a later stage.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I note the lack of support from Members of the Committee. I am not going to press the amendments, but I want to be quite clear in what the Minister says.
  Somebody who owns a property will not necessarily have that property in the private sector. The pressure cannot be put on a private landlord to go against his will. There are situations where people do not pay their rent; they break up the flat; they cause an enormous amount of mischief; and one can well understand why the landlord may say enough is enough. The local authority may step in and, with the powers available in the Bill, say, "Sorry, we have a right to deal with this and under those powers we are going to do so. We are going to make sure that this person stays in your flat or your accommodation". It cannot be right to use those powers in that way. There must be a right of agreement with the landlord and an understanding of the reasons why he might or might not wish to keep that letting available to somebody who is being supported by the local authority. If the Minister can satisfy me on that point, I shall not push the amendment.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I should make it absolutely clear that nothing in this power enables the local authority to interfere if the landlord has grounds for possession in the sort of example the noble Baroness gave, such as when a tenant is guilty of antisocial behaviour to his or her neighbours, or trashes the flat or house. It is not intended for one moment to provide compulsion on private landlords. It is also worth making the point that if an applicant is threatened with homelessness as a result of his or her antisocial behaviour, an authority can be expected to find that person intentionally threatened with homelessness. The existing duty and the proposed power apply only to cases in which the authority is not satisfied that the applicant became threatened with homelessness intentionally. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 12:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
  "PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
  A local authority, in providing (or securing the provision of) advice and assistance under sections 190(2)(b) and (3), 192(2) and 195(5) of the 1996 Act, shall ensure that—

  (a) an assessment of an applicant's housing and related needs is carried out, and that the results of that assessment are taken into account in the provision of advice and assistance;

  CWH 18

  (b) appropriate and timely information is provided about the availability of accommodation in the area; and

  (c) information and advice is provided about the applicant's right to a review of a decision under section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision)."

  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that local authorities meet basic minimum standards in providing advice and assistance to non-priority homeless people. There is a certain amount of déjà vu in this for me, because I moved an amendment about the same group of people when debating what became the Housing Act 1996.
  Local authorities are under a duty to provide advice and assistance to help applicants who are not in priority need and who do not qualify for their main accommodation duty. However, there is much evidence—and I am sure that the Minister has read Shelter's document, Singles Barred—that in some cases authorities fail to provide any advice and assistance to that group and that what assistance is provided is often of very poor quality. For example, it is quite common for applicants simply to be given a list of bed-and-breakfast hostels. Many people—not just me, but others who work in the housing field—are concerned that a lot of very vulnerable people are slipping through the net. Applicants are not getting adequate support to enable them to find their own solution to their homelessness and, ultimately, more people will end up on the streets. We know the Government do not want that.
  The amendment would set out a basic minimum standard on the face of the Bill that should he met regardless of the individual circumstances of the client or the local housing market. It would require local authorities to carry out an assessment of an applicant's needs, to provide appropriate information about the availability of accommodation, and to provide information about an applicant's right to review.
  That is not a significant departure from the current legislation. However, it would require those authorities that are currently providing a rather poor level of service to meet their responsibilities and deliver what I believe is the intention of the Government in this area.
  The Government have said that they do not believe that the law requires further amendment, but if they do not accept stronger duties, they should set out the steps that they intend to take to ensure that standards in this area are raised. If the Minister is not mindful to have that on the face of the Bill as we have put it down, the Government should consider a specific commitment in the national homelessness strategy, which the Government are to publish in the new year, perhaps a new performance indicator under the best value regime to monitor local authority performance in this area and stronger guidance, including a clear statement that this issue should be addressed by the homelessness strategy that will be developed under this Bill.
  Let me explain the current situation. In some authorities the quality of advice and assistance is extremely variable and, in some cases, extremely poor. Sometimes people do not even have an interview.

  CWH 19
  I cannot remember where I read that someone was turned away by the security guard on the door of the local authority.
  Assessments of vulnerability are not made consistently and there is no doubt that some of them contravene the statutory guidance. Much of the written information provided by authorities is often out of date, such as the sort of information they give on bed and breakfast accommodation. Standards of safety—another issue we will talk about later on in the Bill—are also of concern. Sometimes applicants receive no verbal advice at all; it is only written. It is also clear that some of the people who will find themselves homeless may not be literate, which may be one of the reasons why they are in difficulty.
  One of the other areas, to which we will return later in the Bill, is that many applicants do not receive a written notice of the authority's decision and they are not informed of their right to review. If the Government are serious about preventing homelessness, that is something we need to look at. I know the Government in another place responded by bringing forward their own amendment at a later stage to strengthen the statutory duty, but my colleagues and I still have some concerns.
  This new clause responds to some of the arguments that were made in another place, and it requires authorities to meet three minimum requirements: an assessment of the applicant's housing and related needs, so failing to interview and assess the needs of applicants who appear vulnerable would be ruled out; appropriate and timely information about the availability of accommodation in the area, and I have outlined the problems we have with the sorts of information that some local authorities think is satisfactory; and information and advice about the applicant's right to review of a decision, which is something we shall talk about at another point in the Bill. That is what we hope to achieve by these amendments and I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rendell of Babergh: It may be that the provisions in this amendment are already covered in the Bill. But to my mind, the new ones recognise and emphasise that not all local authorities show the right levels of concern and care for clients' needs. They aim to secure basic minimum standards. It is not sufficiently recognised how many applicants suffer from intense vulnerability and confusion. They speak and understand English inadequately. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, some people cannot read. They are confronted by problems which to us might simply be time-consuming irritants but they can be frightening, particularly to those whose self-esteem is already badly shaken by hardship and humiliation.
  I wish to give two examples which come from articles written by sheltered housing advice centres. The first reads:
  "At one London authority Homeless Persons Unit, a 30 year old woman fleeing domestic violence was told by the receptionist that a passport was essential, before he could pass on her details
  CWH 20
  to one of his colleagues. The applicant was also informed that the local authority required a police or doctor's report to prove that it was unsafe for her to remain in her present accommodation. She was told that she was non-priority because she was single, without children and not pregnant. The applicant was left with no choice other than to return home. She was not given any information by the Homeless Persons Unit, other than a customer satisfaction survey to fill out".
  The other example is,
  "The experience of many of Shelter's advisers in London is that many authorities simply give out Shelterline's freephone number to homeless applicants who are not in priority need. Many callers contact them believing this will secure them accommodation."
  I could give many other examples but I will not take up the time of the Committee. I feel that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is needful and I support it.
  The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Minister reminded the Committee earlier this afternoon of the importance of prevention. The concern that is being raised here is that the needs of non-priority homeless people are not being met. In my experience at Centrepoint I have come across young people with mental health problems who have slipped through the system, and occasionally people with learning difficulties. We know that more than 4,500 families with children are not classed as priority needs because of decisions about their intention with regard to their homelessness. It is hard to decide what people's intentions are. The process is notoriously complex and can be very harsh but we are still dealing with families with children.
  Under the current arrangement how can one ensure that there is an adequate service? That is what concerns me. I am not sure whether the amendment or whether further strengthening the duty on local authorities is the way to reach that. There is clearly great inconsistency. I heard only this afternoon from a homelessness agency about young people being given just a telephone number; if they are given a list of hostels it may have the wrong opening times and they may make the journey to the hostel and find the doors are shut, or the information may be out of date. If they make a telephone call to the hostel—and these are now referral only rather than direct access—they have wasted the money on the telephone call. They also feel that they are struggling and it is counterproductive. This is a key area.
  Young people are drifting into the centre of London where there are many homeless agencies which are keen to see that they stay, if possible, in their local authority. It is better that the local authority should help them before they come into the centre of town and become subject to all its problems. There needs to be a uniform, high-quality level of assessment, up-to-date advice and, if there needs to be a review, an explanation of why they have been denied priority homelessness and their right to a review of that decision.
  There are examples of local authorities that have failed in London. So many young people come from Lambeth but very few from Tower Hamlets. Why is

  CWH 21
  that? They are similar authorities with similar problems, but somehow the homeless persons units appear not to be functioning so well in Lambeth. There clearly needs to be better monitoring, training and support of staff in homeless persons units and the best practice there needs to be disseminated and a consistent service provided throughout.
  That job is tremendously demanding, especially in those areas where there is very little accommodation. Those staff have to be very creative in their responses to people. Often this does not happen. For example, a receptionist told an applicant that without identification and a letter providing proof that he was homeless there was nothing they could do for him. In another authority that person met a homeless persons officer who expressed genuine concern for the applicant's well-being. The attitude is very important.
  Is the Minister clear that funding for the implementation of the Bill—£8 million, as I understand it—will be sufficient to enable the better dissemination of good practice and secondment between, perhaps, different local authorities and homelessness agencies? The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, mentioned the importance of ensuring that best-value regime applies in a focused way to raising the standards in this area and that there is a strategic goal nationally in the national homelessness policy in ensuring a high standard of service. She also said that there should be stronger guidance in the local authority strategy in relation to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's response to those ideas.
  4.45 pm
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: We are dealing with people who are desperate, people who are under attack and people who do not know which way to turn—I am talking about the staff, not the applicants. One of the most wretched aspects of being a local councillor is dealing with housing, and one of the most desperate of desperate situations is trying to give assurances, with no resources at all, to people who are desperately in need of just a modicum of hope.
  We are asking the Minister to consider whether he can do anything more than he is already doing in this Bill and in other ways. The Minister has a dilemma in leaving power and freedom to local authorities to determine how they exercise their priorities and their budgets. That will inevitably mean that in some areas there will be a shortfall in what we might think they ought to do. Having been a local councillor, like many Members of the Committee, I know about the competing claims on local authority housing resources.
  In common with other Members of the Committee, I have a position with the Local Government Association. All that we and the Minister can do is try to engender a little more understanding and kindness where it does not exist. I do not believe that there are many occasions when there is no understanding of the needs of the desperate homeless or badly housed people. Very often, the officers of a council must be torn and end up being over-sympathetic and perhaps
  CWH 22
  leading people on, assuring them that there is a solution and that if they wait a little longer or do something else, they will get it. The fact is that there is a shortage of accommodation. The right-to-buy legislation has resulted in the stock of housing that was once available to a council drying up over the past 20 years. The remaining stock is diminishing all the time. I do not take kindly to people arguing that certain things can be done, when, by political decision, one—only one—of the weapons that was available has been taken away from the authority.
  I have dealt with many wretched circumstances. Many times I left my surgery as an MP and cried outside in the car at the helplessness and hopelessness of some cases. However, that will not solve the problem. Eventually, we need a greater availability of accommodation and an understanding by the people who are homeless or in wretched homes that there are limits and that everything that can be done is being done.
  I hear what my noble friend Lady Rendell has told us. We want to hear from the Minister that the aims of the amendment are already dealt with in the Bill. The Minister will be well served if he takes on board the heart as well as the brain of the Members of the Committee. Those of us who live well and are housed well and know about homelessness feel more than anybody else the helplessness of the people who cannot help themselves. When they come to the council, the very least that a council can do is to have properly trained people available.
  Rape at one time was treated simply as a crime. It is a crime, but there are ways in which the victim of the rape can be made to feel that at least there is an understanding of their condition. The same can happen for those who are in desperate need of housing. My experience is primarily in the London Borough of Enfield and in Edmonton. Because I am joint president of the Local Government Association I am conscious that even within London there are variations. The Minister has already referred to consultation with council leaders and councils. One of the Minister's priorities, with a short purse, is to ensure that every resource available is constantly tapped and trawled to see whether it cannot be squeezed again. I am delighted that we have on the Committee at the moment the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who, as we all know, is the Chairman of the Housing Corporation.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and share experience with him, both in London local authority work and as a Member of Parliament. Apart from during evacuation, parts of my education, service in the Army and periods abroad, I have lived in London all my life. Therefore my perspective is essentially a London one. I feel deep compassion for those who have been alluded to by those who have already spoken. That applies both to the indigenous population and, a fortiori, to asylum speakers and refugees when confronted with the problem they have seeking housing in frequently dreadful circumstances.

