Sitting of 11 December 2001

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

    Hospital Star Ratings
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement about the hospital star ratings. [19655]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Performance ratings for acute hospital national health service trusts were published on 25 September. This is the first time that hospital trusts have been publicly classified according to their performance, with more freedom and rewards for the best performers and more help for the poorest.
    Dr. Iddon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but will the same performance rating criteria, especially the nine key criteria, be used to assess hospitals in the current year as were used in the first exercise? Will they be modified in view of the lessons that we have learned from it?
    Mr. Milburn: I expect some modification in the criteria. As my hon. Friend knows, it is the first year that they were used and that each hospital's performance was assessed. As we have said, the criteria and the star ratings are far from perfect. However, it is important for patients to know how well their hospitals are performing. After all, they belong to the patients and no one else.
    As my hon. Friend knows, the House is considering a measure that proposes that the Commission for Health Improvement rather than the Department should publish the star ratings and, I hope, provide proper, objective and independent assessments of performance in all parts of the NHS.
    Mr. David Amess: How can the Secretary of State justify a crackpot scheme under which one hospital received a zero rating but came top in clinical services? Will he explain to my constituents how giving Southend hospital a one-star rating helps the recruitment and retention crisis? This rotten Government are to blame for the state of the health service.
    Mr. Milburn: Sometimes I wish that the hon. Gentleman was more straightforward in expressing his views.
    696
    The sense that no one in authority—in government or elsewhere—cared about hospitals that received a lower star rating or was prepared to do anything about it would be the most demoralising thing for staff at Southend hospital or any other hospital that got such a rating. The point of assessing performance and taking action on it is to try to get incentives right so that the good performers have more freedom and the poor performers receive help, support and, when necessary, intervention to enable them to improve.
    Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we want to improve clinical practice, it is as important to have information on the clinical outcomes of individual doctors as on individual hospitals? Will he consider the feasibility of publishing information so that the public know which doctors achieve the best outcomes?
    Mr. Milburn: It is important for the public to have as much information as possible about the performance of organisations and clinical teams in the NHS. As my hon. Friend knows, the medical profession has moved a great deal on that in recent years. For example, I met the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland before the Bristol statement. It has done impeccable work in considering the performance of individual clinical teams. I hope that, in time, and provided that it has clinical credibility, we can publish more and more information about not only organisational performance but clinical outcomes. In the end, we must all answer a simple question: does the patient have a right to know how well the clinical team, doctor and hospital are performing? The answer must be yes.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree with one of the conclusions of the Whipps Cross inquiry report, that, to comply with hospital ratings,
    "The imperative to avoid a 12-hour wait for a bed is an over-riding driver behind bed management to the detriment of good clinical care"?
    Mr. Milburn: No, I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency experience that one of the greatest anxieties about the NHS is not so much the quality of treatment when patients get to hospital, or even to the general practitioner's surgery, but the wait to get there. Waiting is detrimental to patient and public confidence. It is right to continue to decrease waiting times as we improve quality. If the hon. Gentleman considers the star ratings, he will find a variety of measures that consider matters from the patient's perspective and assess the standards of care. It is important that we always get the balance right.
    Tim Loughton: Is the Secretary of State happy with a ratings system under which one hospital bumped up its star rating for waiting times by keeping patients waiting in ambulances outside rather than on trolleys inside, and another earned zero stars but received a glowing report from the Commission for Health Improvement? Is this not merely another gimmick to allow the Secretary of State to shift the finger of blame away from the Department? In any case, what real choice does the scheme create for patients whose

    697
    local hospitals have received zero stars? What does it give them besides the knowledge that they are now officially forced to attend a failing hospital?
    Mr. Milburn: If I may say so, the Opposition always urge on us greater devolution to front-line services. That is where the responsibility should lie. Quite rightly, it should be for local managers, doctors and nurses to make the decisions. For the first time, the star ratings show that the national health service is a less monolithic organisation than it used to be. As every patient and member of staff knows, the NHS—an enormous and complex organisation—is characterised by some outstandingly good performance and, sadly, by some rather poorer performance. It is about time that we came clean to patients about where the performance is good, poor or indifferent. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be persuaded of the case for more openness and devolution.

    Smoking Cessation Services
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: What recent progress has been made on improving smoking cessation services. [19656]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am pleased to announce today that we will allocate £20 million in 2002–03 to NHS smoking cessation services in England. That reflects our commitment to the future of the services, which have proved to be highly successful. In 2000–01, they helped 64,600 smokers to succeed in quitting smoking after four weeks. In the first quarter of this year, they helped nearly 29,000 more smokers to succeed in quitting at the four-week stage.
    Mr. Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and for her encouraging remarks. Is she aware of the excellent work of the smoking cessation unit in my area of east Kent, and especially in Dover and Deal? Will she assure me that the units do not represent the end of the programme to help people to quit smoking, and that other and better means to do so will be introduced? In particular, does she agree that it is vital that young people should be prevented from taking up smoking in the first place?
    Ms Blears: I am aware of the excellent work being done in my hon. Friend's constituency. I think that £175,000 is being spent on smoking cessation services there. Their success means that we are providing funding to allow them to continue. I am pleased to say that nicotine replacement therapies are available on prescription, as is Zyban. Clinics are available for people, offering real help in giving up smoking, especially to young people. However, as my hon. Friend says, the best advice is that people should not take up smoking in the first place.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: What percentage of the £20 million has been earmarked for hypnotherapists and homeopaths, who make such a valuable contribution to helping people stop smoking? Will the Minister accept that 80 per cent. of the costs of conventional medicine
    698
    could be saved by using homeopathic medicine? Does she agree that homeopathy should be available in many more than just five hospitals in this country?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises yet again the matter of alternative therapies. He displays remarkable persistence and resilience, on which I congratulate him.
    Acupuncture and hypnosis can help in smoking cessation. As I have said previously, we are interested in whatever works and helps people to give up smoking. Therapies that are proved to have an effect should be supported by local health authorities. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that his own health authority has received a cash increase of £46 million as a result of the health allocations. I am sure that he will want that money to be spent wisely and well.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of a recent report from the North West Lancashire health authority that welcomed the smoking cessation services. However, it expressed concern about their future, given the restructuring of the health service. Will she reassure me and my constituents about the role of the primary care trusts and the strategic health authority in developing further these much needed services?
    Ms Blears: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We want the services to continue, and that is why we are announcing today that £20 million has been made available for next year. However, it will be crucial for PCTs to commission services that will benefit their local communities. We are especially keen that the services should be targeted on people in manual-worker occupations who need extra help to quit smoking. Something like 36 per cent. of the free prescriptions for Zyban and nicotine replacement therapy are being taken up by people in those especially hard-to-reach groups. We must make sure, as a key issue in tackling health inequality, that many more people from poorer communities can access smoking cessation services.

    Agency Nurses
    Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the use of agency nurses within the NHS. [19657]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We are taking action to ensure that the use of agency nurses represents good value for money and the highest possible standards of patient care. NHS Professionals will, by April 2003, provide a comprehensive and cost-effective service for all NHS trusts. The London agency project will also offer a better value for money service for the NHS in London.
    Tom Brake: The Minister will be aware that, in 2000–01, 574 per cent. more was spent on agency nurses than had been budgeted for, which works out at £6 million per trust. Will he explain how many more permanent nursing staff he expects to be recruited and retained as a result of his initiative? Permanent staff are needed for continuity, and that is what patients want.
    Mr. Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. London has historically had a very high dependency on agency nursing, and we need to tackle that problem. We can do so in two ways. First, we can increase the number of whole-time equivalent nurses working in the NHS in London. We are making good progress on that. In fact, there are more whole-time equivalent nurses working in the Croydon health authority and in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority this year than there were in September 1996. That is progress, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it.
    Secondly, we can tackle the problem in the way that I have outlined through the development of NHS Professionals. Three trusts in London use the NHS Professionals service now, but by April 2003, it will cover them all. The London agency project will also ensure better value for money and offer the possibility of significant savings. We now have 29 commercial agencies contracting with the NHS in areas of shortage such as accident and emergency, operating theatres and critical care. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to tackle this problem, and this is the right way to go about it. I think that the means that I have described will provide the solution.
    Andrew Mackinlay: What measures are in hand to ensure the tracking and recording of agency staff, bearing it in mind that recent police investigations have been hampered by the fact that some trusts have been unable to demonstrate who they employed, when and in what circumstances? Is this not indicative of the nonsense of using agency staff? What is being done to contain, control and record them, and to provide a historical record to enable us to see who has been hired in the past?
    Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Again, there are two ways for us to make progress on the problem. From next April, for the first time, the National Care Standards Commission will set new national minimum standards for nursing agencies, which will cover precisely the issue that he raised. There is also the possibility of dealing with these issues through NHS Professionals, which will be the in-house agency that deals with temporary staffing solutions, and which will tackle precisely this issue. Many concerns have been raised about inappropriately trained staff working in environments in which they clearly should not be working, and we will not tolerate that.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Minister accept that until the Labour Government make working in the national health service an attractive proposition, there will continue to be a shortage of nurses? Will he kindly tell the House how many nurses are expected to retire in the next five years, and how many are expected to be recruited from United Kingdom training courses?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Lady is perfectly right that we need to make the NHS a more attractive place for people to work in, and that is precisely what we are doing. That is why 17,000 more nurses are working in the NHS this year than in the last year of the Conservative Government. We are making progress in all those areas. Clearly, nurses will retire from the service, but our commitment to recruit an extra 20,000 nurses will compensate for those who are leaving. We are talking about increasing the number of
    700
    nurses available to people in the NHS, not cutting it. The hon. Lady would benefit from reflecting on the record of her party. One of its parting bequests was to cut the number of nurses in training for the NHS.

    HIV
    Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on how specialist HIV work will be protected and monitored under primary care trust commissioning. [19658]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): For the year ahead primary care trusts must honour existing agreements, financial and otherwise, negotiated by regional specialised commissioning groups and current specialised service commissioners. Implementation of the sexual health and HIV strategy will include effective performance management through the use of, for example, information collected under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987.
    Lynne Jones: As my hon. Friend will know, last year saw the greatest number of AIDS cases—or HIV infection cases—ever recorded. Many organisations, including the Birmingham-based charity Freshwinds, have said that the mainstreaming of HIV prevention work is premature. I know that health authorities will be commissioning the work for next year, but is there not a case for postponing the new arrangements at least until a review of the AIDS (Control) Act reports has been conducted, and robust measures are in place to identify instances in which primary care trusts are not taking their responsibilities seriously enough and are not catering for the needs of vulnerable groups such as gay men and asylum seekers?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right to mention the large number of new HIV infections identified in the past year. One reason may well be the increase in antenatal testing, which I am sure we all agree is very important. The reflection of that in higher figures for infection enables us subsequently to treat the women involved to make it less likely that the infection is passed to their children.
    My hon. Friend underlined the need to monitor what is produced in the system. We should aim for a system in which more services are commissioned at PCT level, because that will allow more flexibility and responsiveness in decisions about the delivery of local treatment and care. We need to ensure that the targets identified in, for example, the sexual health and HIV strategy—which include a 25 per cent. reduction in new HIV infections by 2007—are monitored. As we move to a locally responsive system, it must be ensured that we deliver on those targets.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Can it really be true that, as stated in a parliamentary answer to me, the national health service is recruiting HIV-positive nurses from sub-Saharan Africa, and that that poses no health hazard?
    Jacqui Smith: I do not know of the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he writes to me I will certainly respond. It is important for us to recruit

    701
    people, from this country or from overseas, who both meet the necessary health requirements and can contribute to the national health service.
    Careful controls apply to those employed in our health service who may be HIV-positive. I do not think that raising particular cases is helpful in ensuring that we recruit the numbers that we require, or in avoiding stigmatising people with HIV while making certain that NHS patients have the necessary protection.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: As the Minister knows, the AIDS (Control) Act requires health authorities to report on the use of the ring-fenced budget. Does she accept that, given that health authorities in their present form will disappear—along with that ring-fenced budget—we need to get on with reviewing the Act, so that when the budgets go to primary care trusts there will be a mechanism to track what they are doing and establish whether they are spending effectively?
    Jacqui Smith: It is true that the Act currently requires health authorities to report annually not just on the spending of their money but on the number of new infections, treatment provided and investment in HIV prevention work. In April 2002, the requirement will pass from health authorities to PCTs, so we can go on monitoring that activity.
    My hon. Friend is also right that we should review the operation of the Act to ensure that we have information, not just locally but nationally, to enable us to measure the outcomes of investment in the tackling of HIV, and our success in lowering levels of infection.
    Sandra Gidley: Traditionally, health authorities have been allocated money for prevention and money for treatment and cure. Everybody must get the prevention message across when the budget effectively goes into the primary care trust pot, but the incidence of HIV varies around the country. It is low in my area, but extremely high in parts of London. Will areas with a high incidence be vired more money to cope with the larger problem or will they be expected to manage on the existing budget?
    Jacqui Smith: No, a revised allocation formula was developed to ensure that PCTs receive a share of funds in line with the number of residents with HIV receiving treatment in their boundaries. That will be incorporated as a component of the unified formula to ensure that money is distributed to the areas that need it for treatment.

    Flu Immunisation
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make statement on progress with this year's flu immunisation campaign. [19659]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The most recent monitoring figures from health authorities across England indicate that at 31 October, the average uptake was 52 per cent. among people aged 65 and over. That compares with 46 per cent. for the same time last year—a 6 per cent.
    702
    improvement, which indicates good progress towards achieving the minimum 65 per cent. uptake figure set at the start of the campaign.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but it shows that there is still a long way to go in ensuring that the majority of vulnerable people receive immunisation. Will she consider the fact that some doctors' practices are rigid in making arrangements for flu immunisation? We require more flexibility from them, so that people can attend when they are available, which would ensure that that percentage increases. Will she take action to ensure that practices consider the matter and develop more flexibility in offering immunisation?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right that it is important that as many people as possible take up the offer of immunisation. I understand that about 12,000 people die of flu each winter and that the excess deaths every winter closely follow flu patterns, so people should take their vaccination opportunities. Many doctors now undertake more flexible and imaginative schemes that provide immunisation as and when people want it. They also provide immunisation not only to over-65s, but to those with chronic heart disease, asthma, chronic renal disease and diabetes and to people in long-stay residential care. Flu immunisations can reduce hospital admissions by up to 60 per cent., so we want to promote them as much as we can.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I declare an interest in the issue and welcome the comparative increase in flu vaccination, but will the 53 per cent. turn out to be 65 per cent., as this is relatively late in the year? In any case, is not 65 per cent. a rather low minimum standard to accept? I congratulate the Minister on the progress that the Government have made, but will she bear those points in mind, because the issue is vital? If all over-65s in particular could have a flu jab, the problems that our hospitals face in winter could be overcome.
    Ms Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman wants us not only to set targets, but to make them higher every year. Last year, we were 6 per cent. behind where we are this year, although we still reached our 60 per cent. target, so we are more than likely to reach 65 per cent. over the winter. We have provided an extra 1.3 million doses of vaccine this year, so there is no question of any shortage.
    We want staff who work in social care and local authority residential homes to have access to vaccine. That is also the case for NHS staff, because if we can ensure that they are immunised, they will be less likely to take time off work, making them available to care for people in areas of peak pressure during the winter months. I am confident that we shall reach and exceed our target, and I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support.
    Liz Blackman: Staff are key players in tackling winter pressures, for the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined. Does the Department hold current figures for the take-up of flu vaccination by health professionals?
    Ms Blears: This is the first year that we are properly monitoring the take-up among staff. In October, when the campaign was in its early stages, the figure was about

    703
    9 per cent. I anticipate that the figure will increase during the coming months, but immunisation of staff is relatively new, so we need to ensure that immunisation is available at times that suit staff rather than expecting them to take time off from the wards to go to be immunised. Making sure that we bring immunisation to the wards so that staff can be immunised at a convenient time—so that times are flexible—is important to the success of the campaign.

    Hospital Patients (Discharges)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement about the discharge of patients from hospital into nursing home care in Gloucestershire. [19660]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The Gloucestershire health community has been working closely with Gloucestershire county council social services to reduce the number of patients who, although fit to be discharged from hospital, are still occupying an acute bed. Between July and November the average number of patients waiting for discharge has declined from 109 to 57. The NHS regional office and social care region are closely monitoring the action being taken in Gloucestershire to reduce delayed discharges.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but a recent report for the East Gloucestershire NHS trust contradicts those figures. It suggests that in October there were 180 delayed discharges, which resulted in 23 people being left on trolleys for up to 12 hours. Will she investigate the discrepancy between those figures and the ones that she cited?
    Jacqui Smith: I shall certainly look at the figures that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. However, perhaps more important, we shall also continue the investment that we started with the £300 million announced in October, from which Gloucestershire county council benefited to the tune of £1.46 million. That money is now being used to reduce delays, prevent admissions to hospital and improve community support. That is why the council believes that it will be able to reduce delayed discharges by a further 40 per cent. by March 2002.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: When my hon. Friend investigates those matters in Gloucestershire, will she ensure that the council learns from best and worst practice elsewhere? In particular, will she make sure that Gloucestershire social services department does not do what was done in my constituency? There, the Conservative-controlled county council block-booked 12 nursing home beds in a local nursing home, yet at the height of the crisis last year six of those paid-for beds were empty. Will my hon. Friend also ensure that Gloucestershire county council does not fire 16 care home managers—the people responsible for the transition from hospital to nursing home beds—while finding enough money to keep on 16 press officers?
    Jacqui Smith: I know that my hon. Friend and Labour Members who represent Kent constituencies have been active in ensuring that the extra amount of more than £2.5 million that has been made available to Kent to tackle bed blocking has been used effectively. I am sure that the £1.46 million allocated to Gloucestershire will
    704
    also be used effectively. My hon. Friend makes an important point, whether about Gloucestershire or anywhere else. We have evidence of authorities that have successfully reduced bed blocking and we shall ensure that those messages are consistently spread throughout the country and that all councils—even recalcitrant ones—are made to put the interests of their older people at the head of their policies.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister's reply is somewhat complacent. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) has given me the figures for Gloucestershire: 180 people are in hospital who have no clinical need to be there. That is bad for the patients and bad for the taxpayer. When the Minister investigates the circumstances in Gloucestershire, will she undertake to consider how health and social services can work more seamlessly together so that people can leave hospital when they are clinically able to do so? It is cheaper to find a home care package or a residential or nursing home package than it is to keep people in hospital when they do not need to be there.
    Jacqui Smith: That is precisely why the Government have announced the extra £300 million, of which Gloucestershire has £1.46 million. In challenging the Government on the issue, the hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to explain to his constituents whether a Conservative Government, were there to be another one, would match that type of sum. He is right, however, that a seamless join between health and social services is very important. The provision that the Government have made available for closer partnership working between health and social services, which has been taken up in many parts of the country, may well be an opportunity that Gloucestershire needs to consider. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—whose concern about delayed discharges I share—will be ensuring that the extra money being provided to the social services department and the health authority in Gloucestershire is spent in the most effective manner.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Is the Minister aware that, according to her own figures in a written answer, 9 per cent. of acute beds in Gloucestershire are occupied by delayed discharge patients? Does she accept that, on average, there are currently 680,000 bed blockers per annum? Given that the average cost of a week in hospital is £1,630, but only £319 in a residential home, is that not a gross waste of money? Is it not also halting patient care and preventing operations? Is the Minister proud of the fact that, after four and a half years, this Labour Government have created not only a waiting list to get into hospital, but a waiting list to get out of hospital?
    Jacqui Smith: This Government are concerned to ensure that people receive the right treatment at the right time and in the right place. This Government have therefore invested extra money to ensure that we cut delayed discharge. I doubt, as we have heard, that that money would be matched by the Opposition. Because of that investment, between July and November 2001, there has already been a 47.7 per cent. decrease in the number of delayed discharges in Gloucestershire. Because of that investment, Gloucestershire now feels able to set itself a tough target to reduce delayed discharges even further. We shall continue to ensure that we invest and reorganize

    705
    and promote joint working between health and social services, to ensure that the extra investment we are providing translates into better treatment and faster access to community and residential care for older people.

    Doctor Recruitment
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What recent progress has been made in the recruitment of doctors in the NHS. [19661]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are committed to delivering an additional 10,000 doctors by September 2005, over a September 2000 baseline. Good progress is being made towards meeting that target. Almost 7,000 more doctors are working in the NHS now than in 1997.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, has he read recent reports in the Coventry Evening Telegraph that the Walsgrave university hospital trust has had difficulties in recruiting doctors and trainee doctors? Will he look into the matter and report back to the House on the outcome?
    Mr. Hutton: I shall certainly look into the matter on behalf of my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the Coventry and Walsgrave trust was very recently able to announce the go-ahead for the new medical school to be built on the site of the Coventry and Walsgrave hospital. I hope that, like me, he will regard that as a very positive investment in the future, to ensure that the NHS has the doctors and surgeons that it needs for the new century.
    Dr. Evan Harris: As the previous question indicated, it is no good just recruiting doctors if we cannot retain them. In addition to the demoralisation that is caused by the naming and shaming of doctors as a result of star ratings that are based on no meaningful outcomes, will the Minister look into the issue of female junior doctors who, because of the new pay deal, when seeking to train flexibly, are paid less than those who are in full-time work? Will he also look into the issue of black and Asian doctors who are still not allowed to become consultants although they have the skills to do so? The majority of them are to be found languishing in non-regular trust-grade posts, the terms and conditions of which are often poorer than those for the mainly white junior doctors whose posts they are mirroring.
    Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman that we need to improve the recruitment and retention of doctors, which is what we are doing. We recently announced measures that will add appreciably to our endeavours, such as the new flexible career scheme for hospital doctors, and we have a similar package in place for general practice. Golden hellos are being introduced for people entering general practice. We are making good progress in all those areas.
    The hon. Gentleman raised a number of very fair points. He will be aware of some of the measures that we have proposed that will help move those issues forward. I simply ask him to reflect on this fact. We are committed to the growth of the national health service and to recruiting more doctors, and we have the resources in
    706
    place to do so properly and effectively. The choice, as always in these matters, is between a Labour Government committed to the growth of the NHS and a Tory Government that would cut the national health service.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: What progress are the Government making in persuading NHS consultants who work part time in the private sector to work full time in the NHS instead? We were given figures last week-indicating that under the concordat with the private sector, some 70,000 patients have been treated in the private sector by these doctors. How many more patients would have been treated instead in the NHS if those doctors had been working full time in the health service?
    Mr. Hutton: It makes no sense to have spare capacity in the private sector which can be used by NHS patients if it is being denied to them. If, as a result, NHS patients have to wait longer for their care and treatment under the NHS, that needs a solution, and the Government have provided a way forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made an announcement last week about expanded choice and a greater use of the private sector, and we will be treating NHS patients in that context. The money will ensure that that happens. That is a sensible result, and a good result for the NHS.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister accepts that all hon. Members want to see more doctors in the national health service, whether in hospital or in general practice. Does he agree that if he can achieve the Government's target, it will mean that doctors will be able to spend more time with their patients, that those in general practice will be able to make more home visits—which I believe to be essential—and that, as a result of more time being spent by doctors with their patients in hospital and in general practice, there could be better outcomes which could produce a better health service and better health?
    Mr. Hutton: I am able to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. I do not want to embarrass him, but that is usually the case in Health questions. He is absolutely right. We will secure those results by recruiting more doctors in general practice, and more nurses and therapists as well. In that way, primary care—which is, after all, where 90 per cent. of all patient journeys begin and end—can provide a more flexible service and the health care professionals who work in primary care can spend more time with their patients. That is what the doctors and nurses want, and it is what the Government want.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does the Minister recognise that a significant number of refugees in the United Kingdom are fully qualified and experienced doctors, but are unable to practice because they lack sufficient skills in English? Will he undertake to look at the possibility of setting up a cost-effective scheme to help these doctors improve their language skills so that they can contribute to the work of the national health service?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what we are doing: we have asked the Royal College of General Practitioners to lead a specific project dealing with the recruitment into the NHS of more

    707
    refugee and asylum-seeking doctors. That makes sense for the NHS and will help towards meeting the wider targets that we set for improving the service.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Today's Royal College of Surgeons report highlights the current alarming shortage of hundreds of key surgeons and the future shortage of thousands. A few days ago, Sir Peter Morris, president of the college, described surgeons as depressed and frustrated. The British Medical Association is today calling for swift action to unblock the training bottlenecks, and highlights the need to recruit overseas consultants. Does the Minister think that he has any chance of meeting his target for 2004, contrary to what the report says? If so, where will these surgeons come from?
    Mr. Hutton: I am confident that we shall meet those targets. The hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Peter Morris's comments, and I am sure that he will be aware of what Sir Peter Morris had to say about the Conservatives; he is certainly talking about shortages. We are trying to address the shortages. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the NHS has been historically under-doctored for decades, and I am afraid that his party failed to address that. Sir Peter said:
    "Whether the Conservatives would come up with any alternatives, I doubt."
    That is absolutely right, because we should not lose sight of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should not concern himself with the Conservatives. That is something for the Opposition to worry about.

    Health Inequalities
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What progress has been made on tackling health inequalities. [19662]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Good progress has been made, not least by targeting resources on the areas of greatest health need.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but may I draw his attention to the Government's chief medical officer's report this year, which states that, although progress has been made in health overall, there are growing gaps in health between socially disadvantaged groups and more affluent groups. When does he expect the primary care trusts to have completed their equity reports in relation to targeting inequalities? As he well knows, we in Barnsley have just one PCT, which has now been put together and is continuing its work. When the equity audit is complete, will we have more resources to deal with some of our inequalities?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important issue. For many decades, health inequalities in this country have been widening, rather than narrowing. Indeed, the chief medical officer's report, which was published yesterday, makes that glaringly obvious. There is a big commitment to deal with those problems. Obviously, they are not straightforward because we are
    708
    dealing with some of the wider economic and social determinants of ill health, as well as ill health itself, but it is important to get the resources into the right place, as I said in an earlier answer. My hon. Friend will be aware from the announcement that I made last Thursday that, in the next financial year, we will invest about £150 million-worth of extra resources, specifically to recognise the greater demands that are made on health services in poorer parts of the country, such as his constituency, where we will invest, I think, an extra £2 million.
    The primary care trusts will have an important role to play in that regard, and the fact that the resources and responsibilities are being devolved down to very local communities, with the PCTs in charge, will help to foster better partnerships between local government, the voluntary sector, the private sector and the NHS, not just to provide better health and social care services, but to deal with some of the root causes of ill health, of which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are painfully aware.
    Mr. John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the big inequalities is the fact that people in constituencies such as mine have to wait far too long for the routine operations that they need to get out of pain, unlike in some other parts of the country? What would he say to my constituent Mr. Levy, who read in the paper that the Government had lost a court case and that he could now go abroad and get his operation charged to the health service? He then read a couple of statements, purporting to come from the Secretary of State, saying that he is launching a policy to allow people to go abroad to get their operations done more quickly to get out of pain, only for me to receive from two junior Ministers in the Department of Health a strong no to my constituent, saying that there was no way that he was allowed to have his operation done elsewhere to get out of pain and that this was all a tissue of lies. What has the Secretary of State got to say about that?
    Mr. Milburn: A tissue of lies it is not, but the right hon. Gentleman, or indeed any other right hon. or hon. Member, would not forgive us if we got the policy wrong with regard to offering patients the choice of being treated abroad. That has not been the case under Conservative or Labour Governments, but it is what we are advancing towards, and we will ensure that we get it right. There are obvious concerns about travel arrangements, clinical standards and ensuring that patients are fit to travel, but that is precisely what we are trying to do in three parts of the country, including the south-east—precisely the area about which the right hon. Gentleman expresses concern—and I hope that we can make progress before too long.
    As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is also important that, as we expand the NHS, we also extend choice to more patients. He will be aware that I was able to say last week that that is precisely what we want to do, starting with those patients who have the most severe clinical conditions. I cannot think of anyone who faces a greater dilemma than the heart patient who has the choice between paying for treatment or waiting for treatment. We want to solve that dilemma not by forcing people out of the NHS, as the Conservative party increasingly seeks to do, but by offering them choice in the NHS.

    Homelessness
    Ms Karen Buck: What recent assessment he has made of the health care needs associated with homelessness. [19663]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The NHS is fully committed to providing access to health care on the basis of need. The health care requirements of homeless people are being addressed through local health improvement plans, personal medical services pilots focusing specifically on the homeless, and general medical services development schemes. In addition, the Department has provided additional funding to support the needs of homeless people with mental health problems in London.
    Ms Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware of the significant contribution that has been made by Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority to the work of the rough sleepers unit, especially in the provision of much needed mental health services? That has come at a considerable cost to the health authority, which has sustained the bill for mental health services, sometimes at the cost of displacing local people from those services. Will he undertake to give sympathetic consideration to the bid that the health authority is putting together to provide a long-term answer to mental health services, partly to relieve the strain on my local health authority but also to guarantee the long-term sustainability of the action to tackle rough sleeping?
    Mr. Hutton: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will look sympathetically at those proposals. The more work we do on homelessness and mental health, the more we uncover substantial unmet need. It is part and parcel of the work that the Government are doing to ensure that the resources are in place to respond to the need once it has been identified. My understanding is that the regional office is already in discussions with the trust to consider the question of how additional resources might be used to help to deal with the problem. I will take my hon. Friend's comments seriously and get in touch with her in the near future.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that one of the problems that homeless people face is the time it takes to get a CT scan in hospital? I have had many letters from constituents who complain about how long it has taken to get a scan in the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn. What will the right hon. Gentleman do about it?
    Mr. Hutton: It will be a combination of things, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, including more investment, more staff and more training. We are making significant resources available to improve the range of diagnostic equipment that supports the needs of his and all our constituents.

    NHS Appointments Commission
    Mr. Kevan Jones: If he will make a statement on the work of the NHS Appointments Commission in relation to appointments in the north-east. [19664]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Since it became operational on 2 July 2001, the NHS Appointments Commission has announced 613 appointments, of which 37 were to posts in the north-east. All those appointments were made in accordance with the commission's procedures, which have been endorsed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In the recent appointment of the chair of North Durham NHS trust, a method of selecting candidates was used that was not in the published procedure. I have also raised concerns about the method of consultation of Members of Parliament in the appointment of NHS board members. In her reply to my Adjournment debate last week, my hon. Friend gave assurances that she would look into those matters and ask the NHS Appointments Commission to update its published procedures. What progress has been made in that, so that the people of North Durham can have confidence that the process is open and transparent?
    Ms Blears: I have, indeed, had the pleasure of discussing the issues at some length with my hon. Friend at some late hour last week, and I did undertake to consider whether all the steps in the appointments process would be made transparent on the website and in the written documentation. I have asked Sir William Wells, the NHS Appointments Commissioner, to ensure that that happens. I have also expressed the concern that Members of Parliament should be properly notified when appointments are made that are relevant to their constituencies. That procedure has not been as tight as it might have been, but we are all entitled to have the best up-to-date information on the people who will lead our trusts and authorities and provide leadership for the NHS. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and I am sure that he will go on to support the people who have been appointed in his area to do an excellent job in providing high quality services for local people.

    NHS Private Provision
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: If he will make a statement on his plans for expanding the role played by private health care providers in the NHS. [19665]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Next year, the national health service is expected to double the number of operations carried out in the private sector on NHS patients.
    Dr. Murrison: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Last year, NHS Estates and the Community Hospitals Association began work on a joint investigation

    711
    styled "Models of Ownership for Community Hospitals". Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that work and will he undertake to put it in the public domain?
    Mr. Milburn: I am not aware of the particular report or research that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I shall be happy to examine it if he would care to send me the details.
    On community hospitals and community ownership, it is important that, as we move towards a more decentralised and more devolved NHS, we strengthen the relationships between local communities and the local hospitals and the local health service that are there to serve.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My patients who have been treated for cataracts on the NHS but in a local private clinic are grateful that that capacity has been used. However, there are concerns about potential conflicts of interest arising when consultants operate in one place on both private sector and NHS patients and when consultants refer patients to one sector or the other. Will the Secretary of State assure me that such conflicts of interest will be investigated and that they will not be allowed to arise?
    Mr. Milburn: If my hon. Friend's constituents have raised specific concerns, I shall be very happy to consider them. It is important that such conflicts of interest do not arise and that the appropriate safeguards are in place. However, if we can use the additional spare capacity available in private sector hospitals for the benefit of NHS patients—whether to provide cataract or cardiac operations—it is sensible to take the position that that is precisely what we should do provided that safeguards are in place, that we have the appropriate clinical standards and and that we obtain good value for money for the taxpayer.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that the BUPA hospital in Redhill is negotiating with the NHS to set up a dedicated surgical centre to provide for an anticipated 5,000 hip and knee replacement operations, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the medical staff carrying out those operations will be employed by BUPA or by the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that negotiations are currently taking place and that they are going extremely well. I hope that we can resolve them satisfactorily from both points of view before too long. The arrangement that we have in mind is for BUPA to continue to employ its own staff. It may have a limited number of medical staff on its books and it will certainly have some nursing staff. The intention is for NHS doctors, nurses and other staff to work in the current private hospital on NHS terms and conditions, but they will be managed by BUPA.
    Today, the hospital almost exclusively treats patients according to their ability to pay. If negotiations go well, in a year's time, it will be exclusively treating patients, not according to the size of their wallets, but according to the scale of their needs.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State set in place a monitoring system that will ensure that the patients treated in the
    712
    private sector receive clinical care of a standard that they expect at the time of their operations? Many of them are subsequently readmitted to NHS hospital beds thus costing the service a great deal of money.
    Mr. Milburn: We will continue to monitor all those issues. As I said, it is important that both patients and taxpayers receive a good deal. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that not only will we seek to drive a good financial bargain for the taxpayer but, even more important, we shall want to ensure that, if people are treated in a private hospital or a NHS hospital, they will be provided with the highest clinical standards possible.
    Dr. Liam Fox: It is only a matter of weeks since the Secretary of State told us at Health questions that, by and large, in our country
    "we thankfully have one monopoly provider and that is the NHS. As a long as a Labour Government are in power that will remain the position."—[Official Report, 26 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 500.]
    Given that, this week, he does not want a monopoly NHS and that he has been specific about doubling the number of operations carried out for the NHS in the private sector, will he tell us how much that will cost? What will he say to the patients who, for the past five years, have therefore needlessly be denied wider access to care because of his pointless dogma?
    Mr. Milburn: In terms of cost, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that I told the Select Committee on Health about a month ago that we would make about £40 million available precisely to fund more operations, using the spare capacity of private sector hospitals to treat NHS patients. That is double the level provided last year. If local primary care trusts want to contract for more operations from private sector providers, that is a matter for them. The great divide between the Labour party and the Conservative party is not whether the NHS patient is treated in an NHS hospital or a private sector hospital; it is whether we provide them with more choices, which is what we want to do, or impose more charges on them, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants to do.
    Dr. Fox: The great division is not between our parties; it is between members of the Government. The Secretary of State said that he wanted a hypothecated health tax, and the Chancellor said no way. The Prime Minister wanted European Union spending levels, and the Chancellor said forget it. The Secretary of State wanted an NHS monopoly, the Prime Minister wanted no barriers to delivery, but the Chancellor simply wants to get closer to Downing street. When the Secretary of State is not consulted about announcements and called useless and sidelined, who in the Government—if anyone—is making health policy?
    Mr. Milburn: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman's question is relevant to use of the private sector. If we can take advantage of spare private sector capacity in BUPA hospitals, General Healthcare Group hospitals and BMI Healthcare hospitals for the benefit of NHS patients, that is precisely what we will do. At the same time, we will continue to invest extra resources in NHS hospitals. The great divide is between the Labour Government saying that there should be more investment and the hon. Gentleman's party saying that there should be less.

Local Government White Paper
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local government White Paper that we are publishing today.
The White Paper sets out a new vision for local government at the beginning of the 21st century. It seeks to establish a partnership between central and local government, reflecting the critical importance of local authorities, both as a tier of democratic government and as a body with the responsibility to deliver high-quality public services to local people.
Democratically elected councils should be part of the fabric of our communities. The services that they provide have a vital part to play in sustaining and enhancing social and economic prospects and the environmental quality of our towns, cities and countryside. They can have a profound effect on the opportunities and quality of life of the people who live and work there. They are responsible for educating children, providing care for the vulnerable, making places safer and cleaner to live in and providing reliable local transport.
People therefore expect a great deal from their council, and those expectations are rising. To meet them, councils have constantly to seek new and more effective ways to deliver customer-focused services and to lead their communities. The proposals in the White Paper will provide a framework in which all can do so, through the application of the Government's four principles of public service reform.
The first principle is to establish a national framework for the delivery of high-quality services and effective community leadership. For example, people everywhere want high-quality education for their children. Secondly, within that framework, we intend to free up local councils to meet their communities' particular needs, recognising that those will be different in a London borough and, say, in a shire district council area. The third principle is to ensure that councillors and council staff have the skills and money to do their jobs well. Finally, we intend to provide more choice for people in the services that they want to use.
I want to tackle the trend towards excessive central prescription and interference, which dominated central-local relations in the 1980s and 1990s. The White Paper reverses that approach: it marks a pronounced step away from centralisation. It is about increased freedoms, better incentives and a significant reduction in the number of controls, consent requirements, plans and over-elaborate guidance, which have all too often characterised the top-down approach to local government that we saw in recent years.
The White Paper is truly about local government, and it is a fundamental shift away from local administration. It is based on a belief that we do not need to control everything and on a recognition that local authorities are often in the best position to respond to local needs and aspirations.
I hope that this approach will encourage local political and civic leadership. Today's reports into this summer's disturbances in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford show how
714
important it is to have a leadership with a democratic mandate who are prepared to take the often sensitive and always difficult decisions necessary to ensure social cohesion. The White Paper has at its heart community leadership and the democratic renewal of local government.
We want to reduce the bureaucratic burden for all councils and give them the freedom to innovate and focus on driving up standards. We therefore intend to cut the number of plans and strategies that councils are required to produce, to scale back the number of area-based initiatives and to give greater scope to rationalise partnerships. We shall remove many of the present requirements to obtain Government consent before acting. More than 50 will be abolished, and another 30 are under review. We shall also provide councils with wider powers to provide services to others.
With these new freedoms come responsibilities. For the first time, we will produce a clear performance profile for each and every council. The Audit Commission will compile a scorecard and will identify each council as either high performing, striving, coasting or poorly performing. It is our intention that further freedoms over and above those for all councils will be given to high-performing authorities. We will also intervene decisively where councils are failing their local people. Where councils are not collecting their council tax or providing high-quality public services, for example, that will not be acceptable, and we will take the appropriate action.
The Government agree with the Local Government Association that there should be joint ownership of the service priorities for local government. It is therefore our intention that, through negotiation and dialogue, we will agree with local authorities a single list of priorities for local government.
The White Paper also sets out our specific proposals for the reform of local government finance. Last week, I announced to the House that next year will be the final year in which the grant to local authorities will be based on the present standard spending assessment formula. We will be bringing forward our detailed proposals for a new system of grant distribution next year, but I can inform the House that I have decided to abolish the standard spending assessment mechanism and replace it with a system that is easier to understand and better reflects the real cost of services and the needs of the local area.
We also intend to give local authorities greater flexibility to undertake capital investment. We shall scrap the system of credit approvals; instead, authorities will be free to borrow for capital investment without consent, provided they can afford to service the debt. Where a council sees a need, for example, for a new library or leisure centre, it will no longer need central Government permission to go ahead with such a project.
As a consequence of that approach, we shall abolish the "receipts taken into account" mechanism, which has acted as a disincentive for local authorities to dispose of surplus assets. I know that there has been concern about the growth of ring-fenced funding and the way it limits local discretion. We shall therefore restrict ring-fenced funding to areas that are genuine high priorities for the Government, and where we cannot achieve our policy objectives by specifying outcome targets.
The setting of council tax itself is very much a local decision, but we also recognise that the risk of high council tax increases affects local taxpayers. We have

715
already ended pre-announced universal capping. Our long-term goal is to dispense with the reserve capping powers altogether, but we intend to proceed with caution. However, we feel that we should take the first step towards ending capping, so I can announce today that the power to cap will not be used in respect of high-performing authorities. A large number of authorities and hon. Members have raised with me the difficulties created for councils by the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme. The principles underlying the scheme are sensible, but in practice its application has proved complex. Some have proposed that we should simplify the scheme or find ways of reducing its impact. Having considered all the options, I have decided to abolish it altogether.
The proposals in the White Paper form part of the Government's agenda for modernisation and reform. For many, they will be challenging; they are meant to be. We proposed the changes not for their own sake, but because local people will benefit from the requirement that all services should be delivered to an acceptable standard; from the fact that the changes that we all want to see—better schools and social care, improved local environments, better transport and other vital local services—will get the priority that they deserve; and from effective community leadership by councils that are in touch with local people and working to meet their aspirations.
The proposals will put the "local" back into local government, allowing local councillors to make a difference to their communities. That is vital if we are to re-engage people and, as a result, achieve an increased turn-out at local elections. The White Paper outlines a new and lasting basis for effective local government. I want central and local government to work together in a constructive partnership to deliver the high-quality public services that local people have the right to expect. In a practical and tangible way, the White Paper shows how we can achieve that and I commend it to the House.
Mrs. Theresa May: I should like to thank the Secretary State for giving me prior sight of the statement. I was interested to hear on the Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning an item saying that the Prime Minister had agreed that policy should always be announced first to Parliament—which was immediately followed by an item announcing the contents of this White Paper.
Strong, independent and effective local government is essential for our democracy and for people's quality of life. We want councils to be better able to understand and meet local needs, deliver high-quality services, and respond to and stand up for local interests. Local government has traditionally been an engine of change in this country; many policy innovations have come up from local government. Today, Conservative councils throughout the country are responding to local needs, providing the public services that people want and finding new ways to deliver effective local services. To the extent that the White Paper heralds a change in the attitude of central Government and a genuine move to freedom for local councils to respond to the needs of their communities, we welcome it. However, to the extent that it merely pays lip service to the ideas of freedom and deregulation, we challenge it.
716
I must tell the Secretary of State that Members of Parliament now know not to take at face value what he tells the House. Following the fiddled figures of the local government settlement last week and our experience with Railtrack, Members know that with this Secretary of State more than any other, they simply cannot believe what he says. The devil is in the detail, and so it will be with the local government White Paper—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The language that the hon. Lady is using is sailing a bit close to the wind. Perhaps she should remember that we use temperate language in the House.
Mrs. May: I apologise for any intemperate language that I used, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that the rest of my language will be suitably temperate.
We have been promised by the Secretary of State that the White Paper
"sets out a new vision for local government at the beginning of the 21st century."
We have been promised freedom for councils and deregulation, but, sadly, the statement and the White Paper do not deliver on that promise. In one of the early paragraphs in the statement, the Secretary of State says that he wants to
"tackle the trend towards excessive central prescription".
I do not know whether the House noticed that the Secretary of State was not even able to keep it up for the whole of his statement—[Laughter.] I cannot think what hon. Members are laughing at.
Later in the statement, the Secretary of State goes on to say:
"It is therefore our intention that…we will agree…a single list of priorities for local government."
There will not be any excessive central prescription, but the Government will decide the priorities for local government. Local government will not be able to decide those priorities itself.
The Secretary of State says that the White Paper
"marks a pronounced step away from centralisation"
and that it is about increased freedoms, but it is not about increased freedoms for all councils; it is about freedoms for the chosen few. If councils do what the Government tell them, they will be given a little reward, but not all councils will get the opportunity to respond in the way that they believe is right to meet the needs of their local communities.
We have heard such language before. In the education White Paper published earlier this year, the Government promised that where schools were successful,
"we want to free them from those conditions and regulatory requirements which they tell us stand in the way of higher standards and further innovation."
Yet in the Education Bill introduced in the House last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, we saw a Bill that
"centralises power"
in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education
"more completely than any previous education measure."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 201.]
We are likely to see the same in the case of local government reform.