  CWH 23
  I tell the following anecdote to illustrate that this is not a simple problem. I will make it totally local. I refer to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and to the City of Westminster. It is perfectly possible for the Royal Borough to put one of its housing cases into Westminster and equally possible that, simultaneously, even on the same day, Westminster is putting somebody into the Royal Borough. An immediate problem arises in parliamentary terms as to who the representatives for those people then are. Do people who have moved into the Royal Borough then look to the Member of Parliament for that constituency and do those who have been moved into Westminster look to the Westminster MP? It is a fact that the first most likely thing that they will want to consult their MP about will be their housing situation and, secondly, if they are asylum seekers, their problems with the Home Office, which, broadly speaking, in the last Parliament gave up communicating with asylum seekers so that all communication was done through Members of Parliament.
  In those circumstances, the person who has the problem ideally should deal with the Member of Parliament for the housing authority that has put him or her into a borough other than their own. On the other hand, all the traditions of the House of Commons operate in the opposite direction. When I consulted the Speaker, my Chief Whip and the chairman of the Procedure Committee, all of them said that the matter should be dealt with by the Member of Parliament representing the constituency in which the person concerned lives.
  That is all right provided that everybody accepts that principle, but there are 74 London Members of Parliament who tend to act arbitrarily and independently. Therefore on the advice of the Speaker, the Chief Whip and the chairman of the Procedure Committee that we should stick by the existing rule, I acted as a shop steward for the Conservative Members of Parliament and secured agreement that that was what we would do. I then sought, through my parliamentary neighbour, Karen Buck, who was the chairman of the parliamentary group of Labour MPs in London, that we would all agree to do the same thing. It was clear that the system would not work if some of us were using one practice and some another. I pay the greatest possible tribute to Karen Buck, but she was not able to get a definitive answer out of the parliamentary group of Labour MPs before the general election was called, so, for all I know, the problem is still unresolved.
  I only tell that anecdote to demonstrate that if Members of Parliament, who are at the sharp end of the problem and who feel the compassion that I have indicated here, are incapable of organising a system among themselves to which they will all subscribe, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, I have the greatest sympathy for the local authority staff who also have to deal with the problem. I have sympathy too for the
  CWH 24
  officials behind the Minister who are trying to run a system when it is so difficult to get common sense to prevail in the way we operate.
  Baroness Hanham: Very briefly, if I may address the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. As I see it, Sections 190 and 192 address those who are homeless but are not considered as being priority need, or who are homeless intentionally. They are a specific part of this Bill and the other Act. Those sections already provide an explicit requirement for local authorities to provide advice, to take into account the local housing provision and to ensure that advice and assistance is given to anybody who makes an application to them.
  The amendment would have two effects. First, it would slightly widen what local authorities are meant to do, by making them responsible for making an assessment of the person and ensuring that that assessment is taken into account when they give advice. Secondly, it draws attention to the review that is now put into the Bill. That seems sensible. As a member of a local authority, I understand that some councils are better than others. My local authority or that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, may not need such advice, but others may, so I am not opposed to the widening of the existing wording.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has pointed out, the amendment prescribes what advice and assistance local authorities should give to homeless people. I agree straight away with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that advice and assistance for homeless people, including non-priority applicants, is an important part of local authorities' housing work. That is why the "satisfactory provision of support"—meaning advice, information and assistance—is specified in Clause 3(1)(c) as one of the areas that the homelessness strategies must cover.
  However, we have gone further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, acknowledged, by including other provisions to strengthen the advice and assistance duty on authorities. Those provisions are set out in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11(b) of Schedule 1. Instead of advice and such assistance as the authority considers appropriate in the circumstances, the duty will be to provide or secure the provision of advice and assistance in any attempts that an applicant makes to secure accommodation. The provision is less subjective.
  An authority acting reasonably—and they will all be obliged to act reasonably—will have to consider the advice and assistance that it should give in the particular attempts made by the applicant. It will necessarily have to take account of what the applicant needs to pursue those attempts, as well as the extent of any advice and assistance that it can reasonably be expected to provide. The requirement is in effect applicant-specific.
  I imagine that the noble Baroness has in mind cases in which, as a matter of form, all that is ever given is a list of names and addresses of landlords and nothing

  CWH 25
  more. It is because the law or the terms of the Bill have been changed to make it clear the duty will be to provide or secure the provision of advice and assistance in any attempts an applicant makes to secure accommodation that the move is made from the general to the specific. The level of detail of the advice and assistance required by the amendment is too prescriptive on local authorities and would not be appropriate or helpful. We will of course cover the issue of advice and assistance in the statutory guidance which will accompany the Bill and we will deal with, all the matters I have gone through. With respect, that is probably the most helpful way to do it, rather than sticking particular provisions in the Bill. What we have done instead, which is much more fundamental, is to change the form of the Bill so that the advice and assistance that has to be given is to secure,
  "the provision of advice and assistance",
  in any attempt an applicant makes to secure accommodation.
  Let me deal with two other points that have been made. A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It was, in effect, that there is a real problem here because there is a great shortage of accommodation and one therefore pities the local authority staff who have to provide advice and assistance.
  Housing investment has gone up in recent years. The Housing Corporation's budget for new, affordable housing will double between 2001–02 and 2003–04, with an extra £872 million. An extra £250 million has gone into the starter homes initiative. Resources for local authority investment have gone up from £750 million in 1997–98 to £2.5 billion by 2003–04. About £137 million is going into a new, safer community-supported housing fund. The figures have gone up dramatically over the past four years and will continue to go up, pursuant to spending plans already announced. I do not suggest that there will not continue to be a problem of homelessness but the investment is going upwards. Having said that, it will not be enough to provide for all the needs of homeless people in this country and that is why it is so important to reach a sensible legal arrangement of what the safety net consists of.
  The second point I should deal with is whether there should be a new performance indicator in the best value arrangements in relation to the provision of advice and assistance. In the context of local government arrangements, the Government have made it clear that it is unhelpful to have a huge range of targets with which local authorities have to comply. There is always a temptation, in every area, to want a best value performance indicator in relation to that because, in every area, one thinks that would be the way to improve standards. All the views that we receive from local government are to the effect that the quantity of best-value performance indicators is not necessarily the way to drive up performance. It is far better to target those best-value performance indicators on a small number of areas to have the desired effect. It may well be that, in particular local
  CWH 26
  authority areas, it would be sensible to have a best-value performance indicator, chosen in effect by the local authority as an appropriate course to take—which they can do. Nationally, however, I do not think it would achieve the effects that Members of the Committee hoped for.
  I hope I have dealt with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The way that the arrangements have been changed mean that we are dealing with a fundamental point. Prescription on the face of the Bill is not the way forward. We will deal with many of the points in the guidance. Best-value performance indicators may not be the panacea in every area that people think and one should be more sensible about where one targets them.
  5 p.m.
  The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point about best value targets, will the Minister undertake to keep a watchful eye on that? I suppose that it would be possible for those local authorities that are already doing a good job in this area to set best-value targets in this particular area, and for those local authorities that are already failing in this area not to set the best-value targets. Just in case there is a danger of the proposal slipping by, would the Minister keep an eye on the matter and perhaps come back to it at a later stage? I hope that he will do so in a year's time or whatever, and not in the Bill.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I undertake to keep a watchful eye on that, personally and on behalf of the department so that it continues beyond.
  I have considered the question of best-value performance indicators before it was raised and I broadly take the view that this particular best-value performance indicator would be going much too far. If we had to have a best value performance indicator for this type of thing, we would have to have a great many, which ultimately would not be sensible or effective. However, I certainly give the undertaking that the noble Earl sought.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before my noble friend responds, can the Minister help on this? He pointed us to the current legislation, as has the whole debate, referring to advice and assistance which a local housing authority considers appropriate and presumably reasonableness has to be imported into that. He reminded us of the change in the schedule which will take out the subjectivity. Is there in fact such a difference between the legislation as it now applies and as it will apply when this schedule comes into effect? Am I right that there has to be imported that degree of reasonableness into what a local housing authority considers appropriate? If so, does it make any difference what the guidance says in either of those two circumstances? Is there not the same problem? From the Minister's face it would seem that I am not making myself wholly clear!
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand entirely what the noble Baroness is saying. Three points: first, there is a change because the provision, for the reasons

  CWH 27
  I stated, is now less subjective, as the noble Baroness acknowledges. Secondly, it is applicant specific. Thirdly—and this is not a change in legal principle—the authority is obliged to act reasonably in the context of Wednesbury reasonableness; it would have had to have done so before but the obligation is different.
  The final question was about the guidance. The guidance is not part of the statute but if a local authority acts flagrantly against the terms of the guidance, it would be relevant material in considering whether or not the local authority had acted Wednesbury reasonable.
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his long answer. Various people have pointed out that good advice is key to the prevention of homelessness, which is one thing on which we can all agree. We can all also agree that there are many authorities that provide very good advice and a good pattern that we would like everybody to follow. The fact, however, is that they do not. We have heard examples this afternoon of authorities giving people poor quality advice—and I could offer many more if the Minister wants.
  This is not about the amount of accommodation that local authorities have available. It is merely about a basic minimum standard of advice to people. I remind Members of the Committee that there are three minimum requirements: an assessment of housing and related needs; appropriate and timely information about the availability of accommodation in the area; and information and advice about the right to review.
  The Minister said that this is going to be in guidance but the fact is that guidance has a much weaker legal status than what is written on the face of the Bill. That is why so many people in the housing world are very concerned. They are the people who pick up the pieces when the legislation does not work and that is why they are concerned to see something rather better on the face of the Bill.
  I shall look in more detail at what the Minister said and we may return to it at another time. I still have concerns but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Events which cause the duty to cease]:
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 4, line 40, at end insert ", and states that the offer shall remain available for such period as the authority may determine is reasonable in all the circumstances"
  The noble Baroness said: We have just had a discussion about reasonableness. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for local authorities to give homeless applicants a reasonable period of time within which to accept or refuse a final offer of accommodation. This issue was discussed in the last Housing Bill and in this Bill in another place. Homeless people are often given 24 or 48 hours to make a decision—not always, but I must emphasise that we are dealing here with where things do not go well rather than where people do give a reasonable
  CWH 28
  time—and a homeless person is not always in the best frame of mind to make a quick decision. If one has children one has to make decisions about where they are to go to school, and if one has relatives that need to be cared for there are quite a lot of things that need to be taken into account. It is important that we try to make sure that local authorities are genuinely reasonable in the amount of time that they give to applicants when they are offered accommodation.
  I suspect that when the Minister comes back there will be discussion about whether it is reasonable to talk about reasonableness in legislation. I point out that there are three other places in the Bill where reasonableness is mentioned. In Section (7F), when making an offer of assistance to a homeless applicant, the authority must be satisfied that it is "reasonable". In Clause 13(10), notification of allocation decisions should be made available by the local authority, "for a reasonable period". Section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 states that a person is homeless if it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their accommodation. We have already had that discussion earlier this afternoon.
  I do not intend to speak about this for long but it is important that we make sure that it is not acceptable for local authorities to give a short period of time to homeless people when they are considering offers. I beg to move.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is a reasonable point I want to make. In the context of giving advice to a person who is about to get accommodation, what is reasonable notice? I have an example of someone who was rung up one day, regrettably by the Westminster council, and who was told that they must accept the accommodation the next day. That is most unreasonable. I do not say that that happens only in Westminster; there could be other examples as well. The dilemma that the Committee and the Minister have is that if one day's notice is unreasonable, what is reasonable? Is it seven, 14 or three days? When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether thought has been given to that, or whether the councils will simply be told that they must be more reasonable than some of them have been in the past. In that context, we should also understand the problems that the noble Baroness has mentioned. In the example I gave it involved a single person and the question of children and work did not come into it. Nevertheless, the atmosphere in which such events occur is, "Take it or leave it". When the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, replies, I should be grateful to know what she considers to be "reasonable" in this context.
  Lord Fearn: I support the amendment put by my noble friend. Following what has already been said, it is essential that the staff, who should be fully trained, although at times they are not, should find out the state of health of the person who comes. The applicant fills in a form and speaks to one person or maybe two. There is no follow-up regarding the health side. As a previous MP, I have tackled many cases in my surgery where I realised that people were schizophrenic and not always able to act on their own but able to fill in

  CWH 29
  the form at the time. However, their health circumstances had never been investigated by those who were supposed to be trained in housing matters with the homeless. Will the Minister say whether the time limit of one, two or three days takes into consideration the health status of that person, especially when that involves a young, single person who has not declared his state of health at that time?
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: It was not the reference to Westminster by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that has brought me to my feet. In fact, the very point to which he was alluding had already struck me during the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
  The amendment states,
  "reasonable in all the circumstances".
  That, by definition, implies reasonableness in the context of the applicant but also in the context of the local authority. However, the manner in which she spoke to the amendment suggested that she was thinking of "reasonable" as applying to the applicant. I did not intervene during her speech but it would be interesting to know whether she had in fact also taken into account the local authority.
  The reason why I say that and would be hesitant about agreeing to her amendment, is because—as she reminded us in response to an amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lady Hanham, we are dealing with national rather than regional or local legislation—the circumstances will be very different from the point of view of local authorities around the country. If, as in Westminster, 80 per cent of vacant housing stock is needed for the statutory homeless or those in statutory priority need in the course of a year, that would mean running the rest of one's housing policy with 20 per cent. The pressures to get an answer from an applicant will be different from an authority where all its local authority housing is empty and it has all the time in the world.
  I have a nervousness about the word "reasonable" in any case. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, herself put up an amulet against the charge. The definition of an act of God in Blackstone's Law Dictionary as an act which no reasonable man would expect God to commit has always seemed to me in a sense to concentrate the mind on how sensible it is to use "reasonableness" as the basis for a judgment of that sort.
  I warmly commend Amendment No. 15 which I am sure will be spoken to in a moment by my noble friend Lady Hanham; it is quite astonishingly sensible. When I consider in the light of the words which the Home Secretary spoke yesterday—they appear to have got him into some trouble with some parts of the community—that there are people coming up to housing benefit appeals four years after they have arrived in this country and are not able to speak the language and would therefore presumably not be able to read the document which is being referred to here, the fact that there should be an allowance for having it read to him or her seems to be eminently sensible.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: Two amendments in this group appear in my name—Amendments Nos. 14 and 15—and I want to discuss them briefly. On Amendment No. 14, one of the significant aspects of this legislation is the removal of any time limits on temporary accommodation or on the acceptance and provision of acceptable permanent accommodation. Proposed new Section (7C) seems to compound the difficulties that will be faced by housing authorities in this regard by local authorities being able to reject, seemingly without constraint, any number of qualifying offers without any provision for judging whether that is a reasonable or lawful response. For the moment, the deletion of this provision seems the best way of providing those constraints. We may have a better opportunity to think about how to rephrase it.
  The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, should be taken within the context of the fact that there are unlimited qualifying offers. When the final offer is made, somebody has run out of steam. Either the applicant has finally accepted the accommodation or the local authority has run out of ability to help them. We need to set the matter against that.
  On Amendment No. 15, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville has already said, there should be no question that somebody has understood the words relating to the qualifying offer. I know it is common practice in Parliament to suggest that somebody should sign in relation to what they have read and understood. In relation to the world in which we are trespassing at the moment—those who are homeless and many of whom are vulnerable—it would be correct not to assume that they could have read. Indeed, somebody should have ensured that they understood the matter and that, if they could not read, it was read to them and in a manner in which they could understand it. If that means that they have to be read to in another language, so be it. That is what the amendment should cover.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I turn to Amendment No. 13, which is about the time in which the applicant has to consider the final offer of accommodation. It is very important that, when making that offer which will bring the homelessness duty to an end, the applicants have adequate time to consider the offer. The specific period of time necessary to allow this to happen will, inevitably, be different in different cases, depending, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said on the circumstances both of the applicant and of the local authority. The circumstances of the applicant which are potentially relevant to that consideration will, to deal with the point of the noble Lord. Lord Livsey, include the health, both physical and mental, of the applicant.
  What is the right period of time? Under the law as it stands at the moment, local authorities must already give people a reasonable period to consider offers. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is not suggesting a specified period of time and I believe she is right in relation to that, because the moment you put a

  CWH 31
  specified period of time on the face of the Bill as a minimum period, that becomes the operational period. What she suggests we say is already the law. That deals with the point raised by the two noble Lords to whom I have referred. Should it be put on the face of the Bill? If you put it on the face of the Bill, the very real danger here is that such a provision would be interpreted as meaning that a reasonable period must be allowed for considering final offers but need not be allowed in respect of any other offers. That would not be an acceptable outcome.
  I suggest the right course in relation to this is that—it having been made clear in the remarks I have just made which I shall be happy to make again on Report—the law as it stands must already give people a reasonable period to consider offers. The only additional protection that is then required and is sensible is that that should be spelt out in statutory guidance and, of course, I give a commitment to this Committee and thence to the House that this will be done. Authorities must by law have regard to such statutory guidance in exercising their allocation functions under Part 7 of the 1996 Act. Where they do not have regard to it, or they have regard to it but choose not to follow it, they are liable to have to justify their position to the courts, if challenged. I hope that deals with the specific point raised by the noble Baroness under Amendment No. 13.
  Amendment No. 14 was dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in her most recent remarks. That would cut across the main aim of the Bill, which is to strengthen the protection available to families with children and vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own. The current provisions in Part 7 of the 1996 Act contribute to the uncertainty faced by such households. Even though they may have a priority need for accommodation, if the housing authority knows that privately rented accommodation is available in the district, it can do no more than offer assistance to the household regardless of how vulnerable it may be. Even where the authority has a duty to secure accommodation, that duty is limited to just two years.
  One of the aims of the Bill is to remove that uncertainty. Authorities will have an obligation to ensure that suitable accommodation is available until a more settled housing solution can be found. Not only is the experience of homelessness traumatic but the experience of making an application under the homelessness legislation is not always a pleasant one, particularly in hard-pressed areas where the demand for housing is high. With pressures as they are, the household may have to endure a fairly lengthy period in temporary accommodation which may, all too often now, include a spell in bed and breakfast accommodation.
  So those turning to local authorities for help will normally be in pretty desperate straits. Many households who experience homelessness do so because of a number of underlying problems and
  CWH 32
  difficulties, which means that they are likely to be vulnerable to homelessness again unless they can be found a home which is settled, affordable and secure.
  The Bill has removed the time limit on the duty to secure accommodation for those who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need. That does not mean that it is a duty to secure permanent accommodation; it is a duty to secure accommodation until a more settled solution can be found. For many applicants that solution is likely to be an allocation of a social tenancy under Part VI of the 1996 Act.
  There are other solutions and the authority should and no doubt will explore those other options. The Bill makes specific provision for the homelessness duty to end if the applicant accepts an offer of an assured tenancy. It also makes provision for the duty to be capable of being brought to an end by an assured shorthold tenancy, recognising that the private sector has a role to play here. An assured shorthold tenancy is not, however, going to be the right solution for all applicants.
  The accommodation may be technically suitable but many tenancies are for a limited period only and may not be capable of offering the long-term form of security of tenure that some vulnerable homeless households need. Those authorities in the vanguard of best practice in meeting the needs of homeless families will already be carefully considering which of their homeless applicants will be capable of sustaining an assured shorthold tenancy in the private sector. They will not press those who are less well equipped to do so.
  The new Section 193(7)(c) of the 1996 Act inserted by Clause 7 of the Bill will provide a safeguard which ensures that those applicants who do not consider that an assured shorthold tenancy would provide them with a settled housing solution would not have to accept it. That is the right position to adopt; it is entirely consistent with the theme of the Bill, which is to provide more protection for families and vulnerable people. I urge the noble Baroness, when the opportunity arises, not to press this amendment.
  Finally, Amendment No. 15 seeks to protect the position of applicants who, for whatever reason, would be unable to read a statement from the local housing authority about the qualifying offer. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. I give an undertaking to consider it and come back with some form of solution to the problem at Report stage because a solution is clearly required. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, who is not here, but also, more importantly, to the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, who is.
  Baroness Maddock: That was going to be my first point. I am grateful to the Minister for his lengthy reply and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It reflects on some of the reasons as to why it is unsatisfactory for people to make hasty decisions. I should apologise to Members of the Committee: I thought it would take up too much time to explain why this was necessary and I should perhaps have outlined the sort of circumstances I had in mind.

  CWH 33
  The reason for not putting a specific time on it was to reflect that it will be different in different places. I am thinking mostly about the people who are homeless, admittedly, but as I said earlier on, different authorities are naturally in different positions to make offers. I was thinking about situations where, for instance, a family is offered accommodation that simply does hot meet its needs—it may be too small or in the wrong place. Those are the sort of things I meant.
  Another situation that often arises is that a homeless family will be told that it has a local authority offer—it may be a local authority empty property, an empty property that the authority plans to use in the private sector or a registered social landlord's empty property—but the applicant is not in fact told that the authority will do the repairs and so forth. A family may think that it cannot possibly live in such accommodation without realising the full circumstances, which is why sometimes it is important that there is a little time to go into the questions that are in people's minds about a particular property. If somebody is in work, they may have to go a long way to view the property. I have already explained the problems of carers' duties and schools. That is a little wide of my thinking on the amendment, but I am grateful to the Minister for going into it in detail. I will look at what he has said in due course.
  Similar amendments were tabled in another place by the Conservatives, because this is an issue that concerns people. As with previous amendments, we all know what we want to happen, but we have to work out how to make the legislation work on the ground and not leave loopholes for those who do not want to help people. That is the aim of the amendment. I shall look more closely at what the Minister said and we may return to the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 5, leave out lines 6 and 7.
  The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister for what he has said about Amendment No. 14, but I would like to look at it a little further. It may be that my amendment is not correct. Throughout the Bill I am concerned about the lack of time constraints on applicants. There are no limits on how many offers they may turn down. I appreciate that this is a qualifying offer and it is specific under the statute, but applicants will be able to go on refusing offers. That could result in an enormous amount of time being spent on one homeless applicant when there are enormous numbers of others and, as we have already said, limited suitable accommodation. This may not be entirely the right place to raise the subject and I shall withdraw the amendment, but I will come back to it in a different way. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I was so busy thinking of my own amendment when I spoke, but I could have
  CWH 34
  mentioned this one as well. It seems rather draconian and against the principles of this Bill, so I am not minded to support it. However, given my comments earlier I shall obviously be happy to support Amendment No. 15 later.
  We cannot write this in the Bill, but we should remember that if you are reading something to somebody, you quite often need to read it twice. Anyone who has held a Member of Parliament's surgery will know that if you do not check what you have said to someone before they walk out the door, you can guarantee that they did not hear what you said. We should remember that reading something to someone does not solve all the problems.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have answered the detail of the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 14, so I will not repeat any of that. There is a valid point on Amendment No. 15 and I hope to come back with a solution on Report.
  Baroness Hanham: For clarity, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I do not promise not to return to the attack at a later stage with a more appropriate amendment.
  I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about Amendment No. 15 and I will reserve my position until I have seen what he does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hanham: I have yet another priority relating to lists of those who would be considered as homeless. Tonight and on other occasions we shall be concerned about the extra additions to those who are entitled to be considered homeless against the background of the likely inability of people to house all those who have been included on this ever increasing list.
  Where, in the 1996 Act, advice and help was to be offered to those for whom the local authority is satisfied that there is suitable accommodation, this whole clause is now to be deleted. What remains is that those who would have previously received advice and help are now to become entitled to be treated as homeless and, while presumably are not to be listed with those who are considered "vulnerable"—because they become a duty on the council for housing—are making it more unlikely that the local authority will be able to house anyone who is not within the "homeless" designation.
  I have tried to point out—and will do so again—that there is a real danger that a local authority's sole ability to house will be engulfed by the increasing number of

  CWH 35
  those who are designated as homeless, with less ability to bring even those with a local connection into their view and their housing.
  Baroness Maddock: I seem to be repeating words that I have said at least twice this afternoon. If we take this clause out of the Bill, we undo part of the aims of the reforms in the 1996 Act. I sat through about three months of that Bill and I would hate to see this go ahead.
  I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. It sounds as though I am not at all sympathetic, but we must make legislation that gives people their rights as homeless people but which does not help us do that because there is a terrible shortage of affordable housing. The noble Baroness, because of the situation in which she finds herself, is in danger of thinking that some of these things must not be included in the Bill because we cannot possibly deal with them since there is a shortage of affordable housing. That is not what we should be about, although I recognise that there are real problems. Therefore I am not minded to support this and I hope that Members of the Committee will be of a similar frame of mind.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise in support of my noble friend Lady Hanham and, wholly incidentally, in contradiction to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who was just spoken. I understand the argument of the noble Baroness and have some sympathy with it, but it is not sensible for us to be legislating unless we have some idea of how local authorities will be able to cope with the problem that they will be set.
  In terms of the draft order, which, in a way, is occurring in tandem with this, ironically the Government have in a way sought to be less prescriptive in this legislation. In particular they have rejected every amendment advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. In that sense they have shown a willingness to be flexible. I could read the face of the Minister when the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, made the point. He believes that it is at the heart of legislation and that therefore one cannot be less prescriptive. If that attitude is to be adopted, some signal has to be given as to how resources will be provided to enable local authorities to deal with it. Otherwise we will be in a situation where the increase in bed and breakfast accommodation, which is an unsatisfactory provision, will fall on council tax payers. Council tax payers will understandably react against the categories who are being provided with that housing. Unless the Government signal in some way what their intentions are, we are conducting this legislation in mild circumstances of fog.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I could not disagree more, particularly on this amendment. With the greatest respect, those remarks slightly miss the target. In effect, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is seeking to reinstate Section 197 of the Housing Act, which prevents authorities from doing anything more than providing advice and assistance if other suitable
  CWH 36
  accommodation is available locally in the private sector. It prevents a local authority from providing any accommodation that it has available to a person who is vulnerable and in need, simply on the basis that that person might be able to get something in the private rented sector. Far from being prescriptive, the clause removes a restriction from a local authority without imposing any new duties. It unties an authority's hands.
  When we took office in 1997 we sought to reduce the restriction on local authority provision by specifying that the private sector accommodation had to be available for at least two years, but now it is clearly time to get rid of it altogether. It is obvious that certain vulnerable households who have experienced homelessness or been confronted with a real prospect of it need a period of stability and certainty to enable them to regain their confidence and equilibrium. The reality is that most tenancies on offer in the private rented sector will be assured short-hold tenancies. Those can provide a solution for some people who have experienced homelessness, but if such solutions are to be sustainable and genuinely suitable they must be provided with the agreement of the applicant. The Bill makes provision for that.
  We believe that removing the restriction in Section 197 is right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said earlier, different circumstances will apply in different local authority areas. Section 197 gives much greater room for manoeuvre for local authorities. I earnestly ask the noble Baroness to reconsider her position before Report.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for what he has said and I will reconsider. As I read Section 197, it gives a local authority the opportunity to secure accommodation within the private sector for people who are already in the private sector if they seem to be becoming vulnerable. That duty can be carried out in a number of ways, and I readily accept that there will be some who do it better than others and some who will give more time to it. However, removing that section will make those people available for the full gamut of the Bill, because they will be put into the homeless category. I am trying to exert some caution on what is happening in the Bill. We cannot allow ourselves to legislate on a free-flowing basis for accommodation that may or may not be available.
  Even the 1996 Act and previous homelessness legislation has put a great deal of pressure on housing authorities and made it almost impossible for people who have a connection with a borough but who are not homeless to be accommodated in it—people who are not priorities, because they do not have a need of homelessness as such, but who have a requirement or need to stay within a specific area.
  I am trying to exert a slight brake on what is being proposed. I know that it is not entirely what either the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, would want, but we must try to live in the real world. Even if the Housing Corporation is going to be loaded with lots of lolly over the next few years, some of that will be rehabilitation money, some will be

  CWH 37
  improvement money and some will be difficult to spend on new accommodation. I am trying to provide a brake on what has been proposed and to make sure that the list of those who are entitled to be considered as homeless is not so long—the whole thing is completely self-defeating. Section 197 still provides a perfectly reasonable answer in a perfectly reasonable way for dealing with somebody who is either threatened with homelessness or is in accommodation that is not entirely suitable. I would like to consider further what the Minister has said.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.
  Clause 10 [Persons claiming to be homeless who are at risk of violence]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 6, line 28, at end insert—
  "; and
  (c) at the end of subsection (2), there is inserted "and investigation may be made, in considering violence other than domestic violence, of allegations or evidence of collusion between the victim (or a person associated with him) and the other person as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A)"."
  The noble Baroness said: In introducing this amendment, I wish to make clear exactly what it involves. Paragraph (c) would come at the end of proposed new Section (1A). The words from subsection (2) refer to a proposed extension to Section 177(2) of the 1996 Act. If that was understood before I started, I am extremely sorry to have stated it again.
  Clause 10 would permit any violence, or threats of violence—currently under the 1996 Act, they are domestic violence only—to provide a basis of the homelessness duty. Given the greater attractiveness of becoming homeless provided by other clauses of the Bill, it would seem sensible to guard against fraudulent or collusive allegations of violence or threats of violence. This is a very wide open category and it could potentially be open to a great deal of abuse. While I accept, without reservation, that there are people who would need to be considered under the Homelessness Bill because of a threat of violence, it is an easy area for people to make up a situation. While I am sure there are not many, there will undoubtedly be those who would take advantage of this section, so there ought to be some caveats, and I see no other opportunity for providing against this within the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: I was a little puzzled by this amendment, since most local housing authorities take considerable steps to investigate any allegation or stories that are brought to them. I wonder whether it would imply something that is not at all the case if this provision were simply to apply to allegations of violence. I am not sure that it should be treated differently than any other tale that is taken to a local housing authority.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said both explicitly and by implication. Authorities need to
  CWH 38
  safeguard themselves against any claims for housing which are based on inadequate facts or made up facts. That will include any allegation made in relation to violence. Authorities already have the power to make investigations where they have reason to believe that there may have been collusion. Section 184 of the 1996 Act provides that, if an authority has reason to believe that an applicant is homeless or is threatened with homelessness, they must make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves, among other things, whether any duty—and, if so, what duty—is owed under Part 7; that is, under the homelessness legislation. Where the question of whether the applicant is homeless depends on the possibility that it may be unreasonable for him or her to continue to occupy his or her home because that would lead to a risk of violence, the authority is empowered to make such investigations into that question as may be required. I am quite sure that Amendment No. 16 is well intended but, because it is already covered, and for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I hope the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press it at the next stage.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. Since that explanation will be recorded in Hansard and thereby available to people in future, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 17:
  After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
  "SECTION 202: REVIEWS
  After section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision) there is inserted—
  "202A SECTION 202: REVIEWS
  (1) This section applies where an applicant has the right to request a review of a decision by an authority or authorities under section 202.
  (2) If the applicant is dissatisfied with a decision by the authority—

  (a) not to exercise their power to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review under section 188;

  (b) in a case where the authority have secured that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under section 190(2)(a), to cease to secure that accommodation is so available before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant);

  (c) not to exercise their power to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review, under section 200(5); or

  (d) to exercise their power under either section 188 or 200(5) for a limited time ending before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant) or, in either case, to cease exercising their power before that time,

  he may appeal to the county court against the decision,
  (3) An appeal under this section may not be brought after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, after the date on which an appeal is brought).