717
If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about freedom for councils, he will want to ensure that his Cabinet colleagues are serious about it too. Will he therefore give the House an undertaking today that the Government will remove those centralising measures from the Education Bill? Will he commit his Cabinet colleagues in all other Departments affecting local government not to introduce any more net regulation for local government?
What confidence can the House have that the rest of the Government are signed up to a freedom agenda for local councils, if we see them doing something very different? From the way the Secretary of State's Cabinet colleagues have been keeping away from him in recent weeks, we can have no confidence that his agenda will be driven through.
The Secretary of State says that the Government
"want to reduce the bureaucratic burden"
and give councils
"the freedom to innovate and focus on driving up standards."
The aim of reducing the bureaucratic burden is interesting. We are to have a joint study report next year on reducing the regulatory burden; then we are to have
"the piloting of a new policy evaluation tool…which will seek to prevent the imposition of unnecessary burdens."
The right hon. Gentleman might like to explain to the House what that means. If it means that the Government will not introduce further regulation, why does he not say so? The best way of ensuring that local councils have freedom from regulation is abstention by politicians from imposing new regulations on councils. Will the Secretary of State tell us what his target is for reducing the number of new regulations to be introduced for local government each year?
Then we come to the clear performance profile for each council—the scorecard—and more mechanistic targets and league tables that will be set by the Government. Most voters, when they vote in local government elections, assume that they are making decisions about the performance of their local council. They do not expect their council to be told what to do by central Government.
That is what is sad about the statement from the Secretary of State. If he is really interested in local democracy and in increasing voter turnout at local government elections, he will want to restore to local government true democracy and true autonomy for all councils, so that when people vote they know that their vote will make a real difference and that they are not merely electing people to be agents of central Government.
We are told that there should be
"joint ownership of the service priorities for local government."
That will lead to unitarisation by creep. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that it is Government policy to abolish county councils or to see county councils removed from local government through the imposition of regional assemblies and regional government? With regard to the league tables, will he set out to the House how the performance of each council will be determined? How will it be determined when a council's performance is high in one area of service but not others?
Then came an amazing statement. The Secretary of State announced with a flourish that he had decided to abolish the standard spending assessment mechanism.
718
[Interruption.] Labour Members seem to think that that is some great new announcement, but I must tell them that their Government announced in 1997 that they were going to reform the standard spending assessment. Obviously, they were not listening to the right hon. Gentleman last week, as he made the announcement then as well. Again, all that we have this week is a promise of details in future. When will those details be published and what opportunity will hon. Members have to question him about them?
One of the main ways in which the Government control local authorities is through ring-fenced funding. They claim that they are going to reduce the amount of such funding. What is the Secretary of State's target for the amount of budget that will be ring-fenced in future? It has increased under this Government from just over 4 per cent. in 1997 to 15 per cent. next year. If the right hon. Gentleman is so interested in reducing the proportion of budget that is ring fenced, why did he not make the announcement last week in respect of the local government settlement, and why did he increase the proportion of ring fencing in that settlement?
The Secretary of State has announced four bands or performance levels for local government. He has gone from being the blue-eyed boy striving to do his master's bidding, through being a coasting Minister, to being a poor performer. He had the opportunity today to take radical measures to restore local government and local democracy and to bring forward a programme of decentralisation and deregulation to all councils. Frankly, he has flunked it. He has run scared from that challenge and local democracy will be the poorer for it.
Mr. Byers: Of course, the Conservatives have one fundamental problem with local government: they do not have any time for it at all. That is not only my view. There are Opposition Members who served in local government while a Conservative Government were in power. Indeed, the hon. Lady did so, as did I and some of my Labour colleagues. We know full well that the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s destroyed local government because they had no time for it. Local councils that were prepared to stand up for jobs and services were denigrated by Conservative Governments. They were attacked by the Conservatives and funding was cut, and when the local electorate continued to return Labour councils, what did the Tories do? They abolished them. That was their response to local democracy.
The White Paper represents a fundamental shift in the way in which central Government relates to local government. The hon. Lady said that the centralising tendencies are still there. She prayed in aid the fact that there is to be a single list of priorities and suggested that it was somehow being imposed from the centre. When she has time to read the White Paper, she will see that that list of priorities will be agreed between Government and the LGA. This proposal, which she criticises as centralising and as not taking into account the views of local government, was suggested by the LGA itself, including Conservative members as well as Labour ones, and Liberal Democrat members as well as independent ones. We can see where the divisions are. The hon. Lady does not speak for Conservatives in local government, because the proposal was theirs and we were prepared to sign up to it—but there we go.

719
The hon. Lady spoke about the bureaucratic burden on local councils. Plans are to be cut by more than a third and we will abolish 50 consents—changes that will make a real difference. We are reviewing the best value regime because we believe that it has become bureaucratic and can be improved. I remind the House that we created best value so that we could abolish compulsory competitive tendering, which was another Conservative party creation. It had nothing to do with quality of service; the cheapest provider and privatisation drove the policy. We removed it and put best value in its place because we believe that the quality of the services count.
The hon. Lady disapproves of the fact that we will have four categories of council. She would prefer it if local electorates could not compare their council with neighbouring councils. It is time for effective quality assurance. It is important to have a balanced scorecard and to examine a range of performance indicators for local councils. However, the Audit Commission, not politicians, will have that responsibility.
The hon. Lady asked about funding for schools. The White Paper makes it clear that schools are in a special position and that we need to safeguard their funding. There is no Government policy to abolish county councils or to impose regional government on parts of the country. That is for local people to decide.
The hon. Lady did not even provide a hint about Conservative party thinking on local government. That is no surprise, because she knows that her policy does not celebrate local government but denigrates it. Conservative Members have no time for local government. Consequently, thousands of Conservative councillors throughout the country have lost their seats.
The White Paper marks a fundamental shift in direction. It celebrates local councils. When Opposition Members have had a chance to digest the proposals, they will realise that they mean a new beginning—a renaissance—for local government. I hope that when they have the opportunity of discussing it with their local government friends, they will be able to support it.
Andrew Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and on starting on the long road back from local administration to proper local government. What is the timetable for the proposals? Will there be a bonfire of regulations in the next few weeks and a pause until legislation can be introduced? How soon does my right hon. Friend believe that we can revert to the position whereby local government has the same sort of powers that he enjoyed when he was first elected to a local authority on Tyneside?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point in not perceiving the White Paper as the one and only act to change the relationship between central Government and local government. It is the beginning of celebrating all that is good in local government, and much is good. However, we also need to ensure that we are prepared to intervene to help people who live in areas that have poorly performing councils.
We can introduce some of the White Paper proposals immediately. They include the reduction in the numbers of plans and consents. We do not need to delay the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation, which can be introduced from April next year. Other changes require primary legislation, and we shall make them as soon as parliamentary time is available.
720
My hon. Friend made another important point. When I took up my post in June this year, I realised that the constraints on the powers and responsibilities of local councils are dramatic now compared with 1980, when I was first elected as a local councillor. Local councils do not have the opportunity to respond to the needs and demands of local people. I hope that the White Paper will contribute significantly towards changing that. As my hon. Friend said, we are at the start of the process, not the end.
Mr. Don Foster: Taken at face value, the White Paper represents a sea change in the Government's attitude towards local government. That is welcome, if long overdue. I also welcome the clear commitment to change the obscure, out-of-date and unfair funding system for local government. I especially welcome the announcement on the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation, which was a backdoor capping scheme.
However, given that this is a Government White Paper, will the Secretary of State assure the House that all Ministers support it? In particular, does the Secretary of State for Education and Skills back it? On 4 December, she announced very clearly that she was tightening the strings on local education authorities. She said that the Government were putting even more pressure on local authorities to delegate more money to schools. In addition, the right hon. Lady recently introduced a new Education Bill that will strip more powers away from LEAs.
I welcome the commitment to reduce the number of ring-fenced grants, but the Secretary of State proposes to do so in part by introducing targeted grants, which the White Paper states may have eligibility conditions attached. Is not that simply another form of ring fencing?
I also welcome the long-overdue proposals to reform the capital funding regime. However, many people will be disappointed that the White Paper contains only one sentence about the abolition of the standard spending assessment. That states:
"We shall announce in due course the principles we are applying in conducting this formula grant review."
When will we hear what those principles will be?
More generally, does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, unless local councils themselves are able to raise more of the money spent locally, the Government will still control local government purse strings? Has the time not come for local government to be able to put its own money where its mouth is?
The Secretary of State was right to speak in his statement about giving further powers to local councils, but I fail to understand why he continues to say that they must earn their additional freedoms. Should not local councils' autonomy be theirs as of right, and not something that they must earn?
Why does not the White Paper mention proportional representation in local government elections? The Secretary of State would be disappointed if I did not ask that question.
Finally, we all know that crude targets have led to the distortion of clinical priorities in the NHS, and that the Department for Education and Skills has acknowledged serious deficiencies in school league tables. Why, then, does the Secretary of State feel that the time is now right to introduce crude league tables for local government?

721
The White Paper contains some welcome measures. However, actions speak louder than words, and we look forward to the actions.
Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for certain parts of the White Paper. I can assure him that it is a Government White Paper, and that it is supported by all Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. When he has had time to look at both the White Paper and the Education Bill, the hon. Gentleman will see that there is no contradiction between them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about ring fencing. The House will know that the Government have just begun our spending review for 2002, the outcome of which will be announced later next year. In that context, the question of ring-fenced grants to local authorities will be one of the matters for consideration. Our objective, during the process of the review, is to have an outcome that will reduce the amount of ring-fenced grants going to local authorities. It would be a mistake to try to move more quickly, as that would have a detrimental impact on services that are provided at present.
The proposals regarding targeted grants and eligibility are not the same as ring fencing. I shall give an example of what would amount to a targeted grant. Recently, my Department and the Department of Health have provided an extra £100 million to support local government initiatives on bed blocking. That money has been targeted on certain authorities facing particular pressures in the sense that those authorities become eligible for those grants.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Bath said with regard to capital. We want to move as quickly as we can, but the changes are so fundamental that they will require primary legislation, and will have to wait until a suitable slot is available.
It is not true that I announced last week that we would abolish the standard spending assessment. What I said was that we would change the formula, although I did not give an indication of the sort of changes that we would introduce. Today, I am able to say that the new formula will not be based on a standard spending assessment. Relatively early in the new year—I cannot give a precise time yet—I would like to find ways of sharing with hon. Members the various options that we are considering in relation to that new formula.
There is an issue about the balance of funding between central and local government, to which the Government are giving close consideration. All authorities will benefit from the deregulation and the cutting back of bureaucracy proposed in the White Paper, but we felt it appropriate that there should be greater freedoms and flexibility for high-performing authorities. I do not think that people will see the four categories that we are proposing as crude league tables. This is a scorecard for individual authorities, and I think that most people will see it that way.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there was no mention in the White Paper of proportional representation for local government elections. It is not in there because it is a daft idea.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It was pretty good, that last remark. We, on this Bench, have spent the last
722
few minutes assessing the Secretary of State's performance indicators, and they have come out reasonably high for the last month. I think we have been in a Byers market. He gets pretty high marks for taking Railtrack back into public ownership. The same applies to his abandoning the public-private partnership on the London underground—I think that is what he said last week. He was also pretty good to take power from the quangos and hand it back to democratically elected local authorities. Very good! We will measure him on that later, and if he comes up with more money for Derbyshire and Bolsover than Westminster, his rating will be 10 out of 10.
Mr. Byers: In everything we do, we will be fair in ensuring that finances are allocated on a needs-based approach, which may well benefit Bolsover and Derbyshire. Decisions will be taken over the next few days in relation to the single capital pot that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will announce later this week, and also in relation to the local transport plans, which will be published, I think, on Thursday or Friday. Many authorities will benefit from those proposals.
I hope that, when the House has had the opportunity to look at the White Paper, it will see that what we are trying to do is to get a settled position with regard to central-local government relations. Local government does not want constant chopping and changing, and it is important to establish a system that all political parties feel is, on balance, right. I happen to believe that the White Paper achieves that. It proposes a shift in direction, and recognises that many issues are best dealt with not in Westminster or Whitehall but locally, by people who are elected locally and who know the demands and priorities of local people. I hope that that is reflected in the White Paper.
Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State expand on the issue of performance profiles that he mentioned in his statement? He said that he would classify councils into the categories of
"high performing, striving, coasting and poor performing".
He then said that he would "intervene decisively". What precisely did he mean by that? How will he intervene? Will he intervene both on coasting councils and on poor-performing councils? Will that involve putting them into administration?
Mr. Byers: When the hon. Gentleman has the chance, he will see that, of the four categories, coasting councils are those that are
"not at the top of the performance spectrum and with limited or no proven capacity to improve",
while poor-performing councils are those
"consistently near the bottom of the performance spectrum and with limited or no proven capacity to improve."
In the latter category, there may well be grounds on which intervention is appropriate. However, that intervention would not be unilaterally decided by Ministers. Such action would be taken in the light of recommendations by the Audit Commission, which is the appropriate way to ensure that there is no question of party political manipulation or of certain types of council being attacked because of some political prejudice. It will be the Audit Commission that makes those recommendations.

723
An intervention could take a variety of forms. It could involve a new provider coming in, or it could involve taking a council into administration, then taking it out again, perhaps with a different form of leadership. That is certainly one of the options in the White Paper.
As for coasting authorities, there will be opportunities to try and help them improve their performance—less through intervention than by working with them by means of local agreements. It is a question not of standing aside, but of working co-operatively through local government itself to support authorities with particular difficulties.
Mr. Clive Betts: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to changing the capital control rules. The present rules are nonsense: they are completely out of step with arrangements in the rest of the European Union. Some of us with backgrounds in local government have been fighting for this for many years.
My right hon. Friend did not mention one issue that I regard as a real problem for local government. Until we change the current system whereby 75 per cent. of its funds come from central Government and only 25 per cent. from voters, have we any chance of achieving true local accountability and reinvigorating local democracy—and local government itself? Does my right hon. Friend envisage a solution in the longer term, involving returning more responsibility for raising money to local authorities?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about capital controls, which do not fit in with any prudential regime of local authority spending. The present arrangement, in which credit approvals in minute detail are given by central Government is unacceptable: it restricts the innovation that we, certainly, would like to see.
As my hon. Friend says, 75 per cent. of funds currently come from central Government while 25 per cent. is raised locally. It is worth reminding the House how we ended up with that balance. In a rather shoddy, sordid quick fix to escape the difficulties caused by the poll tax, the Conservative Government shifted money into increasing VAT.
The Government are considering the issue seriously. A review of the balance of funding is currently under way to establish whether changes should be made, and what sort of changes would be appropriate. It would be premature to forecast the outcome, but the fact that we have set up a group to look at the matter carefully is an indication of the Government's concern about the balance between central and local contributions.
Sir George Young: If, as the Secretary of State just asserted, his White Paper marks a step away from centralisation and is truly about local government, can he assure us that no services currently provided by county councils will be transferred to more remote regional assemblies?
Mr. Byers: That is not an issue for the White Paper. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, a White Paper on the question of regional government will be produced in the new year. No doubt it will consider, among other issues, functions and responsibilities that might apply at regional level. Without giving away too
724
much of its content, let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman by reiterating that there will be no imposition of elected regional government on regions. It will be for local people to vote for it if they want to: this will be a local decision.
Most important, the effectiveness of regional government is not about taking powers from local authorities—county, district or unitary. It must be about Secretaries of State and others in Westminster and Whitehall giving up their powers. It is about devolving down, not taking up powers from any kind of local authority.
Mr. David Clelland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all that was missing from the comments of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was a candid recognition that the need to restore local government is due entirely to the damage done to it by her party during its too many years in office?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and his commitment to re-empower local authorities. I look forward to further debate on the detail in due course. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many examples of good local government throughout the country, not least on Tyneside? The Gateshead and Newcastle authorities have jointly launched a Newcastle-Gateshead initiative, which will work for the revitalisation of the area to the benefit—and with the support—of local people. Following the completion of his duties here, will my right hon. Friend join me downstairs in Terrace Dining Room B, where the two authorities are launching their joint bid to become European capital of culture in 2008?
Mr. Byers: I receive a number of attractive invitations from my hon. Friend, of which that is one, but I cannot say too much about the European capital of culture, as I will be involved in deciding who might be successful. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have spoken about local councils' limited freedoms, but Members should consider what has been achieved not only on Tyneside, particularly in Gateshead, but by Gateshead and Newcastle working closely together.
The massive improvements along the river have been achieved because we have a good example of local authorities supporting innovation, being adventurous and being ambitious for their communities. What has been achieved on the banks of the Tyne, particularly, if I may say so, in recent times on the south bank and in Gateshead, has made a real difference, and the authorities are to be congratulated on what they have been able to do.
Through the White Paper, I want greater freedoms to be given to good local councils such as Newcastle, Gateshead and many others up and down the country, so that the improvements taking place on Tyneside can be reflected in many other parts of the country.
Mr. Charles Hendry: The Secretary of State is aware that Wealden district council runs the most effective waste recycling scheme in the country, which involves up to 48 per cent. of waste collected in the district. [Interruption.] Labour Members should be aware that the Secretary of State has a personal interest in recycling rubbish, given the way his career is going.

725
Is the Secretary of State aware that that scheme is on hold because of the settlement announced last week? Figures from his Department show that council tax in Wealden will have to rise by 8 per cent. simply to stand still. He says that the burden of a high council tax increase falls on the councils, but is he not aware that his Department's decisions force them to choose between delivering good services and imposing whacking great council tax increases?
Mr. Byers: I do not accept that position, but we are in a consultation period, which will last six weeks or so, and if Wealden council has particular concerns—I know that those exist among some district councils—they can be considered. We shall do precisely that, because the consultation is genuine. This period always throws up difficulties—it was the same under the Conservative Government—but we shall use it genuinely to reflect on the consequences of individual decisions by authorities. There is the possibility of change in the final outcome.
Jim Knight: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, particularly his long-term commitment to abolish capping. Parish and town councils are not subject to the cap, so I wonder what place they have in his White Paper. On Monday, I was at Swanage town council, which costs the local council tax payer £50 a year, although it has a budget of more than £500,000. It is clearly an important part of local government, yet my right hon. Friend's Department has no jurisdiction over town and parish councils. How do they fit into the statement?
Mr. Byers: When my hon. Friend has the opportunity to study the White Paper, he will see that the role of parish and town councils is genuinely valued, probably for the first time in a Government document. We shall provide about £30,000 for each parish and town council to support democracy and any proposals that they might have to develop best value in their area. That is a good initiative. The document identifies how real improvements and benefits for each tier of authority will flow from the proposals, and no tier, whether it be the county or the parish or town council, has been left out of the proposals.
Angela Watkinson: What assistance can the Secretary of State offer this year to local authorities such as the London borough of Havering, which receive a perversely low settlement under the current system? What help can he offer the council tax payers who suffered the third highest increase in the country last year—12.5 per cent.—and who face a possible increase this year of more than 20 per cent? Why is he not receiving any delegations this year?
Mr. Byers: As for Havering, on any judgment the settlement announced last week is obviously generous. The local council in Havering will have to explain why it is even considering a council tax increase at the suggested level. Given the funding that is being made available and, indeed, the additional funds that may be made available as a result of the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme—which will benefit a number of local councils—the council needs to consider the level of
726
council tax increase that it should be setting. There is no good reason for that proposed increase, as we have made clear.
On receiving representations, we are adopting the same policies as successive Governments—Conservative as well as Labour.
Mr. Eric Illsley: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the White Paper. My right hon. Friend is aware that, back in 1990 with the introduction of the poll tax, my local authority was one of those that were capped—mainly owing to the standard spending assessments. Can he confirm that a new formula will be in place for next year to do away with the SSAs, which have been the blight of local government since 1990? Can he also give some indication of what will be in the new formula to take into account the needs of local authorities?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for change in the SSA regime. From his experience in his local authority, he knows of the regime's detrimental effect. The mechanism was not designed to reflect the needs of local communities or the degree of service being provided; it had nothing whatever to do with those objectives.
I can confirm that the SSA regime will be abolished—this will be the final year in which it will be used. A new formula will be in place to take effect from April 2003. It will be my intention that the new grant mechanism will reflect service needs and also the level of provision in local authority areas. I hope that, as a result of pressure from authorities such as that of my hon. Friend, there will be real benefits from the changes that might be introduced.
However, I have to give a few words of caution. My worry is that everybody seems to believe that their local authority will be a winner as a result of the formula changes. That will not be the case. The nature of any change of system means that some people will gain while some do not. We shall have to wait to see what the position is for individual authorities, but I am sure that we shall be able to target funds to areas that need them most.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I doubt that the Secretary of State has yet had an opportunity to read yesterday's Leicester Mercury. If he had done so, he would have read in the political commentary, under the headline "An idea that's best forgotten":
"There may be lots of brilliant reasons for regional government but the public has not heard of any. Perhaps, like that old fondue set from the 1970s, the Government should put regional assemblies back in the cupboard."
Will the Secretary of State clarify the answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)? What is the Government's policy on regional assemblies, which were so proudly trumpeted four years ago in a White Paper issued in 1997?
Mr. Byers: I am afraid that I shall have to repeat the comment that I made earlier: there will be a White Paper in the new year on the whole question of elected regional assemblies. I reaffirm the point that there will be no imposition of regional assemblies on any region that does not want them—it will be left for local people to decide.

727
We are giving local people the choice as to whether they want an elected regional assembly. That will be welcomed by many people.
We should not be scared to hold the debate about elected regional assemblies. Certainly, there may be people in the east midlands—including those on the Leicester Mercury—who do not support such assemblies. Good, let us hold the debate. In most parts of the world, there is strong regional government and we should think about whether that is right for England. At least let us hold the debate—we should not be scared of that—and let local people decide. That is how it should be done. There will be a White Paper in the new year, and people can then make up their own minds.
Kali Mountford: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extraordinary announcement this afternoon. However, it is difficult to engage our constituents in debate about local democracy when they are trying to unpick the funding formula—never a debating point on the doorstep. When my right hon. Friend replaces the SSAs and is looking for areas of genuine need, will he ensure that his assessment is open, transparent and fair, and that it measures poverty according to genuine poverty indicators—unlike some of the nonsense that we experienced during the 18 Tory years? Will he also ensure that it is fluid enough for genuine local democracy to reflect the needs of rural areas where there are isolated pockets of poverty, so that we can really address those needs? Perhaps then people will have some confidence in the outcomes of local government.
Mr. Byers: We all know the way in which the SSA formula was manipulated by Conservative Members when they were in government to reward some of their favourite councils—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We all know that that is what happened; the figures are there for everyone to see. Conservative Members know that that is the case. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to ensure that the replacement for the SSA regime is fair, open, just and transparent. We shall do precisely that. Most important, the replacement will need to reflect the demands that are made on a local authority service. If there are high levels of poverty and unemployment, or sparsity issues in rural areas, those matters will have to be taken into account when we consider the new formula that will take effect from April 2003.
I assure the House that we shall consult widely on the replacement formula. Above everything else, we shall ensure that people can understand it, and that they know that the system is not fixed in any way, but responds to the needs of a local authority area and reflects the service level being provided.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As one of those on the Conservative Benches who spent some time in local government before being elected to this place, I ask the Secretary of State to accept that many Opposition Members appreciate the valuable democratic role played by local government whether it is at the parish, town, district or county level. Local government, to be successful, needs to be local. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, to meet the criteria that he has rightly set out in his statement today, funding will—as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) said—have to be fair? Although the Government did not expect
728
It, my own Macclesfield borough council has been disadvantaged because of the formula change. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be prepared to meet me and the chief executive of my council to discuss the problem? Funding is clearly critical to local government's success in meeting the Government standards that he has rightly announced today.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a fair funding regime is the crux of the matter. As I said earlier in relation to Wealden, the settlement raises a particular issue in relation to district councils. We are aware of that issue, and I should be more than happy to receive the information on Macclesfield.
Mr. Winterton: At a meeting?
Mr. Byers: I think that the issue goes wider than just Macclesfield, but—
Mr. Winterton: Indeed, it affects a number of other councils.
Mr. Byers: The point that I am trying to make, if I may do so without being interrupted, is that there is a specific issue to do with Macclesfield. I should of course be more than willing to receive that detailed information. However, there is also a wider issue to do with borough councils which we have to address and we are considering it. I hope that we shall be able to give the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) some reassurance about our intentions on that matter.
David Taylor: Having spent my adult life in local government, I ask the Secretary of State to forgive me for not waving my Order Paper when he finished his statement. Does he acknowledge that, behind the smokescreen of past bonfires of controls, previous Governments were frantically fabricating further controls on local authorities? Is he confident that this is indeed a bright new dawn for local government? Will he consider the position in shire districts—particularly as that position is spelled out in my own early-day motion 351—whose funding regimes, as announced last week, have actually experienced a move backwards? Is he confident that the new scheme will, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) questioned, provide more generously? I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to be eternally vigilant on controls. We have to do that. Today's announcement will make possible a big improvement by reducing the number of plans by more than a third, reducing the number of consents by more than 50 and reviewing another 30 of the consents. However, there will always be further pressure to add new plans and new regulations. As I said, we have to be vigilant to ensure that we do not give in to those particular pressures.
As I acknowledged, we are aware from the consultation process that an issue has arisen from the settlement. We are considering how we can overcome the difficulties that have been caused to a number of shire districts. I am confident that, as a result of consultation and current discussions, we shall be able to make proposals that will ensure that councils do not go backwards, but benefit from the improvements.
David Taylor: Some have gone backwards.
Mr. Byers: Let us be clear that we are now in consultation. The announcement last week was not the final one but part of the consultation process, and many people are expressing their views. If consultation exposes difficulties, we can reflect on them and have a different outcome if we feel it appropriate to do so. In this case, we are likely to be able to respond positively to the concerns expressed.
Mr. David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there will be a warm welcome for the removal of capital controls, but some disappointment that he cannot be more explicit about what he intends to do to replace the standard spending assessment? In that respect, can he give a commitment that the iniquitous area cost adjustment is as dead as the standard spending assessment?
Secondly, will he reduce the gross disparities in funding between areas? For example, the funding per pupil in our schools cannot be based on any sensible assessment at the moment.
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the new system, whatever it may be, will reflect the real expenditure within local authorities, and take into account the fact that some, like my own in Somerset, have spent massively above the education and social services SSA year after year because of their belief that those services are important and need adequate funding?
Mr. Byers: It would be foolish to rule out particular aspects of the formula. It is too soon to say whether there will be something like the area cost adjustment. There is a genuine issue about levels of pupil funding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is looking carefully at how we can improve the position. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of funding per pupil that we have put in over recent years, and I have no doubt that she will want to continue that.
In terms of the new formula, it is important to consider the level of service provided by the local authority. I do not like the sort of system that we have at present, under which the standard spending assessment bears no relation to the level of spend on particular services in an individual authority such as Somerset. If we are allocating money, we should do so on the basis of the level of service provided by an individual local authority. I am confident that that will be part of the make-up of the new grant regime.
Mr. David Borrow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that the locally raised portion of local government finance is seen to be fair and adequate? Will he look again at whether the business rate should be determined locally rather than nationally? Does he agree that, in the absence of regular revaluations, the council tax will be seen as increasingly unfair and that, because of the multiplier, many people see it as unfair in any case? There are not enough bands to ensure that people in very low-value properties feel that they are paying a fair whack through the council tax. Will my right hon. Friend consider that issue as well?
Mr. Byers: We have no proposals to change the existing business rate arrangements. The White Paper outlines the proposition of business improvement districts,
730
which the House has been informed of before, and goes into some detail about how we want to carry forward that initiative.
We have announced that there will be a revaluation, and the aim is to introduce it with effect from 2007. There is a genuine issue about low-value properties and the extent to which the system is seen as unfair. We indicate in the White Paper that there may be opportunities to look in detail at ways of dealing with that. As my hon. Friend knows, there are a number of properties of lower value in the north-west of England. People believe that it is unfair that there is no distinction between the levels in band A, and we may wish to consider that. I accept my hon. Friend's points; we need to ensure that people regard the council tax as fair, and I know that there are reservations about that.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I tell the Secretary of State that today's announcement of the reform of local government financing will be welcome in Worcestershire, so long as he takes into account the statements about fairness, about which we have heard so much this afternoon? He will be aware that last week's local government settlement did not go down well in Worcestershire because, once again, the gap between the funding for children in Worcestershire's schools and the English local authority average increased even further. At the moment, about £250 less is spent on the schooling of children in Worcestershire than the average for all English local authorities, and that gap grew again by £17 in the secondary school sector. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the head teachers forum is proposing to take the Government to the European court on the issue of fairness, so can I take a message back to the forum to the effect that, far from growing wider, the gap will at the very least start to diminish under his new arrangements?
Mr. Byers: The local government settlement announced last week shows that Worcestershire received an increase well above the rate of inflation. Many people would regard that as a reasonable settlement in the circumstances, but, obviously, the head teachers there will need to take whatever steps they feel are appropriate. I hope that, beyond 2003, the new funding formula will be fair, just and transparent and that the head teachers and parents of Worcestershire will be able to see that such a scheme is put in place. I have to tell the hon. Lady that one of the reasons why they have been discriminated against over the years is that the Conservative funding formula in place since 1990 has led to an appalling settlement for Worcestershire. I am pleased that Worcestershire has had an increase well above the rate of inflation this year.
Mr. Neil Turner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the whole team on this afternoon's statement, which represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between local and central Government, dismantling the command system that the Conservative party built up, year on year, during its time in office. It does not simply represent a bonfire of regulations; it represents a bonfire of the vanities—the vanity which says that Westminster knows best and that Whitehall can devise one system that fits all. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the White Paper builds on the Local Government Act 2000, under which local authorities are allowed to serve their

731
communities better? I particularly welcome the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, which hits poorer communities such as mine disproportionately. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that scheme will be abolished in 2002–03?
Mr. Byers: The White Paper builds on the steps that were taken in the previous Parliament, during which we considered the constitution of local authorities. In the current White Paper, we consider the level of service and the relationship between local and central Government, and we shall try to put it on a totally new footing which respects the important role that local government can play. I knew that my proposals on the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme would be welcomed in Wigan, because I attended a meeting there about six weeks ago at which I was told in the clearest possible terms that one of the positive things that we could do in the White Paper was to propose the abolition of the scheme. My hon. Friend strongly supported that proposal. I am delighted that we have been able to deliver on the Wigan recommendations. Yes, I can confirm that that proposal will be introduced with effect from April 2002.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Secretary of State mentioned that there were particular problems and issues relating to shire district councils, and he was certainly correct in that respect. He also prayed the Local Government Association in aid in support of his proposals. Will he therefore explain to the House why the LGA is in serious dispute with his Department about the way in which it expressed the funding increases for shire district councils in his related statement only last week?
Mr. Byers: The position is very clear. I was specifically referring to the joint partnership approach whereby the priorities for local government are identified jointly between central and local government. There is no big dispute about the presentation of the figures in the settlement announced last week. An issue has arisen through the consultation process and, as I have mentioned before, the situation is clear. We are considering the issue
732
in the light of representations that have been made and I hope to be able to respond positively. That is what happens during consultation. There would have been a real issue if we had just announced the final settlement last week, but we did not do that. We said, "Here are the figures, and now we will consult." An issue has arisen in relation to the districts and it is one to which I hope to be able to respond positively.
Roger Casale: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, especially the reforms that he is introducing to capital funding. Will he confirm that under the changes he has announced local authorities such as the London borough of Merton will be better placed to examine the contribution they can make to the financing of major community projects, such as the search in my constituency for a new home for Wimbledon football club or the need to rebuild the civic hall? That hall had to be sold off when the Tories were in office; Merton had a Tory council and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who leads for the Opposition on this issue, was a Tory councillor in Wimbledon Park ward.
Mr. Byers: Most of us know that the approach that the Conservatives took to local councils, as in many other areas, was to sell everything off. I was not aware that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was a member of Merton council at the time when it sold off its assets, but that is the nature of Conservatives in local as well as central government. Many of our crucial utilities were similarly sold off. Local councils will now have the scope to support community projects. The new capital freedoms that we intend to give will allow Merton to develop a site, perhaps in partnership with Wimbledon football club, or to make provision for a civic hall. Those flexibilities and freedoms will be available as a result of the changes that we have introduced, which did not exist under the Conservatives in government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order
4.42 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns motion 9 on the Order Paper, which was placed there only this morning. Is it in accordance with the rules of the House for the Government to place on the Order Paper a proposal that we should give them the authority, without debate or discussion, to participate in the drafting of a European arrest warrant that would entitle any other member state to arrest in the UK a citizen of our nation whom it believes to have voiced an opinion contrary to its laws? That is an important and significant undermining of our rights and freedoms, in that it would deprive our Government and courts of the right to object to extradition even if they believed it to be unfair and unreasonable.
Do you consider it is right to place on the Order Paper a proposal of that sort in a way that makes no provision for debate? If by chance it is in order, can you give me an assurance that, if the order is objected to at 10 o'clock tonight, its approval will be delayed until the House has the opportunity to vote on it tomorrow under the deferred voting procedure? I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but it is a very important point.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to answer the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and my answer may assist the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am satisfied that everything that has been done conforms with the rules relating to the consideration of such documents. I understand that the document was debated in European Standing Committee B yesterday and reported to the House in the usual manner. I can confirm that, if the motion is objected to after 10 o'clock tonight, it could give rise to a deferred Division tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling, you referred to a document that was debated yesterday in European Standing Committee B, which I attended. Unfortunately, that document is not the final text that will be agreed at the European Council meeting to take place shortly. Therefore, the House has not scrutinised the final form of the instrument in question. I believe that that is in breach of Standing Orders and the resolution of the House of 1998 that insists that nothing of a European legislative nature shall be agreed or passed without full scrutiny taking place first. Because we did not have the up-to-date document, such scrutiny did not take place.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman raises a new issue. I shall consider it and get back to him and, if necessary, to the House.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, I serve on the Committee.
734
May I point out that not only was the document that we were discussing out of date—it related to a Council meeting that took place on 31 October—but a French document exists that relates to an interim discussion that took place at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. French is a working language of the Community and, had a translation of that document been produced, it would have been entirely germane to our proceedings. It was not produced, so our proceedings essentially considered a document that was out of date. Will you bear that point in mind?
Mr. Speaker: I will bear that point in mind. I give the same assurance that I gave earlier. I will look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and, if necessary, to the House.
Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise a point of which I have given you prior notice. It relates to the guidance that you helpfully gave the House recently on parliamentary answers. You indicated that Ministers should be as open and as helpful as possible in response to Members' queries.
As an example, I draw your attention to an answer that I received from the Leader of the House yesterday when I asked him if he could list the orders made through the Privy Council under the royal prerogative in each year from 1997 to date. He said that the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but an answer to an identical question tabled on 3 March 1993 at column 203 listed all the orders in full detail.
I tabled another question to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about flights carrying radioactive material, and that was met with the answer:
"This Department does not hold statistical information of this nature."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 286W.]
However, when I tabled an almost identical question in 1997, it elicited facts about how many flights had occurred and about the nature of the radioactive material involved—high, low or intermediate grade.
Sadly, it seems that Ministers are not paying attention to your guidance and are being less helpful. I will, of course, draw the matter to the attention of the Public Administration Committee, but would be grateful if you would issue further advice to Ministers to inform them that they should listen to what you have said and ensure that questions are properly answered.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered his question himself. He can go to the Public Administration Committee if he so wishes. He referred to individual questions and replies, but I cannot give a ruling on them. He can pursue the matter and, if he studies my rulings, he will see that I have provided more than one piece of advice on the subject.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal of confusion about the possibility of further troop deployments to Afghanistan. This morning's Washington Post reported:
"Britain has agreed to lead an international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan for up to six months".

735
That fact seems to have been confirmed by the Prime Minister who said this afternoon:
"We have indicated in principle a willingness to play a leading role in any UN-mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan."
Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any indication that the Government are likely to make a statement on that matter in fulfilment of the Prime Minister's assurances that the House would be informed first about changes and developments in Government policy.
Mr. Speaker: I have not received such an indication, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that news of this nature should come to the House first and I hope that it will.
Michael Fabricant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably heard about this matter on the "Today" programme this morning. A BBC report says:
"The Government has now"—
I stress now—
"accepted a recommendation from the public administration select committee that ministers should tell Parliament first"
of any policy changes. But you will recall that you have said on numerous occasions that policy should be announced in this place first, and I was in the House when your predecessor Speaker Boothroyd made the same point.
Is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister is now saying that the Government will carry out that policy, thus implying that that was not previously the case? Even though Ministers frequently said that this place received information first, it did not. Could you, Mr. Speaker, meet the Prime Minister or someone from the Cabinet Office to determine when the policy will be instigated.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Prime Minister failed previously and has now made a statement to say that he has changed his mind, then a sinner has repented. We should all rejoice in that.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Health questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked about the recruitment of HIV-positive people as nurses in the NHS. It was clear from the response of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), that she had no idea, which is understandable, that my hon. Friend had received a written answer confirming that that was happening. However, she went on to criticise my hon. Friend for raising what is a serious issue. She suggested that he was stigmatising people with AIDS and that it was unhelpful to raise the issue in the House. If hon. Members are not supposed to raise questions of such a serious nature in the House of Commons with Health Ministers, where are they supposed to raise them.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was able to raise the matter with the Minister. I allowed him to do so. That will always be the case for hon. Members. The Minister's response is not, however, a matter for me.