  CWH 39
  (4) On an appeal under this section, the court—

  (a) may order the authority to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation until the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or such earlier time as the court may specify); and

  (b) shall confirm or quash the decision appealed against,

  and in considering whether to confirm or quash the decision the court shall apply the principles applied by the High Court on an application for judicial review.
  (5) If the court quashes the decision it may order the authority to exercise any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) in the applicant's case for such period as may be specified in the order.
  (6) An order under subsection (5)—

  (a) may only be made if the court is satisfied that failure to exercise the power in accordance with the order would substantially prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue the review against the authority's decision in his case;

  (b) may not specify any period ending after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired.""

  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to increase access to justice by providing homeless applicants with the right to appeal to the county court against a decision of a local housing authority not to accommodate him or her during the review of a decision.
  An applicant has a right to request an internal review of a decision made by a local authority concerning their homelessness, as to whether they are intentionally homeless or whether they qualify as being in priority need. The power is available for the authority to provide accommodation during this process. However, despite guidance setting out when this power should be used, it is very rarely operated by authorities, no matter how strong the applicant's case appears to be. This makes it very difficult for homeless people to exercise their legal right of review. If an authority refuses to provide accommodation during a review, the applicant can obtain an order from the court to require them to do so. Currently, however, the applicant must go to the High Court to do this and this new clause would simply transfer this power to the county courts.
  The Government have accepted that, at a subsequent stage in the Bill, where an applicant can appeal the review decision on a point of law, the equivalent power to require an authority to provide accommodation should lie in the county court. An amendment was included in the Bill to achieve that. This amendment mirrors exactly the Government's amendments at a subsequent appeal stage.
  There have been a number of arguments about this in another place in the passage of this Bill. However, many people feel that an appeal in the county court is much easier to deal with than having to go to the High Court. If one does not have any accommodation, taking an appeal to the High Court is quite a difficult task.
  I know that the Minister is worried that, if this is dealt with in a county court, many cases will come forward. I shall not go into this in great detail but there
  CWH 40
  is evidence to show that that is unlikely to be the case. Shelter could provide a good deal of information on that point.
  This new clause seeks to provide a similar right to appeal against a decision by a local authority not to accommodate an applicant during a review as that introduced by Clause 11 of the Bill. It would give the county courts exactly the same powers to confirm or to quash a decision by an authority, and order that accommodation be provided as already provided in Clause 11. It sets out the full circumstances in which an applicant may appeal against a decision not to provide accommodation during a review.
  This is a technical amendment and it is lengthy because it needs to cover the four circumstances in which an authority may accommodate an applicant temporarily when it reaches an adverse decision on a homelessness application and decides to withdraw accommodation. Those four circumstances are, first, not to exercise its power to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review under Section 188. That is a straightforward example of where an authority decides that an applicant is not in priority need and therefore it is no longer under a duty to house the applicant once it has made its decision.
  The second circumstance is that in a case where the authority has secured that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under Section 190(2)(a), it ceases to secure that accommodation is so available before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under Section 204 of the Act has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant). That is where an applicant is found to be intentionally homeless and has been accommodated under the duty under Section 190(2)(a). This duty requires an authority to provide accommodation for a reasonable period (usually 28 days) while the applicant looks for alternative accommodation.
  The third circumstance is not to exercise its power to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review under Section 200(5). This is where a local authority believes that an applicant has a local connection with another authority and proposes to refer the applicant to that authority.
  The fourth circumstance is to exercise its power under either Section 188 or Section 200(5) for a limited time ending before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under Section 204 of the Act has expired (or if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant), or, in either case, to cease exercising its power before that time. This mirrors the provision in Clause 11. If we are going to give proper access to justice for people who are homeless, it is important that they should not have to appeal to the High Court.
  There are circumstances under which the process might take anything up to three months, and we are talking about three months in which people are trying to get an appeal on a decision made about their right to accommodation and trying to appeal in the High Court.

  CWH 41
  Evidence shows that this is not an easy thing for homeless people to deal with. The purpose of this amendment is to bring it in line with other parts of the legislation and to avoid homeless people having to apply for judicial review in the High Court. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: As my noble friend Lady Maddock was speaking, it occurred to me that the Minister, almost above any other Minister on the government Front Bench, would not want to suggest that procedural difficulties should affect an applicant's access to justice. I hope that that argument is one that he will be able to dispose of.
  Perhaps it might also be worth referring to access to legal aid. By definition, the people who would benefit from the amendment of my noble friend Lady Maddock would be seeking legal aid, but there would he no different criteria whether the application were made in the county court or the High Court.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Every member of the Front Bench is united in their desire that there should not be procedural bars to justice, so I do not single myself out for any particular respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, explained the position very clearly. Can I, with equal clarity, indicate why at the moment we are not minded to accept the proposal made? It may he helpful if I remind Members of the Committee that there are two procedural stages open to an applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision made on his homelessness case.
  First, under Section 202 of the 1996 Act, he has the right to request the authority to review its decision. Secondly, if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the authority on review, then the applicant has the right under Section 204 to apply to the county court on a point of law. Under the current provisions, applicants who wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate pending either a review by the authority or an appeal to the county court must seek judicial review of that decision in the High Court.
  Applying to the courts to overturn an authority's decision should be a matter of last resort and should only be considered where it is clear that the authority has not made a proper decision. During the passage of this Bill's predecessor, then the Homes Bill before the general election, the Minister for Housing gave a commitment in another place to consider whether there was a case for giving the county court power to require an authority to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to that court; that is, at the second stage of the procedural process. He gave that commitment in response to a new clause moved by the Member for Bath. He consulted the Lord Chancellor's Department and decided that there would be merit in providing such a power because of practical considerations involving court administration.
  Those obvious considerations are at the second stage of the process. The county court is involved anyway. It is ridiculous to have the county court deciding on the principal point, but to have to go to the
  CWH 42
  High Court to determine whether the local authority is right not to continue to house the applicant pending the consideration of the matter by the county court. In short, the Government recognise that it does not make administrative sense for two different courts to consider different decisions about the same homelessness case at the same time.
  The previous Bill fell before the General Election, but a suitable clause, Clause 11, was included in the new Bill. It contained the provision to allow the county court to consider whether continued accommodation should be provided pending the second stage of the process by the county court.
  The principle of judicial review by the High Court remains valid where applicants wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate, pending a review by an authority of the homelessness decision. That is at the first procedural stage, because at that stage there is no involvement of any court, so the problem of two courts considering the same issue does not apply. There is a difference between the first and second stages. In the second stage the county court is involved anyway, so it is obviously right for the county court to deal with that issue. The county court is not involved at the first stage and we strongly resist giving it the power to intervene in decisions by an authority not to continue to accommodate at the review stage, because in effect we are completely taking away the discretion from the local authority at that non-court stage to decide what to do while the review is going on. Unlike applications for judicial review, applications for county court are not filtered in any way; there is no permission or leave stage. The amendment would require the county court to consider every application made to it.
  If the power to intervene in local authority decisions not to continue to accommodate an applicant pending a review were removed from the High Court to the county court, every case would have to be considered on its merits by the county court. Secondly, there would be a strong likelihood that the court would be minded to require the authority to continue to accommodate in just about every case, until the court had had the opportunity to consider the application properly. Having done that, it is unlikely to want to take any action that would result, directly or indirectly, in the applicant becoming homeless, pending its decision of the case.
  Thirdly, the net effect would be a huge incentive for every homeless applicant who received a decision against his interests to ask for a review by the authority and to apply to the court for an order requiring the authority to continue to accommodate him. That would undermine the local authority's discretion to decide whether to exercise that power.
  We appreciate the motives behind the amendment. It is different from the second stage of the procedure, where the county court is already involved. It would be likely to result in local authorities being compelled to house every applicant whose case they have just rejected. That would place a significant burden on the local authority in respect of a large number of cases in which it had decided that there was no priority.

  CWH 43
  While we understand the motives, we are at the moment not minded to accede to the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider carefully what I have said. It is an important issue, but we have put the procedural position on the right side of the line, because we also have to bear in mind the needs of the local authority and all the homeless people they are trying to house.
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his very full reply to a rather complicated amendment, although the principle is quite simple. Most of those who practise law in the area of homelessness and housing believe that this would be a very helpful amendment. The main argument that the Minister used towards the end was that we would get far too many cases and that local authorities would be required to house everybody who came up with a request for a review. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has already pointed out that many of the people we are talking about would have to satisfy the test of the Legal Services Commission because they would probably be applying for legal aid. This is a very stringent test, so the situation would not be as the Minister suggested it would be. There is ample evidence to show that the Government are unduly frightened about the number of cases that would come forward. I will look again both at my amendment and the Minister's reply. It is a complicated area; I am still convinced of the rightness of what we are trying to achieve but, given that we are in Grand Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 18:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
  "SECURITY OF ACCOMMODATION FOR APPLICANT'S OCCUPATION
  (1) In section 188(3) of the 1996 Act (interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need), for "The authority may continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review." there is substituted—
  "The authority may secure or continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review of any decision under this Part."
  (2) In section 204 of the 1996 Act (right of appeal to county court on point of law), for subsection (4) there is substituted—
  "(4) The authority may secure or continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation—
  (a) during the period for appealing under this section against the authority's decision, and
  (b) if an appeal is brought, until the appeal (and any further appeal) is finally determined.""
  The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the Housing Law Practitioners Association for drawing this amendment to my attention. I mention it in part because it is proposing these changes from its own experience. My noble friend mentioned housing law practitioners during our debate on the previous amendment. However, that did not meet with any
  CWH 44
  favour so it may be a mistake on my part to mention it again. However, the amendment arises from an awareness of problems and experience.
  The first part of the amendment is proposing an alteration to Section 188(3) of the 1996 Act. The eagle-eyed amongst Members of the Committee will observe that the difference involves inserting the word "secure". That will add to a power to continue to secure accommodation in the circumstances of Section 188(3). A similar provision is included in proposed paragraph (2) of the amendment, which will substitute for Section 204(4) of the 1996 Act. That would remove inconsistencies in the legislation which mean that housing authorities do not have the power to provide temporary accommodation for some applicants pending a challenge to a decision, whether by way of review or a county court appeal. I hope that the Minister can explain the inconsistencies. They appear to be as follows.
  There is no discretion to provide accommodation from new, as it were, only to continue to provide it. If for some reason, therefore—and there must be many reasons—temporary accommodation has not been provided during the period between application and the initial decision, there is no power to provide it pending the review or the appeal. I have already mentioned my wish to see far wider powers in local authorities. The power of general competence seems to be a particular oddity if it is necessary to amend legislation in order to provide it. If it is required, however, let us take the opportunity to do it.
  A further inconsistency is that there is no power to provide temporary accommodation pending a review of the duration of accommodation provided to an intentionally homeless household. Moreover, there is no power to provide temporary accommodation for a person who is threatened with homelessness pending review or appeal. I hope that the Minister can say that there is no need for these amendments because the powers are included elsewhere. That would be the happiest answer I might receive. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am afraid I cannot give the answer the noble Baroness asked for but there is some substance in the points that have been raised. I shall come back on Report and deal with them. It is not to be assumed that we accept every single one of them but we need to consider them carefully. We also need to consult with the various representative bodies, particularly the ALG. However, there is some substance in what has been said. I shall write to the noble Baroness before then and I hope that she will be able to communicate with the housing law association which we will try to do as well. There is a little more to deal with, and we will do that on Report.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hanham: I seek clarification of what the clause means. Currently, by Section 159 of the 1996 Act,
  "a secure or introductory tenant … an assured tenant … of housing accommodation held by a registered social landlord, or … an assured tenant of housing accommodation allocated to him by a local housing authority",
  are excluded from Part VI of the 1996 Act. That means that they are not entitled to further consideration for housing allocation.
  By Clause 12, assured tenants of registered social landlords and of local housing authorities are removed from such exclusion and are, therefore, by definition, included in those who may be considered for housing allocation as are those who are secured tenants unless they make an application for a housing transfer, in which case they are to be excluded from this section; that is, they are not to be considered for allocation. So subsection (7) is not to be altered and it allows the housing authority to allocate housing in whatever way it deems appropriate. Potentially, therefore, all those mentioned above could be brought back into consideration.
  This intervention seeks to probe what is in fact intended by this clause. What is its purpose? What is to be the effect if statutory tenants already with accommodation are then included in the duties of a council for accommodation? How are those who are seeking a transfer to be considered within this section? Also, what is the relationship between Section 159(7) of the 1996 Act and the new Section 160A(2) proposed by Clause 13(2) of the Bill?
  Without wishing to sound in any way patronising, the Minister may want to give me a general reply and, since I have not been courteous enough to give him notice of this question. I would be perfectly happy if he wanted to write to me and the Members of the Committee in detail regarding the relationship of the various clauses one to another.
  Amendment No. 21 is also part of this group, and I am sure the Minister would say that this provision is already included elsewhere in other legislation. But the amendment is designed to ensure that other applicants and the authority are protected against the making of false statements in order to obtain housing. The wording of the amendment is based on ground five in Part I, Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Fallconer of Thoroton: Dealing first with Clause 12, one of the aims of the Bill is to improve choice for those seeking social housing and remove any barriers which some would-be applicants face. Elsewhere in the Bill there are provisions which give everyone the right to apply for a housing allocation with the exception of those who are ineligible, and everyone will have the right to have their application considered fully in accordance with the authorities' published allocation scheme.
  CWH 46
  Currently, local authority allocations of housing to their existing tenants, which is one of the specific concerns that the noble Baroness raised, and to tenants of registered social landlords do not fall within Part VI of the 1996 Act and are, therefore, not subject to the priorities and procedures of the authority's published allocation scheme. There is no requirement to consider, for example, whether reasonable or additional preference should be given. There is currently no statutory framework governing applications for transfers. Individual authorities' policies on how they treat applications from these groups can be arbitrary.
  Clause 12 will bring those groups of applicants within Part 6 and extend to them the same right to have their application for accommodation considered equitably, along with new applicants for social housing.
  Clause 12 substitutes a new Section 159(5) of the 1996 Act and removes existing Section 159(6). The effect of these changes is that allocations to applicants who are existing secure or introductory tenants of the authority and who have requested a transfer must be considered under the terms of the published scheme. Tenants of registered social landlords who apply to an authority for housing must also be treated under the scheme on the same basis as all other applicants.
  Clause 12 will therefore ensure that all existing tenants within the social sector who make an application to a local housing authority for accommodation must have their application considered according to their housing needs on the same basis as all other applicants. That will bring greater certainty of fair treatment to existing tenants who, as matters now stand, may not have their applications for transfer given the priority deserved.
  At the same time, where local authorities wish or need to initiate a transfer of accommodation for management purposes—for example, where existing tenants of a block of flats have to be moved to other accommodation to allow the authority to effect repairs or renovation work—the necessary allocation of alternative accommodation can be made without being subject to the rules of their allocation scheme.
  That important provision will ensure fair treatment for existing tenants within the social sector. I hope that it deals with the specific points raised by the noble Baroness. If not, she will no doubt raise any that I have missed.
  Amendment No. 21 would lift the exemption for existing tenants if the applicant had knowingly made a false statement or instigated someone else to make one to obtain his existing tenancy or accommodation. The amendment is unnecessary, because there are already established provisions that deal specifically with that situation.
  In the case of a secure tenancy granted by the local authority, the Housing Act 1985 sets out various grounds on which a court may make an order for possession. Those set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that