Sex Discrimination (Amendment)
4.52 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; to make provision with respect to discrimination concerning the provision of goods, facilities, services and access to governance by private member clubs; and to continue to permit wholly single-sex clubs and sporting events.
I welcome the opportunity to present another Bill to outlaw discrimination in private members' clubs. When I introduced a similar Bill two years ago, I did not foresee its far-reaching implications. I had personal experience of the injustice of a club that offered membership to both men and women, but which discriminated against women by offering them only inferior membership. They had second-class status with no access to the governance of that club.
My experience was of the Carlton club where I had been part of a campaign to remedy that injustice. On two separate occasions, the club narrowly missed the opportunity to move itself into the modern world. In the summer of 1999, I raised the issue again at the club's annual meeting. I was greeted with derision. After the meeting, otherwise intelligent men told me that I should have been asked to resign on the spot for having the audacity to ask the committee to reconsider its decision. I gave the club six months to re-address the issue, otherwise I could no long remain a member.
As a constituency Member of Parliament, I know that 52 per cent. of my electorate are women. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, whose party has been led by a woman and was home to the first woman MP to sit in the House, I find such discrimination intolerable.
Although others before and since have resigned from the Carlton, on this issue the club would not budge, so in November 1999 I resigned. In December that year, I drew No. 11 in the private Members' ballot. If I could not change the rules of the Carlton club, at least I could try to change the law. I was not in a high enough position to secure a decent Second Reading, but I was close enough to give my Bill an airing, if only for 32 seconds. It was, of course, blocked through the good offices of the Government Whip, but not before the full magnitude of the issue had been revealed.
It was not only the gentlemen's clubs of St. James's that practised this outdated form of discrimination. They were small fry; there were bigger offenders among the working men's clubs of the north, mostly Labour clubs, but some Conservative clubs too. However, their prejudice was generally born out of ignorance. The real villains of the piece were the golf clubs. Here a strict commercial logic prevailed, but one that was based in a bygone age and on a pattern of life that had last existed in the 1950s.
Here the ladies were obliged to play golf on weekdays, before the man of the house was home from the office. The gentlemen could not be expected to give way to the ladies on Saturdays and Sundays: the attitude was, "Goddam it man, any self-respecting gel should be at home cooking lunch or looking after the children on a Saturday morning." Those clubs honestly believed that while men had work to do during the week, women were at leisure or shopping. It was as if no working woman, with a career or business interests, would be the sort of

737
woman they wanted in their club, on their greens or in their bar. Oh, how the world has changed! It appears that when the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1975, those arguments could still be justified. A quarter of a century later, they are totally unacceptable.
I am grateful for the support that I received when I last rehearsed these arguments in support of my first Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill, and for my wife's sterling work in drafting and in corralling support. I am grateful to the Fawcett Society for its support, and most particularly, to colleagues in all parties and in both Houses for their encouragement. A number of my colleagues have followed me and resigned from the Carlton club, but this issue goes so much further than a parochial spat. It is no longer acceptable that an institution can offer its membership and facilities to men and women and then say that one sex can be admitted only on inferior terms. We would be outraged if they did so on the grounds of race, religion or disability.
I have no argument with single-sex clubs. I see little attraction in them, but they seem to do no one any harm. I acknowledge the physical difference between men and
738
women, and therefore have no problem with sporting events confined to either sex. The purpose of this Bill is to right the omissions of an earlier Act, introduced in another era. It is no longer right nor just for a woman to be offered inferior membership and facilities by any club, merely on the grounds of her gender. It is plainly wrong, offensive and outdated, and I ask the House to permit the Bill to be read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Walter, Mr. Anthony Steen, Joan Ruddock, Mr. John Burnett, Mr. David Curry and Mr. Derek Wyatt.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Robert Walter accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; to make provision with respect to discrimination concerning the provision of goods, facilities, services and access to governance by private member clubs; and to continue to permit wholly single-sex clubs and sporting events: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March, and to be printed [Bill 66].
ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2002–03

    World Athletics Championships
    [Relevant documents: First Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2001–02, on Unpicking the Lock: the World Athletics Championships in the UK, HC 264; and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport: Annual Report 2001, Cm 5114.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That resources, not exceeding £1,489,011,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,488,290,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.—[Mr. Caborn]
    5 pm
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the House for the opportunity to debate so soon after its presentation to the House the first report produced by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in this Parliament. I thank all my hon. Friends on the Select Committee, meaning Members on both sides of the House who are Committee members, for their work on the report and the fact that it was unanimous, as has been the case with almost all our reports. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to a former Select Committee member, David Faber, the former Member for Westbury, whom we miss on the Committee and who contributed remarkable knowledge and expertise, particularly to our consideration of the subject that we are debating this afternoon.
    The report, "Unpicking the Lock: the World Athletics Championships in the UK", is the fourth in a series of reports published by the Select Committee in the past three years. Our first report was published in May 1999; the second in March 2000; the third in March 2001; and the most recent, which we are looking at this afternoon, was published last month. As we said at the start of the report, it threads its way through a "sorry and convoluted" saga and assigns responsibility for what it calls a "mess". I wish to make it clear that both the main parties in the House of Commons have responsibility for that. Under the previous Government, the English Sports Council which, for a reason that escapes me, now calls itself Sport England, launched a competition and assigned £120,000 in lottery money, with which we deal in detail in our report.
    The process and the mistakes began under the previous Government and, to the Committee's regret, continued under the present Government. We assign responsibility for the mistakes to a number of participants in the saga, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which, in the Committee's view, involved itself beyond its locus and vires in decisions, first, on the national stadium, then in attempted decisions on an athletics stadium that the Government were never going to finance and for the building of which they had no responsibility. The Department then involved itself in a compensation deal—the repayment of £20 million of the £120 million
    740
    advanced under the lottery funding agreement—which was in no way the Government's business, then championed a new stadium at Picketts Lock, without saying where the funding would come from or how the infrastructure would be provided.
    Our report assigns responsibility to Sport England, which handed out £120 million to the Football Association for a stadium which, purportedly, was to be built at Wembley. However, planning permission for that stadium had not even been sought. Today, I have received a 40-page document from a well known member of the dramatis personae in these events, Mr. Ken Bates. He has provided me with a document entitled "Wembley National Stadium: A Project Overview 1998-July 2001", which was compiled by Mr. Bob Stubbs, the former chief executive of Wembley National Stadium Ltd.
    I shall not quote from the document at length, as I do not believe that it would be fair to do so. Mr. Bates makes a robust case, but it is conceivable, on past experience, that that case might be challenged by others. However, the document is important, and what is clear from it and, I believe, cannot be challenged is what Mr. Bates or Mr. Stubbs states at the beginning, under the heading "Project Genesis":
    "The project arose directly from the establishment of the National Lottery."
    Sport England was therefore the organisation primarily responsible for the initiation of the national stadium project.
    On page 11 of the document, Mr. Bates or Mr. Stubbs states:
    "Up to July 2001 progress had not been in line with the conditions of the lottery funding agreement. Sport England had, on a regular basis, varied the agreed timetable to ensure default did not occur.
    It is entirely at Sport England's discretion whether an extension of time should be granted. Should an extension not be granted, default would occur and if the default was not rectified, the only real remedy available to Sport England would be to seek recovery of the grant, leading to the project aborting."
    Sport England therefore has considerable responsibility in the matter, which I do not believe it would deny, although it might well argue about the nature of its responsibility. Indeed, I received a two-page letter—private and confidential—from Mr. Trevor Brooking which, as might have been expected, absolved Sport England of all culpability in the episode.
    It is indisputable that after the money had been assigned to Wembley stadium, Sport England watched supinely as the then Secretary of State came to a deal with the Football Association for the repayment of £20 million of the lottery money—a deal which violated the lottery funding agreement. The details of the lottery funding agreement are examined in our report and in the new document provided by Mr. Bates. Sport England made no public protest of any kind and no objection to the deal, which invaded its own responsibilities. It watched the FA flout the deal and the lottery funding agreement, and did nothing whatever about it.
    Although the report that we have published is, in general, supportive of the actions of the current Secretary of State, it must be said that with regard to the refunding of the £20 million, Mr. Patrick Carter is apparently involved in negotiations, although he has no legal vires to be involved in the matter, either.
    The Football Association took the £120 million. It made no positive move to build the stadium, which had become its responsibility. It did not tell the Secretary of

    741
    State that building the stadium or cancelling the stadium was its responsibility in consequence of the lottery funding agreement, and was not within the remit of the Secretary of State. However, what the FA has done and shows every sign of continuing to do is to hold on to the £120 million lottery grant, as if it were stuck to it like flypaper.
    Buzzing around the mess like flies was a host of bodies, hardly any of which had any money, power or responsibility, but all of which demanded to be listened to and, heaven help us, were listened to. That added to the complications and contributed to what I do not like to call, but what can only be called, the fiasco that we are examining this afternoon. In addition to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Sport England, the FA and its offshoot, Wembley National Stadium Ltd., we know that the British Olympic Association, UK Athletics, Ellerbe Becket architects, UK Sport, the Lee Valley regional park authority, the council of the London borough of Enfield, the Government Office for London, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, London 2005 and the Wembley taskforce were involved in this series of bizarre events. Uncle Tom Cobbleigh may have been absent, but Fred Karno was definitely on parade.
    The process of building the stadium—or, as it turns out, the process of not building it—if it can be dignified with the epithet "process", was aimed at providing either one stadium that would house football and athletics, or two stadiums, one for football and the other for athletics. The objective for one or both was to stage the world cup and the world athletics championships of 2005, and potentially the Olympic games if a bid was made. However, we have ended up with no stadium, rather than one or perhaps two, no world cup and no world athletics championships in this country. To date, according to criteria advanced by the British Olympic Association, from which I received a visit only a few days ago, there is no basis for making an Olympic bid. Meanwhile, the city of Paris has a stadium that staged the 1998 world cup final and was the venue for the 1999 rugby union world cup. It will also be the venue for the 2003 world athletics championships and is suitable for staging the Olympic games.
    With regard to our not hosting the world athletics championships, I should mention a statement published today in the Financial Times. It was made by Lamine Diack, president of the International Association of Athletics Federations. The accuracy of the statement may be challenged, but whether it is accurate or not, it displays the view of that association on the miasma with which it was faced in considering the allocation of the games. Mr. Diack said that it was faced with the prospect of hosting the world championships
    "in Wembley in 2001, then Wembley in 2003 and 2005, then Twickenham or Crystal Palace in 2005, then Pickett's Lock in 2005 and finally Sheffield in 2005."
    What unites all those venues is that the world athletics championships are to be held in none of them. Our international reputation cannot have prospered as a result of that confusion.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is even worse than that? Wembley stadium was rejected because the
    742
    sightlines were thought inappropriate for Olympic athletics events. Is he aware, however, that the very same platform that was to be provided for Wembley stadium is now being purchased in the United States, and that the International Olympic Committee has said that the sightlines are ideal and that there will be no bar on holding any Olympic event in the American stadiums?
    Mr. Kaufman: I am only too aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. The world-class expert on sightlines is Mr. David Faber, who enlightened the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a great deal during our discussions.
    The Select Committee has the right to hold firm views on these matters. There is no point in being modest about the fact that we have been right on the main issues from the beginning. On the purported athletics stadium at Picketts Lock, the Committee gave detailed reasons against the project on the basis of six challenges, all of which were vindicated by Patrick Carter's report and have been accepted by the current Secretary of State. If we had been heeded, between our two reports, 15 months would not have been wasted on consideration of a venue to which only one person doggedly adheres today. All the reasons that we advanced have since been accepted as valid and accurate. As I said, they have been fully accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    On Wembley stadium, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) indicated, we recommended a convertible stadium capable of housing both football and athletics. That recommendation in our report was rejected instantly by the then Secretary of State, but is now recognised as an appropriate solution by all knowledgeable authorities.
    Mr. Andrew Love: Given that hosting athletics at Wembley has been rejected not once, but twice, by Wembley National Stadium Ltd., and if we agree with reports published in The Observer and other newspapers at the weekend stating that if the stadium now goes ahead, it is unlikely to include athletics, why do the Committee and its Chairman believe that athletics will occur there in future?
    Mr. Kaufman: To say that I had confidence about anything that is related to this issue would be to exaggerate my strength of character. None the less, it must be accepted that many of the organisations that are now involved in the matter believe that a convertible Wembley is the solution. What must be said—my hon. Friend is certainly right on this point—is that there is no possibility whatever of it being available for the 2005 world athletics championships. Nobody would argue with that. As I said, the Committee recommended a convertible Wembley stadium and the proposal was rejected instantly by the then Secretary of State. It is now accepted by knowledgeable authorities. If we had been heeded and the project had proceeded, London would now be all set to host the 2005 world athletics championships, which have instead been lost to this country.
    It would be easy but futile for the Committee simply to play the game of saying, "I told you so." All of us, in the Committee, the House and sporting organisations, must draw what lessons we can from this debacle. Lesson one is for the FA. It is to say, "Don't be greedy, but be efficient. If you want a stadium, raise the money and get planning permission. Don't hold out the begging bowl for

    743
    public money; get on and build it. If politicians try to interfere, tell them to keep their prying noses out and their meddling hands off." If that sounds phantasmagoric, I advise hon. Members to look at today's newspapers and consider what happened yesterday with regard to the new Arsenal stadium. Arsenal decided that it wanted to build the stadium and found ways of raising money. It did not ask for a penny of public or lottery money. It got planning permission yesterday and will now go ahead with a project that will not only result in a shining new stadium, but be a factor in urban regeneration in the area. That is a model of what can be done and what the FA could have done if it had been so minded.
    The second lesson is for Sport England. I say to that body, "The lottery money that you dispense is not your pocket money to spend on impulse purchases. It is a public trust, which you have violated by being, in the words of our report, 'slack and negligent', and by what we describe in restrained language as a 'cavalier and egregious use of public funds'."
    Last week, in the Select Committee's current inquiry into swimming, Sport England stated that it had devoted £220 million of lottery funding to swimming throughout England in the five years from 1997 to September 2001. Swimming faces a funding crisis. Sport England provided it with an average of £45 million a year, compared with £120 million for a Wembley stadium, which is still on the drawing board according to the most optimistic assessment. I stress that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love).
    Sport England should have acted long ago to prise the money from the rich Football Association's greedy fingers. If the FA makes a new decision to build a Wembley stadium, it should have to undergo the whole process of bidding for lottery money again because the project would not be the same as that for which it received the money.
    Lesson three is for the Government. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is present. However, I tell her that if she wants to build a national stadium, she should draw up the plans, determine its uses, decide on the site, obtain the money and get on with it. If she does not intend to do all that, I tell her with the utmost courtesy to keep out and shut up; it is none of her business. Governments of both parties have poor records as building contractors, from the British Library, which took 30 years to build, to the subject of today's debate. I should be happy if my hon. Friends on the Front Bench got on with work on the national health service, education and law and order and left building to contractors and project managers.
    In the Select Committee's view, my right hon. Friend has made the right hands-off decisions so far. She has disentangled herself from the tar baby that constitutes the project. I hope that it is not true, but I read in the press that she may get involved in a new process and even launch a competition. She knows the regard in which I hold her, and I tell her that she would be crazy to do that. Having got out of one mess, it would be a serious error to get into another.
    Lesson four is for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This country has come to grief over a series of events. They include the millennium dome, for which both parties bear responsibility; the world cup bid; and the world athletics championships bid. There has never
    744
    been a co-ordinated policy under Governments of either party, and there is no such policy on the Olympics. The only exception is the Commonwealth games because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acted on the recommendation of the Select Committee report in May 1999 to appoint a Minister to co-ordinate and progress them. Consequently, a structure exists that can make the Commonwealth games a success.
    The May 1999 report recommended the same approach, including appointing a Minister of events for Wembley. However, we were ignored. We made the recommendation again in the report that we published in March 2000 on Wembley national stadium. Again, we were ignored, and the shambles that we are considering today ensued.
    The new report also recommends that the Prime Minister appoint an events Minister. I hope that, in view of the series of sagas, he will listen and act. Otherwise, it would be sensible to abandon pretensions to staging complex events in this country. If we do not have the structure, we should not make the effort.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: My right hon. Friend and Chairman of the Select Committee has been a little coy in his remarks so far. I recall that the Select Committee and the report was somewhat more critical of the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport over the decision to pull the rug from under a Wembley stadium that would have included athletics. If that fundamental decision had not been made, we would not be worried about £120 million and the refund, or the lack of venue for the world athletics championships. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell hon. Members a little more of what we said about that.
    Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is well aware of the report's contents because she participated in drafting it and the personal references that it makes. Perhaps if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she can amplify her comments and quote from the report more fully. However, I am conscious that our time is limited and I do not want to take up too much of that of other hon. Members, who I am sure have useful and interesting comments to make.
    Last week, representatives of international swimming, such as Anita Lonsborough, Sharon Davies and Duncan Goodhew, attended the Select Committee meeting. We have also met many other athletes during our inquiries. This country has the talent and our sports people have the commitment to make it an illustrious world centre. If the episode that the report considers means that a salutary lesson has been learned, it may not have been in vain.
    5.26 pm
    Nick Harvey: I welcome the opportunity to debate such important matters this afternoon and to consider the Select Committee's excellent report, which was described in characteristic style by the Chairman.
    The background to the debate is the failure of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to provide a long-term strategy for sport in this country. The Government's withdrawal of Picketts Lock as the venue for the world athletics championships should not have come as a surprise to anyone who has studied the Department's performance in recent years. It merely represents another missed opportunity for British sport.

    745
    The first aspect to note about the handling of the bid for the world athletics championships is the damage that it has done, not only to the Government and their Ministers, past and present, but to this country's sporting future. The United Kingdom's failure to recognise sport and make it an integral part of the country's culture, health and social fabric is laying waste all sorts of opportunities to promote sport and fitness in this country.
    Our failure to provide a venue in London, thereby sacrificing the 2005 championships, was not only embarrassing for Ministers but harmful to many others. It has almost certainly jeopardised any bids that this country makes in the foreseeable future. The world athletics championships are the third biggest sporting event in the world. London would have hosted 3,000 athletes and officials, and the event would have been broadcast across the world to an audience of millions. We should make no mistake: London is more than capable of staging such an event, given the right planning and preparation. Manchester is successfully preparing for the Commonwealth games next year. The relatively small Canadian city of Edmonton held the last world athletics championships, and Kuala Lumpur hosted the last Commonwealth games.
    London is larger and more populous than both Manchester and Edmonton, and more economically successful than Kuala Lumpur when it held the Commonwealth games. It can arguably harness a bigger and more enthusiastic sporting audience than any of those cities. If London's bid had been coherent and well thought through, I have no doubt that it could have been successful.
    However, if we are now an international laughing stock, judged incapable of holding the world athletics championships—the third biggest event—we have surely lost any chance of hosting the Olympics or football's world cup finals. The Department's actions have not only injured the Department itself but flattened any hopes that the British Olympic Association or the Football Association might have had of hosting either tournament.
    The withdrawal of Picketts Lock has also been damaging to the country's athletes. A home venue gives athletes a competitive advantage, and the world athletics championships would have brought significant financial benefits to our sports people. However, those unique sponsorship and training opportunities have been denied to them by inept organisation and, if the report is to be believed, by deals struck in smoky kitchens.
    The most fundamental problem is that the loss of the championships has robbed the country of the chance to witness something spectacular and inspirational, and robbed us too of a generation of sporting heroes. School playing fields continue to be sold off, and the two-hour mandatory minimum for school physical education is missed in three age groups out of four. Our children lead more sedentary lives than ever before, yet the opportunity has been missed to present sport in its best light—as competitive and healthy and as an inspiration.
    The failure to stage an event of such importance is indicative of a greater failure to provide an overarching sports strategy for the country as a whole. On the one hand, Ministers hope that this country will be able to support Olympic and football world cup bids. On the other
    746
    hand, however, they do not believe it to be Government's responsibility to co-ordinate, back or underwrite them. As recently as last week, an answer from the Minister for Sport indicated that the responsibility for such matters resided with the governing bodies of the individual sports.
    The message is therefore divided: we want the events, but it is down to individual cities, regions or sports bodies to take responsibility for organising them. Surely the lesson to be learned from this fiasco is that in the future it must be central Government's responsibility to take matters by the scruff of the neck. They should decide whether serious bids are to be made and, if so, to see them through.
    We have been told that the money saved from the abortive bid—it is not really money saved at all, but money lost and time wasted—will be ploughed back into athletics. Yet we are also told that the demands on Sport England must now be met from an ever-decreasing pot of resources. Our ambitions for the future must be matched with greater resources, and they will probably have to come from Government.
    A decision must also be made about our priorities. Do we want high-profile world events, or should we concentrate on grass roots development? With Sport England's pot declining from £325 million a couple of years ago to a projected £180 million in 2003, we cannot, at the current rate of progress, attempt to do both.
    The Minister for Sport described last week how disappointed he was that the IAAF had rejected the offer to hold the championships in Sheffield, which he said would have provided an outstanding venue for the 2005 championships. However, that invites the following question: if Sheffield was such an ideal location, why did the Department throw its weight behind an expensive but seemingly superfluous facility in London? Either Sheffield was adequate as a venue, or Picketts Lock would have been another expensive white elephant. It would have followed other white elephants such as the millennium dome, which was also the Department's responsibility, so perhaps the Department should consider establishing a zoo.
    The flawed bid to hold the championships at Picketts Lock was, we are told, likely to have cost between £90 million and £120 million. That was before Carter reported on problems with transport, location and accommodation.
    The hastily prepared bid to hold the championships at Sheffield—where many of the facilities already exist, and where the greatest cost would have been increasing seating capacity to 43,000, compared to 60,000 at Edmonton—would have cost about £25 million. In either case, there is no doubt that such events cannot be solely supported or underwritten by Sport England.
    The chairman of Sport England, Trevor Brooking, said last week that he saw no way this country could ever bid for an Olympics or a world cup without the Government being involved directly and financially. I agree that there is no way that the most recent Olympics in Sydney could have passed off so successfully without the backing of Australia's central Government.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: The stadium company is now bankrupt.
    Nick Harvey: It is neither fair nor sensible that individual cities or regions—or individual sports

    747
    governing bodies—should bear the sole and exclusive financial risks of hosting one of the three big multi-venue events. As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) noted from a sedentary position, the high cost of the Olympics has affected the profitability of the stadium company, which is now bankrupt. However, no gains could have been made if the Australian Government had not been willing to accept the risk and the liability throughout the duration of the games. They will have to oversee the legacy, which—for now—is a bankrupt stadium.
    It is true that some of the benefits that such tournaments bring—improved infrastructure and a wider range of facilities—accrue solely to the city that hosts the event, but there are many other aspects of holding big international events that benefit the profile and economy of the entire country. That is why it is right for central Government to adopt a hands-on approach and take responsibility for such ventures. However, what this Government have done is to make the Football Association a gift of £120 million, instead of investing the money in a national home for athletics.
    That sum has gone to the country's richest sport, which reaps huge rewards and profits from television receipts. Moreover, if the report is to be believed, the terms of the deal were altered fundamentally at a private meeting in the house of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), at which no appropriate civil servant was present.
    Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he has referred directly and inaccurately to me. A meeting did indeed take place between Mr. Ken Bates and me. A civil servant was present and took a full minute of the meeting. The record rests in the Department.
    Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I do not know whether he is specifically contradicting the report's account of where the meeting took place, but I am grateful to him for commenting.
    There seems to have been no viable, credible or coherent business plan in place to support the Wembley project. At the very least, we can say that Sport England should have made that a precondition for agreeing to any grant. We are not yet privy to the Carter report on Wembley, which needs to be placed in the public domain before we can arrive at absolute conclusions about this saga.
    In addition, it is clear that no further money has been invested in athletics, either at its grass roots or its apex; so football has £120 million of lottery players' money gathering interest in its coffers. That money was given on the basis of fulfilling criteria that were initially flawed, later changed and recently removed altogether.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I wish to clarify one point. The £120 million is not sitting in a bank account somewhere. The scandal is that the money has been used to buy the land, which has just been left unused. That is one of the important points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
    Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is shameful.
    748
    The decision to remove athletics from Wembley was, in my view, disastrous and should never have been agreed. That flawed decision set in train the sequence of events that culminated in the sad, embarrassing but probably quite correct decision to pull the plug on Picketts Lock. While Carter's report remains in the hands of his team and the FA, this House has no idea how the £120 million of good causes cash is being accounted for at the moment.
    Michael Fabricant: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the chance to read the transcript of the evidence given to the Select Committee, but is he aware of what the Secretary of State—who is in her place at present—told the Committee? She said that although she
    "would not hold the IAAF to this",
    her feeling was that
    "the possibility of a non-London option was not one on which the door was firmly closed."
    In other words, as late as 23 October, the Government still believed that the international athletics games would go to the Don Valley.
    Nick Harvey: Had the Government had some disastrous reason to go to the IAAF in the months preceding a tournament that was supposed to have been held in London and said that, owing to an explosion or some unforeseen circumstance, they had to offer another city in London's stead, they could reasonably have expected a sympathetic hearing. However, it was over-optimistic in the extreme of them to make such an offer four years in advance of the tournament. One of the other lessons worth reflecting on is that the competition to hold the games was never exactly hot. That should have told the Government something.
    As the saga has gone on, however, the goalposts have not only been moved but have been taken away along with the ball and the teams. If the FA is going to keep the £120 million of lottery money, it should also be bound to meet the terms on which the grant was originally based. If, on the other hand, the plans do not include provision for athletics—as seems to be the case—at the very least the £20 million that it seems to have been agreed should be returned must now be returned.
    However, I suspect from the lack of clear answers to written parliamentary questions of late, and from looking at the weekend's press, that we can anticipate a Wembley rebuild being completed—if we are to believe what we read—by the summer of 2005, in time to hold either the FA charity shield, which normally takes place in early August, or even an England friendly game shortly before that. In other words, that would be only a month or so after the world athletics championships would have taken place in London.
    The lesson that we have to draw from that is that if the Government had not spent three years dithering over what to do, who to get to do it, and how to change it all once it had been agreed, we could have had a stadium fit for athletics, football and rugby ready within the required time frame, as well as a lasting legacy for all those sports.
    Andy Burnham: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the decision to remove athletics from the Wembley proposal was wrong. Is he suggesting,

    749
    therefore, that the FA would have found it easier to raise the money through the City for a stadium combining athletics and football?
    Nick Harvey: It is not possible to build a world-class athletics stadium that would be economically viable in its own right, because it simply would not generate sufficient gate receipts. The perfectly sensible proposal implicit in the original plan was that the FA would raise the bulk of the money for the football stadium, and that public money would be in place to graft athletics on to the project, which would be given its viability principally by having a regular football crowd in, as that is the only way to provide a sustainable revenue at the gate.
    That was a perfectly viable option. Even now, it is estimated that the £14 million cost of putting in place an athletics platform and the £6 million for a warm-up track would not exceed the £20 million that was set aside to bring athletics into the equation. Now, the country has lost the world athletics championships, so we have the chance to draw breath and sort this out once and for all.
    It is ironic that delay upon delay over the past three years has got us into the dreadful situation in which we now find ourselves. We have missed the boat for the 2005 championships, yet everyone suddenly wants to do everything in a great rush, even though there is no longer any time pressure on us.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely where this £6 million warm-up facility at Wembley was going to be?
    Nick Harvey: The proposition to buy the entire Wembley site would probably, originally, have made such a project feasible, although clearly not as a long-term fixture or fitting. It would, however, have been possible to create such a facility in reasonable proximity to the stadium as a one-off.
    The questions that we must now address are whether the terms of the initial grant to the FA have been met, whether they can be met and, if not, whether that money should be given back and, as has been suggested, the issue of support from Sport England should be revisited from scratch. This country needs an economically viable facility for holding world-class athletics meetings that could be part of a future world athletics championships or Olympic bid. Even with full backing from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and underwriting from central Government, it is proving unlikely that two separate facilities could be built. It will be too late to consider plans for an integrated venue if we go ahead now with the football-only solution. If we do that, we shall miss the opportunity to pursue the possibility of a venue for both sports.
    Since Carter has considered other venues as possibilities for siting a football stadium, he would almost certainly be the best placed person to consider the merits of those venues as sites for multi-purpose stadiums. The FA still has at least a £20 million stake in providing a multi-purpose venue—a not insubstantial sum, which would reduce the cost to itself and any other financiers.
    Without a coherent plan for the provision of all sports, we will simply be talking about stadiums this time next year, at a time when the Government and their agencies should be getting on and building one.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Chris Smith: Perhaps it is worth starting by reminding ourselves why it is beneficial to the country to host a world athletics championship. In my view, it is beneficial in two ways. One is in relation to the international sporting profile that can come from such a major event. After the Olympic games and the football world cup, the world athletics championship is probably the third most important international sporting event. More than that, hosting a championship is important for the impact that it has on the thousands of young people who see an event taking place in their country and are inspired to take part in sport, and to become sportsmen and sportswomen themselves. That double effect of international sporting importance and of encouragement to grass-roots sport is an extremely important reason why it was right to seek to host the world athletics championship in the first place.
    I regret the decision taken by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport not to proceed with the Picketts Lock scheme. I entirely respect the decision that she took, and I know that two issues in particular weighed in her mind. However, developments subsequent to the general election changed the picture on both those issues to a certain extent.
    One was the transport link, relating to the enhancement of the rail link on the Stansted line from Liverpool Street to Picketts Lock, and to the proposed new station immediately beside the stadium. The second issue related to the Middlesex university campus accommodation that had been intended to form the athletes' accommodation. On both those issues, delays appeared to set in. My view was that those problems could have been solved. None the less, the decision was taken, and I respect that fact.
    Let us remind ourselves what we could have gained if Picketts Lock had gone ahead. It would have been not only a stadium dedicated to athletics for the world championships, but a continuing facility for future athletics use, linked directly to a high-class indoor performance centre and a practice throwing field and track, all side by side and able to provide a long-term legacy for athletics, not only at championship level but for community and school use across the capital and the south-east.
    Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman will have read this report. Before Picketts Lock was being considered, we were, of course, considering Wembley stadium. Will he tell us honestly, with the benefit of hindsight—although no one can possess that gift—whether he regrets moving the contest from Wembley stadium to Picketts Lock?
    Mr. Smith: That was not the precise nature of my decision at the time. I do not regret the decision that I took, and I shall enlighten the hon. Gentleman as to why in a moment.
    The long-term legacy, particularly for athletics, from the Picketts Lock stadium would have been a permanent facility for the future—something for which athletes such as Denise Lewis have argued passionately.
    The Select Committee report drew attention to a number of issues and difficulties. I have responded to some of its colourful specifics in public on a number of occasions, but it may be worth putting one or two points on the record.

    751
    The Committee's Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), described the range of organisations involved in any stadium project and, in particular, in the Wembley and Picketts Lock proposals—somewhat unflatteringly, I thought—as "Fred Karno's army". What such a designation ignores is the plain and simple fact that any large project of this kind inevitably involves a large range of organisations. It would have been ridiculous to try to create a stadium in London without involving, for instance, the Government Office for London, the Mayor and the London borough concerned—together with the Lee Valley authority, which happened to own the land and to be in the driving seat. My right hon. Friend's designation was, perhaps, a trifle unfair on organisations that were rightly involved.
    The Select Committee report, and Members who have spoken today, suggest that the decision to recommend the removal of athletics from the original Wembley scheme—the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) raised this point in particular—was made because of the difficulty involving sightlines, and advice from, in particular, the British Olympic Association about the potential unsuitability of Wembley stadium for hosting the Olympic games. That was a consideration, but it was not the main consideration.
    The decision was not made by the Secretary of State; it was urged on Wembley National Stadium Ltd., the Football Association and Sport England. It was made for two principal reasons. The first was based on practicality and value for money. It was proposed that, for the hosting of the world athletics championships, a concrete platform should be constructed in the middle of Wembley stadium. Construction would cost not £14 million but some £20 million, and would take six months. The platform would be used for a 10-day championship, and taking it down again would take another six months. There would be no permanent legacy for athletics, and in the meantime Wembley stadium would be unusable for 12 months. It was on grounds of practicality and value for money that I first had serious doubts about whether this was a sensible way of proceeding.
    The second reason was the absence of warm-up facilities. I challenged the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) on that. The land that had been purchased, with the stadium on it, did not include land for such facilities. Any international athletics event must offer a warm-up facility as near as possible to the main stadium
    Mr. Wyatt: It is scandalous that the land did not include a warm-up track, and we know that an earlier Government were involved; but does not the fact that the chief executive of Sport England made such a decision say a lot about what that organisation knows about international sport?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes his own point strongly. I was faced with a decision based on the facts as they confronted me then. The creation of a warm-up facility adjacent to the stadium would have meant the identification of land that was not then owned by Wembley stadium or the Football Association. It would almost certainly have required compulsory purchase procedures involving a number of owners, and it would have been extremely expensive.
    752
    The two major problems that we encountered were the lack of practicality of the concrete-platform solution, and the lack of any easy way of identifying a warm-up facility. In the circumstances, I thought it sensible to look at other possibilities for the hosting of athletics championships.
    Mr. Love: With the benefit of hindsight, and given what he has already said about the reasons for not choosing Wembley, does my right hon. Friend think that any subsequent event would have been likely to change his mind?
    Mr. Smith: Almost certainly not. I was coming on to my third point, which is that at the heart of any major stadium project of this kind lies the difficulty of marrying a stadium for football with a stadium for athletics. A really good football stadium requires seating close to the pitch. It requires the best possible atmosphere, with spectators crowded in on the action. In the best football grounds, that is precisely what happens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned last night's decision by my local authority about the Arsenal stadium scheme. That desired atmosphere is precisely what Arsenal's project achieved.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: Not for the moment. This is an important point.
    An athletics stadium, however, needs spectators to be further from the ground. A wider "footprint" is also needed, so that there can be a running track and space in the middle for throwing events, and spectators need to be placed in a rather different way so that at all stages they can see not just the athletes' heads but their feet as they go round the tracks.
    It is possible to aim for a compromise. The Stade de France in Paris probably represents the best international attempt to achieve such a compromise: it has retractable seating at the lower levels. It is still not perfect for either sport, because the spectators are still some distance from a football game, while retracting the seating for athletics events produces a cliff around the athletics track before the seating starts. It is none the less a workable compromise. That was not on offer at Wembley: what was on offer there was a stadium that was tight around the pitch and therefore good for football, but with a concrete platform to transfer it to athletics mode.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the additional information he has given. Has he read the evidence given by Mr. Rod Sheard, to whom he spoke at the time? That evidence distinctly contradicts the information he has just given about the time it would take to remove the removable platform and restore it. Does he not now think—again with the benefit of hindsight, and given Mr. Sheard's evidence—that that would have been a workable compromise, and would not, in fact, have meant that Wembley could not be used for long periods between athletics and football events?
    Mr. Smith: I understand that claims have been made that technology has moved on since December 1999, when the decision was taken, but that does not change the fundamentals of the picture. It would still take a

    753
    considerable time to construct and deconstruct the platform. It would still cost a substantial sum and there would still be no permanent facility left for athletics.
    I hope that Wembley as a national stadium for football and rugby league can now proceed. The history, tradition and sentiment that surround it are much more powerful than that elsewhere.
    Bob Russell: The right hon. Gentleman's ministerial brief included culture. Is he aware of any other country that has demolished such an important monument to its sporting past as an Olympic stadium? Wembley is also the home of England's greatest sporting triumph, so surely the Wembley towers at least should remain.
    Mr. Smith: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the Foster design for the new Wembley, as proposed in 1999, meant that the twin towers would have ended up in the middle of the pitch, which did not necessarily make for the best possible stadium. We wait to see what emerges from the FA in the next few weeks in relation to any redesign it may be considering, but I suspect that the problem persists. The other beneficial aspect of Wembley is that there is a definite need for regeneration across north-west London, so siting the new national stadium there would make a strong and positive contribution to that task.
    If Wembley is to proceed it should not be at the cost of additional sums from the public purse. Shortly before the general election, the FA asked the Government for an additional sum of some £150 million to enable the Wembley project to proceed, but I rejected the proposal. I believe that I was right to do so, and it is worth putting it on record that the £120 million of lottery funding made available to the FA for the Wembley stadium becomes legally repayable if it does not proceed. I hope that Sport England will stand firmly by that.
    I remind the FA that there is an agreement, minuted and followed up in correspondence, to return £20 million to the lottery in recompense for removing athletics from the scheme. That money is outstanding, and the FA should think seriously about starting to pay it back. While we are at it, let us learn the lessons of the Cardiff Millennium stadium, which was built for £126 million, including the purchase of the land. It hosted the FA cup final earlier this year, and everyone who went said what a good game it was and how good the stadium was. The Cardiff stadium is one for which I can claim a little credit as chairman of the Millennium Commission, which made a substantial sum available for it.
    I applaud the Government's continued emphasis on grass-roots sport, because sports policy needs a combination of the encouragement of that and the objective of international excellence. The hon. Member for North Devon failed to acknowledge that this year, next year and the year after, the sport budget from the Exchequer will double. I negotiated that money, and I was proud to put it in place. Also, 1,000 school sports co-ordinator posts will be created to facilitate, encourage and enable sport to take place in our schools and school playing field sales have already declined from an average of 40 a month under the previous Government to about three a month.
    754
    We have put major initiatives in place over the past four years and I am pleased that they are being carried forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to encourage and facilitate grass-roots sport. Of course, there will be no medal winners tomorrow without mass participation among young people today, and we will not generate enthusiasm for participation among those young people if they have no heroes to emulate or international success to aspire to. The two go hand in hand.
    For all those reasons, let us hope that the Government take the Select Committee's entertaining, but somewhat flawed, report with a small pinch of salt and stick to their determination to promote excellence and foster community spirit.
    6.7 pm
    Mr. Adrian Flook: It may be worth reminding the House of some of the beginnings of the sad and sorry fiasco that leaves our country without a national stadium for football, rugby league and, in particular, athletics. I take hon. Members back to the fact that Wembley stadium was owned by a fairly shaky plc called Wembley plc. Advisers to the deal tell me that, originally, one idea was for the lottery to get the stadium free for 50 years while the plc moved from being an owner to being the operator of a vastly improved stadium.
    The £120 million grant was to be matched by finance raised in the City and a new stadium built for about £250 million. Although it was always touted as a multi-sport venue, there was always a dominant partner—soccer. With respect to this debate, a better way to put it is that there was a much weaker partner—athletics.
    A certain football club in north London, namely Arsenal, has been referred to. I remind the House that, back in 1997, rumours were floating around that the club was interested in buying Wembley, lock, stock and barrel, and was threatening to bid for Wembley plc. The upshot of that would have been the scuppering of the nascent plans to hold the world cup in this country, which appears to have completely spooked the Government, who panicked and exerted pressure on Sport England to abandon the original plan under which it agreed to allocate £120 million of funding.
    To bid for the World cup, the Government needed a national stadium, and it appears that they went out and bought the stadium outright for about £100 million. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps we can say that that is the slippery slope at the bottom of which we now find ourselves. Four years on, with the last game played there over a year ago, the decaying stadium and the surrounding area are worth nowhere near the £100 million paid for them; they are worth closer to £30 million. That is a real shame and a dreadful waste of public money.
    How did that sorry state of affairs come about? It appears to have been because the Government could not keep their interfering paws off. The lure of being associated with the so-called venue of legends was just too much for a spin-obsessed Administration—they could not leave it alone. It seems that all the meddling was at the behest of the Prime Minister himself, who had, it was claimed, "thrown his weight behind it".

    755
    To bring matters up to date, a Football Association insider quoted in the Financial Times said:
    "We want Government to be supportive, but absent from the actual process. We need a pledge that the Government will not interfere!"
    Sadly, the Secretary of State still fails to grasp that salient point. She told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I have the honour to sit:
    "I do not think it is the role of Government to build and manage big stadia, but to pretend that these big projects can be delivered with the Government holding back is naive".
    Yet we have reached the end of 2001 with no national stadium and no athletics stadium—a litany of meddle, muddle and complete mismanagement. To put it another way: no world athletics championship, so no need for an athletics stadium.
    That sorry state of affairs has arisen because the Government overstepped their own brief four years ago and, worryingly, seem intent on doing so again. In May, in their manifesto, the Government promised that they would host the 2005 world athletics championships with first-class facilities. That is no doubt a laudable aim. However, there was no mention in that document of Picketts Lock, Edmonton or even London—despite the fact that London was the city to which the championships had been given.
    It appears that the Government never, ever asked themselves why we even need big stadiums in a televisual world when millions can watch events without having to stand on cold terraces. At the end of August when Patrick Carter, the Government's sports troubleshooter, issued his report, which sounded the death knell for Picketts Lock, he noted that he
    "remained unaware of any policy or strategy which set out why the United Kingdom ought to stage major sporting events".
    However, the absence of such a strategy has not stopped the Government meddling.
    There are good reasons for having a national stadium that are as true today as ever they were. The first is to secure home advantage for British sportsmen and the second is—as the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) pointed out—to act as a facilitator for wider sports policy and to achieve greater grass-roots involvement. The final reason is to enhance the way in which Britain is seen internationally.
    None of those factors gives the Government or any Minister a reason to get involved and to abuse public money in the way that has happened. The problem appears to have started with the concept that there should be a national stadium for three sports—football, rugby league and athletics. That was downsized by the football-loving hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Suddenly, the "right type" of stadium for a world cup bid, rather than the previously agreed multi-use stadium, was all the rage.
    Having undermined the three-sports stadium concept, the DCMS had to turn its attention to finding a home for its displaced athletics idea.
    Mr. Tony Banks: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The new Wembley stadium was in no way conditional on our winning the 2006 world cup bid. In fact, there was some surprise that the FA and Sport England, with the support of the Government, were actually going to demolish the old Wembley stadium in order to construct a new national stadium. Unlike
    756
    Germany and other countries which were bidding and which planned to build a new national stadium if their bid was successful, we were already going to build one. There was no link of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman with the 2006 world cup bid.
    Mr. Flook: Obviously, I did not have the benefit of being at the discussions. I could only read recent reports.
    Of the original £120 million, it has been agreed that £20 million is to be repaid if the athletics track is never built at Wembley. Judging by the last few years, who knows whether that will ever happen? In short, the Government appear to have given £100 million to the richest sport in the kingdom for a ground that it could easily have afforded itself.
    Mr. Bryant: The Government have not given a penny to anybody—Sport England gave the money.
    Mr. Flook: I stand corrected. None the less, although it is not taxpayers' money, public money has been given to the richest sport in the kingdom.
    In December 1999, athletics was eventually pulled from the venue of legends following a report written by some consultants who spent all of three weeks looking into the proposed design that kiboshed the suggested set-up. However, I remind the House that the Select Committee report, published on 30 March last year, disagreed and found the proposed solution of a three-sport stadium "commendable and innovative" and concluded that
    "the Government should go ahead with it".
    Indeed, since then—to contradict the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—major stadiums throughout the world have proposed the use of the same sort of construction for athletics. We noted in our report that New York is planning to adopt such a system. Yet, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, the then Secretary of State rubbished the report within half an hour of its publication—hardly a considered opinion.
    The report highlighted a number of challenges for Picketts Lock. There was no underwriter for the event. The stadium was not of the highest quality. There were transport and infrastructure issues. Time was short—that was in March 2000. What would happen to the stadium in the long term? There was a capital shortfall.
    There was always a funding shortfall with the Picketts Lock proposal. The outline cost in March 2000 was for a stadium that was going to cost up to £120 million, when only £60 million had been earmarked as available from the lottery and £20 million of that was unlikely ever to be released. So, there were shortfalls for funding for the building as well for long-term revenue. In short, what does one do with an expensive building stuck in north-east London that has little use other than as an athletics stadium?
    To quote another report from the Select Committee, the Government were following a "perverse and bizarre" course of action in promoting an economically unsustainable athletics stadium—having rejected their own earlier proposals, after taking into account a hastily written report that took all of three weeks to put together. After their meddling, the Government have lost this country the right to stage the world athletics championships in 2005. They have probably cost us much

    757
    more embarrassment than that, in that we are unlikely to be in a position to bid for any major sporting event for many years.
    The Government's alternative proposal of Sheffield, charming city though it probably is, was not even discussed by the International Amateur Athletics Federation. That shows what the federation thought of the proposal.
    The Government continue to meddle. They seem desperate to be munificent in this season of good will, and now appear to be offering £40 million of Sport England's money—public money, albeit not taxpayers' money—all over the place. When will they learn that the £40 million is lottery money, and not Government money to throw around?
    The Select Committee's report may well have "castigated" the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, but several issues remain pertinent for the current crop of Ministers. We need assurances from the Government that they will heed the insider at the FA and leave the association to get on with it and build Wembley. What about the £20 million that seems to have gone missing? We are constantly given assurances, but where is the second annual instalment?
    According to the Evening Standard, the FA is
    "now ready to build a National Stadium with £100 million of their own money and they only need tacit support from the Government to help them get funding from the City."
    That seems to be rather a kick in the face for all those earlier but perhaps rather unhelpful efforts.
    As the Secretary of State suggested when she appeared before the Committee, with a little luck, if a review of major events policy is undertaken and the subject is kicked into the long grass of the performance and innovation unit of No. 10, there is perhaps an outside chance that something might be able to happen at Wembley without Government interference.
    There is no denying, however, that Britain's reputation abroad has been damaged. It is also likely that we will not have a mega-event for quite some time. More importantly, there is still no lasting legacy of athletics to help us do better in track and field events. Bearing in mind the fact that the original £120 million has been turned into an investment that now consists of a dilapidated building in north-west London that is worth about £30 million, and that the Government are scrabbling round to spend £48 million of public money, it worth asking once again what will become of the £20 million.
    Last week, in an attempt to break the power and control of the so-called blazer brigade—although his statement more pertinently exposes the Government's handling of the national stadium—the Minister for Sport told The Guardian that
    "In this day and age, you need to have people with skills to run sport. Public money is given out and we do not even know what we get back."
    That is absolutely correct. I could not have put it better myself.
    6.20 pm
    Kate Hoey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the Select Committee on two or three years of very
    758
    hard, detailed work on what they themselves have rightly called a saga of events. Their detailed scrutiny has been very helpful indeed. I think that anyone who reads the report—even those who, like me, do not agree with all its recommendations—cannot fail to see the truth of its overall conclusion that the way we run sports and major sporting events and build national stadiums is a shambles. Without saying so, the report also expresses my view that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is a dysfunctional Department. That is what it has been from the beginning and that is what it continues to be. It is perhaps fortunate that we have a Select Committee that is not dysfunctional; if it were dysfunctional we would not have received this type of report.
    Although I realise that the Select Committee is very busy doing a wide variety of reports, it might be a very useful exercise if it were to use its considerable background knowledge and expertise to consider the overall issue of the way in which we handle sport in this country. We have to examine issues such as the increasing number of quangos, the fact that no one can take decisions, and the fact that the Government immediately handed over all our money for sport to Sport England, which is a huge quango employing 500 people; whereas I think that, when I was Minister for Sport, I had 26 people working on sport.
    It is clearly nonsensical when the Minister for Sport and even the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport do not truly have the power to take decisions. So many matters are handled by various quangos that drop the ball whenever difficulties arise.
    Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady has made a very interesting and powerful point by saying that the Department is dysfunctional and inviting the Select Committee to investigate the Department's sports operation. I ask her, a former Minister, to tell us the point of a Select Committee's making recommendations to a Department when, in at least one example, the Secretary of State rejected the report within 30 minutes of its publication. There are many other examples in which Secretaries of State have rejected Select Committee recommendations that, as hindsight has shown, were subsequently proved correct.
    Kate Hoey: The Government make their decisions on individual Select Committee reports. Although I do not want to go over old ground, I should make it clear now that I fundamentally disagree with the Select Committee recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman refers—to oppose removing athletics from Wembley. I believe that the original lottery money was provided for a national sports stadium. There is absolutely no doubt that, at some point in the early months of 1999, the national sports stadium project was hijacked by football. The FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. hijacked the project and ignored both athletics and the British Olympic Association.
    Those bodies were able to do that because at that time we were making a world cup bid. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) said, for the first six months to a year in which I was the Minister for Sport, and in the final year of the previous Minister's tenure, the world cup bid hung over everything that was happening in the Department. Absolutely nothing could stop, prevent or

    759
    attack anything to do with our world cup bid. That was the most important sports issue as far as the Government were concerned.
    One of my disappointments with the report is that the Select Committee never analysed what went wrong with Wembley. I agree with the Committee that the £120 million should not have been provided so quickly without planning permission. Like all hon. Members, I have sports clubs that have received no lottery grants or only small grants because they have not had planning permission. Nevertheless, Sport England gave £120 million for a plan that had not yet received planning permission. The request succeeded because the plan was about the world cup bid, making it crucial that it succeeded. I would therefore have liked it if the Select Committee had examined the issue.
    I know that pressure was put on Sport England to deliver that £120 million, which had to be delivered in time to prepare and submit the bid. It is all very well blaming Sport England and its officials, but it is difficult for anyone when permanent secretaries are ringing up and asking when a lottery bid will go through.
    Mr. Banks: May I remind my hon. Friend, who seems occasionally to forget it, that the 2000 World cup bid was dealt with in the Government's 1997 general election manifesto? Carrying out manifesto commitments is a worthwhile objective.
    Kate Hoey: I absolutely agree that that was in our manifesto. However, our manifesto also contained many other things. I agree, too, that we want to fulfil our manifesto commitments so far as possible. However, I do not think that we should fulfil one manifesto commitment at the expense of other commitments. We should not override other commitments, take shortcuts or fail to monitor properly. We should not seek to do something very quickly indeed when it is not necessary.
    The £120 million was provided for a multi-sports stadium such as the Stade de France, and that is what we should have been building. It then became a football-only stadium, designed to include a platform. We need not go through all the costs of the platform proposal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has made it clear that it was nonsense to propose a platform that was a one-off arrangement that would leave no legacy for athletics. It was a sop to athletics and an attempt to get round the fact that WNSL had received £120 million.
    We could not go back on that decision because Downing Street did not want it to happen. At that time, no one wanted to go back and say to Sport England, "You have mucked up. This scheme should be returned and you should be redesigning it as a proper national stadium, which is what the lottery grant was for." That could not happen because we could not sacrifice our world cup bid.
    Mr. Bryant: I agree with my hon. Friend on her point about athletics being removed from Wembley stadium. However, does she think that the whole £120 million should be returned, or merely the £20 million?
    Kate Hoey: I was coming to that. We do not know what the decision on Wembley will be, but the football authorities clearly know that if a national stadium is not built at Wembley they will definitely be legally bound to
    760
    return the £120 million. My view, which I shall continue to proclaim, is that if Wembley ends up being a national football stadium—with some rugby league involvement, although rugby league is enjoying having its games at different places—the whole £120 million must be returned.
    Great demands are already being placed on the sports lottery fund. Just recently, Sport England gave £30 million from the sports community lottery fund to ensure the success of the Commonwealth games. We want those games to be a success, but that was an extra £30 million which had not been budgeted for. The decision to give £30 million was split—it was not unanimous. However, £30 million of community funding has now gone to the Commonwealth games. I do not want there to be a football-only stadium without the need to pay back the £120 million. Twickenham was built without public lottery money. Cricket does not get £120 million, so why does football, which is the richest sport? If the stadium is football-only, the entire £120 million must be repaid.
    Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way to me a second time. I take her point about the £120 million. However, what about the £20 million, which also needs to be repaid? She may be aware from the evidence given to the Select Committee that, on 19 January this year, the former Secretary of State said in a letter that the £20 million might be repaid if Wembley stadium went ahead, and that if the project did not proceed, it would not be repaid. Later, on 5 April, he said that the final payment of the £20 million would be made in December 2004. Later on, the present Secretary of State said that this was being discussed in camera. Can the hon. Lady shed any light on any timetable that might exist for the repayment of the £20 million?
    Kate Hoey: I can shed no light on that, other than what is in the formal public documents. I was not involved in any meeting with Ken Bates over the £20 million, thank goodness. That sum should definitely be repaid because that was agreed by the then Secretary of State and Ken Bates, who was supposedly speaking on behalf of football. I am after the rest of the money because I do not see why football should get it.
    Our reputation in international sport has been badly damaged by this decision. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that Picketts Lock had problems, but it could have been made to happen. We gave a commitment, as a country, to host the world athletics championships. We gave that commitment not just at ministerial, Secretary of State or UK athletics level, but as a country, with a letter from the Prime Minister saying that we would provide a wonderful stadium in London for the world athletics championship in 2005. We reneged on that commitment and broke our promise. It has damaged us, because members of the International Amateur Athletics Federation are also involved with the International Olympic Committee.
    I sat next to Istvan Gyulai, chief executive of the IAAF, just a few weeks ago at the athletics writers' dinner. I will not repeat the conversation, because it was private, but he told me exactly what had gone on in the meeting with the Minister for Sport and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I would not repeat in the Chamber the words he used about what happened at that meeting.

    761
    We have let ourselves down badly, although there were problems. We must congratulate the Lee Valley and Enfield council, the local Member of Parliament and all who worked so hard on the basis of commitments and promises. The very least we can do is make sure that the Government reimburse the council for its costs. Despite all their good will, the Government reneged on the commitment.
    Our reputation abroad has been badly damaged. It was made even worse by telling this international body that we would be hosting the event in London one minute and then saying the next minute, "No, we would like it to be Sheffield." I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport would not have dreamt of being patronising, but that is how it was taken. There was no understanding of how international sport worked. That has damaged us even more than if we had told the IAAF that we were really sorry but we had messed up and could not do Picketts Lock. In the event, we said that we could not do Picketts Lock, but offered Sheffield instead. Wonderful though Sheffield is, that was nonsense. We have a lot of hard work to do to mend our reputation. I will not go into detail about our bid for the world cup, because that would provoke the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks).
    I have a suggestion for my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton about future Select Committee reports. I am sure that he understands the difficulties regarding the way in which Sport England works. It might be useful to take a strategic look at how the Sports Council works and the lottery spend, taking into account value for money. Even with someone in the Cabinet who is responsible for events, unless we completely change how we run sport in this country, by restructuring and streamlining it, we will never punch at our true weight.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The debate that the hon. Lady mentioned in her opening remarks and to which she has now returned is hardly new. It began in 1964 when Denis Howell was appointed the first Minister responsible for Sport. The question arose—it has never properly been resolved—as to whether the Minister for Sport should exercise executive responsibilities. If the hon. Lady is saying that, she will find a great deal of support for that view, not just in the House of Commons but throughout the sporting world in the United Kingdom.
    Kate Hoey: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The people involved in sport will say that there is no real understanding of how sport works. There is no strategic authority and nobody to carry things through from the top. Sue Mott in The Daily Telegraph wrote eloquently about it recently. She talked about everyone holding a package, passing it to someone who takes a little out of it and passes it on to someone else who does the same; and when the going gets tough, everyone wants to drop it. That is how we run sport. We can never aspire to be an international power in sport or be in touch with the grass roots if we do not look at what we are doing.
    This Mr. Carter seems to be running sport in this country. He was brought in just before I finished as Minister for Sport to look at the Commonwealth games.
    762
    I did not meet him, although I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury might have. The reports show that he has met some people and not others—he seems to have chosen whom to meet. Whenever anyone in authority in the Government talks about Wembley or Picketts Lock and is asked a difficult question, they refer to the Carter report. I wonder whether Patrick Carter actually exists, because I have not seen him anywhere.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are discussing the Select Committee report, not the Carter report.
    Kate Hoey: I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Select Committee report refers to Patrick Carter a number of times. I know that he exists, because he gave evidence.
    In conclusion, the Select Committee has done sport a service by producing this detailed report, although it does not make very appetising reading. Indeed, it makes very sad reading, and we have many lessons to learn.
    6.39 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: I have not met Mr. Carter either, so perhaps he does not exist. Who knows? Perhaps the Minister for Sport can enlighten us.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said something that a number of people have mentioned in the debate. She referred to the rich sport of football. Well, that is true of one part of football—essentially, the premier league, where a lot of money is sloshing around, as we know. However, when we are talking about the development of the national football stadium, we are talking about the Football Association. Although richer than probably any other national sporting body, the FA should not be confused with the premier league. Let us not forget that the FA is responsible for something like 42,000 affiliated clubs, so there is not a vast amount of money sloshing around in the new building at Soho square. We need to differentiate between the FA and the premier league, even though it has a significant say in the FA.
    I have just been told that I have five minutes, and I always want to try to obey the Whips. If they try to beat me up, I will definitely join the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Bryant: Is that a manifesto promise?
    Mr. Banks: No. Nothing that I say in the next few minutes is said with the benefit of hindsight. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on the Select Committee report. He is right to say that the Select Committee has been consistently right. I have given evidence to the Select Committee on several occasions, and it has been consistently right. We all want to put our own spin or interpretation on those events. When the national stadium was proposed for football, rugby league and athletics, it was clear that the British Olympics Association and UK Athletics would very much have liked a permanent running track there, visible all the time, but that simply was not on.
    When I was Minister for Sport, I was not prepared to support that proposal. I tried to get funding for the proposal on retractible seating, as at the Stade de France.

    763
    I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that I was told that there would be no money for that from the Treasury, nor any additional money from the lottery. So in the end the deck solution was proposed. I thought that solution appropriate, given the money available. Let us be clear that when I was a Minister there was a lot of Government interference, but no Government money.
    I sympathise with those who say, "Unless the Government put money in, the Government should stay out of it." That goes as much for Ministers now as when others were sitting in their places. I have enormous regard for my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and I was always totally loyal to him when he was Secretary of State, but when the deck solution for the national stadium was launched in July 1999, he described it as a stunning design.
    Mr. Chris Smith: In fact, at the time of the press conference at which I described the overall scheme as a stunning design, the deck solution was in no sense part of that scheme. The details of the deck solution became evident only subsequently, and I began to have serious doubts about it.
    Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend mentions the detail, but the overall proposal was there. There was no retractible seating or permanent running track, so what did he think we were talking about? What does he think the rest of the world thought when he called it a stunning design?
    Kate Hoey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Banks: No, hang on a second. I happen to think that the proposal was acceptable, simply because rugby was contributing nothing and athletics, which was also contributing nothing, would want to use the stadium only for the world athletics championships or for the Olympic games, and there was no guarantee that we could get either. So it seemed to me to be perfectly appropriate to bring in something on a temporary basis. There is an argument about how long that proposal would disable the stadium, but it was perfectly acceptable to football. I thought that it was acceptable to my right hon. Friend, and it seemed that that was the way forward, given that we would not have a permanent track or retractible seating there. I shall not keep going over why things have now changed, but we got into all sort of problems as soon as it was decided that the July 1999 design was not acceptable.
    There is some confusion about the world athletics championships. I remember when the late Primo Nebiolo—one of the great barons of world sport—was offered the championships to London. When we were sitting in the Cabinet room in Downing Street, we described the construction of the new Wembley stadium, and he said, "Well, the first event that you can have in it will be the 2003 world athletics championships." I said, "Well, Mr. President, we'll discuss that later." When I discussed it with him later, I found out that he had made exactly the same offer to the French Minister for Sport, Madame Buffet, with the result that she and I had to reach a conclusion, and we decided that London would bid for 2005, rather than 2003 because two cities were going for the 2003 championships.
    I wanted to make a few more points, but other hon. Members want to speak. The solution proposed would have fitted everyone. I feel that the role of the BOA needs
    764
    to be criticised because it was clearly not happy with the deck proposal, but I warned Simon Clegg, the BOA' s general secretary, that it was the best thing that it was likely to get. If the BOA did not go for that, it would end up with nothing. Well, nothing is precisely what it has ended up with, so it should have listened to that advice.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Banks: No, I have got to sit down—I am very sorry. All I would say is that, if we are to learn something from what has happened, we need Governments to be involved, but Government involvement does not just mean interfering to tell sport what it should be doing. It means getting in there, paying for it and doing it ourselves, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. As a Minister, the thing that frustrated me—clearly, it frustrated her, too—was the way that we were continually handing over decisions to fractured bodies all over the place, using the so-called arm's-length principle.
    I stood at the Dispatch Box and said that I did not agree with the arm's-length principle. If we are to get involved in organising events or in reorganising sport, we have got to do it ourselves, in an executive fashion. In that way, I am more of a Stalinist than a socialist, and stand firmly by that view. If the Government are going to get involved, which they should, and the Select Committee has made several recommendations, the Government must pay. If the Government are not prepared to pay, as the Australian, French, Spanish, Japanese and South Korean Governments have done, they should stay out of it, because all they do is confuse sports.
    6.46 pm
    Mr. Andy Reed: It appears to be my role to have three minutes at the end of every debate in which to try to summarise the 20 minutes-worth of notes that I have prepared, but I should like to endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has said so passionately at the end of his contribution. I have lots of notes and wanted to talk about the decisions and some of the things in the Select Committee report, but we have heard lots of that rehearsed in this debate, and in the couple of minutes that I have available, I want to return to what my hon. Friend has just said—we as a nation have to decide how serious we are about sport.
    I have been very lucky since being elected; not only have I been able to spectate at some of the world's great stadiums, but I have been able to play in some of them because of the parliamentary football and rugby teams that we run. Those of us who have been in the changing rooms at Wembley know that they are a disaster and that the stadium is a disgrace and needs replacing as quickly as possible. I have also seen stadiums in places such as Japan and Australia, and great finance has gone into them.
    However, we always return to the point that my hon. Friend was just making—people are serious about sports. We have to make a decision in the next year or so, and if we are serious about sport we need to get it right at every level. We need to ensure that there are school sports for children to take part in for at least two hours. I would prefer that to be part of the curriculum, but I would be happy if children played sport for two hours. That would make a real start.

    765
    We then need to make the link between schools and clubs. I play for a very junior rugby club. I have mistakenly called it on radio the worst club in the country—I actually meant that it was in one of the lowest leagues. It is not the worst club, but we have not had many wins this season. We struggle because there are no links between ourselves and the school. We are an old school club, yet rugby has not been played at that school for 15 years. Unfortunately, because we do not have the people to help to coach at the school to develop players, I am now one of the youngest players that we have, at 37. At 35, we technically become a veterans' side, but we still play in other leagues. That is an anecdote, but the Minister will know that that is a serious problem right across the country. If those links do not exist, people do not have places to play.
    The next thing that we need to ensure is that, when we have achieved that mass participation, there are routes for people to find their way through. That includes not only coaching, but the UK Sports Institute, and I am proud that Loughborough is playing a key role in it. The swimming pool is coming along fine, as are the hockey pitches. We can provide the best sports science. In fact, with the UK Sports Institute up and running in the next couple of years, we will be able to find our elite athletes. However, if we do not get the mass participation right in schools, we will have no one to pick. That is why such decisions are crucial.
    If I had a £100 million to spend on athletics, would I spend it on a national stadium, or would I spend it trying to give Charnwood athletic club some better facilities and allowing more people in my constituency to participate in sport? Ideally, I would like £200 million so that we could do both, but sport has not had the political kudos that it should have had. I am sure that all the hon. Members present believe that sport should have that priority, but we only have to look at the sparse attendance in the Chamber to realise that we need to convince many more hon. Members and the general public that sport has an important role to play. If I had to make the choice, I would prefer to see the £100 million spent on the grass roots and future athletes.
    I have read the section of the report on the question of home advantage. Yes, we probably would win more gold medals, but in this television age it is even more important to ensure that the events are on terrestrial television. Children need sporting heroes, but the success that we had in Sydney is just as important as seeing those heroes perform in Lee Valley or Picketts Lock. These days, it is easy to develop sporting heroes and ensure that people want to watch them.
    The debate has been a long-running sore and difficult decisions have had to be made. Twenty:twenty vision hindsight is a wonderful thing and it is great to see that the Select Committee has highlighted a few suggestions. It was slightly contradictory when it suggested that the Government needed to keep their hands off but at the same time to appoint a Minister responsible for events. We must decide which one of those suggestions we will follow.
    Now is the time, following this debacle, to decide whether we are interested in running international events. If the Olympics would cost us £3 billion or £4 billion, do
    766
    we really want those games or could we spend the money on developing first class sporting facilities? Hon. Members will have seen in their constituencies the crumbling tennis courts and sports halls. There is much more that could be done in our constituencies with the money rather than its being spent on the glory of a 10-day or two-week event.
    6.52 pm
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: I have several sporting interests registered in the book, including being a trustee of Oxford University rugby club. It is 20 years to the day since I got my blue and I have just been paged to tell me that we have won three times in a row for the first time, and that my 1981 team is waiting to have dinner with me outside, so I am a happy man. I share the warmth expressed towards David Faber by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and it would be nice if we could see him in the other place as Lord Sightlines.
    I remind the House yet again that there are more nations in the IOC and the IAAF than in the United Nations. We do not understand how important sport is. I say that each time I rise to my feet in the Chamber, but it is true. We just do not get it. The way sport is run in this country is a shambles. The Wembley and Picketts Lock affairs are indicative of that shambles. We are the people who can change that, and it is time that we did so.
    We got the Wembley issue back to front. The infrastructure is terrible, so why did we not buy the thing first before we put the infrastructure in? It does not take a brain surgeon to work that out. It was a shocking decision to buy only that site. It took the Select Committee only 20 minutes to work out that we needed to buy the whole site if we were to hold world events there. If it took us that long, why did it take the chief executive of Sport England and the former sports Minister so long? The Picketts Lock affair took us even less time, but I shall not go into that.
    I have several conclusions to offer. First, if we are serious about sport we have to have a Secretary of State for sport. I suggest that sport and health education are combined. We have to get school sports sorted out and it should not be separated from other sports matters. We now have a myriad more initiatives in schools and another set of administrators in the new opportunities fund for sport. That is crackers. We must bang some heads together to achieve a return to sanity. Secondly, and as important, we need to appoint an ambassador for sport at our French embassy. We need to be represented in IOC, FIFA and IAAF meetings by a permanent diplomat who will let us know what is going on. With our reputation in tatters, that is even more important. I know the man for the job, and he lives in Paris.
    Thirdly, the Minister for Sport must chair UK Sport. We have heard from two former Ministers for Sport who say that that cannot be done, but we love sport and it is time that we took charge. Then we would be responsible and have the executive authority. We would go to the Treasury for more money, not some quango. Until we achieve that representation, sport will not grow up politically. Fourthly, we must evaluate the senior team at Sport England—I hope that the new chief executive has that on his agenda—especially those who made the original decision on Wembley. It was shocking that they made that decision without investigating the requirements for a world class event.

    767
    Fifthly, we need an audit of the international needs of our best sports, whether they are Olympic sports such as rowing, our best sport, and judo, which is outstanding, or international sports such as rugby, which is coming to the Olympics. Lastly, to pick up the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), we need a public service sports television channel, including coach education, philosophy and sports medicine, and the BBC should be made to pay for it.
    6.56 pm
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I shall luxuriate in the four minutes left to me. It is fascinating that the Tories initially wanted a whole day's debate on this issue, because they have hardly bothered to take part in it at all. I am grateful to them for the time that I have. It gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate, not just as a Member of Parliament but as a big sports fan. Since entering the House, I have been lucky enough to be able to raise sporting issues on several occasions. Sport is a matter of great pride and importance to our constituents, and we certainly saw that during Euro 96 and a few weeks ago when Owen hit that great hat-trick in Munich—except for our Scottish colleagues, perhaps.
    The situation is not all doom and gloom. We have a proud record of hosting sporting events in recent history, not least the reconstituted rugby league world cup, the FINA swimming world cup and the cycling world track championships, as well as the stuff that we do every year with great quality, such as Wimbledon, the six nations rugby and the British grand prix. It is only when events do not happen, such as when the Cheltenham gold cup was cancelled in my county last year, that we realise how important sport is. The effect of foot and mouth on sport and the local economy made us realise the contribution that sport makes.
    To hold world-class events we need viable stadiums. In answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), the Minister for Sport replied:
    "I have made no specific assessment of the viability of dual use stadiums."—[Official Report, 5 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 65W.]
    Well, I was lucky enough to bump into that sporting institution, John Motson, at the weekend, and we talked about the dual-use stadium in Saint-Denis in Paris, which several hon. Members have mentioned. Much has been made of that stadium, its quality and the fact that it can host athletics and football. I asked Mr. Motson how good it is for football—he should know because he has commentated on a world cup final there. He said that it was poor for events such as rugby and football. However, in the technological age we live in, it should not be impossible to bring athletics and football into the same stadium.
    The key is public perceptions. The public want gold medal performances from the likes of Denise Lewis and great free kicks from the likes of David Beckham, but they want to see those right here in this country. We have a choice of whether we wish to continue to invest in the grass roots or to invest in the grass roots and find the money for adequate sporting facilities. We must try to do both.
    7 pm
    Mr. Tim Yeo: I am delighted that the House is debating this timely and comprehensive report. It has been a high-quality debate. There is much expertise about sporting matters in the House and much of it has been on display. I pay particular tribute to the speeches of the two former Ministers for Sport, the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Even though they were not always in harmony, they made powerful contributions. The hon. Lady was also very frank.
    I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) although I much regret the news that he brought to the House about the third consecutive Oxford victory this afternoon. Looking at him, I find it difficult to believe that it was only 20 years since he represented the university. However, I consulted "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and I discovered that he was a postgraduate student and already in his 30s at that time.
    I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who is one of the newer members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. He made a thoughtful speech. In particular, however, I congratulate the Committee's Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who has led the Committee for four and a half years. It has produced a series of remarkable high-quality reports. Although I have had a long-term lay interest in the subject, I come fairly new to the issues and I have read the reports with great interest and found real insights into the sporting and broadcasting worlds.
    I welcome the Minister for Sport to the debate. I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not stay for the remainder of the debate, but that is a creeping case of Byers syndrome in which a Secretary of State responsible for a Government policy attends part of the debate but does not wait for its conclusion. After all, the Secretary of State's decision 10 weeks ago put the final nail in the coffin of London's bid for the world athletics championships, the latest in a series of Government-sponsored sporting disasters. Labour's attempts to bring a major sporting event to Britain have been wrecked by a total lack of vision, an abject failure of leadership, grossly incompetent management and a pattern of broken promises.
    In the past four years, Ministers have made Britain a laughing stock in international sporting circles. They have denied sports fans here the chance to see top athletes perform on British soil and they have effectively thrown away Britain's chances of hosting a major international event in the foreseeable future.
    London's bid to host the world athletics championships degenerated steadily from the start in January 1999, although all appeared to go well to begin with. Launching the new Wembley stadium concept in July 1999, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who has apologised for his absence from the Chamber for the winding-up speeches, said that the new stadium
    "will be a magnificent venue for athletics as well as for football".
    I listened in vain to his speech today for any explanation of why only four months later he changed his mind about

    769
    something that he had thought so splendid in July 1999. His views had changed to such an extent that he said:
    "the stadium as designed—or in any similar configuration—cannot readily provide the central venue for an Olympic games bid for London. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it could provide an appropriate venue for the world athletics championships."
    That decision was rightly condemned in an earlier report of the Select Committee.
    Andy Burnham rose—
    Mr. Yeo: I have little time, so I regret that I cannot give way.
    The Secretary of State has suddenly left London without a venue for the championships, but the Government's commitment had been confirmed at the very highest level. In a letter of January 2000, the Prime Minister said:
    "The Government is pleased to give its full support to this bid by UK Athletics to bring the World Athletics Championships to Britain … World Class facilities will be ready, our athletes will be ready and our people will be ready."
    I draw the attention of the Minister for Sport to the particularly significant final sentence which reads:
    "We look forward to welcoming the world athletics family to London in 2005."
    Perhaps the Minister will do his homework before he intervenes again.
    By the time the IAAF council accepted London's bid, Picketts Lock had been identified as the venue for the championships. The bid was accepted on the condition that UK Athletics could demonstrate that clear progress had been made on the stadium by October this year. No Minister, then or subsequently, can have been in any doubt about what was needed if the Prime Minister's promises were to be honoured. Alas, no Minister, then or subsequently, did what was needed to honour those promises.
    Despite Ministers' failure to act, however, they did not lose confidence. On 21 March 2001, the former Secretary of State said:
    "I am absolutely confident that we are properly on track."
    The Prime Minister himself acknowledged that the Government had a responsibility for sporting decisions. When questioned in the House about the Wembley project, he said:
    "I regret the fact that it has fallen through, and we must now sit down and work out a way through it so that we have a proper national stadium."—[Official Report, 2 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 841.]
    It is worth noting that seven months later the current Secretary of State still seems to be dithering about the national stadium. The Government originally decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley with athletics; then they decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley without athletics; now they simply do not know whether there should be a national stadium at all, whether it should be at Wembley or whether athletics should be part of it. I hope that the Minister for Sport will shed a little light on the matter, because the only decision that the present set of Ministers has taken is not to publish the advice that they have received from
    770
    Patrick Carter, who the hon. Member for Vauxhall has established actually exists. However, like her, I have not met him.
    On the world athletics championships, this year's Labour party election manifesto stated:
    "We will maintain the elite funding we put in place for individual athletics with a first-class athletics stadium for the World Athletics Championships in 2005."
    Despite that, doubts about Picketts Lock grew, and after the general election the Prime Minister sacked all the Ministers who had been trying to carry out his policy and to do his bidding. The new team faced a situation which, if it called for anything, required prompt and decisive action. However, the Secretary of State dithered. Instead of making a decision, she appointed a consultant—the ubiquitous Mr. Carter.
    At this point, Sheffield suddenly appeared on the scene. The city has featured prominently in the Government's sporting policies before. In December 1997, the Government announced that a UK Sports Institute would be built there and, in the Government's mind, that project came to fruition splendidly. Their annual report for 2000 stated:
    "this year saw the opening of the UK Sports Institute, providing world-class facilities, coaching and support in Sheffield"
    Kate Hoey: I wish to place on record the fact that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, of which I was a member, and the former Secretary of State asked for a formal change to be made to that document. When the draft came round, they saw that it was wrong. The fact that it was not corrected was not down to what I described as the dysfunctional DCMS but to someone, somewhere who produces these wonderful Government reports.
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that clear. The fact that the spanking new facilities did not actually exist and were a figment of the imagination of the report's authors represents one of the most remarkable examples of unjoined-up government. The authors were not even aware that an announcement was made in 1999 to say that the Sports Institute would be situated in London. The only explanation for how the report turned from fact to fiction on sporting matters must be that the Prime Minister wrote the introduction.
    The Prime Minister is known for his flights of fancy when it comes to sport. He claimed that, as a youngster, he sat watching Jackie Milburn at St James' park. The seats turned out not to exist and he was watching a player who had long ceased to play for Newcastle by the time the Prime Minister was a school boy.
    While the Government waited for the consultant's report, the Minister for Sport went to Edmonton and to this year's world athletics championships. According to The Standard, he was still quite keen on London as a venue for 2005. On 8 August, it reported that he reaffirmed the Government's commitment to staging the world athletics championships in London in 2005. The article reported him as saying:
    "This is a commitment from the Prime Minister down and is not considered negotiable. We will meet all the deadlines set by the IAAF."
    Four weeks after that report, Patrick Carter's recommendations were delivered to Ministers. Five more damaging weeks of dither followed before the Secretary

    771
    of State finally bit the bullet and told UK Athletics that Picketts Lock was not viable, reneging on every promise given by the Government, from the Prime Minister down.
    However, the curtain on this ministerial farce had still not come down. One act remained to be played. Ignoring the fact that the IAAF had awarded the world athletics championships to London, a city, and not to Britain, a country, Ministers took up the cause of Sheffield. A good case could have been made for that city had it been submitted at the proper time, two and a half years ago. Sheffield has a fine sporting tradition. The Don Valley stadium could have been helped to stage the championships, but the last-ditch attempt to divert attention away from the disastrous handling by Ministers of the London bid merely dragged Sheffield humiliatingly into the fiasco.
    Among those who were not impressed was the president of the IAAF. The Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, quoted the Financial Times. The president of the IAAF wrote to his council members after he met the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport on 5 October. He said:
    "the IAAF had received numerous guarantees that London would host these championships and that the IAAF Council granted the event to the city—even though there was no actual stadium—in good faith. Since the first news that the rebuilt Wembley Stadium would become Britain's 'new' National Stadium capable of hosting major events in 1996, the IAAF had been approached to host its World Championships in Wembley in 2001, then Wembley in 2003 and 2005, then Twickenham or Crystal Palace in 2005, then Pickett's Lock in 2005 and, finally, Sheffield in 2005.
    I declared that this was not acceptable and explained that if London formally withdrew before the deadline of 26 November, the IAAF had no alternative but to open the bidding process again."
    That letter was circulated to the IAAF council on 12 October, a week after the president's meeting with Ministers.
    The extent to which Ministers were living in a fantasy world is demonstrated in the Secretary of State's press release, issued on 4 October. At the time of her meeting, she said that Labour had
    "acted decisively to put in place a first class alternative in Sheffield, which will deliver the Games … as a long term legacy for athletics in the UK."
    The Minister for Sport told the Select Committee on 23 October:
    "Can I say that what was said by the Secretary General"
    of the IAAF
    "when we came out was very important, bearing in mind I was with my officials. He said, he wanted the best for the Games and he wanted the best for London. We believe we have actually delivered that for the IAAF."
    The effects of the U-turn by Ministers are far-reaching. The International Olympic Committee president, Jacques Rogge, said:
    "Of course the Picketts Lock situation was a very serious one. A country not being able to fulfil its pledge to host a major competition is not a trivial matter."
    Simon Clegg, the chief executive of the British Olympic Association, said:
    "we will have deprived British athletes of competing in the world's third largest sporting event on home soil with all the competitive advantages that this entails … we will have lost the opportunity of demonstrating to the world that we have the ability to stage major sporting events. Coming so soon after the Wembley fiasco it further damages our … sporting reputation".
    772
    No new facts emerged to justify the U-turn. Every problem that arose from London's bid was well known to Ministers for many months before they made their decision. Their actions in relation to London and their absurd last-minute attempt to switch the championships to Sheffield—an attempt abandoned ignominiously less than two months after it was unveiled—could hardly have done more damage to Britain's reputation than if they had been designed to do so.
    The report contains many recommendations that the Opposition strongly support and others that deserve further discussion, but it contains nothing to alter the basic conclusion that Labour has let down British sports fans and British sportsmen and women. No matter what excuses Ministers concoct to explain their actions, it will take years for our reputation to recover.
    I recognise the Minister's predicament. He is the man entrusted by the Prime Minister with the task of persuading this country and the world that the Government are interested in sport and that they bring some passion to the pitch. Alas, he is also the Minister for Sport who went to Wimbledon to announce that he did not like tennis. If the Government accept the Select Committee's recommendation for a dedicated Minister for events, I invite him, in the interests of the country, not to apply for the job. I urge him to abandon his usual bluster and admit that the blame for the series of disasters lies fairly and squarely with the Government.
    7.15 pm
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in her place listening to the end of the debate. I do not know where the shadow Minister for Sport is, but I thought that he would be here to listen to this important debate.
    I welcome the opportunity to debate the Select Committee's timely report. Our discussion went slightly wide of the report's contents and considered some serious flaws in the structures for sport. I acknowledge those, and they give much food for thought on which the Government will reflect.
    I was disappointed that the IAAF did not accept the offer of Sheffield. Whatever has been said to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the offer was made in good faith, and I know that Sheffield would have put on a first-class championship, as good as, if not better than Edmonton. In 1991, the previous president of the IAAF, Primo Nebiolo, then president of the world student games, opened those games at Sheffield and commended it as a fine facility which would leave a lasting legacy for sport.
    When we decided that there needed to be a review of Picketts Lock, my right hon. Friend Secretary of State informed the IAAF of the terms of reference before we released any information to the outside world. My officials and I followed that up with a one-hour meeting in Edmonton with UK Athletics officials, at which we discussed the difficulties with Picketts Lock.
    We told the IAAF before we made the information available to the public that we were revisiting the whole idea of Picketts Lock and that we would have to find an alternative. That was a long time before the meeting at Heathrow airport, at which we explained in great detail why we had withdrawn from the project. We made it clear that we were very sorry and that what we were doing was

    773
    in the best interests of the IAAF and, indeed, of this country. Had the project gone ahead, knowing the situation with transport and accommodation, we could have been left with a disaster much closer to 2005, and that would have been a real embarrassment for the UK and the IAAF. That is reflected in the report. Our action was correct at the time, even though it created consternation.
    Mr. Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Caborn: No, I must continue.
    Given the IAAF's position, UK Athletics, Sport England, UK Sport, Sheffield city council and the BOA concluded that there was little prospect of a successful bid by the UK if we made one after the IAAF had made its decision. The Government agreed with them on that basis. I must tell the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that it is not the Government who make the bid, but the governing bodies. It is then up to the Government whether they support it.
    When I became Minister for Sport in June, it was my intention to ensure that the Government's priorities for sport placed proper emphasis on the need to invest in grass-roots sport, on which there seems to be universal agreement among hon. Members, to increase participation in sport in schools for young people and to ensure that there is lifelong participation among adults. I also wanted to place emphasis on the need to improve coaching and talent identification, to refurbish community facilities, to ensure that there is adequate maintenance of existing facilities, and to provide better support for our top athletes. I believe that we are making good progress in delivering those objectives by investing £130 million in primary schools for the space for sport and arts programme. Through the new opportunities fund, just under £600 million is now being invested in PE and sport facilities through schools and local education authorities.
    The Exchequer has doubled its contribution to sport in this country. That means that, along with the lottery, there is now in excess of a third of a billion pounds being invested year on year. As hon. Members have said, there is also investment in people in sport through the school sports co-ordinators. We now have some 400 of those up and running, and working with 1,700 primary schools, and we aim to have 1,000 of them by 2003–04. We are also investing heavily in the volunteer programme.
    We believe that major events have a role to play in our strategy. However, a fundamental flaw, not only under this Government but under previous Governments, is that we have been event led, not strategy led. We need to conduct a review of how we proceed, with governing bodies, to act on major events. The Select Committee report makes recommendations about that. The Committee, and its predecessor in the previous Parliament, has been focused on major sports events, and I make no criticism of that, but I genuinely welcome its recent work on the state of swimming facilities. We need to focus on those issues and make sure that we invest in existing, as well as new, facilities.
    I suspect that some of the blame must be placed on the way in which the introduction of the lottery raised tremendous expectations about national stadiums, the
    774
    World cup and the Commonwealth games, but those matters were discussed in a strategic vacuum. There was no discussion of their long-term delivery or of how they could add value to the sporting infrastructure.
    It is interesting that nearly five years ago, on 17 December 1996, the then Sports Minister, lain Sproat, said in a press release:
    "The decision to back Wembley as the venue for the English National Stadium and to invest heavily in facilities for the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester should be seen as an exciting prospect for sports fans all over the country. Both cities are winners".
    He went on to say:
    "Never before have we seen so much progress in such a short space of time. These really are exciting times for sport."
    The then Conservative Government were deeply involved in plans for the facilities which we are now bringing to fruition. With hindsight, the wrong focus was placed on a number of the developments of major facilities, and we want to revisit that. We indicated to the Select Committee that we will do that in the coming months through the performance and innovation unit.
    As I said, sports governing bodies take the lead in these matters, and if they want a national showcase stadium to stage events, the Government can and should play a part in that, provided that the proposals are sound and have been demonstrated to be affordable, deliverable and capable of adding to the nation's sporting infrastructure. However, many mistakes have been made, and the world is littered with white elephants that stand as testimony to false expectations. Many are familiar with the stories of Montreal and Barcelona.
    The Stade de France has been cited as an example that we ought to consider following, but I point out to the House the investment necessary for such a stadium. Some £580 million was invested, and the stadium now has a revenue cost of £7 million a year to keep it in operation. We must decide whether that is the right investment to come out of sport's budget. Stadium Australia has rightly been cited as the great feature of the Olympics, but even the president of the IOC said, on 7 August, that it is a white elephant and too big for any legacy use. He said that cities have to be protected from themselves when it comes to such ventures.
    We need to define the roles of the Government, UK Sport, Sport England and governing bodies if we are to go ahead with the construction of stadiums. The governing bodies must lead the development plans for their sport, not only for stadiums, but for participation, talent development, elite sport and the facilities that they require. The Government's role is to facilitate the governing bodies' plans for sport. We are doing that in a positive way by engaging with the governing bodies.
    I pay tribute to colleagues who are former Ministers for Sport and Secretaries of State, because we are now building up a significant infrastructure to deliver what many of the governing bodies want. That includes capacity building for sport at all levels, including within the governing body itself. The Government have invested some £7 million of Exchequer funding in UK Sport so that it can lead a modernisation programme for the governing bodies, which they welcome. We have invested the largest amount for many years in helping to modernise and develop sports facilities for the community and for elite athletes. Lottery-funded programmes are investing

    775
    over £40 million a year in the development of elite sport through the world class performance programmes. We are demonstrating a real commitment, through governing bodies, to investment in sport.
    Where a sport identifies a need for national facilities, whether for training or competing, the Government stand ready to play our part. We are creating the UK Sports Institute, which already has centres in Scotland and Wales. Despite the derision of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), Sport England has committed £120 million from lottery funding to develop more than 80 built facilities, and to date almost £80 million of that has been allocated to specific projects. Over £60 million is being awarded to projects in Sheffield and at Loughborough university and the university of Bath.
    I therefore welcome very much the Select Committee's suggestion that a more co-ordinated approach to major events is needed. That fits broadly with our approach, which will put a strategy first, rather than being event led. The PIU will put flesh on the bones of that approach, and we hope that we will be able to return to the House with proposals that respond positively to the points made in the Select Committee report. Whether that will include a Minister for events remains to be seen.
    Turning quickly to other issues arising from the Select Committee's report, my right hon. Friend will make an announcement on a national stadium before the end of next week, bringing the position up to date. We are making it clear that the FA is in the lead, and there is no more public money for a stadium. We shall place Patrick Carter's report in the public domain before the House goes into recess. I hope that we will be able to have a thorough debate, as we did with Picketts Lock, because we put that information into the public domain and neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat Opposition said that we should have proceeded with Picketts Lock in light of Patrick Carter's evidence. I promised to leave the last two minutes of debate for the Chairman of the Select Committee, so I conclude on that point.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Kaufman: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank the House for an excellent debate. I hope that we can now leave behind both self-justification and recrimination, and concentrate on getting these things right for the future. I am encouraged by what the Minister for Sport said twice in his winding-up speech about the need for a structure for events. Our Select Committee has a full programme, and we hope that we will not have to return to these issues in the near future, but if we have to, we will. In that case, this show will run and run, even if, sadly, our athletes will not on home ground.
    Debate concluded, pursuant to Resolution [26 November].
    Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates).