  CWH 47
  Act are fault grounds, where the court may make an order if it considers it reasonable to do so. Ground 5 says:
  "the tenant is the person, or one of the persons, to whom the tenancy was granted and the landlord was induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement made knowingly or recklessly by the tenant or a person acting at the tenant's instigation."
  Ground 17 in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 makes an identical provision in respect of assured tenancies allocated by a housing association. That provides the proper remedy to apply where a tenancy has been granted as a result of a false statement. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Baroness will not oppose the clause standing part and will not move Amendment No. 21 when the time arises.
  Baroness Hanham: As the Minister's comments are now on the record, I am content not to press Amendment No. 21. However, I am not quite so content with Clause 12. I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I will have to read his comments again. I find the clause extremely confusing. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that it will also be confusing in the future. The trouble is that Part 6 is by itself a negation, because it excludes people under Clauses 5 and 6. What is now happening is that those people are being brought back into Part 6, but then, if they are seeking a housing transfer, they are excluded again. I may have completely misunderstood what it is all about, but I would like this to be considered again. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am impressed that he does not need to write to me because he has probably got it all sorted out, but if he does think there is anything more that he could do, I would be grateful.
  It is likely that I shall want to return to the amendment, if for no other reason than that it extends once again the number of those who will have to be considered under the Bill. We have now probably encompassed the entire list of anybody who is ever likely to apply for housing under any circumstances. One begins to wonder whether this should be called the Homelessness Bill or whether it is actually the local authority's housing allocation that will come into question. That is really where we all started.
  Under the circumstances, although I may return to it at a later stage, I shall withdraw my opposition to the clause.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Abolition of duty to maintain housing register]:
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 8, leave out lines 12 and 13.
  The noble Baroness said: There is a series of amendments in this group, one of which, Amendment No. 33, is a government amendment. The rest are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
  The purpose of the amendments is to remove the power to disqualify an applicant due to unacceptable behaviour at the eligibility stage of the allocations process, which comes before the allocation. The construction of the Bill means that a number of
  CWH 48
  amendments are required to achieve this. They break down as follows. The first six amendments remove the provisions relating to unacceptable behaviour at the eligibility stage. The penultimate amendment makes it clear that there is no requirement to house an applicant where no preference is given due to unacceptable behaviour, even where there is a surplus of housing.
  It is one of the Government's worries that if at the stage of eligibility housing need was taken into account, and somebody was not told that he or she had no rights to anything, when it came to allocation, if an authority had a surplus of housing it would be forced to give an applicant a place, even though it had decided that he was ineligible due to behaviour when his needs were assessed beforehand.
  The final amendment inserts the unacceptable behaviour test at the no preference stage. This is only necessary because the Bill currently refers back to the eligibility provisions at this point.
  These amendments would ensure that more emphasis was placed on housing need in the allocation process, bringing the Bill more in line with the policy intentions set out in the housing Green Paper, while still meeting the Government's intention that local authorities should have clear discretion not to house applicants in cases of anti-social behaviour.
  As the Bill is currently drafted, the unacceptable behaviour provisions arise at two points in the allocations process: at the beginning where eligibility is considered; and later on when preference is removed. These amendments would not remove the provisions from the Bill altogether. They would simply omit them from the eligibility stage, thus ensuring that housing need is considered before decisions are taken not to house applicants. If we are in the business of preventing homelessness, assessing need is the first thing that should be done, whatever else is included in the process. That is the aim of the amendments.
  The amendments would retain the unacceptable behaviour provisions at the later stage where preference can be removed and make it clear that authorities have clear discretion not to house applicants in cases of anti-social behaviour.
  The unacceptable behaviour test goes much wider than anti-social behaviour and it would allow local authorities to apply it in a wide range of other situations, particularly where rent arrears were concerned. The Minister will know that that is something about which people have been very concerned because sometimes rent arrears are due to the fact that housing benefit claims have not been dealt with within a reasonable time. The Bill would clearly give authorities discretion not to house tenants in circumstances other than anti-social behaviour.
  At the eligibility stage no account needs to be taken of housing and support needs. Housing need is considered later in the process. If we are thinking about rough sleepers and those with problematic histories, many of whom may have been evicted from previous tenancies, they would be likely to fall foul of the unacceptable behaviour provision—the very people whom we would probably find sleeping rough

  CWH 49
  on our streets. I believe that this would undermine resettlement work in particular. If we look at other strategies to help people in that position, again this is not in line with those, which is why the amendment is so important.
  In addition, it would be possible for an authority to refuse to house a homeless family because of the anti-social behaviour of just one member of that family, no matter how extreme the needs of other members of the family.
  It is also important to consider the way in which the provisions will be interpreted and applied by local authority officers. That is something to which we have returned time and again today. In practice, the unacceptable behaviour provisions will be translated into practice notes and forms for allocation officers to use in making decisions. In reality, officers will base their decisions on the guidelines produced to help them apply what is a hypothetical test and the officer must in effect second-guess the court by deciding whether the authority would be entitled to a possession order, because that would be the ground on which the test would be made.
  There is clearly a significant danger that, in practice, applicants would fall foul of guidelines drawn up to assist officers when applying the test. It is important to remember that officers would not have to take any account of the housing need at this point. That is our greatest concern.
  I want to say something about the test of being unsuitable to be a tenant the testing authority must apply at the eligibility stage and the "no preference" stage to determine whether an applicant's behaviour makes him or her unsuitable to be a tenant and the applicant must be guilty of unacceptable behaviour. That is defined as behaviour that would entitle an authority to a possession order under Section 84 of the Housing Act 1985; moreover, that behaviour must be serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant and that must still be the case in the circumstances at the time that his or her application is considered.
  The Government have argued that this is a high test and they believe that it will be used in exceptional circumstances but that it will provide an important tool to prevent authorities being required to house anti-social tenants. However, the grounds for possession are wide-ranging and include any breach of tenancy conditions and rent arrears, as well as anti-social behaviour or conviction for an arrestable offence.
  In 2000, 150,000 possession actions were taken by social landlords, the vast majority of which were for rent arrears. If a landlord takes proceedings as far as the court it can presumably be assumed that he is satisfied that he is entitled to a possession order. However, of those 150,000 cases only 65 per cent resulted in an order being made, of which only 18 per cent resulted in an outright order. So in more than 80 per cent of the cases where social landlords presumably believed that they were entitled to a possession order, the court ruled that they were not. If that is the case, it adds to the argument that we are
  CWH 50
  putting forward for saying that at the eligibility stage housing needs must also be taken into account. Housing needs must be assessed at that stage. Members of the Committee will be able to think of vulnerable people who would fall foul of this stage of the proceedings without having their housing needs assessed. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I wonder whether I may be anecdotal as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was earlier. I want to test what the effect of the amendment would be against what is in the Bill.
  In my borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for a significant amount of time we have had an extreme problem with crack dealers in housing estates. As a result of enormous effort, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 has been changed to make dealing crack a criminal offence.
  Once the local authority has evicted a crack dealer from his premises because he has committed a criminal offence, which happens very quickly, why should the local authority spend any more time considering whether that person is entitled to housing? As I understand the amendment, it would move the test further along the line so people such as the crack dealer would have to be considered at a later rather than an earlier stage, when one might quickly draw the line under the consideration of whether they are going to be given housing.
  Baroness Maddock: I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is saying about crack dealers, but crack dealers have families. We are worried about the families of crack dealers under current legislation. Because of one person, the needs of the rest of the family will not be considered.
  Baroness Hanham: Most of the crack dealers we have found have been single, unaccompanied and loaded with other crack dealers in the premises. Some might have families and some may not, but there needs to be some balance between letting things roll on for too long and drawing the line at a much earlier stage. I am sure there are examples other than crack dealers which I cannot bring to mind at the moment. There should be an option to draw the line at the beginning.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, identifies the issue here. The Bill as drafted allows local authorities to draw the line at the beginning of the process rather than considering a person's conduct later on at the allocations stage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, wants. That is the issue. What is the right approach?
  There is concern in some quarters that the Bill would allow an authority to decide to treat someone as ineligible for an allocation by simply assessing their behaviour and not considering any other factors. I assure the noble Baroness that that is not the case.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.33 to 6.47 p.m.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I was acknowledging that there was concern in some quarters that the Bill as drafted would allow an authority to decide to treat someone as ineligible for an allocation simply by assessing their behaviour without considering any other factors. Let me assure the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who was most concerned about this, that that is not the case. I will briefly go through the provisions. Section 160A(7) gives authorities a power to decide to treat individual applicants as ineligible for an allocation of housing. It applies only where a person—either the applicant or a member of his household—is guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority and in the circumstances at the time of the application he is unsuitable to be a tenant by reason of that behaviour. Where a local authority receives an application and has reason to believe that either the applicant or a member of his household has been guilty of behaviour that may make him unsuitable to be a tenant, there are a number of steps through which they have to go.
  First, they have to satisfy themselves that there has been behaviour that falls within the definition of "unacceptable behaviour". In others, there has to have been behaviour by the applicant or by a member of his household that would, if the applicant were a secure tenant, entitle the authority to a possession order under Section 84 of the Housing Act in relation to certain grounds. Those grounds are set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2, except Ground 8. They are fault grounds and include behaviour such as conduct that is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance and the use of the property for immoral or illegal purposes.
  In considering whether a possession order would be granted in the circumstances of a particular case, the authority will have to consider whether, having established the grounds, the court would consider it was reasonable to grant a possession order. It has been established in case law that, when the court is deliberating, "reasonable" means having regard to the interests of the public and the interests of the parties. So in deciding whether it would be entitled to an order, the authority will need to consider these interests and this will include all the circumstances of an applicant and his household.
  That is stage one. Under stage two, having concluded that they would be entitled to an order, authorities will need to satisfy themselves that the behaviour is serious enough to make the person unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. For example, the authority would need to be satisfied that, if a possession order were granted, it would not be suspended by the court.
  Thirdly, the authority would need to satisfy itself that, in the circumstances, at the time of the application the applicant was unsuitable to be a tenant by reason of the behaviour in question. Taken together, those three criteria provide a pretty stiff test.
  Only if satisfied in all three aspects may the authority consider exercising its discretion to decide that the applicant is to be treated as ineligible for an
  CWH 52
  allocation. In reaching a decision on whether or not to treat the applicant as ineligible, the authority will have to act reasonably, which means that it will need to consider all the relevant matters before it. Those will include all the circumstances relevant to the particular applicant, whether health, dependants or other factors. In practice, the matters before the authority will include the information provided on the application form.
  It is therefore important to bear in mind that it would be impossible for an authority to take a view on whether it would be entitled to a possession order without considering fully all the factors that a court would take into account in determining whether or not it was reasonable to grant an order. In reaching a decision as to whether or not to treat someone as ineligible, the authority must again consider all the relevant factors.
  It is important that housing authorities are clear about the implications of these important provisions and, accordingly, I undertake to ensure that those issues are included in the statutory guidance that will be issued to accompany the Bill.
  There is agreement that authorities should have the power to decide not to allocate where they are satisfied that the applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant—and there is agreement that the test of that should be the criteria set out in the Bill as drafted.
  Let me say again that this has been a difficult balancing act to get right and a great deal of careful consideration has gone into the construction of the provisions in the Bill. I believe we have got them about right. If authorities are to have the power to decide not to allocate—on which there is a consensus—it is appropriate for that power to be framed in terms of eligibility and to be included in the section of the Bill which specifically deals with eligibility.
  Where the authority comes to a decision that the applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant and will not be allocated accommodation, then that is not a matter of priority. In such a case, the question of what degree of priority should be given to the applicant does not arise. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for the power enabling the authority to decide not to allocate to form part of Section 167 of the 1996 Act, which deals with the scheme which authorities must have for determining priorities and procedures to be followed when allocating housing.
  I hope Members of the Committee will agree that the best way to ensure that authorities act reasonably and look at all the circumstances of the case before deciding to treat an applicant as ineligible for housing is through the undertaking I have given to make this clear in guidance.
  I therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, not to press her Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 22 to 25, 32 and 34.
  Amendment No. 31 seeks to ensure that, in determining the priority and preference to be given to an applicant, an authority can take account of