    Waste Management
    [Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 2000–01, on Delivering Sustainable Waste Management, HC 36–1; and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Office of the Rail Regulator, the Office of Water Services and Ordnance Survey: Annual Report 2001, Cm 5105.]
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    That resources, not exceeding £955,500,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a sum, not exceeding £993,621,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.—[Mr. Meacher]
    7.29 pm
    Andrew Bennett: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the fifth report of what was, in the last Parliament, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, on delivering sustainable waste management. Before I refer to the report itself, I should declare an interest: this autumn I have been chairing a Select Committee-style inquiry in Newcastle, organised by BAN Waste and supported by Newcastle city council, for which I am to receive a fee. That has been an interesting experience as I have had an opportunity to hear a lot of evidence on applying waste management to the locality of Newcastle. I have also had a chance to see how a local inquiry into such issues is conducted.
    A lot of people have talked about how local authorities can organise Select Committee-style scrutiny and how people's panels and similar things can be established. I certainly learned a lot from trying to participate as the chair of an inquiry outside the parliamentary framework. One cannot, of course, compel witnesses, and one is dependent on the effort of individuals. I have been impressed with the effort that people from BAN Waste have put in and the support that Newcastle city council has provided. I look forward to the publication of the inquiry's report on 7 January.
    As for the Select Committee report, I shall begin by placing on record our thanks to our two advisers, Dominic Hogg and David Mansell, and to all the Committee staff who as always worked hard to help us prepare the questions and the report. I also thank my colleagues on the Committee for their hard work during the course of the inquiry. I have a slight whinge about the Government. At the end of the process of producing a Select Committee report, we usually get a response from the Government. Sadly, on this occasion, we did not. The rules are supposed to be that we get a response within two months of the Select Committee reporting. I accept that the election intervened and it was perfectly reasonable for the response to be a bit late. However, we still have not had a response and it is getting very late. I suppose that the Government have the excuse that Select Committees in this Parliament are different from those in the last Parliament, but I still think that we should have had one. I hope that the new Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will pursue these issues, because a sustainable waste management policy is important for this country.
    The world's present use of resources is not sustainable. The developed world—the richest 20 per cent. —uses 80 per cent. of the world's resources and creates a vast

    777
    amount of pollution. The least developed parts of the world use 20 per cent. of those resources. That injustice cannot go on; I do not see how, if the less developed world raises its standards and spends as much on resources and creates as much pollution as the developed world, there can be sustainability for the whole world. We must look at other ways of dealing with the problem. A small number of people suggest that people in the developed world could accept lower standards of living so that there would be more resources for the less developed parts of the world. I do not accept that most of my constituents would volunteer for such a reduction in their standard of living. The developed world must try to find ways in which it can do the same things that it is doing now, but using far fewer resources.
    People talk about factor 4 or factor 10—the idea that we should do what we are doing now, but using only 25 per cent. or 10 per cent. of resources. That would be a substantial challenge, but it is necessary if we are to manage waste in a sustainable world. People often say that it is impossible to achieve that sort of reduction in resources; I do not believe that that is true. There are cases in which, in a relatively short period, the developed world has suddenly started to use far fewer resources to achieve something. The best example of that is computers. When I was first elected to the House, I used to go on visits in my constituency and elsewhere and see people who were delighted to show me a big room of steel cabinets in which computers were operating. Someone would try to explain what was going on, but I half sensed that they did not have a clue. I certainly did not have a clue, but everyone made polite noises. Those computers used a huge amount of metal and other resources, but the same thing can now be contained in a machine on a desktop; in some cases, portable computers can operate with equivalent power.
    It is therefore possible to achieve factor 10. When talking about a sustainable waste management policy, it is important to look at the use of resources to begin with. There is a moral imperative to make better use of our resources, but there is also a strong economic argument for doing so. If we can do something with fewer resources, we will have a considerable competitive edge in the world. The first thing that we should do in the waste hierarchy is minimise the resources that we use and the pollution that is created. We must then consider re-use, recycling and composting, recovering energy from waste and, finally, disposal. It is disappointing that the Government are not doing more on minimisation and are not giving a stronger lead to organisations like the regional development agencies in looking at ways in which we can minimise the waste that is created and the resources that are being used.
    In their waste strategy for 2000, the Government set recycling targets. On the one hand, those targets were pretty feeble and were not at all challenging but, on the other, I must give credit to the Government because setting those targets has proved a substantial spur to an awful lot of local authorities that were not taking recycling seriously, encouraging them to start things like kerbside collections. The targets are minimal, but I credit the Government with encouraging some local authorities to get started. When the Minister for the Environment responds, will he explain how he is working on the
    778
    question of markets for waste paper, glass and plastics? Now that the collection process has been kick-started, the price that local authorities can get for waste materials or, if you like, resources, is crucial. I understand that the Government are looking at giving a grant to encourage another waste paper mill to begin operating; I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly what is happening. Having kick-started many local authorities into getting on with recycling, I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will look hard at the question of markets, and that they are doing much more to buy recycled materials.
    I hope that the Minister can give us a progress report on the waste and resource action programme or WRAP. When he appeared before the Select Committee, he placed great emphasis on the fact that WRAP would be one of the organisations that would start to make the Government's waste management programme sustainable. So far, it seems to have got some nice note paper and had one or two meetings, but few members of the general public have heard of it and I am not sure what it has achieved so far. I look forward to the Minister explaining what progress has been made.
    Further down the hierarchy, the question of incineration arises. I am not someone who thinks that it is impossible to create an incinerator without emissions; I think that it is possible to create such an incinerator that will work, but poor management in recent years and the mixing of bottom ash and fly ash mean that few people can have confidence in incinerators.
    My argument against incinerators—or combined heat and power, as the people who are in favour of it like to call it—is that to build an incinerator, one has to borrow the money over 15 to 20 years. That means ensuring the security of supply—committing the country or a locality to produce sufficient waste over the next 20 years to justify building the incinerator. That is a damning indictment of a CHP programme. If we are to have incinerators, the case must be made for a steadily diminishing supply of calorific material to burn in them. As a result, the economics become very doubtful.
    Whatever one says about emissions, my impression is that no one wants an incinerator or a combined heat and power plant near their home. If the Government intend to encourage them, we need a demonstration combined heat and power plant located somewhere central—perhaps within half a mile of the Palace of Westminster. Such plants should be in town centres, where the hot water generated can be used. It is wrong to think that a CHP plant can be sited at the back of some depressed housing area where no one will make a fuss.
    If we adopt a policy of building CHP plants, we should look for town centre locations and demonstrate that the plants need not be out of the way. However, the main question is the security of supply of rubbish. It will be an indictment of us as a nation if we are producing as much rubbish in 20 years' time as we are now.
    Mr. David Drew: The biggest danger is that the location of incinerators is determined by the line of least resistance. That is both unfair and inefficient. We must make it clear to the Government that incinerators should not end up being built in areas where people are least likely to complain. I am sure that that point is made in the Select Committee report.
    Andrew Bennett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government could issue a challenge to all

    779
    communities that an incinerator will be built close by if they do not make serious efforts at waste minimisation and recycling. Perhaps the threat of a CHP plant will be enough and it will not be necessary to build any at all.
    I shall deal now with composting, a subject on which I hoped for a lengthy reply from the Minister. There has been much talk of commercial composting. but because of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs waste meat regulations, many proposals for composting have been put on hold. That is unfortunate. When we undertook the inquiry, I was appalled at the amount of waste in the food chain. For a start, waste often occurs in agricultural areas, because crops do not quite meet the supermarkets' specifications. The crops are not even picked; they are destroyed where they were grown.
    It has been suggested to me that at least 25 per cent. of the food that goes into supermarkets, especially vegetables and bread products, goes to waste. That is a huge amount. Most of the big supermarkets were considering composting as a means of dealing with some of that waste, but have had to put their plans on hold because of the meat regulations.
    Even more worrying is the suggestion that most households buy 25 per cent. more food than they need and that the surplus goes to waste. To a certain extent, the supermarkets are again to blame. The one that I use repeatedly has offers of two items for the price of one. That is not economic for me if I am purchasing for the family, and for pensioners, two for the price of one is no good at all. One item is probably more than they want at a particular time, but most people take home the two items, one of which may well end up in the waste stream.
    If we are considering ways of making society more sustainable, we must find ways of cutting down food waste. Food that is not saleable or eatable should be properly composted. I hope that the Minister will tell us that ways will be found to prevent meat getting into compost material, so that it can be made safe, with no possibility of foot and mouth or other problems occurring.
    We in the UK still do very little about reprocessing batteries. They are usually small and end up in the waste stream, where they produce a high level of contamination. It would not be all that difficult for the Government to insist that shops that sell batteries take back used batteries. When people change a battery, it would be easy to take the new one and hand back the old one. If batteries are collected in large numbers, they can be reprocessed.
    I have tweaked the Minister on one or two occasions on the subject of fluorescent tubes. Once, opening a plant in Manchester, he rashly promised that the Government could find more than 1 million fluorescent tubes a year for recycling to remove the mercury. I do not think that he has got anywhere near that target, but it is a small point.
    The European Union has been a significant driver of reform—for example, the landfill directive. We welcome the EU end-use directive for cars. That has led people to start thinking about manufacturing cars whose parts can be re-used or reprocessed. I am a little puzzled about why the EU should start with an end-use directive applying to cars, when there was a well-developed scrap industry in this country.
    The EU has not turned its attention to other products that are much harder to recycle. One of my pet hates is tetrapaks. They are a mixture of foil, plastic film and paper, and are extremely difficult to recycle. They can
    780
    just about be burned, but they have little else going for them. Why not make the manufacturers of such cartons responsible for taking them back and looking after the end-use?
    What about disposable nappies, which are said to constitute 4 per cent. of the waste stream in the UK? Why not make the manufacturers come up with some system to take them back for recycling? Looking in dustbins or wheelie bins, you notice that products such as pizza boxes bulk up the refuse. Why not have an end-use directive for those items? Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on what will happen with regard to fridges, in relation to which it appears that we are in a bit of a mess. The establishment of some proper end-use directives for such issues would demonstrate that the country has a sustainable waste policy. Can the Minister also tell us what encouragement is being given in relation to anaerobic digesters?
    The Select Committee discussed this matter in 1996, 1998 and last year. It has been fairly disappointing that this country has not made much more progress on sustainable waste management. I hope that the Government will seriously consider signing the nation up to the concept of zero waste. That may be a fairly idealistic aim, but unless we can get the message across that resources are being used unsustainably in this country, that we are living in a throwaway society and that that cannot continue, we will find it very difficult to change people's habits.
    7.49 pm
    Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate what was the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on their excellent report, which considers in detail many aspects of the problem of waste management in this country. The hon. Gentleman dealt closely with many of those matters his speech, although the language of the report is rather more colourful and hard hitting than that which he chose to use.
    The Government have a great deal to do if they are to convince anybody that we are anywhere near the frontiers of progress on waste management. Overall, the reality is that the UK is dragging its feet behind most of our continental competitors. On almost any indicator, we are neither achieving nor aiming to achieve the sort of recycling and waste reduction that our major continental competitors are and have been achieving. Indeed, they are the innovators. In truth, we are mostly implementing EU directives at the last possible moment, and sometimes not even then. The report states:
    "It is not good enough to shuffle along in a laggardly fashion behind European Union directives."
    That is essentially what the Government have been doing. The Minister made a speech some time ago in which he catalogued a list of great environmental initiatives that the Government had introduced. However, one of my colleagues in the European Parliament analysed the speech and found that 70 per cent. of those great initiatives related simply to the legal requirements that had to be fulfilled if Britain was to meet directives passed by the European Parliament and the European Commission two to three years before. That is how we tend to proceed.
    I should like to mention a concern that relates not only to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but to the way in which this Government operate.

    781
    I thought that they had the problem only when they were in opposition. Understandably, they did not want to set out too much of their stall as an opposition party, but they have carried the problem through into government. I am all in favour of consultation, but my concern is that we have reached a point where the Government seem to be on an endless cycle of summits, taskforces, agencies, initiatives, challenge funds and bids, all of which are designed to try to implement policy, but the result is that everybody who is engaged in trying to deliver that policy becomes increasingly confused and mystified about exactly where the centre of decision making and leadership lie, and what will be done to achieve the aims.
    Let me give an example. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said that we needed a national recycling programme and a real objective, as did the Select Committee report. He referred to an ideal of zero waste, along with real and specific targets that can be achieved. The first proposed commitment—it was contained in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—was to a doorstep recycling service for every household in the country. We have estimated that such a service would cost about £200 million. As the rubbish and waste industry is worth about £5 billion, that does not seem an enormous amount. The money in WRAP, the waste and resources action programme, and Entrust, the environmental trust scheme regulatory body, adds up to about £200 million, but it is not being allocated in a way that enables local authorities, which must be the front line in providing a recycling service for households, to get on and deliver such a service. They simply need the money to enable them to do that. The Government should give incentives for the good performers, impose penalties for the bad performers and provide funding to ensure delivery.
    I plead with the Minister to try to make the process more simple than it has been to date, as we have not reached a situation in which we have anything like a national plan or strategy. We have some very good local authorities that can be the model, while others are doing very little. I am saying not that the Government should deliver, but that they must take a lead and ensure that we get that delivery. We are currently talking about achieving a target of 30 per cent. recycling by 2010, but today Austria already has 60 per cent. recycling today. Indeed, even some local authorities in Britain have achieved better than 30 per cent. The 30 per cent. target therefore seems very unambitious, but on current strategies it is difficult to envisage that we will meet it, not least because the amount of waste that is being produced is increasing by several per cent. a year—and faster than we are introducing any recycling initiatives. We take the view not only that 60 per cent. is an achievable target, but that it would force the creation of more radical and imaginative policies.
    We have encouraged the use of landfill, and there is a European Union landfill directive. The targets are distant, but they could become a problem for this country if we do not begin to take the necessary steps now. It is logical for local government to promote recycling household waste, but Governments must be responsible for recycling industrial waste. We need clear targets for that.
    It has rightly been said that considering waste disposal quickly leads to examining how to reduce waste. Many of us have been debating the issue for years now, and it is
    782
    extraordinary that most products appear to have as much packaging as ever. We have not created the climate or the culture of responsibility for reducing packaging and taking back any that is created by marketing and merchandising. The Government could tackle that.
    There was a displacement factor in this country when Germany reduced its packaging legislation. However, that did much to ensure that Germany was prepared to recycle and that its marketing organisations tackled their responsibilities for the amount of packaging that they produced. We have not engaged seriously in that debate, either.
    What we do with our waste lies at the heart of the problem. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish commented on that. I am sure that there is a campaigning issue connected to waste in every hon. Member's constituency. All of us have tips, landfill sites or other methods of disposal such as incinerators on or close to our boundaries. All are controversial. There must be engagement between the responsibility of Government and local authorities and that of individuals for the waste that society produces.
    No one wants a landfill tip or an incinerator on the doorstep. It is reasonable to confront people with their responsibility for helping with waste management. It is not good enough simply to say that we tax landfill. That creates a revenue, but the idea is surely to reduce landfill and encourage waste reduction so that the pressure on landfill decreases. It would be better to use all the money to that end.
    The Select Committee has expressed clear views on incineration—views that my party wholly supports. Indeed, the Committee has inadvertently supported Liberal Democrat policy. A Committee that approaches the facts objectively is likely to come up with Liberal Democrat policy, because it is common sense. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, encouraging the provision of new incinerators is becoming a soft option. If we transfer from landfill to incineration, we simply reduce the pressure for waste reduction in general.
    A quote on waste strategy from the Select Committee report should go on record:
    "One example of the problem with the strategy is provided by incineration. We believe that incineration will never play a major role in truly sustainable waste management and cannot, and should not, be classified as producing renewable energy. Yet the strategy fails to set out what role the Government believes waste incineration should play whilst also leaving the door open to a big expansion of large-scale incineration of household waste."
    The final phrase is crucial. If we go down that road, we destroy our waste reduction strategy.
    If the Government need any proof of the potency of incineration as a political issue, it is provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). Guildford has a Liberal Democrat Member mainly because of the strength of feeling against the incinerator that is being proposed for the area. My hon. Friend can make her own speech on that subject, and I am sure that she will.
    This is a potent issue. In my part of Scotland, more objections have been received to the planning application to replace an incinerator than to any other planning application in the city's history. That is how strongly people feel. The Government would be well advised to accept that, although incineration may have a role to play, that role is neither urgent, nor major. In reality, the danger

    783
    is that even accommodating incineration will destroy the beginnings of a real waste reduction strategy. A moratorium on new incinerators would thus be constructive for that reason.
    My suggestion to the Government is that they need to adopt a more focused and less complicated approach. To put it simply, present policies will not allow us to meet our obligations under European directives, or Government targets derived from them. If we do not act soon, it will be too late to introduce policies that will turn the matter around. We need simple targets—such as ensuring that 60 per cent. of household uplift is recycled—and we must ensure that local authorities have the responsibility to deliver that within an agreed timetable. To do that, they will need funding, and the ability to impose penalties.
    I suggest that the simpler the mechanism involved, the more likely we are to get results. At present, the mechanism is too complicated. Authorities have too much discretion to adopt differing approaches.
    Finally, will the Minister clarify how we are to sort out the problem posed by cast-off refrigerators? In addition, how are we to avoid the similar problem with the recycling of electrical goods that will arise with the next directive coming down the track?
    As I understand it, the Government started discussing the regulation on fridges three years ago. The final terms of the regulation were published in October last year. The regulation's wording made it clear that, by 1 January 2002, the removal of CFCs and related materials in fridge insulation would be a mandatory requirement. That is a specialist process for which we have no capacity in the UK.
    My understanding is that someone in the Department misread the regulation and believed that it contained some degree of flexibility. I was told that the person involved believed that the regulation used the phrase "where practicable", and that that was considered an obvious excuse—that the UK does not have the necessary capacity, so the regulations' requirement with regard to fridges cannot be achieved and are therefore not practicable. As a result, it was believed that the European Commission would have to give us enough time to get the capacity in place.
    In fact, the regulation does not contain those words. It does not allow any flexibility or discretion, yet this country has no relevant capacity.
    I am told that it could be a year before the capacity is in place, which means that 2.5 million fridges—the number thrown out every year—will have to be transported to licensed premises, and stored there. Thereafter, when the capacity is in place, they will have to be transported again and disposed of in the required manner.
    All that will cost a significant amount of money. The Department disputed the figures advanced by the Liberal Democrat party, and I have no quarrel with that. Our estimate was based on the information that we had gathered from various sources about what the average cost of moving the fridges would be. Even so, it is clear that a substantial amount of money will have to be spent, in part because a regulation was misread, and in part because we did not take steps to provide the necessary capacity in time.
    Local authorities and retailers need to know what will be done to cover the shortfall in capacity until such time as we can dispose of the fridges. The Department has said
    784
    that it recognises that a problem exists, and that it will do something about it, but no one knows exactly what will be done.
    I have been asking local authorities for estimates of the cost. I received the latest figure, from Cumbria, today. That authority said that it estimated the extra cost of handling these fridges at £900,000. My local authority, Aberdeenshire, put the figure at £350,000. The figure varies according to the size of the authority, but the numbers that I have given are typical of what local authorities have told me. In addition, local authorities are not the only ones who will have to deal with the fridges, as retailers will also face certain costs.
    I hope that the Minister will accept that we need to know what is going to be done—as well as how it is going to be done, and how soon—to avoid the problem of fridges being dumped by the roadside, in fields or in other places where we would not wish to see them.
    The Select Committee that has now been replaced by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has done an extremely worthwhile job. It has set out clearly its aspirations for Government policy, most of which I endorse. I urge the Government to accept the Committee's recommendations as far as possible, and to act on them. My final plea to them is to simplify the process so that people know what is required and what the mechanisms are, so they can deliver. At the moment, the targets are unrealistic and the mechanisms are not in place.
    8.5 pm
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) in a debate. He mentioned kerbside collection, and the fact that the Liberal Democrats estimated that it would cost, I think, £200,000 to implement such a scheme. Obviously, if that was the right figure, there would be no hesitation in doing so. However, I received today a report from the UK waste management industry entitled "Facing the Facts", which is published by Onyx. It states:
    "Local authorities will need to invest up to £7bn if they are to meet the EU directive of reducing the amount of waste going to landfill."
    So, there is a vast difference between the figures quoted by the Liberal Democrats and those quoted by the people involved in the industry. The report goes on to say:
    "UK inhabitants produce 550 kg of municipal waste per person per year—among the highest volume in Europe … UK inhabitants recycle an average 60 kg of municipal waste per person every year—this compares to 250 kg from the average American."
    Those figures have an impact on what we are discussing tonight.
    I want to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who chaired our Committee and worked very hard to ensure that the work of the Committee was constructive and directed so that we could publish the report that we are discussing tonight. Members of the Committee appreciate the work that our colleague has done as Chairman.
    As a member of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, I want to raise certain issues that I consider important to the Committee and to the industry involved with waste and packaging. I also wish to declare that I am the co-chair of the all-party sustainable waste

    785
    group, which came together in 1995 to raise issues in Parliament involving waste and sustainable waste management.
    Let us consider the terms of reference of the Committee, as outlined in paragraph 6 of the fifth report, which states:
    "Our terms of reference were to examine whether the policies set out in the Waste Strategy 2000"—
    a publication from the Government—
    "are sufficient to deliver sustainable waste management, and whether the necessary measures, including provision of financial resources, were in place for those policies to be implemented."
    Our terms of reference were to consider whether the strategy would result in
    "more efficient use of resources and a consequent reduction in the amount of material entering the waste stream"
    If we can achieve that result, we can reduce energy costs. We can reduce the amount of material that is needed to sustain the waste and packaging industries.
    Our terms of reference referred to
    "an increase in recycling of waste, particularly by greater development of markets for recycled material (including compost) and the use of producer responsibility measures".
    Producer responsibilities are certainly an important factor. I know that the glass, aluminium, steel and paper and board industries are making approaches in a bid to recover all possible waste consisting of those materials from the waste stream for recycling.
    I live near a Rockware Glass factory. I am told that within a 10-mile radius of that factory, 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of glass go into landfills every week because there are no procedures to extract it from the waste stream. Every ounce could be recycled, turned into cullet and returned to the system. Similarly, the aluminium industry will take all the aluminium waste that it can recover. The steel, paper and board and plastics industries are crying out for material to be recovered. Most of this is municipal or household waste. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon that we should press the issue. I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment are familiar with such demands, and that their recent initiatives will help.
    The terms of reference also referred to
    "sufficient action to educate the public about the importance of sustainable waste management".
    I know of a number of manufacturing firms that have set up their own education units. Rockware Glass and Re-use, a recycling company, have such a unit, to which children are brought from all over the country so that they can understand the importance of recycling. Coca-Cola and Schweppes in my constituency also has a unit to educate people in the importance of returning not just glass but plastic bottles so that they can be recycled, and libraries have similar units. A great deal of time and money is being spent on programmes to make people understand the importance of extracting materials from the waste stream. I have already mentioned the 30,000 tonnes of glass, plastic, steel, aluminium, cardboard and paper.
    When we took evidence on sustainable waste, we were referred to the role of civic amenity sites and their importance to recovery and recycling.
    786
    There are threats that civic amenity sites could be taken from my own authority of Wakefield and offered to the private sector. They are purpose built and they operate efficiently, so I would consider removing them from local authority operation a sin. We have recycling targets and the main one for recycling or composting household waste is at least 25 per cent. by 2005, increasing to 30 per cent. by 2010 and 33 per cent. by 2015. The civic amenity sites can play a major part in meeting those targets, so I plead with the Minister to ensure that their development is encouraged, as outlined and recommended by the Committee.
    I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the establishment of the Environment Agency under the Environment Act 1995—there was a Division over that legislation—and the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 followed. Under the regulations, material manufacture was to bear 6 per cent. of the responsibility for the finished product; converting materials to packaging, 11 per cent.; packing and filling, 36 per cent.; and the retailers—supermarkets and others–47 per cent.
    There was a tremendous imbalance there, because the retailers collected all the waste and sat on it, as they had much more than their 47 per cent. The packaging recovery note system was the currency through which people could purchase waste from those with a surplus to enable them to meet their targets as outlined in the packaging waste regulations. We were told that they would apply for five years, but after the 1997 election my colleague the Minister for the Environment listened to the industry's pleas and agreed to review the producer responsibilities and the obligations under the regulations.
    A consultation document was published in 1997 and slight adjustments were made to those percentages, which benefited the industry, but they did not go far enough to redress the advantages that the retail people—the supermarkets—enjoyed under the regulations. The document says:
    "The purpose of the consultation document is to present options and proposals for the modification of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997".
    The industry appreciated my right hon. Friend's intervention in reviewing the percentages, and the glass, aluminium, steel, paper, plastics and wood industries responded to the document by offering him advice. I am sure that he valued the interest that came from the industry.
    Recently, however, there has been anger among people in the packaging industry because of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—there are problems when departmental boundaries cross. She announced that the new code, as recommended by the Competition Commission and involving the supermarkets,
    "effectively formalises the relationship between retailers and suppliers"
    and that was obviously welcomed by the supermarkets. The code has had an impact on the packaging industry and on farmers. However, that made waves: it creates problems for the waste packaging industry. We need to consider decisions that have an effect on people in that industry and on those involved in recycling.
    May I make a plea on behalf of the packaging industry? In many instances, owing to cheap imports, our industry is at a disadvantage compared with competitors in Europe

    787
    and the far east. The massive increase in gas prices, the climate change levy and the proposed mineral extraction levy will all have an impact on the competitiveness of our packaging industries. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister try to find an opportunity to discuss with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury the impact of those levies on the waste packaging industry?
    We should use the recycling process. We need to undertake more recycling, so if we can obtain more material through the waste system, it will help to offset some of the industry's problems and the extra costs—including those from increased administration—that it has to bear. My plea to my right hon. Friend is that we implement kerbside collection as quickly as possible. We must extract between 30,000 and 40,000 tonnes a week of glass and other materials for recycling. That will help to make our packaging industries more efficient and accountable, and environmentally friendly.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the situation and of the plea in the report, which I support, that that recycling should continue.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I point out to the House that there is a time limitation, so it would be helpful if everyone who seeks to catch my eye bears their colleagues in mind and tries to keep their remarks reasonably concise.
    8.23 pm
    Sue Doughty: I very much congratulate the Select Committee on its work in producing the report. During the run-up to the election and subsequently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) pointed out, many of its recommendations were extremely helpful to people who were considering the development of alternative strategies for sustainable waste management.
    Last week, a planning meeting was held in Surrey to examine proposals for three incinerators—one of which was for Guildford—and the Select Committee report was cited most constructively. We all found it helpful.
    We are looking for a sustainable waste management strategy—indeed, at present, we are looking for any waste management strategy at all. During the past few years, report after report has been issued, after which the Select Committee report was a breath of fresh air. There was even a waste summit, but we are getting no further. We want firm guidance from the Government and a deliverable waste plan, rather than words over which people argue. There was discussion earlier about whether we should refer to incinerators as energy from waste. Those little words that creep in when we try to justify what is happening are important to people.
    Our approach in Guildford to incinerator proposals is not a case of nimbyism; in fact, I am very pleased to say that when I was approached by a neighbouring Surrey Member asking whether we would agree to send our waste to an incinerator just outside the area, I had to say, "No; Guildford does not want to incinerate waste. We want instead to develop a sustainable waste strategy in which all the feasible options are considered, after which
    788
    we shall decide what to do with the final waste element." Whatever happens, the people in Guildford are absolutely determined that the solution has to be sustainable and pose minimal health risks, about which there has been much concern.
    I know that I speak for other hon. Members when I say that constituents who would have to work near incinerators, or send their children to school near them, are very deeply worried about proposals to build incinerators. Those worries are shared by those who own houses near incinerators. Although the Guildford housing market is desperately overheated, parts of it have declined because of the issue. It has happened in a part of Guildford that is not affluent, where a large percentage of household income is used to buy a house. It has been heartbreaking to see people in the area unable to move because they cannot sell their property for anything like the amount they paid for it. We have to resolve that issue and make clear our intentions.
    When we talk about recycling, we are really talking about materials recovery, which is a term that I much prefer. Industry wants more materials recovery, as should we all, because that is the sustainable way of approaching the issue. I hope that, in their planning, the Government will help local authorities to agree a standard measurement for recycling. Does local recycling include deposits at local supermarket facilities, or only at local authority facilities? The waste is all produced in one local authority, and we have to address the various measurement issues. I know that councils will be very pleased to see a consistent method of measurement.
    There are difficulties also in distinguishing between doorstep recycling and recycling in materials reclamation facilities, and in dealing with contaminated recyclables as opposed to clean ones. We want to set ourselves recyclables targets, but to do that we have to be able to measure them. We want not only high-quality doorstep recycling but much greater investment in alternative sustainable ways of handling waste, such as composting. Much more needs to be done on municipal recycling.
    We have to determine how local government can best use the available funding to develop materials recovery and composting streams and facilities. I realise that we have been bandying about figures, and that earlier in the debate one figure was misheard, thereby producing another one. However, research commissioned jointly by Friends of the Earth, Waste Watch and Biffa estimates that £17 per household would cover the initial transition and implementation costs of an effective recycling and composting service. However, we have to find the money for the initial investment.
    One deep disappointment is that only very modest annual increases to the landfill tax, which seems to be a good thing, are being proposed. Indeed, the Environmental Services Association is one of the few industry groups ever to have said, "Please increase tax and help us to invest in materials recovery. We believe that the impact of an increase on local government and on commerce will be minimal." Liberal Democrat Members would also like the rate of those tax increases to be accelerated in the next few years. If we are taxing waste management technologies that we do not like, should we not be thinking about an incinerator tax? The Select Committee report mentions such a tax.

    789
    In the meantime, we should develop a third approach that involves composting and materials recovery so that we are not presuming in favour of incineration at the cost of landfill. Local authorities are still doing that. Those fighting the proposals are still working with people who want proven technologies. No local authority will take risks when it is making recommendations about this or that new technology. Local authorities have a legal responsibility and they want reliable solutions. However, we need investment to help bring those solutions to the point at which they will be right for local authorities.
    Local residents should not be writing their own handbooks about how to achieve zero waste because local government does not have the solutions, and the structure within which they are working is not sufficiently good. Yet so many of the good recycling activities in London, which have high levels of recyclables, are community led. Although we are all pleased about that, we should be delivering solutions, through local government, possibly in partnership with other providers. Local government need these tools; it should not be left to private individuals and protest groups to solve these problems for the Government.
    We need to look at waste management in the farming sector. Farmers have to bear the cost of disposing of materials on their land, which is why we must do all we can to discourage fly tipping. Where fly tipping occurs on the county's land, the council is at least obliged to take the waste away even if the farmer picks up the cost. I do not condone the amount of money that local authorities have to pay for this service. Farmers often have to pay for the removal of several tonnes of tyres and builders' rubble. More than a quarter of farmers have seen a significant increase in fly tipping this year. We need to ensure that solving urban problems does not lead to rural difficulties. That is most important when we look at what can be done to help the rural community. The days when farmers had a lot of money to spare are long gone, and the problem is on our doorstep.
    David Taylor: I put it to the hon. Lady that fly tipping in rural areas is not, as she suggests, predominantly the responsibility of the urban population. My constituency is very rural in parts, and in some cases the villages surrounding the agricultural areas contribute to the increase in fly tipping, possibly as a response to the increase in landfill tax without adequate recycling opportunities.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman—that was a useful piece of information. There is a mixture of urban and rural in my constituency, with fields close to the edge of town, but circumstances may vary in different constituencies.
    Two years ago, a Tidy Britain survey on the impact of the landfill tax found that most fly-tipped material was of local origin and that 57 per cent. was household or garden waste. People drove their cars to tip that waste on to somebody else's property. Building trade waste amounted to 21 per cent., with cars or tyres at 9 per cent. We all know that that figure will rise rapidly. Waste on verges amounted to 28 per cent.; 28 per cent. was on private land; and, sadly, 12 per cent. went into rivers. We need to consider the needs of the rural economy in managing waste.
    790
    We are looking for a sustainable waste strategy. The Select Committee report goes a long way to pointing the way forward. However, we need a context in which that can be delivered by local government, the best companies and community groups, and we are looking to the Government to take the lead.
    8.34 pm
    Paddy Tipping: We cannot ignore waste management because the issue simply will not go away; it is increasing in magnitude. It is unfortunate that municipal waste in the United Kingdom is increasing by between 4 and 5 per cent. a year. Across the country, there are closed historical landfill sites that remain ticking timebombs. It is no longer like that because we now have good and improving waste management practice, but the United Kingdom is far too dependent on landfill, with 81 per cent. of waste going to landfill sites, and it is important to view that in a European context. In Denmark and Holland, just 12 per cent. of waste goes to landfill sites, and the figure is 50 per cent. in France.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) stressed very strongly the importance of waste minimisation, recycling and composting, but the time has now come to convert the rhetoric into reality. We in the United Kingdom do very badly on recycling and composting, with the figure at just 11 per cent., compared with Denmark on 30 per cent. and Holland on 40 per cent. It is important to note that, while waste is increasing in the United Kingdom, firm political leadership has led to a reduction in waste in Germany, Denmark and Sweden.
    We must move away from landfill as quickly as possible. Of course, the new EU waste directive will enable us to do that, backed by the local authority targets, but there are other pressures. All over the country, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, complaints are made about landfill sites. There are problems with local authorities gaining new consents for landfill sites. For example, Nottinghamshire county council has been striving to open the Bentink void for five years, but the planning process is still not complete and engineering work remains to be done. I suspect that another five years will pass before that sites opens.
    It is important to note that any planning application connected with waste meets opposition—whether we are talking about commercial composting sites, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, or waste recycling centres. To establish a proper infrastructure in Nottinghamshire, two waste recycling centres will be needed by 2005. Even today, there is no clear idea where those sites should be and the planning process has not even started.
    Mass incineration is universally abhorred, and quite rightly so. Within the next day or two, the Government will produce a Green Paper on a new planning process. It is important that that process enables local people to raise objections, and their objections are paramount. We must have a new planning system that is swifter at delivery than the one we have at present.
    David Taylor: My hon. Friend refers to a swifter system, but is it not equally the case that communities pitted against a very powerful applicant, as with the New Albion site in North-West Leicestershire, face a very

    791
    uneven struggle when the public inquiry takes place? Surely there have to be improved opportunities for communities to express their concerns.
    Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend will have to contain himself, but I suspect that the Green Paper on planning will address that point. It is important that community groups are supported in such David and Goliath situations, so that their voices can be heard in a contest that is not always equal.
    It is important to note that waste is viewed as cost-free to the householder. In the United Kingdom, waste disposal costs the householder £47 a year–90p a week. That is typically 25 per cent. of the sewerage and water costs. The comparable figure is £100 a year in France and £150 a year in Germany.
    It is important that we consider other ways of raising money to build an infrastructure for waste disposal. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) that there is a strong case for increasing the landfill tax substantially from the current £12. I would not advocate a move to the £46 charged in the Netherlands, but there is a case for a big gear change in charging policy. Providing kerbside collection across the country will cost a great deal of money. The hon. Member for Gordon said that it would cost £200 million and my own estimate would be around £500,000 for a small district council.
    There is a compelling case for charging householders for the waste that they produce. It must not be seen as cost-free, or as free of cost to the environment. Those households that recycle could receive a reduction in council tax bills. I hope that the performance and innovation unit will also consider charging households directly for the waste that they produce.
    Andrew Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the great danger of what he suggests is that it would increase fly tipping? Another issue is how we could stop people putting their rubbish in next-door's wheelie bin or dustbin.
    Paddy Tipping: Such a move would cause problems, but we cannot continue with a situation whereby the amount of waste going into rubbish bins is still increasing and people have a perception that they pay nothing towards the disposal of waste. We must establish a link between charging and waste disposal.
    Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman's idea is interesting, but would it not just introduce another complication? Most people regard the local authority as the body that removes their waste. Would the simplest answer not be for the local authority to say that people had to put their waste in certain boxes and that it would be taken away only if they did so—and for penalties to be charged for non-compliance? That is what people pay their taxes for. It would not be cost-free, but it would be the simplest answer.
    Paddy Tipping: Yes, but we must establish a link. Householders must know that the disposal of waste costs both the environment and real cash. We lack the attitude to tackle the problem, and that is reflected in the amount that we spend on waste disposal. In the UK, local authorities spend £1.5 billion on waste disposal. In France, they spend £3 billion.
    792
    If we are to build an infrastructure, we must find ways to deliver the money to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned the Ernst and Young report that suggested that it would cost £7 billion over 10 years. There is big money in waste and if we develop a national plan for waste disposal, the private and public sector should both contribute.
    Waste planning should be localised, too. It is a local problem and local solutions should be found. I was especially struck by developments in the Isle of Wight, where a partnership between the local authority, Biffa and the ENER.G Group has reduced landfill by 45 per cent. through recycling and energy recovery. Some 65,000 households are served by the scheme, but it costs. The average cost in the UK is 90p, but that service costs £1.50. However, it is more sustainable and it is a local solution to a local problem.
    The Isle of Wight scheme has its problems. The waste recovery heat and power plant is losing money hand over fist and there is a real danger that it will go out of business or relocate overseas. The Minister will be aware of a possible solution using the draft UK renewables obligation order, which is in its second draft form at the moment. That perceives that support for "Advanced (Energy from Waste) Technologies" might be available. However, the order specifies that it is for gasification and pyrolysis, but we should not be backing technologies but examining good quality heat and power schemes. What is significant is not the technology but the inputs and, more important, the outputs of a plant. There is a strong case for extending the order to high quality, more conventional means of disposal and incineration. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.
    Last month, the decision to call a waste summit was announced and the PIU has been charged with the task of producing solutions. I hope that those solutions will be sustainable. Waste is a cost to us all. It is a cost in real terms and to the environment, so we must use the waste summit and the PIU report as a spur to finding a long overdue solution. We must change the rhetoric of sustainability so that reality lies behind it.
    8.46 pm
    Mr. Gregory Barker: I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Conservation and sustainable development are causes very close to my heart, so I was glad recently to join the Environmental Audit Committee.
    As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have a duty to fight for the interests of an area of which more than 70 per cent. is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. As a Conservative, I care passionately about the environmental future of the country and indeed the planet. However, I wish to start by praising those local councils that have bucked the national trend and have managed to put in place a progressive recycling regime.
    One such authority is Wealden council, part of which I am proud to represent in the House. It has one of the best recycling records in the country and I hope that Rother—which I am also proud to represent and which is now firmly Conservative after years of Liberal control—will start to blaze a trail in that regard too.
    Getting a grip of the problem of waste in Britain is not just a lofty aspiration; it is a political imperative. After five years of Labour Government, any semblance of a

    793
    progressive and effective waste strategy has ground to a halt. The recent waste summit called by the Secretary of State was not about taking a record of achievement to its next logical step or shifting up a gear. It was a vain effort to breathe life into what was clearly a political corpse.
    So soon after winning a fresh mandate from the electorate, one would have hoped that the Secretary of State would have her own ideas or even manifesto commitments to which she could refer to deal with the mess and intractable muddle that is the Government's waste management strategy. However, as with so many moribund areas of Government policy, she has contracted a nasty outbreak of "reviewititis" in the vain hope that a problem deferred is a problem halved.
    After five years of Labour Government, there is no effective waste strategy; after five years of Labour Government, the Secretary of State was unable to tell my Committee where she stood on incineration; after five years of Labour Government, there is no effective national recycling policy; after five years, the amount of waste we generate is increasing not diminishing; and after five years, the Secretary of State has gone back to the political drawing board and passed the buck to the PIU.
    It is not sufficient expert advice that the Government lack—far from it, because there have been numerous reports and reviews in recent years—but political will. They lack the political will to go beyond the soundbite and the political cliché to tackle the problems head on. That is not the only problem. Rather than face up to the environmental challenge, the Government have neutered the issue of environmental protection and sustainable development by salami-slicing policy responsibility between the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. While we wait for the Government to rearrange the office furniture in Whitehall, the environmental future of the country is going up in smoke.
    As the problem of incineration has been offloaded into the political long grass of the PIU, beleaguered county councils up and down the country are being left to make critical decisions on incineration in a political vacuum. While the Government procrastinate yet further, councils are being asked to take decisions that could have consequences for countless communities for up to 25 or 30 years to come. Councils such as East Sussex in which my constituency sits, face the prospect of having to give the green light to the building of incinerators while important issues of public health remain unanswered.
    I have pledged to fight the siting of incinerators in my constituency at Mountfield or Pebsham. That is why I wholeheartedly backed the Conservative party's commitment at the recent election to obtain a national moratorium on the building of new large-scale municipal incinerators until independent British scientific evidence proves that they are safe.
    Too much incorrect information is flying around on both sides of the argument for proper conclusions to be drawn. Too many unanswered questions swirl around the incineration debate, and the Labour Government deliberately choose to ignore them. Without an effective national waste strategy, councils such as East Sussex may find themselves driven into the business of incineration
    794
    and licensing commercial incinerators that will ultimately rely on importing rubbish into the county to keep those costly facilities commercially viable. I vigorously support free enterprise and I have seen in my lifetime the value of throwing off the shackles of the state, but the clean air of Bexhill and Battle is not for sale.
    As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, the United States of America, the home of free enterprise, manages to recycle an average of 250 kg of municipal waste per person every year compared with a lousy 60 kg in the UK. After five years of a Labour Government, the UK now produces 550 kg of municipal waste per person per year, which is among the highest in Europe
    David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Barker: No, I am limited on time. The hon. Gentleman will get his chance.
    I am amazed that Ministers have the sheer brass neck to come to the House and tell hon. Members that they face the threat of up to 100 new large-scale incinerators pumping out emissions when the Government's record on recycling is so risible. They are failing across the spectrum of waste policy.
    As other hon. Members said, the latest comprehensive Ernst and Young local authority waste management survey reveals a startling £6 billion to £7 billion shortfall in the investment required to meet EU landfill targets. Perhaps the Minister should tell that to the Chancellor. The same survey reveals that only 10 per cent. of local authorities have finalised plans to deliver an integrated waste management structure. Some 14 per cent. have not started their plans and the remaining plans are languishing in various states of early drafting. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
    The lag is due not only to the shortfall in funding, but to the uncertainties in the procurement of contracts in the waste disposal sector. With so many areas labouring under a regime in which one authority has responsibility for collection and another for disposal, the Government's total lack of an enforceable coherent national strategy is acting as a serious brake to the development of a sensible and ambitious recycling strategy that could be delivered on the ground. That failure is driving Britain into the arms of the incineration industry.
    There will be a high price to pay for this Government's poor record, not least fines of up to £500,000 per day if the terms of the EU landfill directive are not met, but that will be a small cost compared with the prospect of a whole generation of children growing up in the shadow of Labour's massive incinerator-building programme.
    8.55 pm
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Select Committee's report calls for vision, ambition and action to implement an integrated waste management strategy that minimises waste, reduces landfill and increases recycling and re-use. The evidence is that this Government have made great strides towards achieving that, but can still make more improvements and indeed need encouragement to ensure that that happens.
    The waste strategy 2000 is a step in the right direction, and its initial target to almost treble recycling rates by 2005 is admirable. The concern lies in the absence of

    795
    specific measures to ensure that those rates are attained. There is concern that the Government do not appear to be paying sufficient attention to waste minimisation. They seem to be accepting that household waste will continue to grow by 3 per cent. per annum. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister for the Environment will assure us that the Government are concerned with waste minimisation, as well as with better methods of waste disposal.
    The Government's waste disposal initiatives should be recognised and applauded. WRAP, the waste and resources action programme, set up to overcome market barriers to re-use and recycling, is to be welcomed, but it would be helpful if we could have a progress report on its targets and on how much is being achieved.
    The Government's decision to call a waste summit only a month ago is a sign of their commitment. Their action in bringing together business, green groups and representatives from the voluntary sector and local authorities indicates the importance that they attach to partnership work. The Government's commitment that the performance and innovation unit will report in summer 2002 on its review of the waste disposal strategy is another important step. It is equally important that the Department of Trade and Industry is the lead Department in this matter, because that emphasises the importance of business in efficient waste disposal policies.
    I draw the attention of the House to the role of key players in improving our policy and taking forward the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Government must continue to show leadership, to set targets and to introduce legislation where necessary. I hope that they will do more to recognise the importance of producer responsibility, because they have not acted on that as strongly as they might have done.
    Fiscal measures are important in improving efficiency and reducing landfill. The landfill tax was perhaps the first environmental tax, and it has been greatly welcomed by those who are concerned about better means of waste management. I would hope that the Government could identify further fiscal measures and financial incentives to support better waste disposal practices and a more integrated approach to the subject. The climate change levy led to the identification of a number of energy-intensive sectors of industry in which supportive financial incentives have been introduced and are now being acted on. I hope that that thinking can be extended to the whole issue of integrated waste management. perhaps through the green technology challenge. I look forward to hearing further details about that. The regions should be used more positively to promote better practices. Regional chambers should develop better strategies on integrated waste policies and should work with regional development agencies to publicise proposals and work out better means of disposal, perhaps using regional investment funds.
    Local authorities should continue to be seen as an essential part of a sensible policy. They are due to receive £140 million from the special fund that the Government established for local authority recycling. I hope that the local government White Paper, which was announced today, will provide more opportunities and flexibility for local authorities to take more action and become involved in more joint ventures. I hope that the Government will heed the Select Committee recommendation that their assessment of best value in local government should
    796
    include recycling targets. They should also consider the specific recommendation that beacon councils should have achieved at least a 50 per cent. kerbside collection of recyclable items before they are given that status.
    I want to pay particular attention to the importance of community involvement. We are all aware of the importance of community involvement in assessing and often in reacting to proposals on waste management and disposal. I wish to draw attention to the important contribution made by social enterprise in Liverpool, particularly the work of Create, an entrepreneurial and environmentally beneficial social enterprise that creates jobs and provides training that leads to jobs and, at the same time, recycles and re-uses household goods. Create was founded in Liverpool in October 1995 and is a company limited by guarantee. It began as a partnership between the Furniture Resource centre, which is a charity, and Thorn EMI. Last year, its turnover was about £650,000; it employed 15 permanent staff and trained 28 people. Indeed, since its inception, it has trained 98 people, most of whom have since found permanent employment.
    Most important, perhaps, Create's work involves the recycling and refurbishment of used household goods such as fridges, washing machines and cookers. Those goods are resold in the community at affordable prices for people on low incomes. During the time in which it has been operating, 70,000 appliances have been collected, 12,000 of which have been sold following refurbishment; 3,700 tonnes of scrap have been sent for recycling and 4,000 fridges and freezers have had ozone-depleting CFCs removed.
    The project is recognised for using initiative and flair, improving the environment, showing the way forward and, at the same time, creating employment. It has been involved in the new deal's environmental taskforce, has worked in Liverpool's employment zone and is seen as an excellent example of an intermediate labour market project. I hope that the Government will recognise the importance of that initiative and enterprise in Liverpool and will ensure that, through various means of allocating funding and support, such projects can be expanded and developed. Indeed, I understand that Create is already expanding and working in a London borough, but I hope that that example of local enterprise will be seen as a national leader and something that should be followed up across the country.
    During the past four years, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) has chaired the Environment Sub-Committee with flair, expertise and commitment. It is a matter of great regret that the environment has been removed from the remit of what is now the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that the members of that Sub-Committee and its Chairman will be following the consequences of the Select Committee's report and will retain a keen interest in the way in which its recommendations are pursued.
    I hope that the importance of the current Select Committee's work is recognised. It has identified the importance of going ahead with a sound, environmentally beneficial policy for waste minimisation and disposal. I hope that in my right hon. Friend's reply, he will give us an assurance that the Government will follow the Select

    797
    Committee's recommendations. I can assure him that its members, past and present, will listen carefully to his remarks.
    9.6 pm
    Jane Griffiths: I am not a member of the Select Committee, but I have read its report with great interest and listened to the debate with even greater interest. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) who as always made a thoughtful contribution.
    It is interesting to follow at one remove the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker). I do not know his constituency, but I did not recognise the picture that he painted of the good citizens of his part of Sussex cowering in the shadow of huge toxic incinerators. That is not a picture that any of us would recognise.
    Mr. Barker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I can tell her that there is genuine concern in my constituency at the prospect of an incinerator being built at Pebsham in Bexhill or at Mountfield near Battle. There is a huge public outcry and huge public concern about the potential environmental impact. There is also huge concern from parents and families who live in the communities around the areas that stand to be blighted. The hon. Lady makes light of the matter at her own cost.
    Jane Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his most helpful intervention. I was not, of course, seeking to make light of his or his constituents' concerns. I was simply pointing out that to paint such an overblown picture does no service to this important issue.
    The targets in the Select Committee's report have been described from all parts of the House this evening as unchallenging and not strict enough. In an ideal world, those targets might not seem greatly challenging, but in the country in which we live, they do present a challenge to those seeking to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste by 2005, and from 45 per cent. of municipal waste by 2010, under the terms of the Government's waste strategy. Those are not unchallenging targets.
    The Government's waste strategy, recognising that different local authorities are at different points in increasing the amount that they recycle, called for those recycling less than 5 per cent. of waste in 1998–99 to achieve at least 10 per cent. by 2003; for those recycling between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. in 1998–99 to double their rate by 2003; and for the remainder to achieve at least one third by 2003. It is estimated that that will achieve 17 per cent. nationally by 2003.
    I suspect that those targets will be difficult to achieve. That is why I found the Select Committee report so useful, as it takes a hard look at the issues associated with recycling and the difficulties in its way.
    Some remarks have been made from various points of view about incineration. The Select Committee report states that energy from waste incineration should be excluded from energy renewables targets. I am not sure whether I agree with that view. The choice is not between incineration and wonderful, completely clean waste
    798
    management, but between incineration, landfill and other measures, so I do not believe that we can try to exclude incineration all together.
    Little mention was made of clinical waste, which forms a small but important proportion of our total waste. The Royal Berkshire hospital, which is situated in my constituency, is very large and is surrounded on all sides by a densely populated residential area. No complaint has ever been made to me about the clinical waste that is incinerated there. I believe that the process is carried out in a very clean fashion. I am not aware of any way of disposing of most sorts of clinical waste without using a form of incineration to prevent infection.
    There are a great many pressures. The various EU directives put pressure on our Government. The end-of-life directives on vehicles, batteries and waste electrical and electronic equipment all extend producer responsibilities. The EU landfill directive of 1999 requires the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill to be reduced to 75 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2010. That is a very challenging target.
    In representing Reading, East, I represent part of the local authority area of Reading and part of that of Wokingham, which has a doorstep recycling scheme and some bring sites, and forecasts the achievement of 16.87 per cent. recycling. In national terms, that is a very high level. Reading has only bring sites and no doorstep recycling, although it has begun a doorstep recycling trial. That is welcomed by constituents who live in the borough, which achieved a recycling rate of 7.7 per cent. in 1998–99. Both those local authorities are working with the neighbouring area of Bracknell Forest borough council, none of which is situated in my constituency. They are working together on a long-term recycling waste treatment and disposal contract to find the most sustainable and cost-effective way of dealing with household wastes for between 10 and 25 years. The project aims to reduce the growth in waste by 2007 and then reduce the amount of waste arising by a further 5 per cent. It also aims to ensure recycling levels of 30 per cent. by 2005, 35 per cent. by 2010 and 52 per cent. by 2028. I believe that the project should be successful and that those targets are achievable.
    Once minimisation, recycling and composting have made the maximum possible contribution, the proposals go on to deal with generating energy from waste, especially in the form of combined heat and power. The aim is that, by 2020, 13 per cent. of total waste arising, and no more, should go to landfill. There is also an intention to cap the ratio of waste to energy, with the aim that any waste that arises as a result of the forecast population growth in the three authority areas is dealt with higher up the waste chain. In the Thames valley, that growth is considerable and appears likely to continue. The point about landfill is important, because it is predicted that, if there is no change in the current extent to which it is used—this information comes from several sources—the available landfill in Berkshire will run out by 2006–07
    I know that there is another school of thought which says that landfill is not such a problem as most of those who are involved in waste and environmental issues hold it to be. Many who work in earth sciences believe that we should not won-y too much about landfill. I am not convinced by that, but it is useful to discuss matters with people who take a different view.

    799
    It is planned that the project in Berkshire should be undertaken by a joint contract with an organisation through a public-private partnership. The plans are subject to discussion between my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the relevant local authorities. We shall meet next week to discuss taking those important proposals forward.
    The report contained several recommendations that merit serious consideration. They all involve considerable resources. An environmental crime unit that could tackle fly tipping has been proposed. That would be immensely welcome in every constituency, but it would not be cheap to run; it would require a lot of resources.
    The planning system does not always favour sustainable waste management. I am not simply referring to incinerators and proposals for them, although I do not believe that we should exclude incineration from our waste management plans. Problems can arise when land that has been used for landfill is subsequently proposed for housing development. For example, in Woodley in my constituency, problems arose when only part of an elderly landfill site was subsequently built on. Planning applications for more dwellings ran into serious difficulty.
    The planning process must change. Like other hon. Members, I look forward to the Green Paper, which will be published soon and will highlight proposed changes in the planning process. If it does not include proposals that help us to manage waste more sustainably and minimise actual and perceived health risks to local populations, we will all fail in our endeavours. I am optimistic that we can achieve much more in sustainable waste management. We must do that for future generations.
    9.17 pm
    Bob Russell: I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief contribution. I hope that the Minister for the Environment can clarify the Government's position on incinerators. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) drew attention to possible contradictions, and the Minister knows from parliamentary questions that other hon. Members and I tabled that we have tried to ascertain the Government's precise view.
    The Minister told me in a written answer that there is no legal requirement for county councils to include incinerators in their waste plans. However, Conservative-controlled Essex county council is proceeding with incinerators in its plan because it claims that that is a legal requirement. We need clarification.
    The Minister knows from when he was a resident in Colchester that two of the six proposed sites for incinerators in Essex are in Colchester: one in Stanway and one in Old Heath. That is causing considerable anxiety and alarm. There is a belief that incinerators will undermine the thrust of waste recycling, including doorstep collections. I say that from a strong position because Colchester, through policies that the Liberal Democrats introduced and developed, has produced the best recycling record of any council in Essex.
    We need a firm but clear statement from the Government. What is their position on incinerators? Will they give a clear commitment tonight that incineration is not their preferred policy?
    9.19 pm
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I feel sorry for the Minister for the Environment. Apart from one nodding donkey on the Labour Benches, no one has had a good word to say about the Government's environmental policy. The Minister's heart is in the right place, but the trouble is that no one in Government seems to listen to him.
    The former Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee published the report that we have been discussing on 14 March this year. It is an excellent report, and I congratulate the Committee and its Chairman at the time, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett).
    The report makes many good points clearly and succinctly, and much of it has considerable validity. There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has demonstrated over many years a commitment to protecting and enhancing the environment. That showed in his speech today.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) made a battling speech. He made many a good point, to the evident discomfort of Labour Members.
    Conservatism and conservation go together. My party is passionate about preserving the United Kingdom's natural heritage and the future of our planet. The most obvious starting point for that is to implement an effective strategy for dealing with the waste that we produce.
    No waste strategy will be effective until we all understand that caring for the environment must be approached by educating people and instilling a collective responsibility. I am sure that we can all agree that Governments must work with people, and have faith in them—in the farmers who manage our countryside, in those who run the businesses that produce our wealth, and in every householder whom we are here to serve. We should align the people's best interests with their self-interest.
    No one would deny that we produce too much waste, and I shall show that things are getting worse. I shall also seek to demonstrate that landfill is not the answer, and that incineration is no easy substitute. The only real answer is far less waste, far more recycling and re-use, and a Government who spend their time acting effectively rather than talking loudly.
    England and Wales produce about 400 million tonnes of waste each year. In 1999–2000, average municipal waste was 26 kg per household per week, an increase of 1 kg from 1998–99. Nationally, the municipal waste management survey for 1999–2000 showed that there was a total of 29.3 million tonnes of municipal waste in England and Wales in that period, up from 27.9 million tonnes in the previous year.
    To our discredit, we are a "throw-away" society that produces too much waste, and the waste that we are producing is growing by 3 per cent. a year. That might not sound too much, but in practice it means that, if nothing is done, we will need to double our waste disposal capacity by 2020.
    Historically, landfill has been seen as the answer, but the space for landfill is rapidly running out. Landfill sites are deservedly unpopular: as any Bedfordshire MP knows, they scar the landscape, they smell, and they produce methane, which is a highly damaging greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

    801
    It is true that landfill tax has been increased, and that we were told that it was a tax designed to discourage landfill and protect the environment. Well, it certainly is a tax, but for the amount collected it has had modest environmental impact, and there is little evidence that the proceeds have been spent on recycling incentives or measures.
    What we do know is that EU directives dictate that the level of biodegradable material sent to landfill must be reduced to two thirds of the 1995 level by 2020. We also know that, with their current policies, the Government will not achieve that.
    We should not ignore one of the consequences of landfill tax—fly tipping. Despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, higher levels of landfill tax have increased the incentive for many to fly tip to avoid paying tax. Farmland, especially, is often prone to abuse in this way. The National Farmers Union conducted a telephone survey of 300 farmers and growers last year, and more than 50 per cent. of the respondents identified fly tipping as a major ongoing problem; more than a quarter said that they had noticed a significant increase in fly tipping over the past year. Landowners or authorities then have to pay the costs of removing the material from the land and, often, the costs of proper disposal at a licensed landfill site. The Select Committee has urged far higher penalties for such "environmental crimes"—the Committee's own words—to combat the increase in fly tipping, and I agree.
    I urge the Government to impose tougher penalties. Higher average fines should be introduced to discourage fly tipping, and local authorities should be able to keep the revenue from such fines to encourage them to catch the fly tippers. Dumped cars, discarded fridges, leaking drums of chemicals and old sofas line too many verges. The unintended, unfortunate consequence of one Department's decision on the policy of another Department shows that joined-up government is a wish yet to be realised.
    As a result of new EU directives and the Government's failure to boost recycling, Labour is attempting to divert rubbish from landfill towards incineration. According to the Government's waste strategy, "A Way with Waste"— a snappy title, I admit—up to 165 large incinerators may have to be built across the country. But the waste and resources action programme, an initiative funded by the Government, has stated that
    "the Government has failed to convince the public that waste incineration is not a threat to public health. Well publicised instances of high dioxin levels in bottom ash, and questions as to whether emission scrubbers have been updated or even switched on have given the public genuine cause for concern."
    The Conservative position on incinerators is clear. We wish to see a moratorium introduced on new large-scale municipal incinerators until independent British scientific evidence proves that they are safe. Tighter controls should be introduced on emissions from existing incinerators.
    Andrew Bennett: I am pleased to hear this statement from the Conservatives. Will the hon. Gentleman convince his local councillors that that should be the policy in places such as Surrey and Essex?
    Mr. Sayeed: I will certainly endeavour to do so. As I shall illustrate, I am endeavouring to do so on other issues,
    802
    such as recycling. The problem is that, because recycling has been so poorly conducted in this country, councils have considerable difficulty in getting rid of domestic waste.
    Incinerators should be used to generate energy from waste. Local residents should receive benefits from being located near an incinerator and the Government should consider ways of discouraging recyclable materials from going up in smoke.
    The Conservative party has called for a review of regulations to cut down on wasteful packaging and tackle waste at its source. We want to see a simplification of regulations, to improve their effectiveness and to reduce their burden. As a general principle, we believe that regulations should discourage excessive packaging in products. Clear incentives are needed to minimise waste at the point of origin, and packaging regulations should require a higher recycled content.
    There should be tougher enforcement by trading standards officers of existing regulations on over-packaging, and the regulatory burden should be streamlined so that processes are tough but straightforward and easy to understand. Under the packaging recovery note system, established in 1997, manufacturing companies are required to buy PRNs for every tonne of packaging waste that they produce and are required to send for recycling. The PRNs are used to show compliance with regulations. The notes are bought from agents who arrange waste recovery and recycling, or directly from waste producers.
    Since 1998, about £250 million for PRNs and packaging export recovery notes has been channelled to reprocessors in this way; but there is little evidence that money has been invested in increasing the collection of material for recycling. The operation of PRNs is deficient in that regard, and should be reconsidered so that it works to everyone's benefit.
    The words "sustainable development" do not, I regret to say, appeal to many members of the public, and some do not even understand their meaning. It is when they are put in the context of everyone's everyday experience—when people can see that what they are doing is of value to them, close to home—that our efforts to achieve sustainability will succeed. That is why the Conservative party's recycling policy is significantly greener and more radical than that of any other party. [Laughter.] It is clear from Labour Members' guffaws that they have not bothered to read any manifestos apart from their own party's.
    We have proposed for some time that 50 per cent. of household waste should be recycled or made into compost by 2020. That target is significantly higher than the Government's, and it is the reason for our saying that we would introduce doorstep recycling for all households. The question is, what are the Government going to do?
    The United Kingdom must improve its record on recycling, which will in turn allow less dependency on landfill as a means of disposal. Britain has just nine years in which to triple the amount of waste that it recycles, or it will face harsh financial punishment from the European Union. The Government's own officials have warned that the UK faces fines of £500,000 a day if EU rules on landfill sites are not observed by 2010.
    The Government could help themselves to reach that target if they followed the Conservative lead. We want every home in the country to have recyclables collected

    803
    separately from other waste. Perhaps the Government should learn from an organisation called Wastepack and its "pink bag" system, or perhaps they should learn from Berlin; but they must learn from someone.
    Mrs. Ellman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what recycling percentage had been achieved by the Conservative Government after 18 years?
    Mr. Sayeed: First, I am happy to have been promoted to the status of a Privy Councillor, which I am not.
    Mrs. Ellman: I apologise.
    Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Lady should not apologise. I ask her please to go on doing it! Secondly, I was about to deal with her question in any case.
    Labour claimed that it would be "the cleanest Government ever", but Britain still recycles just 11 per cent. of household waste, as opposed to more than 50 per cent. in Switzerland, Germany and Austria. At the recent waste summit, the Secretary of State announced the production of a consultation paper dealing with how to spend the £140 million that the Government had allocated to local authorities to promote recycling. I welcome that move. This country's recycling performance is lagging far behind where it should be—and just as we lag behind as a country, many local authorities lag behind comparable authorities in the recycling of domestic waste.
    That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. El!man). Why did 42 per cent. of Labour local authorities have no provision for separating recyclable material from household waste, according to independent Audit Commission figures for 1998–99? The figure for Liberal Democrat authorities was 29 per cent., and of the three parties, the Conservatives showed the lowest figure—19 per cent. I have recently contacted that 19 per cent. to ensure that many more Conservative councils are taking appropriate steps, but what is the Minister doing about the 42 per cent. of Labour councils and 29 per cent. of Liberal councils whose performance is lamentable? Why is Scotland's record on waste such a disgrace? Waste management may be a devolved responsibility, but this Labour Government are the Government for all the United Kingdom, so it is unacceptable that they should do nothing to persuade the Labour and Liberal Administration in Scotland to clean up their act.
    British households produce enough waste to fill the Albert hall every hour. Unless the Government rethink their approach to waste, we face the shame and expense of being branded the dirty man of Europe. We produce too much waste and the situation is getting worse. Landfill is no answer, nor is incineration a proven safe substitute. The only answer is far less waste, much more recycling, much more re-use, and a Government who talk less and begin to act with vigour.
    9.36 pm
    The Minister for the Environment(Mr. Michael Meacher): I begin by paying genuine tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) for his Committee's report, which is a good one. Also, I pay him a personal tribute for his distinguished record as Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee.
    804
    He leads a Committee that has produced a series of most telling and effective reports that have had a not insubstantial impact on Government policy, and that reflects his dedication and commitment to the environment. Indeed, as he suggested, it also shows why he, as a person who is seen as independent, respected and a champion of the environment, was chosen for the investigation being undertaken in Byker, Newcastle.
    I am sorry that the report was delayed, but I can assure the House that the response is in its final stages and it will be submitted to the Committee shortly. The reason for that is that the Government's response was delayed by the general election being called in May, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. Also, for a lengthy period, from May to October, there was no Select Committee in existence and thus nobody for the Government to respond to.
    Once the new Select Committee was established, there was a need to update the material in the Government response, given the passage of time. Finalisation has been further delayed to take account of the recent waste summit and the Prime Minister's announcement that the performance and innovation unit has been asked to review the waste strategy and consider what more needs to be done to ensure its effective delivery.
    My hon. Friend made important points and I shall try to take most of them up. He said at the outset that we are not a sustainable society, and that is perfectly true. I always use this example: there are 60 million people in this country and average yearly consumption is 1 tonne per person. Taking into account input to the productive process and the energy involved in processing products and waste material, the figure is 11 tonnes.
    A ratio of 1:11 is simply not sustainable and we recognise that. The Prime Minister established the PIU review on resource efficiency and the report was produced recently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said, we have announced that the PIU will now review the waste strategy. It will deliver its initial findings in the first half of next year, with a final report due in summer.
    There is no doubt that the minimisation of waste is most important. Contrary to the impression given by several hon. Members, there is a clear national waste strategy plan. There is also a clear waste hierarchy, the first and most important element of which is waste minimisation. The best thing is not to create waste in the first place—not to quarrel about recycling or incineration.
    Secondly, and clearly—in response to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)—the requirement of the waste strategy is to maximise recycling, re-use and recovery as long as that is the best practicable environmental option. In the vast majority of cases, that will be true, but it is not always so. For example, it may not be easy to extract waste from individual households in tower blocks. Similarly, as rural households may be at a considerable distance from recycling treatment centres, it may be best to use alternatives. However, recycling is obviously the most desirable course in the vast majority of cases.
    We realise that, on its own, merely to set targets will be insufficient to deliver waste minimisation. I am keen to develop effective mechanisms actually to reduce the creation of waste. However, there must be adequate policy instruments, some of which we have already introduced: the landfill tax escalator—I shall talk about levels in a

    805
    Moment—producer responsibility and support for Envirowise, which gives businesses advice on waste reduction.
    I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) mentioned the fact that there had been an increase of about 3 per cent. a year in waste arising. That is far too high and must be reduced. The objective is to reduce that plus-three percentage towards nought and then to a minus figure in order to decouple economic growth from waste arising. Although we can all agree on that objective, it is another matter to deliver it. We need effective instruments and I hope to introduce a clearer and more comprehensive policy than we have managed to initiate in the past.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred to targets. I do not accept that the recycling targets are unambitious. I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) in that regard. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) who spoke for the Opposition, referred to the much higher recycling figures in other countries. I shall refer to the record under the Tories in a moment.
    High recycling rates in other countries are often cited as evidence that our targets are too low. However, many countries include construction and demolition waste in their recycling rates for municipal waste. Such waste is both heavy and easily recyclable, thus increasing the potential for higher recycling rates. Construction and demolition waste is, however, largely excluded from the figures for England and Wales. That is an important consideration.
    The targets set are demanding. It is rather too easy for Members to say that instead of talking about doubling and trebling the amounts we should be aiming for a 60 per cent. increase. Let us achieve a doubling and trebling of the amounts within a relatively short time—let us get that under our belts—before we aim for more ambitious targets.
    Those targets are not, of course, ceilings—they are targets that we expect people to exceed. They are realistic minima that every local authority is being required to achieve. In fact, under our proposals, 83 local authorities are required to achieve recycling and composting rates greater than 33 per cent. by 2005–06, although the overall national target for that date is 25 per cent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned markets. He referred to Aylesford and the £20 million that WRAP had made available to enable further newsprint recycling to take place. That will have a major impact on recycling in this country.
    I should also certainly like to mention other examples of markets. Several such examples have been produced by WRAP—the waste resources and action programme—which was established to develop as a centre of expertise in market development. That is its precise purpose. In its first three years, WRAP is being supported by £40 million of Government funding from my Department and other Departments. Its first business plan has focused on seven key sectors in which there are particular market barriers to increasing recycling. It is tackling those barriers with the Government's support.
    806
    My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish also raised the incinerator issue, which is often the most controversial part of the strategy. He made the important point on the security of supply in relation to an incinerator's long lifespan. I make it absolutely clear, however, that the Government are not encouraging incinerators. We are simply recognising that there may be a role for some incinerators if we are to achieve by 2016—or, with the derogation period, by 2020—a massive shift from the 1997 position in which about 85 per cent. of household waste was landfilled—that is 28 million tonnes a year—to one in which no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels are landfilled. However, we are not encouraging such a role.
    There is absolutely no figure on incinerators in our back pocket. The figures of 100 and 165 have been mentioned, but that was totally mischievous. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire knows perfectly well that that is nonsense—I have said so, and he has heard me say it. He repeats such figures simply to be mischievous. We have no intention of supporting or recommending any such total whatever.
    Mr. Drew: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Meacher: I have very little time and am very reluctant, but I shall give way this once because it is my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Drew: I am grateful and I shall be very brief. Will my right hon. Friend therefore agree to examine closely and rule out of order any waste plan proposing waste importation to bulk up the numbers and make an incinerator economic?
    Mr. Meacher: The requirement in our policy is that statutory recycling targets must be met and that no incineration proposal shall be permitted which will pre-empt recycling or reduce the option of recycling for the future. A local authority may be able to demonstrate that it can achieve those targets consistent with small-scale incineration, preferably linked with combined heat and power. Although I do not rule out such proposals, I do not think that there will be many such examples. The Government's proposal is to increase recycling to the fullest degree to which it is environmentally the best option.
    I am not sure of the exact figures on fluorescent tubes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, but I know that they are nowhere near what they should be. I shall write to him, and I shall once again press local government and central Government Departments to recycle more of their fluorescent tubes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish also mentioned refrigerators. The ozone depleting substances regulation was agreed in October 2000. Before that, my Department queried Brussels on the exact interpretation in relation to the extraction of chlorofluorocarbons, not only from cooling equipment but from foam. We did not receive an answer for 18 months, until June 2001.
    Contrary to what the hon. Member for Gordon said, it is a question not of misreading but of interpretation of the regulation's exact meaning. As soon as we found out the meaning, we took the necessary action, which is to seek

    807
    to put in place, when we can, a producer responsibility regulation. We are also installing a capability for recycling which currently is not available. Many developers are certainly interested in creating that capability provided that they are assured of a market. Many of them have said that they can have the technology in place early next year.
    In the interim, we are also funding local authorities' storage capacity, providing £6 million which should cover them until the end of March 2002. We believe that the rate of about £2 million a month is certainly adequate. We have made it perfectly clear that in the light of experience, we will make further funding available as necessary.
    Mr. Sayeed: Is the Minister saying that the Government—I am not sure which one—signed up to a directive without knowing what it meant?
    Mr. Meacher: The regulation, we believed—along with many other member states—did not include the extraction of CFCs from foam. We are not alone in uncertainty on this matter. It is remarkable that the Commission took 18 months before making up its mind.
    My hon. Friend's last point was about the zero waste concept. It is an attractive idea—nothing should be wasted to landfill or incineration but should be recycled or re-used and there should be penalties for non-biodegradable material. It is a valuable concept, although a long way from being realised. That, ultimately, would be the optimum solution.
    The hon. Member for Gordon does not seem to have taken on board what has happened. He is diligent and conscientious, and I cannot understand how he could make some of the statements that he made. He said that we are dragging our feet—we are patently not. He said that we need a national recycling programme—we already have one. He said that what was needed were incentives, penalties, markets and funding. With regard to incentives, there are statutory recycling targets introduced by this Government, not the last one. They are statutory and enforceable, and we shall enforce them.
    Secondly, there will be penalties for local authorities which do not achieve the doubling or trebling that we require of them. We are concerned about markets. There is no point in recycling if people have a collection of glass, aluminium or cans that cannot be used, but that is what WRAP is meant to do. The Government set it up with £40 million.
    Following the 2000 spending review, by the end of the three-year period, we provided £1.1 billion in the local government settlement for environmental protection and cultural services, a sizeable proportion of which I hope will go towards waste management. The sum of £140 million has been ring-fenced for local authorities, specifically for waste management, £220 million is for private finance initiatives and £50 million is for the new opportunities fund for community recycling. That is a sizeable amount of funding.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned packaging. The regulations are being tightened year on year. They are 50 per cent. this year, with 15 per cent. material-specific requirements for each product. Those will be tightened in successive years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Germany as a better example. He should say that to the packaging industry. The green dot system that Germany
    808
    uses costs three times more than our packaging waste regulation system. Our system costs about £0.6 billion, while theirs costs nearly £2 billion. I do not think that our industry has much doubt about which is the better one, and nor do I.
    On the role of incineration, the hon. Gentleman said that we have left the door open to large-scale use of incinerators. That is blatantly untrue.
    Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said that.
    Mr. Meacher: Well, I do not think that my hon. Friend did say that. Whoever said it, it is not true. I repeat again that there may be some incineration as a result of integrated waste management plans so long as there is maximisation of recycling, re-use and recovery.
    Having paid a visit in or near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I agree that Rockware Glass is a model company. It provides educational facilities at the factory to enable people to understand the importance of recycling. I agree with him about the need for encouraging civic amenity sites and the importance of kerbside collection. Our view—[Interruption.] I have never before managed to turn off the microphones.
    I recognise the commitment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) to such issues, but I was surprised that she asked how to measure recycling and whether it includes packaging waste. Of course, they are two totally different systems. Packaging waste comes under the regulations on packaging waste and involves a specific requirement on retailers. The hon. Lady also mentioned the £12 landfill tax, but we recognise that a £1-a-year tax—
    Sue Doughty: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Meacher: I am sorry; I simply cannot give way—I need to mention so many other hon. Members. We are certainly considering what level of landfill tax will deliver the increase in recycling that lies at the heart of the strategy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) referred to the need for a big gear change in landfill tax, and I understand that point. He also referred to the desirability of charging households directly. Of course, the point is that we need to incentivise waste minimisation, and the hon. Member for Gordon intervened to suggest that the simplest way to do that is to get local authorities to provide multicoloured boxes and then take away the contents. However, in no way does that incentivise the reduction of waste; it is simply a more organised way to get local authorities to take away whatever waste is produced.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood also made a point about the Isle of Wight and the renewables obligation. The Government have recently consulted on our view that waste incineration should not be promoted through the renewables obligation and that such projects will not contribute to the Government's proposed target that renewable sources should comprise 10 per cent. of electricity sales by 2010.
    The Government propose that support under the obligation should be concentrated on those technologies that require such support to succeed commercially.

    809
    That is the key point. The issue is not whether something is good and should be supported; it is whether support is necessary for commercial success. The incineration of mixed waste, as a well established technology, is not regarded as requiring support under the obligation. The obligation has also been framed with a view to supporting more efficient and environmentally benign technologies.
    The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) must be making a bid for the parliamentary award for the silliest speech this year. We have to recognise that there was not a single person behind the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) throughout the debate and that it is necessary to recruit someone to say something from the empty Opposition Benches, but surely anything is better than Bexhill and Battle.
    First, I shall mention the Tory record. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle accused us of having only 11 per cent. recycling—in 1992, the Tory record was 2 per cent. After four years of Labour Government, the figure is 11 per cent., and it will be 25 per cent. by 2005–06. The Tory record is one of no statutory recycling targets and no shift from landfill, and some incinerators were built, which has not happened under this Government.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) drew attention to an important initiative, and we will certainly consider it as a national model. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) talked about Reading's integrated waste management project, which we shall discuss next week.
    The hon. Member for Colchester asked about the position on incinerators, and I have made that very clear. He also asked whether there is a legal requirement to include incineration. There is absolutely no such legal requirement.
    The speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire at least shows that he has a sense of humour. He made a passionate statement of the Tory commitment to preserving the landscape, but the Tory Government had the biggest road-building programme in modern times; 60 per cent. of building took place in greenfield developments; and they had a recycling rate of 2 per cent. He made an attack on the landfill tax, on the grounds that it had had little impact and had increased fly tipping, but seemed to forget that it was the Tory party that introduced the tax. He referred to 165 incinerators, but he knows that that figure is total nonsense. He referred to a moratorium on incinerators, which is a cheap point in this House when Tory councillors throughout the country—
    It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT, 2002–03
    Question,
    That resources, not exceeding £1,489,011,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,488,290,000. he granted to Her Majesty
    810
    out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
    put and agreed to.
    Question,
    That resources, not exceeding £955,500,000, he authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a sum, not exceeding £993.621,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
    put and agreed to.
    It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001–02
    Resolved,
    That further resources, not exceeding £6,469,599,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £7,238,134,000, he granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 391.

    ESTIMATES, 2002–03 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Resolved,
    That further resources, not exceeding £122,901,958,000, be authorised, on account, for use for defence and civil services for the year ending 31st March 2003, and that a sum, not exceeding £122,332,660,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2003, as set out in HC 392, 393, 394 and 39
    Ordered,
    That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and Mr. Paul Boateng do prepare and bring it in.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
    Mr. Paul Boateng accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 2002 and 2003: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 65].
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    CONTRACTING OUT
    That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Highway Functions) (England) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved—[Mr. Ringer.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    HIGHWAYS
    That the draft Street Works (Charges for Occupation of the Highway) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 21st November, be approved—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question agreed to.

    SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AMENDMENT ACT 1993
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [3 December] and Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    PRE-BUDGET REPORT 2001
    That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2001 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE SURRENDER PROCEDURES BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13425/01, Draft Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between the Member States; and supports the Government's active participation in the debate on the draft Framework Decision and the Government's intention to ensure that extradition within the European Union takes place on the basis of the principles of mutual recognition.—[Mr. Ainger]
    Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 12 December 2001, pursuant to Order [28 June].

    Drinking Glasses
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    10.4 pm
    Mr. David Borrow: The issue that I raise should concern all Members of the House. It relates to the problems that arise in the pubs and clubs throughout the land that are frequented by young people and to the injuries, in particular facial injuries, that can result from incidents involving glasses and bottles.
    A few months ago, a constituent came to see me following an incident involving her child at a licensed premises in Lancashire. The child was badly injured by a glass as the result of an assault in a public house. Following her visit, my constituent spent a great deal of time and energy examining how the incident happened and the factors that might be involved in reducing the incidence of glassing in pubs and clubs.
    My constituency includes the town of Leyland and the southern suburbs of Preston, so many of the young people in my area go to pubs and clubs in Leyland, but most of them go to the town centre pubs and clubs in Preston. The university in Preston now has more than 20,000 full-time students and it is the seventh largest university in Great Britain. It is a Mecca for young people.
    The police and the local authority have been assiduous in ensuring that the pubs and clubs catering for young people are grouped together. There is closed circuit television, a strong police presence and most of the public houses and clubs have people on the doors. However, that does not stop incidents happening.
    If large numbers of young people mix together with significant amounts of alcohol available and with glasses and bottles close to hand, violent incidents occur. Some of them will involve glassing that leads to severe facial injuries. We often think that such incidents involve males who one might argue have only themselves to blame. However, that is not always the case. Many incidents involve innocent bystanders or women both as victims and as aggressors. Therefore, we need to examine the scale of the problem as well as its causes.
    I have carried out a little research on how many incidents of glassing take place each year. In 1999, the British crime survey estimated that there were 80,000 incidents involved glassing and that figure was based on a survey of a certain number of households. A survey a couple of years earlier produced a figure of 178,000 each year, but not all those incidents led to conviction or severe facial injuries.
    I have a number of letters that give a Home Office figure of between 3,400 and 5,500 glassing incidents a year and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has released figures on the incidents involving severe injuries that have led to compensation claims. In 1999–2000, 6,550 claims were made following violent incidents in public houses, and many of them would have been glassing incidents. Of those, 3,448—that is 53 per cent.—led to monetary awards costing £7.2 million.
    It has been pointed out to me that the statistics deal only with incidents in licensed premises and do not cover those that spill out of them on to the streets or surrounding areas. It has been estimated that the cost of glassing incidents to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is about £10 million. The figures are not insignificant.

    813
    What are the key factors that cause this problem? An important element in any glassing incident is the nature of the glass or bottle itself and significant progress has been made in many pubs and clubs in that regard over the past 10 years. Many traditional glasses have been replaced by ones made out of toughened glass, but it is clear that the repeated use in pubs and clubs of toughened glassware leads to the weakening of the glass itself. When toughened glass goes through the washer many times, it no longer has the properties that led people to support its introduction. An increasing number of severe injuries are arising from its use.
    In 1998 or 1999, a patent was made for Safeglass, although production of glasses and bottles in that safety glass has not got off the ground. The documents relating to the patent state that there are two important applications of safety glass. The first is glassware and bottles. The documents explain that
    "12000 drink related incidents happen every week. The Home Office are to order magistrates to tighten conditions of pub and club licences to use toughened glasses to serve beer. This will reduce the injuries caused when glasses are used as weapons, currently running at 5500 per year. Safeglass glasses and bottles could play an important safety and security role in clubs or live events, they would also be cheaper than glass."
    Will the Home Office consider whether more research and investigation should take place into the use of such safety glass? Perhaps the Government could recommend that or introduce it in regulations as an alternative to toughened glass, given the weaknesses that have been discovered. Research into that is insufficient, and that needs to be addressed.
    Figures from a survey in 1993 on the wider problems of glass and their effects on bar staff suggested that 40 per cent. of bar staff received injuries not as a result of violent attacks, but simply through handling glassware in pubs and clubs. Anything that can be done to make glassware less likely to cause injury would have significant health and safety implications for bar staff.
    My constituent and several organisations have mentioned the value of placing kitemarks on glassware. That would give people who go into pubs and clubs, and local authorities who inspect them, an idea of the quality and type of glassware that is being used. I am sure that that would improve things.
    We need to consider the whole issue of alcohol-related violence. The use of CCTV in many pubs and clubs, which is growing, makes a difference by controlling the licensed premises. There are serious concerns about under-age drinking and excessive drinking by young people. There is also concern about the policies of the alcohol trade, which manufactures products with a high alcohol content which are attractive to young people.
    Young people have nights out when they drink excessively, and that will probably always be the case. When I was 18 or 19, drinking pints of beer was a slower and different experience from drinking high-alcohol sweet-tasting products, which is what many young people drink. Much more alcohol is consumed in a short space of time than it was 30 years ago. It would help if the Government invested in schemes to deal with alcohol-related violence.
    My constituent has been assiduous in campaigning locally on the issue. I have no intention of mentioning her by name because of the trauma that she and her family
    814
    experienced, but I made the commitment to raise in the Chamber all the matters that she has discovered from her research.
    I have received a number of petitions and letters of support from police and Church groups. I also received a letter from Katie Parr, the welfare officer at the university of Central Lancashire, which says:
    "These acts are mindless and stupid and if we could implement the Safety glass, kite marks and a new scheme which concentrates on incidents relating to alcohol, then I feel we would all suffer less."
    The students' union at the university has taken a particular interest in the safety of its members when they are enjoying themselves in the centre of Preston.
    I received a letter of support from Tina Morrow, the director of Victim Support in Preston, who has been active in collecting signatures on petitions in the area, and a letter from Kevin Quigley, the principal at Cardinal Newman college in Preston, which takes many young people from my constituency. He says:
    "I write to support you in your attempt to get something done through the House of Commons about this issue."
    I have received a letter and much active support in collecting signatures for petitions from the Knights of St. Columba and the 323 branch of Leyland council. I had a very long and thoughtful letter from David Jenkins of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which has looked at the ways in which the number of accidents can be reduced. It is particularly concerned about the use of better glass.
    There may be no simple method of making it safer for our young people to have a good night out. Young people will always be fairly active and run the risk, when they have had a bit too much to drink, of being aggressive. As I said, the combination of energetic young people, excessive alcohol and dangerous weapons in the form of glass bottles and glasses full of alcohol leads to all too many severe facial injuries. Incidents will always happen, but as Members of Parliament, we need to do what we can to minimise the risks.
    10.17 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on securing the debate. I know what competition there is for such debates and the effort that he has had to make. All those present will join me in offering regrets and sympathies to his constituent, and also our thanks for the fact that some good has come of a terrible event, in the sense that my hon. Friend and others have been encouraged to campaign on this important matter.
    My hon. Friend drew attention, in particular, to the devastating consequences of glass being used as a weapon when violent incidents occur on licensed premises. Before responding to the detail of his remarks, I should like to state clearly for the record this Government's absolute determination to tackle violent crime, including violence that occurs on or in the vicinity of licensed premises, which we know is often fuelled by heavy drinking.
    We know that something like 90 per cent. of the adult population in this country drink alcohol, often in the social setting of a pub, club or other licensed premises. They do so lawfully, peacefully and without causing harm