  CWH 53
  behaviour which affects the applicant's suitability to be a tenant only if the behaviour was deliberate, wilful or negligent.
  An authority may have a large number of applicants who fall within the categories of applicants who must be given reasonable preference. In determining which among them should be given priority for an allocation, the authority may take a number of factors into account. The basis for determining priority will need to be made clear in the authority's published allocation scheme. The Bill sets out three factors which, among others, a scheme can include as factors which can be taken into account when determining priority. Those include any behaviour of a person or a member of his household which affects his suitability to be a tenant.
  That will allow authorities to take account of both good and bad behaviour which may have been demonstrated by individual applicants. Bad behaviour might include unacceptable behaviour such as persistent but minor rent arrears, which is not serious enough to make an applicant unsuitable to be a tenant hut, nevertheless, is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the level of priority that is deserved relative to other applicants. Another applicant, perhaps an existing tenant applying for a transfer, may have demonstrated that he or she is a model tenant. All other practice being equal, the authority may decide that the latter deserves more priority than the former.
  The issue of what relative priority individual applications should receive for an allocation is a matter for the authority to decide, in accordance with the principles of its published scheme. It is right that that discretion, including decisions about how behaviour should be taken into account, should rest with local authorities. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment No. 31 when the time comes.
  Government Amendment No. 33 is a minor drafting amendment. The Bill gives local housing authorities powers to take account of unacceptable behaviour when making decisions about applicants for the allocation of housing.
  Clause 13 constructs a test of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. Where an authority has decided that an applicant is guilty of such behaviour, it will have the power under Clause 13 to decide to treat them as ineligible for an allocation, or it may decide to treat them as eligible but not to give them any preference under Clause 15.
  The policy intention is that the test of unacceptable behaviour should be exactly the same, whether as a basis for treating a person as ineligible or for deciding that he or she does not deserve to be given any preference. The qualification,
  "by reason of that behaviour",
  which Amendment No. 33 inserts into Clause 15, is essential to ensure that authorities do not have a broad power to decide to treat applicants as ineligible or not to give preference for reasons that are not linked to the unacceptable behaviour. The qualification appears in Clause 13—new Section 160A(7)(b)—which deals
  CWH 54
  with the treatment of an applicant as ineligible for an allocation. However, it was omitted from Clause 15—new Section 167(2C)(b)—which deals with the treatment of an applicant as deserving not to be given any preference.
  Amendment No. 33 merely inserts that qualification in new Section 167(2C)(b) to ensure that the provisions on unacceptable behaviour are clear arid symmetrical. I hope that the Committee will feel able to agree to that technical amendment when the time comes.
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his long reply to many different amendments. As I said earlier, our main concern is that housing needs should remain a priority for lettings and transfer policies. Those are the precise words used by the Government in their housing Green Paper some time ago. I quote again from the housing Green Paper,
  "Any decision to suspend applications would need to take account of the circumstances of the household in order to safeguard vulnerable groups such as those with mental or behavioural problems, or the children of families concerned. We would expect suspensions to be exceptional and that other ways of managing problems or risks may be more appropriate in many cases".
  That was the intention of the housing Green Paper. We have tried to keep that intention to the forefront.
  Other groups, including the National Housing Federation—of which I should have declared that I am a vice-president, although I do not have to do an awful lot in that role—the Local Government Association and Shelter, support the amendments. They have to deal with the situation. At this stage, I have to withdraw the amendment and I shall not be moving the others in the group, but I would be grateful if the Minister could undertake to consult a little wider with those groups, because they are of the opinion that perhaps we should have amendments along those lines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Applications for housing accommodation]:
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 10, line 7, at end insert "and shall be entered in a register complying with the requirements of Schedule (Housing Applications Register) to this Act"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 26 is grouped with Amendment No. 40. There will be no great tears shed at the necessity to keep a housing register of all those who for whatever reason are involved in a local authority's housing. In most cases the register grows as numbers on it grow and those moving off it are of limited extent. It has always been the case, and will continue to be so, that local authorities will have to make decisions on allocations against the background of priority needs. The points system for such allocations is becoming increasingly complex and difficult. Some authorities, however, including my own, have been running common registers between them, registered social landlords and

  CWH 55
  even with private landlords who are working with the authority. These formed a real basis for ensuring that lettings were made on a basis which prevented too many people with multiple social needs being placed together in one small community.
  The extension of these priority categories, and the emphasis that will be placed upon them rather than on those who have non-priority requirements, will assist local authorities which still prioritise who receives the limited accommodation available. There must be some statutory requirement to record the allocations made and the decisions implemented. The suggested wording of Schedule 1A, which is included in Amendment No. 40, would provide guidance for that. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendments seek to restore a statutory requirement for housing authorities to have a register of applications for allocation of accommodation. This cuts across the thrust of the Bill which is to encourage authorities to move away from fixed registers and consider more flexible ways of operating their allocation schemes, which can enable them to offer more choice to those who seek a social housing tenancy.
  Baroness Hanham: May I intervene? I may not have made myself clear. What I believe is required is not the traditional housing register where everybody went on in date order and the points rammed up. I suggest that for all those to whom the authority appears to have an obligation and whom they are treating as homeless persons or priorities, the decisions that are made must be recorded. It is not a case of keeping a list against which it works but rather one that records what happens, who is treated and dealt with, what housing allocations are proposed and how many offers people receive. That is what I mean by a register rather than the traditional register which concerns housing allocations under the points system.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is helpful. It is hard to imagine how a reasonable local authority can operate any housing allocation scheme without proper records being kept. It clearly could not do so and it clearly needs some list or register of applicants and some record of what it has done in relation to the applications. However, it is not for the Bill to specify or prescribe as far as local authorities are concerned what is the best means of administering their housing allocation arrangements. If an authority decides that it would be necessary or constructive to keep a particular form of register it will be for that authority to decide what form or type of register will best meet its administrative needs. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there needs to be proper administration but I do not believe that it is right for us to prescribe it in the Bill, particularly having regard to the way the noble Baroness has put her argument in support of the amendment. What we are dealing with when we talk about the register, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, described it in her opening remarks, is a formal sort of register which very few people will
  CWH 56
  mourn. What the noble Baroness is talking about is the record-keeping facilities for local authorities. I do not believe it is right to put that on the face of the Bill. The Bill builds in safeguards to ensure that all applicants must have their applications considered properly, including transfer tenants, and to ensure that applicants can obtain the necessary information that will allow them to assess how long they will have to wait for an allocation. The Bill provides a sensible framework of duties and powers. It is for individual authorities flexibly to construct the detailed administration arrangements as they see fit. Therefore the statutory requirement that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has in mind is not appropriate.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. The sad truth is that not all local authorities are quite as good and rigorous as others. It will be fundamentally important, as we get into the operation of this Bill, that there are no misunderstandings about who is housed and against what criteria.
  I am sure that most authorities will do it in a most rigorous way, but if there is not a requirement for those records to be kept then there could be confusion and cause for challenge over a particular housing application.
  I hear what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Allocation schemes]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 10, line 19, after "accommodation" insert "(including temporary accommodation) which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 35.
  Amendment No. 27 relates to the allocation scheme and the extension relating to those eligible for statutory housing by dint of being homeless and those to whom a duty will be owed. This extends not only the need for permanent but also temporary accommodation. The Bill gives no recognition to the fact that both are going to be difficult to supply—particularly in an over-stretched part of the country such as London. For those authorities in particular, it must be right that they are able to indicate that there are pressures on both permanent and temporary accommodation. They need to give a reasonable indication of the availability of both temporary and permanent accommodation, and the likelihood or otherwise of the need or prospect of choice in either.
  The reality is that temporary accommodation is seldom a choice anyway, but there are areas which are so pressed for temporary accommodation that it should be proper for the local authority to indicate that that temporary accommodation might not even be in the borough—indeed, it might not even be in the same part of the country. That should be made clear, together with the permanent housing constraints.

  CWH 57
  Amendment No. 28 brings us to the nub of the Bill. It refers to those who are to be eligible under the homeless priority categories. My amendment adds a few more categories which I plucked from Section 167(2) of the 1996 Act to the Bill's provisions. However, neither it nor anything we have so far been told covers comprehensively those who will be eligible under the Bill to he considered as homeless.
  The Minister was kind enough to send me and other Members of the Committee a copy of the consultation paper on the homeless priority needs categories. These are not spelt out in the Bill but unless they are all included at a later stage, they will be introduced by an order subsequently.
  It is essential that the categories that have been in consultation, together with all those we have discussed today and which appear in the rest of the Bill, should be included in the Bill so they can be considered before the Bill leaves this House.
  As I have said before, I believe that local authorities will have the greatest difficulty in fulfilling their obligations under the Bill, not only because of the increased number of categories, but also because of the limited time which they will have to keep people in temporary accommodation and the unlimited amount of time which can pass before an offer is accepted or reviews can be completed and refined.
  Amendment No. 30 is interesting. It must be the first time that any suggestion of means testing has been considered in relation to homelessness legislation. What does it mean? Does it mean that if a person who is deemed to be homeless but who has more than a certain income—I wonder what that income is—he or she will not be helped? Will they be charged for such help? Will they be given more expensive accommodation? Will they have to pay more for whatever accommodation is provided to them? Not even the Explanatory Notes give any help with that and I suggest, therefore, in the absence of explanation, that it should be deleted.
  Finally, Amendment No. 35 is a probing amendment, to see what thoughts the Government have on the provision of housing by any local authority to its community, not just to the vulnerable homeless. One of the greatest dangers posed by this Bill is that the only people ever to be accommodated by the local authority in future will be those with other social needs in addition to that of housing. There are no indications as to how priorities are to be judged or what discretion the local authorities will have to try to make allocations of properties in a way which will ensure that they have balanced communities. They particularly need to ensure that they have a sufficient number of ways to support themselves both financially and socially so as to encompass and embrace those less able to do so.
  Under those circumstances, a local authority should have a discretion, where it can show a plausible reason for doing so, to cease temporarily to operate under the terms of this Bill and allocate properties to others who may not be governed by it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Amendment No. 29 is grouped with this section and it might therefore be appropriate for me to speak to it now.
  When we last debated the Bill at Second Reading, I raised the matter of same-sex couples, pointing out that homelessness could be created in a situation in which the partner in whom a tenancy was vested died, leaving the remaining partner in danger of being made homeless since the local authority is perfectly within its rights to seek repossession and would be under no obligation to offer alternative accommodation. There have been incidents where that has in fact happened.
  The Minister was kind enough to say that he would write to me and has since done so. It seems that the Government are aware that the rights of couples outside marriage are prompting debate within society. It is felt, however, according to the Minister's letter, that the issues are complex and need to be considered in total, which is currently being done. I had intended to table an amendment which would automatically extend tenancy rights in such cases to the remaining partner, in the same way as exists for married couples. However, it would probably not be appropriate in the light of the Minister's letter and the fact that this Bill is about homelessness rather than tenancy rights.
  My amendment therefore looks at the problem from a different angle. The point of the amendment is to oblige local authorities, via their allocation schemes, to give preferential treatment to partners from same-sex couples who have been denied succession to a tenancy under the relevant provision of the various Housing Acts. In other words, the amendment directly seeks to prevent homelessness and is thus relevant to this particular Bill. I would very much welcome hearing from the Minister in response.
  Baroness Hamwee: I wholly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has just said. I thank the Minister for the copy of his letter to the noble Baroness, in which he indicates that there is a detailed cross-departmental review of issues which concern same-sex couples arising not just in the housing area. When he responds, perhaps he can say when we might have some more news of that review. Also, if he is going to oppose the amendment, can he say what harm there might be in at least making this small step in a limited area before we have the result of the whole of the review?
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 36, which is also part of this group. The purpose of the amendment is to require an authority to inform an applicant of the decision that their priority for housing has been adjusted due to behaviour affecting their suitability to be a tenant, or when their preference is removed because of unacceptable behaviour.
  There are two points in the Bill at which the local authority can deem an applicant's behaviour unacceptable and refuse to house him or her: the eligibility stage in Clause 13 and the removal of all preferences at Clause 15. At the eligibility stage there is a requirement that the authority should notify the