    815
    to themselves or to others. Although they rightly expect to be able to do so without the threat of violence or other antisocial behaviour, we know from a Portman Group survey, conducted about a year ago, that 14 per cent. of people have been the victim of violence in a pub at some time or other.
    The British crime survey tells us that about 40 per cent. of all violent crime is alcohol-related, with as much as half of all stranger violence taking place in or around pubs and clubs. So as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we are not talking about a small minority of people who drink too much and get into fights. Far too many completely innocent people are affected by this problem.
    The issue raised by my hon. Friend concerns drinking glasses and the harm they cause when used to inflict horrible facial injuries in a violent act. I agree that we must do all we can to reduce that potential but, at the same time, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to tackle the circumstances in which violence occurs in the first place. Our general approach is set out in the action plan to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder, which was launched by the Home Office in August 2000 and which explicitly recognises the part that glass can play in violent situations; some of the facts and figures that it quotes are well worth repeating. First, about 120,000 people suffer from facial injuries in violent circumstances each year in this country. In the vast majority of cases, either the victim or the assailant will have been drinking. About 5,000 of those incidents will involve what is commonly known as glassing, with devastating and often permanent consequences for the victim.
    Research undertaken by the university of Wales suggests that bar glassware accounts for 10 per cent. of assault injuries in accident and emergency departments that lead to permanent, disfiguring facial scars. We believe that one response to that is the adoption of toughened drinking glasses in pubs and clubs. My hon. Friend mentioned safety glass, but the critical point is that toughened or safety glass alone will not prevent violence or injury, as he pointed out. Toughened glass can be up to six times more resistant to impact than conventional annealed glass, and breaks into smaller, blunt-edged pieces rather than long, sharp shards, so it significantly reduces the injuries that can be inflicted if the glass is used as a weapon. That is an undoubted benefit.
    My hon. Friend spoke about the effect of time and wear on the properties of toughened glass. We are fully aware that it weakens far more quickly than conventional glass and has to be replaced more often. However, there are benefits to toughened glass, including its resistance to breakage and the manner in which it breaks. If my hon. Friend was trying to suggest that the way in which the glass breaks changes over time, I should be interested to know the facts, as we are not aware that it has such properties and would be happy to look into the matter.
    Whatever the relative merits of toughened glass versus safety glass, the British Medical Journal noted in an editorial some years ago that
    "injury caused by drinking glasses could be reduced substantially by the universal use of toughened glass in bars and clubs."
    I am pleased that those words did not fall on deaf ears. In October 1997, the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—now the British Beer and Pub Association—estimated that toughened glass was in use in about a third
    816
    of public houses and recommended the more widespread adoption of toughened glass. Since then, those responsible for licensed premises have been making the switch to toughened pint and half-pint beer glasses—the glasses that are most often used in violent incidents—as they replace old stock. The British Beer and Pub Association now estimates that toughened beer glasses are used in about 90 per cent. of establishments, which is good progress.
    As well as looking at toughened or safety glass, we need to look more fundamentally at the availability of glass and glass bottles, particularly in some of our busier city centre establishments, where they are more likely to cause problems. Like glasses, empty beer bottles can be used as weapons and it is worth looking at whether or not anything can be done about that. Options are available, including a refusal to provide drinks in bottles—a practice that is followed in some establishments—or the adoption of plastic drinking glasses to replace beer glasses entirely. The Government support such measures, but we know that there can be resistance to ideas like these. Drinking from bottles is very much in vogue, particularly among younger drinkers, but fashion can be changed over time if there is a willingness to do so on the part of those who may be able to influence it. We are keen to promote a dialogue on such issues with the drinks industry. We know that some manufacturers and retailers have experimented with the use of plastic beer bottles in pubs and clubs, which may offer a viable way forward.
    Home Office Ministers meet with representatives of the alcohol industry from time to time. I last met industry representatives as recently as 3 December, and at that meeting I raised the issues that my hon. Friend raises in the House. We should like the greater use of plastic to be considered, as part of our forward programme for tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder.
    In the individual establishment, there is a wide range of steps that can usefully be taken. Specifically in relation to glass, those include the education of customers, licensees and staff about the potential dangers arising from the careless use of glass; ensuring that bar staff are diligent in collecting up empty bottles and glasses within the establishment, thereby reducing the potential for accidental harm; and ensuring that licensees and door staff keep a tight rein on their bottles and glasses, preventing them from being removed from the premises where they might later cause injury or other problems to people leaving the premises.
    Those are relatively simple steps, but we know that where they are followed—as they have been, for example, by establishments in Liverpool city centre—they can reduce the potential dangers considerably. We are keen to see those and similar measures adopted throughout the country.
    Alongside those important measures, there is more work that can be done to ensure that licensed premises are safe and trouble-free places. Indeed, we must recognise that the overwhelming majority of them are. The licensed trade clearly has the primary responsibility for managing licensed premises properly, so as to prevent trouble occurring in the first place or see that it is nipped in the bud.
    It has for many years been an offence for a licensee to permit disorder on his or her premises, and we have recently strengthened the law in section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which came into effect on

    817
    1 December, so that it is now an offence for anyone who works on licensed premises, not just the licensee, to permit drunkenness or violent behaviour on the premises.
    Other key measures that we are raising with the industry include initiatives to encourage sensible drinking and to discourage binge drinking, which can often precede trouble on licensed premises. The recent phenomenon of "happy hour" and other retail initiatives encourage the wrong kind of drinking and do great damage to the reputation of the industry. We support initiatives such as Pubwatch schemes, backed up by exclusion orders, to keep known troublemakers out of licensed premises. We believe that the industry can do more to avoid irresponsible sales promotions, such as those that offer, for a fixed fee, the chance to "drink `til you drop." Those encourage heavy drinking, which often leads on to trouble.
    We know that other measures can be taken when all the local key partners work together to develop innovative solutions to local problems. That may provide some of the answers that my hon. Friend was looking for when he spoke about the need to reduce alcohol-related violence. In a number of areas, local licensees sit on the local crime and disorder partnership, which can help to a produce co-ordinated local programme such as the city centre safe initiative in Manchester, which offers a clear example of what can be achieved through effective partnership working.
    The partnership in Manchester includes local sponsorship and has been able to set up a wide range of key initiatives, including late-night transport, targeted policing, pub and club-watch schemes and design and
    818
    training initiatives to make the city centre a safer place for those who go there to enjoy an evening's entertainment. Any ideas that my hon. Friend wants to feed into the ongoing debate between the Home Office and the industry would be very welcome. I look forward to receiving those suggestions and to having a continuing dialogue with him.
    I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and enabling us to raise its profile through this debate. I hope that I have been successful in demonstrating to him that we take these matters seriously and are seeking to work with the industry. We are receiving from the overwhelming majority of those involved in the industry a fairly positive a response to the sort of initiatives that we are asking them to consider. If we can persuade them, there is an awful lot that we can change in terms of the habits that have grown up in the retail sector and the alcohol trade.
    We have seen some great changes with regard to the way in which the product itself is marketed. My hon. Friend referred to some of the high-alcohol drinks now available, which were not available some time ago. Some of the advertising associated with such drinks, aimed at young people and the very worst of habits, was effectively curtailed by guidance followed by the industry. We now need the sort of thing that has been done so successfully with regard to the product to be applied to the retailing of alcohol as well. I think that we could make great strides in reducing the sort of incidents that my hon. Friend so graphically brought to the House. I thank him for doing so.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

The Great Lakes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. McNulty.]
9.30 am
Ms Oona King: The issues relating to the region around the Great Lakes are incredibly important. A humanitarian catastrophe continues to unfold there, as it has for at least the past 10 years. In that region, it is difficult to draw the line between the end of one conflict and the beginning of another.
To put the debate into perspective, I shall explain some recent background. It is impossible to understand the conflict without considering the region as a whole. The present conflict in the Great Lakes began in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and dates back to 1998, since when 2.5 million people have died in it. That figure is staggering, but the fact that we rarely hear anything said about it is even more staggering. I am thus especially grateful to those hon. Members who have given their time and made the effort to be here this morning.
The war in the Congo is Africa's most complex war. It has been described as Africa's first world war and has dragged six foreign armies into the country. One of the biggest problems is the wealth of the Congo, which some people argue not only sustains but actively perpetuates the war. The recent history of the region shows the interplay between Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC. It is clear that the current conflict in the Congo stems from the wave of violence unleashed by the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.
We need to consider how British policy has changed and could perhaps change further in the future. In 1994, when the genocide in Rwanda occurred, the British ambassador to the United Nations cautioned against using the word "genocide". He rightly pointed out that if we used that word, we might be liable under our international treaty obligations to do something. As we all know, we did nothing. The international community did nothing until it was far too late.
I am still haunted by the genocide site in Rwanda that I visited with two of my colleagues from the Select Committee on International Development who are here this morning. What haunted me most was not the 5,000 or 10,000 corpses that we saw and stepped over in the school into which people had been herded and murdered over a 36-hour period, but the fact that many of the children's bodies had only one foot. Several of us could not understand why those small children had only one foot. When we asked, we were told that when the adults were escaping, the militia cut off one of each child's feet to stop them escaping. They killed the parents and then came back to finish off the children.
180WH
The vision of that classroom full of children with only one foot writhing around on the floor has never left me. That was one of the reasons why I set up the all-party group on the Great Lakes. I am extremely grateful that more than 100 Members of Parliament have joined it.
The second thing that has always haunted me was that in those classrooms the only sign of the international community was some plastic sheeting placed over the open windows on which was printed the UN logo. When I said to someone that that looked very strange—as though all that the UN did was to put up curtains after the genocide—they said, "Yes, that is basically what happened." Is not that an allegory for our modern times? The UN is doing the window dressing.
All of us who take an interest in the region—and even all those who take no interest in it—realise, post-11 September, that window dressing in areas of disaster, conflict and genocide will eventually return to haunt us. I am not saying that the conflict and the humanitarian disaster in the Great Lakes region—however tragic and all-consuming they are—will burst into our consciousness as the attacks in New York and Washington have done. That will not happen right now, but if we do not do something about the Great Lakes in particular and Africa in general, there is no doubt that, at some point, we shall pay the price for indifference that leaves millions of people to starve or be killed. Some of them are killed in the most brutal of ways, as I described. The deaths of others are equally brutal, but not so televisual: starving to death does not trigger many peacekeeping forces. It has not done so in the past.
We hope that that might change in the future, given what is happening in Afghanistan. I very much hope that as we consider the situation in the Great Lakes region, we might see there the germs of what has happened in other parts of world, so instead of waiting for a disaster—although some might argue that one has already happened—we might try to pre-empt it.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is not what my hon. Friend is saying exactly the message that the Prime Minister was giving in a tremendous speech to the Labour party conference in October? He pledged not to allow a Rwanda to occur again and to heal the scars of Africa. That shows a new way forward for the Government.
Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I see consternation on the faces of some Opposition Members, but I hope that we can agree with the Prime Minister's words, wherever we are on the political spectrum. I cannot imagine that anyone could say that we would not take action if a Rwanda were to happen again and 1 million people were butchered. I know for a fact that at least three of the four Opposition Members present agree with those sentiments. Indeed, they have agreed with them.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I had not planned on intervening in the debate, because I think that everyone will agree with the hon. Lady's sentiments. Opposition Members may, however, disagree with the political slant of some of the comments. As hon. Members may recall, the Prime Minister made a rather all-encompassing conference speech that included justifying early euro

181WH
entry on the basis of the 11 September attacks. Perhaps that is why there were looks of disagreement on Opposition Members' faces.
Ms King: I am sure that I would be ruled out of order were Ito outline the merits of early euro membership or link such membership to Britain's national security. Although I am certain that there is such a case, I shall leave it for another time.
I was trying to explain some of the background to the crisis in the Great Lakes region. Part of the background is elaborated in a truly startling and inspirational book, which I recommend that everyone read, entitled "King Leopold's Ghost". Although it traces the history of the Congo and the Great Lakes region back a couple of hundred years, it deals particularly with the 19th century. It is instructive to examine events in the Great Lakes region from 1870 until independence in the early 1960s.
I am not one of those black people who gets up and gives a speech on colonialism every five minutes regardless of the subject, and I think that my colleagues who know me will defend me on that point. However, I think that all the Select Committee members were truly startled by the extent to which the colonial era in that part of Africa has conditioned almost all subsequent events there. I shall give an example.
When the genocide began in Rwanda, everyone said, "These bloody Africans are hacking each other to death. It is a tribal conflict. It is what Africans do." I was astonished to discover that the Belgians had introduced a law that was essentially like apartheid in South Africa and made it illegal for Rwandans not to declare that they were either Hutu or Tutsi, thereby creating an ethnic construct. What do the terms Hutu and Tutsi mean? "Tutsi" simply means that one has cattle, and "Hutu" that one is an agricultural labourer working the land. Originally, the terms were not ethnic or tribal distinctions.
In that society, working with cattle was more highly valued than working the land. Those who had cattle had assets. Consequently, the Tutsis, who comprised only 15 per cent. of the population, became the more powerful group, and the Hutus, who comprised the majority and worked the land, became the less powerful. It is essentially a class structure, but the colonial power of the time found it useful to play one group off against the other, and so made it illegal for those Africans not to belong to one group or the other.
I asked some Rwandans whether they were Hutu or Tutsi. Although we may talk about political correctness in this country, in a country where a genocide has occurred, it is a deeply impolitic question. However, one Rwandan tried to explain to me that it was not really possible to answer the question. He said that his family were neither Hutu nor Tutsi as they neither had cattle nor worked the land. He said that their society was not that simplistic and that everyone could not be divided into a group that owned cattle or worked the land. However, he also said, "The Belgians just gave us a
182WH
stamp on our identity card and we became an ethnic group." The distinction was, literally and figuratively, a political construct. What does that mean for us today?
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in her fascinating speech. Will she not, however, give credit to Paul Kagame, the Rwandan leader? On taking control, he ensured that both groups were included in his Government. He also ensured that there was no reference to the two different groups in official literature. Whatever his faults, he has made great strides in that direction.
Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend—I call her that deliberately—for that intervention and could not agree more with those sentiments. President Kagame has lately come in for no little criticism. Although I certainly have some differences in respect of how the Rwandan Government are pursuing their legitimate desire to protect Rwanda's security, I believe that Paul Kagame is one of the leading inspirations in African politics. Although my greatest fear in making such a statement is that my words will come back to haunt me, if there was ever a man with integrity whom I trust not to make those words haunt me, it is President Kagame. The Select Committee and I—I have met him on several occasions—have been impressed by his dignity, resilience and thoughtfulness.
How has the Hutu-Tutsi divide affected the continuing conflict? The current conflict, dating from 1998, was unleashed by the wave of violence that followed the genocide. People in that region of Africa, which extends from eastern Congo to Rwanda and Burundi, have been on a dreadful, hellish merry-go-round whereby waves of internally displaced people are pushed from one country to the next. Such displacement occurred even before independence in the 1960s, when the first massacres occurred and Tutsis were displaced from, for example, Rwanda. Subsequently, some of them went to the Congo and Uganda, after which they returned to their own country and themselves displaced the genocidal regime. The Banyamulenge are a group of Rwandans who have been living in the Congo for hundreds of years.
Select Committee Members who visited the Congo this summer made one fascinating discovery. In 1994, Rwandans fleeing genocide arrived in the eastern DRC and helped to push the local economy past the point of no return. The economy was desperately stretched: all the remaining cattle, for example, were sold off and people were left with no means of survival. Tutsis went from one impoverished country to another to flee genocide, with catastrophic results.
Subsequently, relations between the Rwandan and Congolese Governments have deteriorated. As many hon. Members will be aware, President Kagame was initially an ally of the elder President Kabila, who turned out to be far less reliable than had been hoped and did not measure up to expectations in the west. He grievously disappointed his Rwandan and Ugandan allies, because the activities of those who committed the genocide continued in eastern DRC. The Rwandan Government continued to face attack from those who had committed the genocide and were committed to finishing it.

183WH
The all-party group's rather controversial view is that the Rwandan Government were justified in sending troops to the DRC when Interahamwe activity and that of the genocidiaires in eastern Congo was blatantly threatening Rwandan security; it continues, on occasion, to threaten it.
Then President Kabila died, and he was followed by his son, Joseph. Although many people have said that it is far too early to tell how the younger President Kabila will turn out, in my view he represents a far better hope than we had previously. I have met him twice and have been immensely impressed with his grasp of many issues, and not just those pertaining to his own region. However, the fact remains that the views of the Rwandan and Congolese Governments are light years apart.
I fully understand Rwanda's grievance—1 million Rwandans have been murdered, most of them Tutsi. Those who were responsible sought refuge in the DRC, whose Government are incapable of stopping, or unwilling to stop, their activity. The Rwandan Government therefore said that they would do it instead. I think that our Government would have done the same. Any Government who had the capacity would have done what the Rwandan Government did.
I also understand the DRC Government's point of view. They believe that they are being occupied by an invading force—the Rwandans and Ugandans—that has been in the DRC for more than three years. The DRC Government believe that if Rwanda wanted to neutralise the threat that exists, it could. That is debatable, but it is their view. They strongly believe that the Rwandans are using the threat as a pretext for mineral exploitation, and we have to consider the grave pillage of resources in the Congo.
Mr. Robathan: I spent more time abroad with the hon. Lady during the summer than I did with my wife. I found the trip to the Congo both fascinating and depressing.
The hon. Lady refers to the DRC Government, who are legally recognised. The Kabila Government have no more legitimacy than Onusumba in Goma or Bemba in the north-east. Does she agree that the three sides are not only equally illegitimate, but equally responsible for the pillage of the country and for its problems?
Ms King: It is true that in the Great Lakes region as a whole, particularly in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there is not the democratic accountability that we wish to see. In my view, there has been a failure of politics and politicians. I remember the president of the RCD, Mr. Onusumba, saying that the politicians had failed. We might think that we make a pig's ear of things in this country, but we rarely have to shoulder the burden that exists there. Until the three regions have some democratic accountability, the situation will not be resolved. That is why so much hope is pinned on the inter-Congolese dialogue, which is charged with bringing some democratic accountability, however tenuous, to the region.
The DRC Government believe that Rwanda and Uganda must withdraw before peace can be achieved. That is the nub of the problem with the Lusaka peace process. It is a bit like decommissioning in Northern
184WH
Ireland. The Rwandans say that they will not leave until their security is assured and they know that the people who started the genocide will not be able to finish it. They say that the Congolese Government are aiding, abetting and even continuing to arm the Interahamwe militia. The Congolese Government say, "You have invaded our country and until you leave, there will be no peace. In the meantime, you are raping and pillaging our country."
The questions of how to deal with the Interahamwe and the UN's role in that are of great importance. The all-party group that visited the Congo felt that it would be useful if the British Government could push for an expansion of personnel and resources available to MONUC, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A reply—I hesitate to use the term "the standard reply"—would be that MONUC's mandate is to keep the warring factions apart, which it is able to do at present. However, the Lusaka agreement says that MONUC's role is to deal with the Interahamwe. It is MONUC's responsibility to track down and disarm the groups that threaten to continue destabilising the region and to pour oil on troubled waters. The contradiction between MONUC's mandate and the aspirations for it in the Lusaka agreement remains unresolved.
Let me put this in the context of an area with which we are more familiar—Kosovo. Had we decided to put the same ratio of troops to land density in the DRC as we did in Kosovo, it would have required 10 million UN peacekeepers. That would be absurd, but it is the truth. No one is asking for 10 million UN peacekeepers, not least because the harsh facts of realpolitik are that Kosovo will always receive more attention, time and resources than the Congo. That may or may not be fair, but it is a fact. We are not asking for 10 million UN peacekeepers, but for a more realistic UN force than the current proposed deployment of 5,000. Ten million is not a realistic or helpful figure, but nor is 5,000 for a country the size of western Europe.
The all-party group also believes that a credible study should be carried out into the threat posed by the armed groups, especially the Interahamwe, that operate in the DRC. We would like the UN to put an embargo on arms exports in the region and the troops to be demobilised and resettled more quickly. It is important to highlight how much the British Government have done so far on the issue of demobilisation and resettlement, which is known as DDRRR in the Great Lakes lingo. I will not hazard a guess at filling in those initials, but the process involves demobilising soldiers who will otherwise have an interest in perpetuating armed conflict if for no other reason than that they have no other way to eat and earn a living.
Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Lady agree that anyone interested in following this issue in detail could apply to the all-party group at the House of Commons for a copy of the useful booklet that covers the visit, which includes a glossary of the abbreviations, a map and all sorts of other useful information? A fair number of people who follow the debate will be interested in that report, and I hope that they will feel able to apply for a copy.
Ms King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his exceptionally helpful remarks. As someone who is

185WH
allergic to acronyms, I certainly recommend appendix 5, on acronyms and names, of the all-party group's report. He guides me to the back of my own report, where I find the phrase, "disarmament, demobilisation, resettlement and reintegration", although an R remains missing—I think that it might stand for reinsertion, or something like that.
The continued activity of armed groups in the region can be linked to mineral exploitation, and it is inevitably in those groups' interests for the conflict to continue. The report sets out the alleged links between the various military groups and the region's mineral resources. As someone who has the greatest sympathy and respect for the Rwandan Government and, in particular, for individuals in that Government whom I regard as my friends, I have been disturbed by many of the reports that I have heard and many of the things that I have seen with my own eyes in the Congo.
Those activities were alleged to have happened at the behest of the Rwandan military. Unfortunately, I am not one of those people who can just pretend that I did not see or hear something happen. I did, and so did other Members of Parliament. We all have slightly different views on the matter. Some of us are more sympathetic towards the Congolese; others are more sympathetic towards the Rwandans, but we are all sympathetic towards what we perceive to be the truth. The truth of the matter is that the Congo is being raped and pillaged and that local people are not benefiting from the resources that are being taken out of their area. That is fuelling the war that is displacing those people, causing so much misery in that area.
My plea is that the British Government should be sensitive to the feelings of the people in eastern DRC, as we have been rightly sensitive to the appalling distress in Rwanda—words genuinely escape me, because it is impossible to express what happened there. We are sensitive to those events, and we have to be sensitive to the fact that virtually all the ordinary Congolese people to whom we spoke and even the ordinary representatives of the RCD—the eastern DRC group that is linked to Rwanda—told us that Rwandan soldiers were involved in removing resources from that area and also in many very unpleasant things that are being done to the civilian population there. We heard that again and again, and I cannot pretend that it was not so, but many people are displeased with me for saying that.
As I have said before, I have immense respect for President Paul Kagame, and I genuinely believe that he would not sanction all that is being done in the name of the Rwandan army, but he would say that those things are not happening. I have had many conversations with the Rwandan ambassador to this country, for whom I also have great respect, and she has pleaded with me to consider the Rwandan point of view. For example, has any hon. Member heard of coltan?
Mr. Alan Duncan: Yes.
Ms King: Even if hon. Members had not heard of coltan, everyone reading the report of this debate will have pressed it close to their ear because it is needed to
186WH
make mobile phones, as well as Gameboys and Playstations. That is an astonishing glimpse of globalisation in our times. Most people would tell me that nothing links the inner reaches of the Congo to Whitechapel, for example, in my constituency, yet all those teenagers in Tower Hamlets playing on their Gameboys are linked to that region, where people are forced to mine coltan in an incredibly exploitative manner.
The local economy has been severely destabilised because coltan is a volatile commodity. A tonne of it fetched $70 last year but it fetches only 50 cents this year. Hon. Members can imagine all that that implies. I hope that other hon. Members want to speak in this debate.
Mr. Duncan: Perhaps I can take that hint and discourage the hon. Lady. In no way do I wish to be rude, but she has taken up almost half the entire time allotted to the debate, and other hon. Members want to speak. So far, I detect no disagreement across this Chamber, but we would like a chance to make a small contribution.
Ms King: I thank the hon. Gentleman sincerely. It was whispered in my ear that I might be the only Member who wished to speak and therefore that I would have to talk at length. I should like to conclude by relaying the remarks of a 16-year-old.
Peter Bottomley: It is worth mentioning the efforts of ex-President Masire of Botswana in the inter-Congolese dialogue, so that the Minister can have time to think about them. The report shows that £43,000 has been provided and the Members of Parliament on the trip recommended doubling that figure. I am not certain whether anything less than a significant increase might be useful if those talks are to help to produce a working understanding between the groups.
Ms King: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Government have already more than doubled the money for the facilitator, and I am sure that the Minister will outline exactly what they have done.
On the visit, I met a 16-year-old called Baraka and his story outlines the complexity of the problems involved. He told me:
"I left Rwanda in 1994. My family were moderate Hutus, but they were sympathising with the Tutsis. My aunt was a Tutsi, so we hid my aunt's family. I fled to DRC with my parents, but they died after we arrived. The Red Cross registered me and I went back to Rwanda. From an orphanage in Rwanda I was taken to Gisenyi. A member of my family was there but they chased me away, because they didn't want to look after me. So after that I went back to…DRC. One time I was in the market selling potatoes and the military…came and kidnapped me, they conscripted me. They took me to their military position, but I escaped. After that I was taken back to Rwanda, but the border-guards wouldn't let me enter because I have no family there anymore who will take me. Now I am back in DRC, but they don't want me here either. I ask you to find me a country of exile where I can live. That's all."
That is his request to us as politicians. I hope that we may be able to do something.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. I hope that the wind-ups will begin at 10.30. I would like to call all those hon. Members who wish to speak but it may be difficult now.
10.12 am
Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing the debate and on being the driving force in the House of Commons in bringing to public attention issues that are vital to those in central Africa. The so-called civilised western world has not been good at helping people in the DRC—formerly Zaire—to have disagreements over politics or to argue about the economy without the threat of death. The hon. Lady deserves credit for that, together with the aid agencies who facilitated the trip in August and the colleagues who accompanied her.
My contribution will be brief, both because I have to attend a Select Committee meeting and because of your remarks, Mr. Amess. However, no one minds the length at which the hon. Lady has spoken, because this important issue is not often a subject of debate. I was part of an all-party group visit to El Salvador, a far smaller country, some years ago and I know that progress is possible if people and their neighbours have the chance to work out their disagreements together instead of going into exile or taking up guns.
The hon. Lady rightly talked about the commercial interests that are helping to fund the different groups, and that will not stop instantly. In other parts of Africa, similar conflicts are continuing long past their sell-by date. There are some fashionable issues that get attention—rightly—but the unfashionable ones matter just as much. People from the DRC, Rwanda and Burundi who come to this country probably get much support and invigoration from people in Government and in Parliament being willing to listen to them, talk with them and maintain a continuing interest. People sometimes wonder whether all-party groups have a purpose, but they need only read the hon. Lady's report and they will understand why hon. Members choose to give some of their time to the interests of people overseas as well as those of their constituents.
10.14 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I wish to address the case of the smallest country in the Great Lakes region, Burundi. It is not the size of western Europe, but more the size of Wales, with 6.5 million people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) will recall the trip that we made to Burundi with Unicef in 1998 and some of the remarkable people we met; people who work in the most difficult circumstances, in a civil war, in a country teetering on the brink of the sort of genocide that has been seen in Rwanda. In particular, she will recall our friend Luis Zuniga, the head of Unicef in Burundi, who was tragically murdered in the most appalling circumstances while visiting an internally displaced persons camp. He was doing his job and trying to protect children.
Burundi is beautiful though impoverished. It is a densely populated and extremely dangerous country which has been involved in civil war for some eight years. Now the war is over, and it is a remarkable tribute to Nelson Mandela that, after all that he has endured and achieved in his life, he has been able to help broker the peace deal that is beginning to operate in Burundi. The situation is fragile. The transitional Government
188WH
has been in place since 1 November with President Buyoya serving with Vice-President Ndatzetse, but due to hand over to a Hutu president in 18 months.
There is much more work to do to ensure that the peace agreement holds. We need to see the integration of armed forces from rebel groups into the Burundian army and continued efforts must be made to end the fighting that has continued in some areas. We need a comprehensive military and political agreement with the FDD and the other excluded armed movements that are still operating. We must support the efforts of UN special representative Berhanu Dinka and the implementation and monitoring committee to uphold the peace deal. We need to help that poor country, which is founded on subsistence agriculture—it has none of the mineral wealth of the DRC—and the export of coffee; whose vital infrastructure has been set back and undermined by war; and which has 1 million refugees outside its border and many hundreds of thousands of displaced people within. This country should respond to Nelson Mandela's call to double the $440 million of aid promised once the transitional power-sharing Government were installed. We should seize the moment to take the vital step of changing from humanitarian assistance to development aid.
Burundi is a small country in the middle of Africa, and a former Belgian colony. We might question its significance to our country, but we should recognise the integrated problems of all the Great Lakes countries and recall the statement to the Labour party conference that we need to do far more to heal the scars of Africa. This is a crucial moment for Burundi and perhaps for the Great Lakes area. I am sorry that I cannot stay past 10.30, because I have to attend a Standing Committee. I have offered my apologies to the Chair and I look forward to reading the report of the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister, which I hope will be positive.
10.19 am
Ann McKechin: As has been mentioned by my hon. Friends, the scale of death and human misery that has befallen the Great Lakes area is staggering and horrifying. Regretfully, we see no antiwar protest marches filled with indignant demonstrators outside Westminster, nor do we read angry letters in the press. Instead we have heard the deafening sound of silence and indifference to the ongoing misery from the international community in the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned the complex and baffling history and politics of the region, but they should not deter us from seeking peace and justice in the area and giving it the global priority that it undoubtedly deserves.
Last month, I was fortunate to be on the visit of the all-party group to Brussels and to the Belgian and European Union Parliaments. Clearly, the EU has a lead role to play in the international community, but there are differences of opinion between the Dutch and the United Kingdom, who tend to be seen as supporting the Rwandan Government, and the Belgian and French Governments who tend to be seen as supporting the DRC. If a growing inertia develops because the EU cannot develop a unified approach, a danger might creep in and affect the efforts to secure peace in the region.

189WH
As has been said, it is valid to argue that both sides have infringed the Lusaka agreement. The ceasefire has been violated in the east of the DRC, but it is the exploitation of the area's mineral wealth that gives me particular cause for concern. The size of the international peacekeeping forces is tiny in relation to the physical geography of the area and, while there is continuing conflict, the prospects of improving the lives of the ordinary people will be severely hindered. I strongly urge the Government to support an expansion of the international peacekeeping forces to ensure that the disarmament of armed groups can be accelerated and stability restored.
It is a sad irony that the Congo has more than 8 per cent. of the world's diamond reserves as well as plentiful supplies of other precious metals while the population suffers from widespread destitution. It is conservatively estimated that at least 18.5 million people in the area have no access to even basic health care and, in the eastern areas of the DRC, the infant mortality has reached the ghastly and horrifying figure of 41 per cent.
There is evidence of mineral exploitation by the Ugandan, Zimbabwean and Rwandan forces, with large sums of money flowing through those countries. Last year, Uganda made nearly as much money from gold exports as from coffee, despite it having hardly any reserves at home. Similarly Rwanda produced 83 tonnes of coltan but exported 603 tonnes. Although those figures strictly relate to sales rather than to production, the implication is clear. Such plunder must be actively discouraged to end the suffering that has escalated in areas of the DRC. Only when there is no market for these illegally obtained resources will there be a real incentive to end the civil war.
The United Nations has set up a certification scheme for diamonds and I understand that 32 countries have endorsed it. However, it requires strengthening and, in particular, legal sanctions are needed. I urge the United Kingdom Government and the EU to develop urgently concrete measures to counter the exploitation of the mineral reserves.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) pointed out, the Prime Minister commented earlier this year that the international community has failed the people of the Great Lakes for a long time. Now there is an opportunity to find peace and to restore basic human dignity. Just as in Afghanistan, we need to commit ourselves to staying the course and providing these long-suffering people with a permanent undertaking to help them to rebuild their lives and their country.
10.23 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing this debate. She gave a fascinating and informative speech, although it was a trifle long.
I joined the hon. Lady in a Select Committee visit to the Great Lakes region but I was unfortunately unable to go on the one last August because of family problems. She told us graphically that more than 2 million people have already died in the region as a result of the conflict and we heard of the genocide that took place there. We
190WH
know that more than 30 per cent. of the children suffer from malnutrition and that there are 10,000 child soldiers.
I am a mother and a grandmother and one of the things that always slightly depresses me is people's perception that Africa is used to such problems and the view that there are always many deaths there because Africans are always killing each other. However, do people not realise that every mother, grandmother and father in Africa cares just as deeply about their family and their children as we do? That must be said, and John Donne put it succinctly many hundreds of years ago when he wrote that
"any man's death diminishes me…never send to know for whom the bell tolls".
I shall refer to the bell tolling at the end of my speech, but it is important that we understand that each of the African children who die in their hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis is someone's little child who is loved. It is important that we keep telling the world that.
Some progress has been made. I understand that agreement was reached only last weekend to establish inter-Congolese talks, but I ask the Minister to deal with the question of funding. Someone once said sarcastically to me that those involved in the negotiations want extra funding so that they can stay in five-star hotels. However, what western diplomat, Minister or Secretary of State would not stay in a five-star hotel when they go to an international conference? Let us not use that argument as an excuse for not providing proper funding. The area needs huge funding and help with representation, and the same applies to the Sudan, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and I know very well. More effort and more money needs to be put into the talks that are trying to resolve such crises.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned development aid. Can we get away from the notion that, if there is conflict in an area, development aid must never be provided? We have to get away from that view, because generations are growing up in Africa without receiving any basic education. That applies not just to 30 or 40 per cent. of the population, but to the entire population of the Sudan and much of the Great Lakes region. Although the countries may be in conflict, there are pockets of peace—often long-standing peace—where some form of education could be provided. It is vital to the future of the area that it should be available.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) referred to the problem of natural resources. Progress has been made on diamonds, and we have all heard about blood diamonds—we have had a debate in this Chamber on the subject—but it is strange that one of Uganda's biggest exports should be uncut diamonds when none are mined there. Clearly, at some stage, the international community must tackle the problem of the other countries in the Great Lakes region plundering the resources of the Congo. There must be agreement and that might result from the west imposing trade sanctions on illegally obtained goods.
One of the root causes of the conflict in the Congo is the exploitation of natural resources. Coltan has been mentioned, so I shall try to lighten the tone of the debate a little. An African told me last week that it was funny

191WH
that coltan is needed for mobile phones and that it can be obtained in the Great Lakes region, because Africans invented the mobile phone—it is called a drum.
Although this point has not been mentioned, we should commend the Secretary of State for International Development on her efforts to bring Rwanda and Uganda together. It is now inconceivable that that band of brothers—particularly Presidents Museveni and Kagame—should contemplate making war on each other. They have been through so much and they share many of the ideals that Africa needs, so it is inconceivable that their poor countries should make war on each other.
I know that time is short, so I shall conclude my remarks. The Prime Minister's moving conference speech has been mentioned and, if the war against terrorism has taught us anything, it has taught us that we have to address poverty and conflict wherever they are in the world. It is no coincidence that the al-Qaeda terrorist network found succour in Afghanistan and Somalia, two of the poorest countries in the world. If any good is to come out of 11 September, the western nations, especially the United States of America, have to realise that poverty in Africa and Asia is connected with events on that day. We are partly responsible for those. The poor and the dispossessed have been given a means of fighting back. We must heed the warning. I return to John Donne:
"never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
10.30 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on raising the debate. Every word she said was of value. It is right that we are discussing this issue. I apologise if I was a bit rough on her earlier, but it was only because we are all eager to contribute to the debate and believe, as she does, that the subject is important. I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that too many people say that conflict happens all the time in Africa and that we can do nothing about it. We have to combine to reject that dismissive approach, because only then will something be done.
We need to take a tough and practical approach to the continent's politics, because only through its politics will we address the humanitarian problems that cause so much agony to us all. In that, I am realist. I am coldly practical in appreciating what needs to be done. I always try to cut through the emotion, which is why I winced slightly at the intraparty congratulations on the Prime Minister's speech in May. He said:
"I will make Africa a major personal priority"—
it is always personal—
"and a priority for the Labour Government".
My analysis of what is happening leads me to a simple view: soundbites feed headlines; soundbites do not feed babies. We have to confront a serious practical political problem and turn words into action. If the Minister can do that, through the Foreign Office and the power that Britain and our partners have, I assure the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that the applause will be well deserved and I, for one, will join in, no matter who it is who brings about improvement in Africa.
192WH
The hon. Lady was right to concentrate on the Democratic Republic of Congo and put it at the centre of the problem. It most clearly is. A single global statistic shows the plight of that country. The Congo can be lumped together with North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq as the four countries with the highest percentage of undernourished people among their populations. That alone is enough to advertise the challenge that we all face in overcoming the largest problem, which is also the most ignored. Bearing in mind our history, it should be the issue of most concern.
I will do a quick canter through four major headline issues. I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming yesterday's report that the Government and the rebels in the Congo have achieved a major breakthrough in their meeting in Abuja. Representatives of President Joseph Kabila and the two main rebel movements have committed themselves to attend the talks in South Africa in January, and that is a sign of significant progress. We should send the message from this Chamber that we hope that President Kabila will attend. It is clear from events in Afghanistan that the principals need to be present. Representatives will never make as much progress as we need to be make at that meeting.
Zimbabwe is also a concern. Although the debate is not primarily about that country, it is part of the region. The interaction of politics and political influence is crucial to the chemistry of both. The United Nations published a report last month which accused Zimbabwe of prolonging the war in the DRC so that ruling party bosses could plunder the country's reserves of gold, diamonds, timber and coltan. It said that that was President Mugabe's policy. Mugabe rejected the report out of hand. His Foreign Minister said that it was a pack of lies invented by the British, but we had nothing to do with the report, so I do not know where he got that idea.
Will the Minister comment on Zimbabwe and its influence on the Congo? It is clear that almost everything President Mugabe is doing within his country, and to influence countries outside it, is increasingly malign. He is a pariah in and around Zimbabwe. Reports suggest that instability is being bred in Zimbabwe because of instability in the Great Lakes region. It was reported on 19 October, I think, that the DRC was assisting Zimbabwe in circumventing the international arms embargo by buying huge quantities of guns and bullets on its behalf. It will be interesting to hear whether there has there been a breach of the arms embargo.
On the Kimberley process, to what extent does the Minister think that the control of diamonds exports as a source of revenue has collapsed or is in danger of doing so? Perhaps he can comment on that process.
I want to leave as much time as possible for the Minister to respond. He is the expert on this subject and I know that he has been devoting much attention to it. Perhaps he can enlighten the House by giving us the latest information on diamonds, arms, Zimbabwe and the talks, which we hope will lead to a political resolution,
10.36 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I join all hon. Members in sincerely congratulating my hon. Friend the

193WH
Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) both on securing the debate and on the manner in which she spoke. I know that those hon. Members who went on the trip take a real and close interest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the region. I also congratulate the all-party parliamentary group on producing, as the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) generously said, an excellent report. It is a model for Members of Parliament who make such visits because it is accessible and informative and has been followed up, not least by the recent meeting that my hon. Friend and others had with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. In addition, today's debate gives us the chance to follow up the insights and information that were gleaned during the visit. Moreover, our deliberations build on the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) in November last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow spoke with insight and passion. I learned several things from the debate. I did not know about the origin of the artificial distinction between Hutus and Tutsis. It is a terrible warning to us all about the perils more generally of labelling people. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) also spoke with passion. It is important that the sense of outrage, bewilderment and the sheer incomprehensibility of what went on is clung to because it motivates all of us who have an interest in making progress. We need to hold on to that so that we continue to drive forward. At the same time, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is right: practical measures are required to enable that progress to be secured. We have to keep the flame of outrage alive while applying ourselves to making practical progress.
Dr. Tonge: May I correct the Minister by saying that we are talking not about what went on but about what continues to go on?
Hilary Benn: I take that correction in the spirit in which it is offered. I did not mean to imply that the problems are all in the past. They continue. But I was reflecting on the genocide in Rwanda, which was on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that words must be turned into action. He spoke about the need to feed those in the world who go to bed hungry every night, and I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that on one measure, the size of the international aid budget, there has been an improvement. We inherited an annual budget of £2.2 billion when we were elected in 1997, and that figure will rise to £3.6 billion by 2003–04, which is the end of the current spending round.
A 45 per cent. increase in real terms is practical action, and although I am reluctant to bring a party political point into the discussion because the hon. Gentleman almost forswore such points in his contribution and in an intervention, I point out that it is in marked contrast to what happened previously, and the Government should be judged on their actions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to acknowledge the progress that we have been able to
194WH
make. He mentioned Zimbabwe—which I know, Mr. Amess, is not the subject of today's debate. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that Zimbabwe has enough problems of its own making without adding those of the Great Lakes region.
As we have heard, the conflict and instability in the region is probably Africa's most serious problem, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow rightly referred to the failure of politics and of politicians. The wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, indeed, in Burundi—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who is no longer here—spoke with his characteristic knowledge, have thrown both those countries into reverse. Millions of people have died, and most of those who survived have seen their livelihoods ruined and their country's chances of development destroyed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow rightly pointed out, the DRC is potentially a very rich country, which is partly the reason for the exploitation of mineral resources to which she referred. As she said, 60 million people live in a country as large as western Europe. As we know, a much larger area has been dragged into the conflict, resulting in the destabilisation of countries in the region.
The first thing that we all agree on is the need for peace. It is very easy to say that, but in trying to understand how we can make progress, we all recognise that peace is a precondition. As we have acknowledged in other debates, conflict makes it difficult to make progress in achieving all the other developmental objectives that we share. Only with peace can the international community begin to help with the sustained long-term support that is required to deal with poverty in the region.
The prospects for peace are good but uncertain. In the DRC, the Lusaka peace process provides the right framework. In Burundi, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre pointed out, the Arusha peace agreement is beginning to bear fruit with the establishment of the transitional Government, and I pay tribute to Nelson Mandela for his role in that process. However, we must keep up the effort, and here the involvement of the international community is crucial. The UK Government have responded by giving great priority to supporting progress towards a solution to the Great Lakes conflicts.
That is a joint endeavour. The debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham was responded to by one of my colleagues in the Foreign Office, which reflects the joint working between the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. One of the practical expressions of that co-operation is the resources now being made available through the Africa conflict pool, which is, I say to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, another practical measure to join up parts of Government and set up a single funding source to address different parts of the problem.
There is a sustained political and diplomatic effort. I would not want the opportunity of this debate to pass without paying tribute to the sterling efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As all Members will acknowledge, she has made this matter a personal

195WH
priority. As a relatively new Minister in the Department, I can say that she continues to devote a considerable amount of time and personal effort to enabling the peace process to advance. Members will know that she visited the area in August to urge progress in the Lusaka peace process. She has hosted and been personally involved in discussions between the participants. She plans to go to the DRC again in the new year with some of her EU ministerial colleagues. Of course, as hon. Members have mentioned, the Prime Minister has spoken of his concern about the need to find a solution to the conflict. We have also increased the resources available to tackle problems in the area, and I shall return to that.
We are trying to do three things. The first is to raise the profile of the region's problems. I was greatly struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) about the earlier lack of international interest and of demonstrations and protests. That is a terrible indictment of us.
We live in an increasingly small and fragile world, in which we are more interdependent. We understand more now than at any time in our history that what happens in one country ultimately impacts on us all. The Prime Minister's speech and many other things that have taken place in the world in the past couple of months reveal that the world community is, in a stumbling and uncertain way, feeling its way towards an understanding that should such events, particularly the genocide in Rwanda, happen in future, we cannot stand on one side, and I regard that as a positive step. That does not mean that we have solved the problem or that we have a perfect mechanism for deciding when to intervene in every case. Hon. Members have mentioned realpolitik, and in some cases that will create difficulties, but at least we are having a discussion about whether we should intervene.
I have on a previous occasion made an analogy with domestic violence. Thirty years ago, the police would have been called to a household where a man was beating up his wife or partner, and they would have said that they could not intervene because the situation was domestic and internal to the family. Now, attitudes have been utterly revolutionised, and the police have a completely different approach. We can liken that to the way in which the international community regards what would in the past have been seen as civil wars within the borders of a particular country in which they could not intervene. That is progress. We have not completed the process, and it will be messy, but at least we are moving in the right direction. Raising the profile of the problem so that the world pays more attention to what is happening in the DRC is a worthy objective in itself. The work of the all-party group and this debate contribute to that process, and I congratulate all those involved.
The second priority is to work closely with our international partners, particularly, Belgium, France and the United States, because collaboration is key to ensuring that the Lusaka agreement is fully implemented. Thirdly, we must keep up pressure on the parties to keep to the Lusaka agreement to which they signed up. Again, that is simple to say, but if people have signed an agreement that requires them to do various things, we need constantly to remind them that they have accepted those obligations and must fulfil them. That means that there must be progress on the elements of the agreement, and I turn briefly to each of those.
196WH
The first is the disengagement of forces. The Lusaka accord called for the immediate withdrawal of all the foreign forces based in the DRC. There has been some progress, but not as much as we would like. It is necessary to remind all the countries involved that they should comply with the provisions of the agreement.
Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, have referred to the size of the MONUC force. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is agreement in principle to increase the size of MONUC when all the foreign forces have been withdrawn. It is important to recognise that MONUC is there to oversee the peace process as it develops but not to enforce it; only the parties to the agreement can enforce the peace process on themselves. Only this week, the Secretary of State discussed this subject with a representation of the UN peacekeeping organisation. We would like MONUC to move faster into the east of the country to continue the good work that it has been doing in extremely challenging circumstances.
The second is DDRRR. I was grateful for the reminder of definitions in the useful report, which has a good index and guide to acronyms whose meaning we can easily forget because there are far too many of them, both generally and in the field of international development. The United Kingdom recognises the importance of moving forward on DDRRR. We are supportive of the establishment of all-encompassing DDRRR programmes led by the United Nations and the World Bank. We recognise the need in the interim for quick-start programmes so that, when opportunities arise, we can ensure that capacity exists to respond to combatants who, in the end, must want to disarm.
Again, it comes back to the participants in the fight; they have got to want DDRRR to happen. We can encourage and support them but, in the end, we cannot make people do things against their will: they must come from within. We have resources immediately available to commit to DDRRR in the DRC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a public commitment to support DDRRR in the region. Officials from the Department attended a World Bank meeting in Kampala last week to discuss setting up a regional fund for that purpose. The UN operation is effective and we are ready to help with bilateral assistance to enable forces to make further progress in the east of the country.
The inter-Congolese dialogue is clearly an essential element in securing a lasting peace in the DRC. After a promising meeting in Gaborone, there was a disappointing meeting in Addis Ababa, followed by the breakthrough to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred. We are hopeful that progress will be made when the dialogue resumes in South Africa early next year. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked about support for the dialogue. The UK is now one of the three largest contributors. We have contributed £500,000 to date and will actively consider further requests.
The issue of humanitarian support was raised in our debate. The humanitarian consequences are desperate and our humanitarian budget is spent where there is the greatest need. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park and others have said, some of the worst development and humanitarian indicators in the world are to be found in the DRC. The humanitarian situation remains

197WH
dire, although there have been few ceasefire violations. Access for non-governmental organisations working in the DRC has improved, but a recent UN report estimates that 2 million people have been displaced in the DRC by the conflict, and 16 million do not have secure access to supplies of food. Additionally, 2.5 million people have lost their lives in the country since the conflict began in 1996, which is an extraordinarily high number; there has been great human suffering.
Last year, the UK gave £3.3 million in humanitarian assistance to the DRC. Words should be matched by action, and this year that figure will be doubled. In addition, the UK contributes about a fifth of the European Union's humanitarian budget which, in 2001, will be 35 million euros. In effect, therefore, the total UK contribution is about £7 million plus 7 million euros. It is worth pointing out that EU support is increasing sharply. Last year, the contribution was only 7 million euros, but it will be 35 million euros this year—evidence of words being backed by practical action.
The UK provides humanitarian assistance through well established NGOs and assistance to the facilitator of the national dialogue. Our assistance focuses on health and nutrition; work with refugees; child soldiers and other vulnerable groups; food security; prison monitoring; and human rights work. To ensure that our support is fairly distributed throughout the DRC, which is not under the control of one authority, £4 million of this year's emergency humanitarian support is going to the Red Cross. In the circumstances, it is important that we are not seen to favour one participant in the dispute and conflict in the country. We are also developing a range of peace-building initiatives, such as projects to bring together different ethnic communities, and are providing information about the peace process to the Congolese population. For example, we are providing support for a radio infrastructure in the DRC so that people can hear about what is happening. It is important that the people at whom all the activity is directed should learn more about the progress of the peace process.
In Burundi, we are supporting the Arusha process—in particular by helping to support the South African-led protection force for returning politicians. We have provided £100,000 for the latest round of talks, bringing our total to just over £0.3 million. We have also
198WH
provided £50,000 for a project promoting political dialogue between the parties in Burundi. We are also supporting a major new programme in Burundi to tackle HIV/AIDS. Again, words are supported by practical action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow spoke with generosity and understanding about the problems that Rwanda is facing, given its history. It is one of the most traumatised societies, if not the most traumatised society, in Africa. We are the leading bilateral donor in Rwanda and are committed to offering it support because we think that it needs that to make progress on poverty reduction, meeting international development targets, security, reconciliation, economic growth and inclusive government. We have provided substantial support, although I know that some people say that, in the context of the region, it appears a bit unbalanced. However, given their history, the Rwandan Government—and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is passionate about this—need all that practical help to try to make progress on establishing a safe and secure country for their people. Progress continues to be good in Rwanda which, in some ways, is becoming a developmental model for the region. The need for humanitarian assistance has decreased partly as a result of our support, but principally because the efforts of the Rwandan Government and their people are helping the country to get back on its feet.
We have had an excellent debate. These issues need to be aired, and the fact that an hour and a half of Westminster Hall time has been given to them is a modest contribution both to raising the profile of the DRC's problems and keeping the flame of interest burning. Resolving the humanitarian crisis and the conflict in the Great Lakes is a priority for the UK Government. I hope that the steps that we are taking are evidence of that. While the conflict continues, we will provide urgent humanitarian support to the best of our ability, but only when peace comes in the region will we get the chance to assist with the development needed for a secure, stable, prosperous DRC. I have spoken about the country's enormous potential and mineral wealth, and there is no doubt that a strong and thriving DRC could emerge from the war if its potential can be tapped. It is therefore important to take the opportunity to ensure that the peace process in Burundi holds and to make further progress on securing peace for the long-term, lasting benefit of the DRC.