  CWH 59
  applicant of the decision, the grounds and the right to review. That is covered in Clause 13(9) and (10). No such requirement exists at the later stage, where all priority is removed. Instead, the onus is on the applicant. That is covered in Clause 15(4). That is inconsistent.
  On Report in another place, the Minister undertook to consider the problem further. How far have the Government got with those considerations? The Minister also undertook to consult the local authority associations. I would be interested to hear his response now, since the matter is still being raised by people who are concerned about it. There seems to be an inconsistency. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope that the Minister will say something about the growing problem arising out of the nexus of asylum seekers. In many parts of the country, there are people whose business is to purchase properties and let them directly to asylum seekers or to act as an agent for the council. I am disturbed at the desperation that councils often feel, believing that they have to use every agency and avenue available, only to find that they are aiding and abetting the exploitation of the market of desperate people who need housing.
  When the Minister seeks to put the onus on councils and housing associations, I hope that he will bear in mind that in many circumstances there is a burgeoning market that meets the bill. I shall not use the term "unscrupulous". They are businessmen who invest money and provide a service, but the occupants of their properties are part of the whole nexus of homelessness and need some protection.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister reasonably rebuffed my last attempts to support my noble friend Lady Hanham. In expiation of any fault in this direction on my part at a previous stage, I shall be entirely content if the Minister says that Amendment No. 27, moved by my noble friend, is not required under the wording of the Bill and is superfluous to requirements.
  In case he does not say that, I will put forward what I intended to say. Earlier in our deliberations I described London local authorities criss-crossing London, moving tenants around from one authority to another so that there could be as many exports as imports and vice versa. I took that up with the authority in the constituency that I previously represented. I was told that one reason was that my authority was more particular about where it put people and that it was sorry that accommodation that it had rejected within the City of Westminster was being used by other local authorities.
  The cause of my anxiety is that that other accommodation may be cheaper and in circumstances where demand exceeds supply, one would see more of such accommodation being used. Whether that falls into line with what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, alluded to a moment ago, I do not know. I can put on record that, when I was a parent with undergraduate
  CWH 60
  sons, I could not help noticing that the accommodation in three different universities was all being managed from within the same ethnic group. This suggested that there was a degree of what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, described as a nexus at work. However, if the Minister tells me that those words are not required, I can obviously rest easy.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that I can give the assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, seek, in relation to Amendment No. 27. That amendment would require authorities to include in their allocation schemes a statement on offering applicants for accommodation choice, not only within the authority's own boundaries but also in other areas also.
  I am very keen to see authorities co-operating to allow allocations to be made across local housing authority boundaries, which I take to be the intention of this amendment. The noble Baroness, as a member of a London borough council, will be aware of the London Housing Partnership, which is an excellent example of inter-borough co-operation, and of the London Authorities West and North initiative, which gives London social tenants the opportunity to move out of the capital. I also refer to HOMES—the Housing Mobility and Exchange Services, which operates across the UK.
  People's choices about where they want to live do not neatly fit into local authority boundaries, as the noble Baroness, above all, will know. There will frequently be excellent reasons for seeking accommodation outside the authority in which an applicant is currently situated. Of course, facilitating movement from areas of high housing demand to areas of low demand makes good sense.
  I say that because I wish to make it clear that I fully agree with the spirit of Amendment No. 27, but I do not believe it is necessary to place such a statement on the face of the Bill. The provisions of the 1996 Act about allocations relate to the selection of tenants of an authority's own stock and nominations to tenancies of accommodation held by other housing providers, whether other authorities or RSLs. An authority's policy on offering people a choice of housing implicitly includes its policies in relation to its own accommodation and its arrangements with other authorities. This is a matter that can best be supplemented by guidance and to put it on the face of the Bill would be superfluous.
  One small point on Amendment No. 28. The noble Baroness will recall that Part VI of the 1996 Act is concerned with long-term allocations of secure, introductory or assured tenancies. On reflection, it may be that the reference in the amendment to the choice of "temporary" accommodation is therefore misplaced.
  Amendment No. 28 raises a different issue. It would add a number of additional categories of housing applicants to the categories that must be given reasonable preference for an allocation. In fact, it would restore three categories that are currently on the face of the 1996 Act.

  CWH 61
  I can see the temptation to restore those particular categories. At first blush, it might look as though the Government had cast aside the housing needs of those who would fall within these categories. However, let me quickly explain that we are doing so such thing.
  The provisions in the Bill that deal with the allocations framework seek to give effect to the policies that are set out in Chapter 9 of the housing Green Paper. That sets out the Government's view that meeting housing need must remain the priority for lettings and transfer policies. It also suggested that assessments of housing need should in broad terms consider whether the applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, living in housing conditions that are intolerable or has a need to move to avoid hardship. The Bill reshapes the reasonable preference categories to give effect to that approach. We are not tinkering; we are setting out to rationalise the allocations framework and trying to ensure that the circumstances of everyone who may have a need for social housing are captured by the reasonable preference categories.
  The starting point was the categories in the 1996 Act, but these are flawed to some extent by the policies underlying the 1996 changes—that is, the implication that households accepted as statutorily homeless should have to wait for an allocation of housing. In 1996, for the first time since the homelessness legislation was introduced in 1977, households that were owed a main homelessness duty were removed from the reasonable preference categories. However, in practice, housing authorities still needed to be able to give preference to these groups or they would not be able to move them on and bring their homelessness duties to an end. Therefore the three categories which are the subject of Amendment No. 28 appear to have been introduced as a proxy for these groups, to facilitate them. Virtually all homelessness applicants accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need would fall into one or other of these categories but their housing need derives from the fact that they had experienced homelessness and needed a settled home not from their social circumstances. It makes far more sense, therefore, to construct a single reasonable preference category that reflects that fact
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): There is another Division in the House.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 7.25 to 7.35 p.m.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It makes far more sense to construct a single reasonable preference category that reflects that central fact, rather than having three separate categories that do not. The Bill does this.
  Looking objectively, the three categories that are the subject of the amendment are based on vulnerability, not on housing need. The fact that someone may have social needs or dependent children or may be expecting a child does not necessarily mean that they have a need for housing. They may be adequately housed already. We are dealing with allocations, not determining whether somebody is homeless.
  CWH 62
  I understand the concern that households who fall within the three categories in question and who have housing needs should be entitled to be given reasonable preference for an allocation of local authority accommodation. I can assure the Committee that that is achieved by the revised categories of reasonable preference included in Clause 15(3).
  Amendment No. 29 would alter the categories of applicant to whom a local housing authority would be required to give reasonable preference in its housing allocation scheme. It would require a local housing authority to give reasonable preference to the surviving partner of a same-sex couple. Such partners do not at present have tenancy succession rights, as they are not considered to be spouses.
  The noble Baroness has already made her concern about that clear at an earlier stage and, as she very fairly said, I wrote to her and sent a copy to other interested Members of your Lordships' House.
  We have already made a commitment to a full review of the tenure arrangements for social housing. It will be undertaken by the Law Commission, which has been asked to produce a report and draft Bill by July 2003. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am pleased to say that succession issues will be considered in the first phase of the review. Tenancy succession is just one of many issues that the Government intend to review with regard to its effect on couples outside marriage—same-sex or otherwise. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what harm would it do to deal with it now. We believe that it is appropriate that the issue of same-sex couples should be dealt with as a whole rather than piecemeal, one issue at a time.
  Although I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness on this issue, I believe that any surviving partner who is in housing need as a result of the ending of a tenancy to which they cannot succeed will be caught by the provisions of the new Section 167(2) as inserted by Clause 15(3). I ask the noble Baroness to bear that in mind when considering what to do with her amendment when we get to the next stage.
  I am rather surprised by Amendment No. 30, because authorities may reasonably wish to lake account of a person's resources in determining the relative priority to be given to those applicants who must be accorded reasonable preference for an allocation of accommodation.
  I should stress that the new Section 167(2A) relates only to determining priority between those applicants who must be given reasonable preference. It does not remove that preference but provides authorities with the power to take account of differences between applicants with similar needs. It is surely reasonable that an authority, perhaps in an area of high demand, faced with two families in equally difficult circumstances should consider the resources available to those families in resolving their housing problems. Where, for example, one family had the resources to enter the private sector, perhaps through a shared ownership scheme, but the other did not, the authority is surely right to give priority to the poorer family first.

  CWH 63
  That would obviously not relieve the authority of its responsibilities to those who fall within the reasonable preference categories, including the better-off families. It does, however, allow the authority to prioritise the use of its scarce resources in an entirely appropriate way.
  I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will feel that taking account of financial resources is a good example of a factor that authorities may wish to take into account in prioritising claims of those who must be given reasonable preference for accommodation. While Amendment No. 35 is not necessary or appropriate, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to address the important issues it raises.
  Subsection (3) of Clause 15 in fact substitutes new provisions in Section 167 of the 1996 Act. Most of those provisions confer discretion on the local housing authority when framing their statutory housing allocation schemes. That is the case with new Sections 167(2A) to (2E) inclusive. Nothing would be gained by allowing authorities to suspend those provisions when the extent to which they use them is, anyway, at their discretion. Furthermore, some of those provisions are particularly helpful in meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness.
  New Section 167(2), like its predecessor, requires allocation schemes to be framed to give reasonable preference in allocating housing to those who in general terms have the most pressing needs. That is a duty; but the preference required to be given is one which is reasonable in all the circumstances. In determining priority between applicants who fall into a reasonable preference category, an authority may specify factors it will take into account, such as an applicant's financial resources or behaviour. They also allow authorities to ensure that local circumstances—for example, a particular estate—can be reflected in allocation schemes.
  Section 167(2E)(b) allows authorities to be able to allocate particular housing accommodation to persons of a particular description in accordance with schemes known as "local lettings schemes". These could include key worker schemes where it might help attract modestly paid but essential staff to high cost areas. In another area, such a scheme might be used to lower the child to adult ratio on an estate with a high child density or the scheme might be operated to provide housing for those who do not usually receive high priority on an authority's register—young single people, for example. It is up to the authority, in consultation with its partners, to draw up a scheme which meets local housing needs and which will support the development of sustainable communities. The provisions of the Bill provide the foundations for that work and, within the statutory framework, wide discretion is given to authorities and schemes can be adapted to reflect local circumstances. It is important to keep local lettings schemes under review and to monitor their impact on those who are not part of any local lettings schemes. Of course, local lettings schemes
  CWH 64
  should not override the reasonable preference categories across an authority's stock when taken as a whole.
  Taken together, the provisions of subsection (3) provide a robust framework for authorities. They will ensure that, in general, authorities will allocate their housing to those in greatest need but will also provide flexibility to adapt schemes to local circumstances. In that way, the Bill as drafted meets the principal purposes behind this amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will not proceed with the amendment at the appropriate time.
  I move on to the topic of provision of information. The Bill as drafted gives housing applicants the right to request information about any decisions that have been taken or are likely to be taken about the facts of their case and any decision that no preference is deserved and therefore will not be given because of unacceptable behaviour. Amendment No. 36 would remove the onus from the individual to request information, and would place an obligation on authorities to inform applicants of any such decisions.
  I am sympathetic with the thinking that lies behind this amendment. I share the noble Baroness's concern that the application process should be transparent and accessible, and that applicants should be able to obtain the information they need to get an indication of the degree of priority that their application will receive relative to others.
  I also believe local authorities should be encouraged to provide as much feedback on individual applications as is practicable—as early as practicable—so that those applying for housing know where they stand and understand their prospects, good or bad. This is particularly important in respect of those households that are being accommodated temporarily under the homelessness legislation whilst they wait for the opportunity of an allocation to provide them with a more settled home. This will be reflected in statutory guidance.
  I remain concerned, however, that we do not inadvertently place local authorities in a difficult position. The provisions in the Bill have been very carefully and thoughtfully drafted. They recognise that while some authorities may decide to continue to operate what may be characterised as points-based allocation schemes, we hope that—in response to encouragement from the Government—many other authorities will adopt choice-based schemes that allow applicants more opportunity to exercise their preference for particular properties. The statutory provisions therefore need to be appropriate to both types of scheme, as well as any others that authorities may devise.
  The provisions on applicants' right to information about their application—which Amendment No. 36 would modify—are a case in point. Under choice-based schemes, active consideration of the facts of an applicant's case may not occur until he or she makes a specific application for a particular property. Under the provisions as drafted, an applicant has the right to ask about decisions that are likely to be taken on his

  CWH 65
  application. This right applies at any stage of the process, including from the outset. If no decisions have been taken by the authority at the point he makes his request, the authority would nevertheless have to give consideration to his application and inform him what the decisions would be likely to be. It is right that those applicants who want to have this information from the outset, should have the right to obtain it. However, I remain concerned that it could be onerous for authorities operating a choice-based allocation scheme to have to provide that information as a matter of course for all applicants, whether they require to have it or not.
  In light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment in relation to the information divisions. I believe that I have dealt with all of the amendments in this group.
  7.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I can pick up on the Minister's final point. Does he think that it is particularly important, where a local housing authority is making a decision that is based on the behaviour of the tenant, that the tenant is told very clearly—and with the onus on the local housing authority—why the decision has been made? That is a particular circumstance where, rather than going to the local housing authority and asking why, a tenant is told why as a matter of course—routinely—at the same time as the authority takes the decision? After all, quite apart from the rights of tenants, there is an interest on everybody's part in modifying behaviour. If the tenant knows about it, the tenant may be able to take steps in the future.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have considered this point carefully. I continue to see a distinction between the decision to exclude and how it operates in relation to allocations. There will be nothing to prevent an individual authority from notifying applicants at the allocation stage about such a decision if they wish. It will be a matter for each authority to make its decision about that. I do not wish to place an obligation on it to do this. Separately from this, the Bill makes adequate provision for applicants to be able to obtain information about how their application is being treated. As I have said, we will encourage in guidance that authorities make the allocations process as transparent as possible and that they provide as much feedback to applicants as possible. At this stage, we think that the right balance is to leave it to the local authority to decide who to tell and when, but also to give a power to require information.
  Baroness Hanham: The Minister has dealt with a number of amendments in his customarily lucid and well directed remarks. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the people who are included in the order, plus all the others who are mentioned in the Bill, do not look as if they will appear on the face of the Bill. We need to consider that. It is a sine qua non that a Bill that embraces homelessness should at least define what homelessness will encompass, particularly the increased priorities. It is broadly covered in
  CWH 66
  Clause 15(3), but I am not sure that that is adequate. We should think about that again and possibly return to it.
  The other concern that the Minister has not entirely allayed is the business about being sure that one can maintain a balanced community. I hear exactly what he said, that the local authority is left with discretion, but my fear is that the priorities are so wide and that there will be so many people included in them that the discretion will, by definition, not be there. There will be no possibility to allow discretion within the terms of the Bill.
  I will probably return to both of those matters. In the meantime I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 28 to 32 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 11, line 13, after "deserves" insert "by reason of that behaviour"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Short title, extent and application to Isles of Scilly]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 12, line 29, after "Homelessness" insert "and Housing Allocations"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is self-explanatory. It could not be more clear. The aim is simply to make certain what the Bill is about. We have spent as long today discussing allocation as we have spent discussing the homeless. One cannot really take place without the other. Therefore, it would make more sense to make it clear in the heading that that is what the Bill is about.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I recognise the purpose of the amendment, but it is unnecessary and adds nothing to the substance of the Bill. The current provision allows the short title to be very short indeed, for which we should all be grateful.
  The principal purpose of the Bill is to deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to strengthen the homelessness safety net. Other issues have come into the Bill, but the fact that we have spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about allocation does not detract from the fact that one of the Bill's major requirements is that local authorities should undertake homelessness reviews and strategies through the

  CWH 67
  provisions relating to homelessness. While we talk about particular issues, we should remember the overall effect of the Bill. One of its main aims is to improve the way in which local authorities address homelessness. I do not consider that the title is at all misleading.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not totally surprised and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that there is an error at the beginning of Amendment No. 38; it should read, "Page14, line 4", and not line 3.
  Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
  "In section 190 (duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
  "(4) In any case where the local housing authority are advised by a social services authority that a child who is in need within the meaning of section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) resides with an applicant to whom they have secured that accommodation is available under subsection (2) above, they shall—

  (a) continue to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant and any such child for so long as the social services authority advise them that accommodation is required to enable the social services authority to provide services to such a child to promote or safeguard the child's welfare; or

  (b) provide such assistance to the social services authority as shall enable the applicant to secure that accommodation becomes available from some other person.""

  The noble Baroness said: I shall be very brief. This amendment seeks to address the important issue of children of homeless families being separated from their parents. I realise that the amendment is not perfect but I would like to highlight again the problems in legislation regarding homeless families who have children.
  I am grateful to the Minister for the interest he has shown in this issue, and for distributing relevant information and documentation. I also realise that children's rights go across several pieces of legislation and that discussions have occurred in another place in relation to the children and adoption Bill, also in the Standing Committee of the Homelessness Bill, and in an adjournment debate, so it is being well discussed. I understand also that an amendment to the Children Act is outside the scope of the Bill and so we must work with what is possible.
  Local authorities need to have joined-up thinking about homelessness and housing and many do. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, there are inconsistencies and variations, and these may impinge negatively on children.
  CWH 68
  I would like to emphasise what I said during the Second Reading debate; namely, that the Children Act places the needs of children as paramount—and I emphasise the word "paramount"—in offering council services, but that there have been cases where children and their parents have been separated.
  Shelter continues to collect evidence from its housing aid centres. In the cases it has presented as snapshots, there are no apparent child protection issues involved. The parents have been able to care for the children but the only problem was that the families were homeless. In one case, the Court of Appeal found that Section 17 of the Children Act conferred a power for local authorities to provide assistance, rather than a duty, and that the duty to provide accommodation under Section 20 of the Act is a duty to house the child, not the parent or parents, and the child is thus taken into care.
  Shelter considers that the judgments made in that case, and another, are likely to have a significant impact on homeless families with children in need and will inevitably result in social services authorities providing assistance in far fewer cases.
  In the adjournment debate in another place, the honourable Member for Regents Park and Kensington North spoke of experiences from her caseload, which indicated that strict adherence to the letter of the law may find households intentionally homeless in "circumstances that appear unjust", for example, if a family has unexpected financial problems and is forced to sell their home.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, in her reply, rightly pointed out that striking a balance in relation to housing and social services is important, and undertook to look at the judgments I referred to again and to examine the implications. There is a clear concern from the Government about this issue. I recognise that this is complex but, if children's welfare is being put at risk, we must act. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I rise to support this amendment, having put my name to it. I raised this at Second Reading too. There is considerable evidence that there are some pretty awkward and difficult cases where children have been taken away from their parents. There is a good deal of evidence which Shelter can provide, as I am sure others can too.
  The Minister shared our concern about this and said he would consult a little more widely. I hope that, by supporting this amendment and giving him a chance to tell us how far he has got with those endeavours, we will at least hear something which shows that we are looking at this matter.
  I recognise that this is a difficult matter. What the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and I are looking for, is a firm commitment from the Minister that, whatever he does, he will try to take some kind of action to ensure that the sorts of cases we have heard about no longer happen.
  The Earl of Listowel: I should like to speak briefly to the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, and to express my deep concern about the current situation. This was brought home to me in a recent conversation with a housing allocations manager in a London authority, of 30 years' experience. He described how he had started, enthusiastic and there to help people and now at the end of each day he was depressed because there was no housing to provide people with. We all recognise that some local authorities are under tremendous pressure.
  I also spoke with the manager in Barnardo's for families in temporary accommodation. He understands what is happening and his perception is that families are being threatened with their children being taken into care, not because it is a realistic proposition—it would cost local authorities £300 to £400 or probably more to look after such children—but because there is such a shortage of accommodation and they regularly use this is a means to put families off applying any further pressure to gain accommodation. They hope that they will stay with in-laws or find some other means. That can lead to families being in poor accommodation, and they can disappear from sight. Shelter has described case histories in which we learn that so-and-so is happening to a family but after that we do not know what happens to them.
  I welcome the fact that at the latest meeting that we attended the Minister brought up this matter unprompted. It clearly weighs heavily on his mind and I look forward to his response.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I said on Second Reading that we were in the process of investigating whether there had been any change in practice in the way that local authorities provide assistance for families with children who are homeless. We regard it as a very important matter and we need to get to the bottom of what is going on. Subsequent to that debate, there has been a further legal development in that one of the two cases, A v. Lambeth, has been heard and decided by the Court of Appeal, which has simply brought further confusion to what the legal position is. My colleagues and officials and lawyers at the Department of Health are studying the implications of that latest decision. It goes without saying that the more confusing the law becomes, the more one's concern about the matter rises.
  In addition to discovering the detail of that recently decided case, I have seen—I said that I would do so—the social services directors of a number of local authorities, some unitary and some two-tier. The social service directors who I saw all had arrangements in place to ensure that the social services departments work together with the housing authority—or housing department in the case of the unitaries—to find an appropriate solution for the whole family when dealing with families with children who have made themselves intentionally homeless. Concern arises in relation to intentionally homeless families.
  CWH 70
  The authorities that I saw were therefore authorities in which the process was joined up between housing and social services. I have asked my officials to work closely with their counterparts in the Department of Health to see how we can ensure that this kind of sensible and co-ordinated approach is adopted much more widely. We need to see whether amendments to the law are required. What I said on Second Reading was that I would come back with a conclusion in relation to this while there was still time for the House to do something about it. That means that I will try to let noble Lords know what the position is before Report and that on Report at the latest I will say what conclusion has been reached.
  It is plain that we are still at the development stage, so I have nothing definite to offer Members of the Committee today. However, I reaffirm my commitment to report back to the House before it is too late for something to be done.
  On the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, it has been put forward on the basis that it is a means of raising the issue. She should hold that in the hope that we will be in a position to say that anybody who is intentionally homeless and who has children shall thereafter he treated as if they were unintentionally homeless. As everybody rightly says, a balance has to be struck. We must try to ensure that there is an arrangement in place where local authorities and social services and housing departments are motivated to work together to find solutions for families as a whole. I will report back in correspondence to those who are interested, and certainly at the latest on Report.
  Baroness Massey of Darwen: I thank the Minister for his concern and for his clear explanation. I am still concerned that the notions of "intentionally homeless" and of "unintentionally homeless" are sometimes very blurred. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 15, line 23, at end insert—
  "For section 210(1) of the 1996 Act (suitability of accommodation) there is substituted—
  "(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether accommodation is suitable for a person, accommodation shall only be regarded as suitable if—

  (a) it is not overcrowded (within the meaning of section 324 (definition of overcrowding) of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68));

  (b) it is fit for the number of occupants and it has adequate means of escape from fire (within the meaning of sections 352 (power to require execution of works to render premises fit for number of occupants) and 365 (means of escape from fire: general provisions as to exercise of powers) of the Housing Act 1985); and

  (c) in the view of the authority it is fit for human habitation (within the meaning of section 604 (fitness for human habitation) of the Housing Act 1985).""

  The noble Baroness said: I am conscious of the hour so I shall not say as much on this issue as I intended. The purpose of the amendment is to require

  CWH 71
  accommodation to meet minimum physical housing standards in order for it to be considered suitable for homeless applicants.
  Under the current requirements for accommodation provided for homeless households to be suitable, local authorities need only to "have regard to" housing standards on overcrowding and physical conditions. That does not mean that they have to meet those standards.
  We all know that homeless households are often placed in temporary accommodation that is overcrowded or unfit. Accommodation will usually only be unsuitable for a household if it can be proven that, for example, disrepair or overcrowding will be harmful to that particular family. This amendment seeks to strengthen the definition of suitability, so that temporary accommodation for all homeless households has to meet the same minimum standard as that applying to all other households.
  The Government are and have been trying to ensure better standards in all our housing, including houses in multiple occupation, and the Government have also just consulted on proposals to replace the fitness standard with a more modern standard based on risk assessment.
  One of the other interesting areas is overcrowding and this amendment would have two effects. First, it would make the requirement that accommodation should meet minimum housing standards; but, secondly, it would specify the standard with which the accommodation would have to comply.
  The legislation on the overcrowding standard is very much out of date and has remained virtually unchanged since the Second World War. The amendment would at least ensure a prohibition on the use of overcrowded accommodation for homeless households. One of the issues I was concerned about is that people sometimes have to make quick decisions and sometimes they are offered accommodation for which there would clearly be overcrowding. If this provision were passed, that would be one matter I would not be so concerned about.
  It seems inconsistent that local authorities have the power to enforce standards in their area, but they do not have to meet those standards when they are accommodating homeless households. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this. This may not be the way to do exactly what we are asking, but I hope that he will understand the point I am making. I believe it is in line with the Government's desire in other areas of housing to improve housing standards in Britain. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue of housing standards. Overcrowding and poor standards are unacceptable; but it will take, as she interestingly acknowledges, a long time to address those deep-seated problems. Pressure on housing, particularly in London and the South, is growing. Many people live in unacceptable conditions. We have made a start in
  CWH 72
  addressing the problems of poor quality housing stock and insufficient supply of affordable accommodation in some areas, and I listed earlier some of the measures that we have taken.
  Taken together, our measures will bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010; they will improve the supply of affordable housing in areas where it is most needed and promote sustainable home ownership and a healthy private rented sector. However, as everyone in this room knows, none of that will happen overnight. We are making progress. We know that more needs to be done. Amendments that strengthen the duty on authorities would not tackle the real problem. They would not increase the supply of suitable accommodation on the ground and would make no real contribution to the efforts being made physically to improve the standards of existing accommodation.
  There must be real concern that, in the very immediate term, the amendments could add to the difficulties which many local authorities in high demand areas are experiencing in securing sufficient accommodation to discharge their statutory obligations to homeless people. The issues of fitness and decent standards of accommodation are very important and have been neglected by previous administrations for too long. They are real issues, but they must be addressed by devoting real resources to finding real solutions. That is what this Government are doing.
  There is a general consensus that the housing fitness standard in Section 604 of the 1985 Act no longer reflects a modern understanding of the health and safety risks in dwellings. We are therefore trying to replace the standard with the housing health and safety rating system, which will apply a modern, risk-based approach to assessing housing conditions and will apply to all dwellings. We have consulted widely on this proposal and we are currently carrying out further work to strengthen the system and ensure its robustness.
  We are consulting on proposals to legislate to enable the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low housing demand. These measures will give local authorities the power to tackle the problem of unscrupulous landlords who will not meet minimum standards of management.
  All those reforms will secure better standards of accommodation, and we plan to legislate for them as soon as we have an appropriate vehicle. However, the Homelessness Bill is not the appropriate vehicle.
  As Members of the Committee may know, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place has given an undertaking to review the current overcrowding provisions, which are very outdated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has said. At this stage, I cannot say what the outcome of the review will be, but I can give an assurance that the Government are determined to address poverty in all its manifestations and will take the necessary steps to do so.

  CWH 73
  I hope that that provides the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, with some reassurance and that she will not press her amendment.
  Baroness Maddock: It is quite late. I shall look at what the Minister has said in more detail. I remain particularly concerned about overcrowding. If families who are under pressure because they have been homeless are then put into overcrowded accommodation, I suspect that they may become homeless again, which is why I thought that it was
  CWH 74
  relevant to raise this issue in the Bill. We may be able to look at that in some other way at a further stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule I agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported with an amendment.
  The Committee adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Police Forces: Airwave
  Police Forces: Airwave
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Community Grants Programme
  Community Grants Programme
  European Arrest Warrant
  European Arrest Warrant
  Asylum Seekers: Return to Country of Origin
  Asylum Seekers: Return to Country of Origin
  Human Rights Convention
  Human Rights Convention
  Foot and Mouth Epidemic: Use of Service Personnel
  Foot and Mouth Epidemic: Use of Service Personnel
  Business Tourism
  Business Tourism
  Green Claims
  Green Claims
  Trade Barriers
  Trade Barriers
  DTI: Value for Money Review
  DTI: Value for Money Review
  Fixed-term Employment Directive
  Fixed-term Employment Directive
  Rosyth Europort: Transport
  Rosyth Europort: Transport
  Graffiti Damage
  Graffiti Damage
  Horticulture Research International
  Horticulture Research International
  Nursing Staff
  Nursing Staff
  Health Professions Order
  Health Professions Order
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Physical Activity
  Physical Activity
  Apsley House
  Apsley House
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissiion
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissiion
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Senior Salaries Review Body