Individual Learning Accounts
10.59 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a debate on lifelong learning, following the closure of individual learning accounts. The subject is important to many people, including the students who were able to use the scheme until the Government suddenly cancelled it. Many of them were elderly, from ethnic minorities, unemployed or people who had missed out in one way or another on the chance for an education and who were seeking to do something about it. They suddenly found that the courses that they had hoped to do were denied to them.
The subject is also important to the training providers, who had done what the Government asked and set up community-based schemes to deliver to people from all groups the benefits of access to computer technology, only to find that the Government suddenly closed down the ILA scheme. The subject is of equal importance to all taxpayers, as there are indications that tens of millions of pounds of public money may have been wasted and that there may have been widespread fraud.
I shall quickly summarise the points that have led to the present position. After two years of pilot programmes and transitional arrangements, the Government introduced the individual learning account scheme in September 2000. Under the scheme, the Government offered £150 to help adults who were seeking training. The Government awarded a £50 million contract to Capita plc to run the scheme through the ILA agency. There were warnings even before the scheme started that the scheme as proposed was flawed and would be likely to lead to abuse.
There were many such warnings, perhaps most notably from Mr. James O'Brien of Pitman Training Group, one of the UK's leading training providers, who wrote to the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 20 September last year, before the scheme was launched. In his letter Mr. O'Brien stated:
"We have expressed our concern both to DfEE officials and to Capita plc that there was insufficient detail in the rules of the initiative. As a responsible training provider we worried that this lack of detail left the scheme open to abuse, which would not be helpful to either the initiative itself or the majority of the training sector."
The Government then introduced a cap on the value of the training at 80 per cent. of the first £250 of eligible training in any one year, although that did not seem to do much to stop the abuses that were going on.
There were repeated stories in the press about abuse of the scheme—in the News of the World, The Mirror and the regional press. None the less, the Government continued to trumpet the scheme as a success. At the time, according to the Government, there were signs neither of a huge fraud, nor of such a massive increase in the take-up that the scheme required a rethink.
On 20 July, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), issued a statement under the exciting headline "Individual Learning Accounts to continue into new era", which began:
"Adult skills minister John Healey today confirmed details of how the successful introduction of Individual Learning Accounts over the last year will be followed up."
200WH
I see the Minister smiling; I do not know how many times he has heard that quote. It does not seem consistent with what happened next.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend know that one of my constituents was summoned to a focus group meeting at the Department on 25 July, and at that meeting told Department officials what scams were occurring? Since then, nothing seems to have been done about his specific complaints.
Mr. Bacon: I did not know about my hon. Friend's constituent, although it does not surprise me that the Government invited the constituent to a focus group meeting. We all know the Government's great fondness for focus groups. It does not surprise me that my hon. Friend's constituent explained to the Department that scams were going on. As I mentioned, people were doing that even before the launch of the scheme.
The scheme which the Minister described on 20 July as leaping and bounding towards the future, and which was described by the Secretary of State on 24 October as a "great success", was to be suspended from 7 December. The reason, she said, was that
"the rapid growth of the programme has exceeded all expectations, causing us to think again about how best to target public funds in this area and secure value for money."
The Secretary of State also mentioned her concerns
"about the way some ILAs have been promoted and sold."
She stated:
"There is growing evidence that some companies are abusing the scheme by offering low value, poor quality learning."
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) may be reassured to learn that the notion that something was amiss was starting to percolate, although the Secretary of State said no more than that some people were abusing the scheme and offering low value, poor quality learning. The possibility that they were offering no learning at all, but removing the funds from the individual learning accounts before the people whose accounts they were had the chance to use them, was not mentioned.
The Secretary of State continued by saying that in order
"to protect the interests of individual learners"
she had
"decided to prevent any further take-up of ILAs",
although learning begun by existing account holders would continue to be supported, provided it was booked by 7 December. The Secretary of State assured learning providers and account holders that
"the decision to end the programme has not been made lightly"—
a fairly terminal sentence which caused many training providers who had invested in the scheme a great deal of concern.
The scheme was thus closed to new applicants. That was an astonishing turn-about, considering what the Minister had been saying only in July and compared with three months previously, when it had seemed to be all systems go. However, the scheme did not close on 7 December, as the Secretary of State had announced. Suddenly, on 23 November, the Department put out an announcement that it had called in the police to

201WH
investigate fraud and theft involving individual learning accounts, and that the ILA programme was to be suspended immediately, two weeks earlier than had been announced.
One of the key questions which remains unanswered, to which I hope the Minister will provide an answer today, is what new evidence emerged to justify the sudden change. If the fraud was on a fairly small scale, as we had been led to believe, why did not the Government deal with it and let the rest of the scheme go on intact?
I shall examine the effect of the sequence of events that I described on the various groups involved—first, the students whom the scheme was designed to benefit. I have a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Marion Ford, of Harleston in South Norfolk. Mrs. Ford applied for and was eventually sent a card with a membership number. On receiving the card, she immediately went to a local computer training firm in Harleston, only to be told via the ILA centre in Darlington that there were no longer any funds in her account.
As Mrs. Ford wrote to me,
"Apparently, someone had registered me on Tuesday 13th November, but I only received my card on Wednesday 14th November".
Mrs. Ford had been registered by a different computer firm for a course that she did not know about. Her letter continued:
"How did they get my name? How did they know I wanted to do a course? How many details of me have they got, without my knowledge?"
The case of Mr. Philip Geggie, which has been brought to my attention, shows that even meeting the Government's new deadline did not necessarily help. Mr. Geggie applied for an ILA account before applications were shut down, but his ILA number took several weeks to arrive. After the number finally arrived, Mr. Geggie applied for and paid for his software on 19 November, four days before what became the new deadline, 23 November, only to find that the ILA centre was denying his training provider, Carrerra's, access to the Darlington computer; so he could not be registered, although the Department had said that it would honour only those who were registered.
In an e-mail to Mr. Nick Parry, an official in the workplace learning division of the Department for Education and Skills, Mr. Geggie wrote:
"What you should be doing is to honour those people who are in the system and who have been in the system from prior to 7th December and penalise those who are abusing the system."
Mr. Parry replied:
"There has been some comment that ILAs could have continued if we had taken action to remove from the scheme those learning providers who were abusing it. You can be assured that if there had been a reliable way of doing this immediately, this action would have been taken."
That prompts the question of why the Department did not listen to the advice that it was given in the first place about ensuring that learning providers had approval first, before they undertook training. We have a right to ask what will happen to the good people who have done nothing wrong and who have been denied training, simply because of the failure of the Government to promote a robust scheme.
202WH
I had another letter from a Mr. Granville Powell, a constituent of mine from Wortwell in south Norfolk. Mr. Powell signed up for a course at the Suffolk Learning and Resources centre, just over the county border in Bungay, Suffolk. He had already done two computer courses and wanted to study for the European computer driving licence, as he had decided that it would probably help him to get a job. On receiving a letter telling him about the 7 December deadline, Mr. Powell rushed to sign up quickly, only to be told that all funding had been stopped anyway by the ILA centre in Darlington. He writes that he knew about the alleged fraud from the newspapers. However, as he eloquently puts it:
"Why should the excellent teaching people at the brilliant Bungay Resources Centre be punished because not enough checks were put in place from the start?"
That brings me to the second group of people who are affected by this fiasco: the training providers. Pitman Training Group states in its document responding to the suspension of the ILA scheme that it had expressed its concerns to Ministers and officials on several occasions, since before the launch of the programme. It states:
"Without minimum standards, anyone has been able to set up business as a 'training provider' with the consequences that have become so apparent over the past few months".
My own view is that it is just about understandable that Ministers might seek to take a light-touch approach to potential students. That is arguable. One could also argue that the lack of any completion thresholds for students, and the tying of at least part of the payment to the learning provider to such thresholds, has made it much easier for unscrupulous operators to take the money without showing any care whatever for the individual's learning experience.
Indeed, Pitman Training Group advances precisely that argument in its response document. Whether or not one agrees with such a view, one can at least see that there is an argument to be put for a light-touch regulation for customers, especially as they may lack confidence because of negative experiences with more formal education or training, or may wrongly feel that it is too late in life for them to learn to use new technology. That is at least an argument to be advanced, but I find it utterly incomprehensible that one would apply such a light-touch regulation or criterion—perhaps the best description would be a no-touch criterion—to the providers of the learning. Such an approach has two very predictable effects, both of which are bad. First, it guarantees that the quick-buck merchants, who have absolutely no concern for the students and are interested only in taking the money, will come steaming in for the kill. At best, students will get from such people a pathetically inadequate course consisting of one booklet that they could have bought for five or 10 quid anyway. At worst, their individual learning account numbers may be stolen. Secondly, many good training providers who are genuinely working to respond to Government policy are tarred with the same brush as the bad ones, which is quite wrong.
I shall mention some of the allegations that have been flying around. I do not know whether they are true; it is for the Minister to reassure us that they are not correct or to confirm the situation if they are. It has been suggested that at least one training provider was doing

203WH
business of more than £1 million a week. Under the new £200 scheme rules, a provider would have to find 5,000 students each week—the equivalent of a small university—to generate such business. If that has been happening, one wonders what the paymaster in the Department was doing when he saw £200 going out of the door in one direction, £20,000 in another direction and more than £1 million in a third. Perhaps he did not know that that was happening, because it was all done by computer and nobody did anything but press buttons until it was too late.
Another allegation has been made by a banker who spotted an account that was set up in July and into which more than £2 million had since been paid. Apparently, that money came purely from the ILA scheme and there was no other source of income—not even the 20 per cent. of funds that one would have expected from the student contribution. It is alleged that, after the £2 million had dribbled in, the account holder requested that the sum be transferred to an offshore account. I have even heard it suggested that one dubious provider alone may have been responsible for busting the Department's budget, in so far as it appeared to have any budget or limit at all. Perhaps most horrible of all, is it possible that some of these tricksters kept just within the strict letter of the law, so that no action is possible against them?
Training providers have told me that they were approached by individuals attempting to buy large numbers of completed application forms. I assume that that was against the law. God help the Department if it managed to create a scheme in which even that was permissible.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Jane Davidson of the Welsh Assembly noted that the Assembly foresaw at an early stage that ILAs would need to be closely managed to ensure that there was minimal opportunity for fraud. How can it be that the Welsh Assembly saw the potential for fraud, but the Department for Education and Skills did not?
Mr. Bacon: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is extraordinary that the Welsh Assembly, reputable training organisations such as Pitman Training Group, the press and even the Office of the e-Envoy, whose annual report, published a few days ago, refers to the need to look out for the potential for computer fraud and to provide safeguards against it, could see the problem and the need for safeguards, while the Department could not. Everybody—the world and its brother—could see that need. Indeed, I understand that the structuring of the scheme in Wales has been so successful that there has been no abuse and that it runs to this day. It is extraordinary that all the parties to which I have referred could recognise the threat—and where possible, as in Wales, do something about it—but that the Department could not. I share my hon. Friend's astonishment at that.
I referred to the scam in which completed application forms were being bought. It appears to have worked in the following way. Scammers—if I may call them that—sought to buy for £40 each completed application forms bearing the name and address of the student. When scammers succeeded in obtaining forms, they would copy the names and addresses on to their own database.
204WH
They would then send the forms to the ILA centre at Darlington. Three days later, they would know that, all other things being equal, the ILA centre computer would have generated an ILA account number. They might then have hacked into the ILA computer—assuming that there is no truth in the rumour that someone on the inside looked at the computer because they were already inside the premises—and obtained the ILA number using the name and address. They would then have put the number through one of the companies that they had set up. At that point, the student would still be waiting for an ILA number to arrive in the post, but the funds would already have gone. That would certainly explain how the funds of my constituent, Mrs. Ford, were used up the day before she even received her ILA account number.
There have been so many examples in which funds appear to have gone before clients received their account numbers—in some cases, fake registration occurred as much as one month before—that there appears to be something in the allegations. As I said, it has even been suggested that there may have been corruption among individuals inside the ILA centre, which is run by Capita. That is a most serious charge that deserves to be examined at once, so that the position can be made clear.
I look to the Minister to refute these allegations or to tell us what has been going on if there is any truth in any of them. The point is that the genuine trainers have had their good names besmirched by a breed of rogue providers.
Mr. Paul Goodman: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that bona fide operators such as my constituent Stephen Good have been left in an impossible situation? Inter alia, Mr. Good writes:
"Should we, or should we not, continue to retain our employees? If so for how long can we continue to pay them when all payment due from DfES has been indefinitely suspended and monies properly due for payment to us remain overdue and unpaid?"
Mr. Bacon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I spoke to another training provider who asked precisely the same question about whether he should hold on to his employees. He was a computer manufacturer who had branched out into training because he saw that it was a good fit in terms of his business. His employees are relatively lucky, as there is at least a possibility that he will be able to retain them. That is not the case with all the providers. Even the business man to whom I referred said that he wanted clarity above all. He wanted clear information about what would and would not happen so that he could begin to make decisions. I am sure that the same is true of my hon. Friend's constituent in Wycombe.
Genuine providers have been besmirched by rogue traders. The real providers are varied and include big and small businesses. Mr. Neil Avery, who is part of the Hairnet computer training network, wrote to me from Taverham, near Norwich. Since January, he has trained 33 people who have opened ILAs in the Norfolk area. His success stories include a 21-year-old hospital cleaner from Norwich who wanted to improve her employment prospects, a disabled elderly lady from Norwich who can now keep in touch with her extended family through e-mails and the internet, and, I am reliably informed, a

205WH
Norfolk county councillor who can better serve the community because she can now use computer technology.
The Internet Exchange was founded in 1994. It runs 38 stores throughout the country, from Glasgow to Southampton; from Cardiff and Bristol to Cambridge, as well as in London, where the company is concentrated. Many of the stores, especially in London, are in deprived areas. Indeed, of the 34 stores in England, 25 are located in wards that feature on the Department's list of the 2,000 most deprived English wards.
The Internet Exchange has invested in training and worked with organisations such as the British Computer Society and the Training Standards Council to ensure that its training is of the highest quality. It has a diverse customer base: 51 per cent. female, 49 per cent. male, 45 per cent. ethnic minorities, 15 per cent. lone parents, and 35 per cent. unemployed or looking for work.
Hon. Members may hear more this afternoon about Henley Community Online at a meeting in Portcullis house. It is a not-for-profit company that offers computer and internet access. Two hundred and twenty people currently participate in its courses. Like the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), the people who run Henley Community Online are worried about what will happen to them and their employees.
Carrerra's is part of the Digital Network group, which is based in the west midlands. Between 40 and 50 per cent. of its customers are either disabled, elderly or unable to train during the day. It has taken on an extra 40 staff and invested in training them in software at a new training centre, so that customers can have a high quality training experience.
All those people were doing the right thing; they were doing what the Government asked of them. The Government owe them tens—in some cases, hundreds—of thousands of pounds. What will happen to them? Will they go to the wall because the Government did not have the common sense to get rid of the rogue providers at the beginning? Must they put their staff on the streets and thus add to the Government's unemployment bill? Will they get the money that they are owed? Will a new Government scheme emerge? If so, when? In a nutshell, what steps are the Government planning to restore confidence in the training sector? We look to the Minister for clear, specific answers.
The Government have created an environment in which the genuine training providers distrust them, and the most vulnerable customers—those whom the Government are trying to help—are scared off by stories of rogue providers. Mr. James Golfar of the Internet Exchange wrote in his response to the closure of the ILA scheme that the Department's explanation to clients of the scheme's operation was poor. Many were unaware that the cards were issued by the Department, not learning providers. They thus wrongly blamed the learning providers for problems in their application process. Some, especially those for whom barriers to learning were high, became confused and disheartened as their applications were lost or rejected unfairly, or
206WH
when unscrupulous providers took advantage of them. Yet the scheme was designed to help those people above all.
The Minister and his colleagues should not underestimate the good will and trust that have been destroyed by the debacle. I hope that the Minister realises that the Government face a crisis of confidence among legitimate, community-based training providers and that warm words will not be enough. We need specific proposals from the Minister about the steps that he plans to take. The Government should be in no doubt that there is precious little hope of helping the most vulnerable people if they do not restore confidence among those who can do the most to help, namely, the legitimate training providers.
I must mention the taxpayer's plight. I am grateful to the Minister's office for supplying me with the figures yesterday. However, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I cannot say that they are pleasing. I have written to Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and to the Chairman of the PAC, asking for ILAs to be examined urgently.
According to the figures that the Minister supplied me with yesterday, the Department budgeted £202.1 million for the ILA scheme over the two years 2000–01 and 2001–02. That includes the Department's budget allocations and £115.1 million which has been recycled from training and enterprise council resources. Department records show that expenditure on the programme in 2000–01 and 2001–02 to 23 November totalled £260.9 million. That is an overspend of £58.8 million up to that point.
The Minister said in his communication to me that significant payments are due for claims that learning providers have already made, and for committed expenditure for learning that providers on the ILA centre system booked before it was shut down on 23 November. He also stated that the police investigation into abuse and fraud means that access to the ILA centre system is not available and it is therefore not possible to estimate the additional financial commitment. That is a scary remark.
The Government know about an overspend of approximately £60 million so far but do not know how much more is to come. They have ignored the warnings of experienced professionals before and since the scheme was launched. They have also ignored many warnings in the press, and lost the trust of the genuine training providers without whom they have no chance of achieving their goals. They have been reckless with taxpayers' money and the people who suffer most are ironically those whom the Government most want to help.
The Government have a lot of answering to do. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
11.27 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: The figures that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) presented in his excellent speech give the lie to the suggestion that we are simply considering fraud. The Government have realised late in the day that they will not be able to balance their books. Whom do they blame? As always, the answer is: the ILA holders and the genuine learning providers. Whatever scams have

207WH
existed, they do not justify the Government breaking their contracts with ILA holders and providers, who have set up in business believing that they were part of a genuine scheme.
Like my hon. Friend, I have received several letters and visits to my constituency surgery from people who are adversely affected. Many people who are in genuine need have become ILA holders and find themselves in the soup. I have a letter, of which the Minister has a copy, from a lady in New Milton. It was copied to me because her tutor, Mr. Edwards, lives in my constituency. She used the ILA scheme to enable her to receive individual tuition at home on her computer. If she went on a course, she would be unable to get access to a computer with the magnification programme LunarPlus. She had the programme at home, and it meant that if Mr. Edwards or one of the other tutors went to her home, she could benefit from it.
The lady is a registered blind person, and she found the prospect of being able to get training enormously valuable. She signed up for her account and was sent a registration card. Her contribution was £50, but after she had received the first two lessons, the tutor was told that all funding had been cancelled, even though the scheme was only due to last until early December.
Will the Minister say what will happen in Mrs. Buckingham's case? Will she be given recompense for the money that she invested in the course as her contribution towards it? Will alternative provision be made available for her? What will happen to Mr. Edwards, her tutor, who took on the teaching commitment but is now being denied the funding initially promised by the Government?
I have passed on to the ombudsman another letter that I have received from a constituent. I suspect that the impact of the ILA scam, and the Government's massive maladministration of the scheme, will rival that of the Railtrack affair, and that it will make the Government even more unpopular than they are already.
With Railtrack, the Government took the view that, because matters were not working out to their satisfaction, they would penalise innocent shareholders and then say that they were fools to become shareholders in the first place. The Government seem to be applying the same principle to people who invested in becoming learning providers under the scheme, or who took out ILA accounts. The Government seem to be saying, "We can't guarantee to pay you anything now because there were a lot of fraudsters around." That cannot justify the course of action on which the Government are embarking.
My constituent Mr. Foskett wrote to me on 27 November, and his letter was copied to the chief executive of the ILA centre. He stated:
"As an unemployed person with a small income and no subsequent support from the state, I was in the final throws of selecting an education provider to improve my skill base when I read on your web site that you have suspended all ILA accounts 2 weeks early!!"
Mr. Foskett is an unemployed person who wants to gain access to lifelong learning. What will happen to him? I hope that the Minister will tell us when he responds to the debate. Will Mr. Foskett be able to use his ILA account in some other way? Will he get compensation? He is unemployed and cannot wait a long time, as he wants to improve his skill set so that he can get a job.
208WH
About a fortnight ago, I submitted a series of written questions to the Minister. The convention is that a Minister, knowing that a debate such as this is coming up, will answer as many outstanding questions as possible. However, there seems to be a clampdown on answering questions. I suspect that it is only the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is a member of the Public Accounts Committee that allowed him to gain access to some of the relevant information.
Mr. Bacon: I ought to make it clear that I am grateful to the Minister, as his office sent me the figures that I quoted in the debate.
Mr. Chope: I am glad that the Minister and his staff are ingratiating themselves with a distinguished member of the PAC. I am sure that those responsible for the mess will need lots of help in the future when they are cross-examined by that Committee.
The figures made available to my hon. Friend yesterday are breathtaking, but similar figures must have been available four or six weeks ago. They must have been available when the Government announced that the scheme would be ended on 7 December, and when they decided to curtail it two weeks earlier than that.
I hope that the Minister will deal also with the position of large providers of learning. The Future Open Learning college in my constituency has about 283 account holders on its books. Because the computer system has been closed down, it has been unable to find out the number of accounts for which it will be paid. Some of the people registered with the college discovered that their account numbers had already been taken by other people—a problem referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. The college had to lay staff off, because its management was not so foolish as to believe that the Government would meet their legal commitments.
The college is entitled to be paid. The people who run it want to know when the payments that have been curtailed will be resumed. I hope that the Minister will assure all learning providers that the weekly payments to which they were entitled, and which were suspended on 23 November, will be reinstated without delay.
The Department for Education and Skills is under a legal obligation to reinstate the payments. If the Minister does not do something about it, more and more cases will be referred to the ombudsman, to whom I advise my hon. Friends and others to send the cases about which they come to know. Only when he has seen those cases will the ombudsman be able to rule on this appalling episode of maladministration.
11.35 am
Angela Watkinson: No one would disagree that the idea of individual learning accounts was a good one, or deny that it was begun with good intentions. In May 1994, the then Conservative Government's White Paper on competitiveness contained a similar scheme, and a series of pilot schemes were introduced.
The intention was to reach people who would not normally access education beyond school age. Those people included those with low skill levels, those living

209WH
in areas of skill shortage, or people in small firms who found it hard to provide staff development schemes. The scheme was also intended to reach women returners—women whose children had just started school and who were therefore able to access education for the first time in many years because they had part of the day free.
The pilot schemes showed that the scheme was administratively complex, and that it was ineffective in reaching the groups for which it was intended. In fact, it often subsidised existing educational activity and was being accessed by people who already had good qualifications. I wonder whether the Government examined the lessons to be learned from the 1994 scheme, as some of the same problems have been encountered this time. Some of the same conclusions apply, too, although fraud was not evident in 1994.
In 1999, the evaluation of the 1994 schemes found that they were resource intensive. Although those schemes could have been examined and improved, the ILA scheme unfortunately turned out to be so lacking in detail that it was open to computer fraud. It was also open to theft: people on street corners sold ILA accounts to unsuspecting and innocent people, who thereby lost their entitlement to the scheme and were therefore unable to take advantage of it. Moreover, the fact that the website was not registered left it open to other advertisers to take advantage of the scheme.
Many people who wanted to take advantage of an ILA account have been sold schemes that were of poor quality or which did not even exist. They have therefore lost their entitlement. Many genuine providers, and especially the small ones, have been left in an extremely difficult position, as we have heard. They do not know whether to keep their staff, or whether it will be possible to resurrect the scheme in some way.
The investigation is under way, and we do not know how long it will take. In the meantime, I am sure that compensation claims will be submitted by firms that in good faith set up training courses and learning schemes for people with ILA accounts. Now that the accounts have come to an abrupt end, those firms have no idea how they are going to continue. Moreover, I understand that the firms were not consulted about the closure of the programme, and that they were given no warning; they have therefore been left high and dry.
I am sure that, like me, most other hon. Members will have received letters from constituents who were offered schemes and who pursued them in good faith, even though the schemes might not always have been in the right place or at the right times for them to access them. People who took up the scheme hoped to pick up some of the higher education that they had not been able to take advantage of before. However, many found that the scheme was available only in the neighbouring town, or that they could not reach it because there was no public transport, or that it was being held at an inconvenient time of day. When they eventually found something that they could take advantage of, the scheme had been suspended.
What is to happen to existing students, who might be in the first stage of a training course or qualification? What will happen to those students, even if they are able to complete the part of the qualification in which they
210WH
are currently involved? If that does not bring them to the end of their course or training, will they be able to access the next stage? Are we going to have to find new providers? Will there be a rescue scheme for those genuine providers who have been left high and dry by those who have fraudulently brought the scheme to an abrupt halt?
As yet, the total cost of the scheme to the taxpayer is unknown. Enormous costs have been incurred in contacting ILA holders, advertising the scheme and setting up the providers and in advertising in the national newspapers to announce that the scheme had come to an abrupt end.
I have been looking at some statistics on the scheme's users, and on the number of accounts opened and the number being used. The number of accounts opened appears to be double the number being operated. I may have misunderstood that, but on first examination it looks as though twice as many accounts have been opened as are being used; perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
The fact that the original target of 1 million users burgeoned to 2.5 million justifies the scheme and shows how popular it could be, if only it were run successfully. I understand, however, that targeting has been patchy, in terms of the sort of student that the scheme has attracted. Many types of account have lain dormant, while many other ILA learners already have higher education qualifications. Such people were not intended to be a target group for the scheme, or to be the beneficiaries of further subsidised schemes; the intended target group was the many people who have either no qualifications or low skills.
Employers with few staff may not be able to operate extensive staff development schemes and would be ideal participants in ILAs. Larger firms, however, may have been using the scheme as an alternative to staff development schemes that could and should be operated within their own businesses.
We should have had far tighter controls over eligibility for learners and for firms whose staff were accessing ILA schemes. There should also have been far tighter and more detailed control over those providers who have let the scheme down. As yet, we have no idea what the total cost will be, in terms of set-up costs, operating costs, closing-down costs and any compensation that might have to be paid to legitimate providers who have had to curtail their operations unexpectedly and who are uncertain whether to keep on their training staff.
If the eligibility criteria for students, the bona fides of providers and the security of computer programmes through which the public access information about ILAs were tightened up, the scheme could be resurrected. As larger numbers than anticipated wanted to take out ILAs, the total tax commitment was far higher than had been envisaged. If the total tax commitment per annum were stated so that people's expectations were not raised beyond the point at which they could be realised, the phoenix could rise from the ashes of this debacle, and we could have a successful scheme.
11.44 am
Paul Holmes: Lifelong learning is about three important things: addressing the needs of those who have been failed by the school system, equipping the workers that society and the economy need and allowing individuals to enrich their personal knowledge. Lifelong learning must, above all, bring adults who lack basic skills and qualifications back into a learning environment, on which the ILA system was supposed to be targeted.
A system of individual learning accounts based on the original Liberal Democrat proposals, rather than the version launched by the Government, would have provided good foundations for lifelong learning. Our ILAs would have allowed everyone access to an account from birth. They would have allowed parents, individuals, employers and the Government to contribute to an ILA throughout a person's lifetime, and allowed that individual to access their account to pay for any of their learning requirements.
The Liberal Democrats did, and still do, support the concept of ILAs, and the Government's mismanagement and scrapping of the scheme is serious because it undermines the very credibility of the system. The rapid dissolution of the ILA scheme has left large numbers of participants and providers disillusioned, confused and concerned. While people watch their businesses collapse around them, the Government remain almost silent about what they can offer those who have been caught up in this terrible mess.
I say "almost silent" because when I asked the Minister at the Select Committee on Education and Skills on 28 November whether any compensation would be available for the legitimate businesses that had invested huge amounts of time and money to make the scheme a success—some of which now face ruin—his answer was no. I then wrote, on the afternoon of 28 November, to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, to clarify that issue and others. I am still waiting for an answer.
The Government's handling of ILAs has been a shambles. They set up a scheme with serious loopholes, allowing—it would appear—considerable fraud to take place, although Scotland and Wales appear to have managed the system better. The Government announced that they would terminate the scheme with effect from 7 December, but at 6.30 on a Friday evening they announced that they were going to close it two weeks early, with immediate effect.
On 24 October, the Secretary of State said that the ILA programme was to be suspended, as it had
"exceeded Government expectations and has quickly expanded beyond its capacity."
There was a footnote to that press release about concerns that some companies were providing poor value for money. Yet on 28 November the Under-Secretary of State told the Select Committee meeting that it was all to do with fraud, and not with exceeding capacity. He gave the Select Committee some figures on the cost of the scheme, and I was interested to hear the figures that the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) had obtained from the Department yesterday, because they are considerably larger than the ones that the Select Committee was given less than two weeks ago, on 28 November.
212WH
On 28 November, the Under-Secretary of State told the Select Committee that the ILA budget, which had been £56 million, had gone up to £71 million, but that that had been exceeded, although the Government had no idea by how much. The Under-Secretary could not even tell the Select Committee when the scheme, or a replacement for it, would be reintroduced, leaving all the providers and individual learners in limbo.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills told Parliament on 6 November that the police had charged four providers and 30 individuals with fraud. The Under-Secretary told the Select Committee on 28 November that
"sustained and serious allegations of theft"
in County Durham justified the early closure of the scheme. Yet, according to The Times Educational Supplement last Friday—just five days ago—Durham police, when contacted, said that no criminal investigation was being conducted on their patch. The Department for Education and Skills spokesman has also had to correct the Secretary of State's statement to Parliament on 6 November, saying that she had been mistaken in telling Parliament that charges had been brought, as none had. It seems that the Government have not had a clue what they are doing from the beginning to the end of this scheme.
Apart from the taxpayers, the people being hurt by this are the legitimate companies and the legitimate users of the ILA scheme. As a member of the Select Committee, I have received representations from individuals and companies all over the country, but one from my constituency of Chesterfield is typical of all of them. Critical Skills for Excellence is a reputable firm based in a state-of-the-art, high-tech innovation centre in Chesterfield. It wrote to me last week to say:
"As a reputable training provider, we have been totally committed to the training development and encouragement of local people to enable them to develop their full potential. Our area, as you are more than aware, has been hit hard over the past few years by the decline in the steel, mining and manufacturing industries.
We have worked hard to encourage learning and addressing the skill deficiencies in our area, offering knowledge, skills and recognised qualifications that are of the highest quality, cost effective, timely and affordable.
We are devastated and embarrassed for the loss incurred by each learner and potential learner, who has suffered as a result of the decision made by the department for Education and Skills."
The firm sent me a petition, and the details of nearly 200 individual learners who had been badly affected by the decision.
The letter went on:
"Whilst we appreciate that it is to protect individual learners who are putting their own money alongside the Government's contribution, the fact that there were substantial loop holes in the system in the first instance to allow fraud to happen is not good enough and to add insult to injury the 'plug is pulled' on reputable centres with students eager to learn and fill gaps both locally and nationally. As regular taxpayers we (the providers and the students) hold the government responsible for ensuring that our money is invested wisely and accounted for, this has not happened in this instance."
Following the collapse of the ILAs, we must ask what the Government will do to widen participation in adult education in the future—a question to which they could give no answer on 28 November. If the Government implemented the scheme that they said they would

213WH
investigate in the pre-Budget report, we would welcome level 2 entitlement as a step towards reducing the unacceptably high number of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills. The Government should go further, however, and extend the entitlement to level 3 qualifications. The Liberal Democrats have proposed that in the past. Why the Government could not have done it previously, when it was recommended by their own national skills taskforce or when we raised the idea, is beyond us.
What was the motivation behind the Government's change of heart? The Treasury view is summed up in the title of a chapter in the pre-Budget statement: "Meeting the productivity challenge". We infer from that that the Government see lifelong learning skills purely in terms of producing an army of technocrats ready to work in whichever sector the Government deem preferable. Other aspects of lifelong learning are equally important.
We need fast and decisive action from the Government now if we are not to see progress towards lifelong learning and entitlements to adult education slip back 10 years. I call on the Minister to give answers to the questions we are asking today, about the appalling catalogue of failures and confusion relating to the Government's failed ILA scheme and about what will replace it—and, equally important, when it will be replaced.
11.52 am
Alistair Burt: Let me begin with two brief expressions of sympathy for the Government.
First, I am sure that many people have already received excellent training via ILAs, and will have found it very valuable. The scheme's collapse, and our criticism of that, do not detract from our support for adult learning; if anything, they enhance our worry about the poor delivery to others. Secondly, I want to express my personal sympathy for the Minister. The ILA scheme was not his creation, but he finds himself engulfed in its failure. I have had a similar experience, so I know what he is going through. I must add, however, that if he was not the cause of the original problem, he is now closely involved in the success or otherwise of the solutions. That is his role in this wretched affair.
It is clear from what has been said this morning that we are only at a staging post in the bid to unravel the policy formerly known as individual learning accounts. In an excellent summary of the origins and history of the scheme, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon)—whom I congratulate on raising this important topic—told us what problems were evident from an early stage, how those problems grew to the incredulity of decent training providers working in the system, and what the impact of the problems has been.
I want to make five brief points, and to ask some questions. Let me go to the heart of the problem, which I see as a breach of trust on the Government's part. Individual learning accounts superseded a scheme operated by the previous Conservative Government, known as vocational training relief, with a monitoring system operated through the Inland Revenue. Many now compare that scheme favourably to the ILA
214WH
scheme. Individual learning accounts were designed to take the opportunity of education to those who might have missed the chance in the past, and for whom access by way of ILAs would constitute a fresh start.
A substantial amount of trust has been engendered by the scheme, first and foremost—as a number of Members have made clear—among individuals attracted to it. Mr. Marvin Ryder took his training skills to the working men's clubs and community centres of the north-east, seeking out those whose previous experience of education had been poor in order to give them another chance. The Minister could not have found a more passionate advocate of the scheme, or anyone more determined to identify a real target for it. Mr. Ryder, however, writes:
"Due to the decision to close it down we have had to suspend our plans and lay off two members of stall".
Mr. Ryder is far from being alone. We have heard from individual providers through my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson); it is notable that no member of the Minister's party has felt moved to speak. The Association of Colleges has also written to me on behalf of further education colleges. It tells me that it
"conducted a quick postal survey of member colleges on 30 November to ascertain the effects of the early closure on colleges."
Sixty-three colleges had submitted returns by 10 December.
"Almost all were able to give figures for the number of ILA account holders for whom learning had been booked in the current academic year: The total was 28,532."
Forty-three colleges reported
"that they had been unable to book learning for ILA account holders because of the early closure of the ILA programme. Not all were able to give figures for the numbers involved, but the total for those who were able to quantify was 4,463."
Twelve colleges reported
"that they would suffer losses amounting to £68,245 from investment which had been made in anticipation of ILA holders becoming enrolled."
Forty-nine colleges reported
"that they expected to suffer a loss of income amounting in total to £695,414 as a result of the early closure of the ILA programme. Colleges generally expect to have to meet this loss of income in order to honour commitments to students."
This breach of trust—in that the scheme failed to live up to the commitment of those who are learning and those who are teaching them—is compounded by the Government's astonishing insensitivity to the problem. One provider wrote to the ILA website to express concern over the loss of business, and was told by the customer complaints manager in an e-mail:
"The Secretary of State has always had the power to withdraw the Individual Learning Accounts initiative at any stage. This was the situation all learning providers accepted when they registered for participation in the initiative. There is no contract of supply between providers and the DfES for ILAs, therefore unfortunately compensation is not available.
Once again please let me apologise for the difficulties that you have experienced."
Mr. Bacon: That quotation interests me. Does it not give one pause for thought? It makes one ask why any private sector organisation of any kind would ever wish

215WH
to co-operate with Government about anything, if that is the basis on which Government treat the private sector.
Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend goes to the root of the matter. The breach of trust will have widespread ramifications, because the expectations built up deliberately by the Government have now been deliberately deflated.
The Minister himself recently told the Select Committee:
"I have to say the decisions those learning providers took to use the ILAs as part of their business planning and their revenue streams was a decision entirely for them. Our principal concern has to be, first, for the public purse and, secondly, our responsibilities to the individual learning providers, and it is to them we owe the first duty. We are not a party to the business decisions any individual learning provider might make based on the ILA scheme."
In view of what the Minister has heard this morning from a variety of sources, let me ask him—before he is deluged by individuals' claims from the ombudsman, or turned over by the National Audit Office or other organisations—to reconsider.
The breach of trust leads me to my second point: that there is a complete lack of understanding of how that trust in Government was built up. The involvement—the business commitment—of so many providers was inevitable, because the introduction of the ILA system distorted the training market, leading to the creation of thousands of new companies providing training. For most existing providers, it was a question of involving themselves with ILAs or seeing their businesses disappear altogether. They had no choice. That is why the Minister cannot wash his hands of the matter at this stage.
Having become involved, providers naturally made plans based on what the Government said about the scheme. Had they read the Government publication "Education and Skills: Delivering Results A Strategy to 2006", published in early October this year, they would have seen pride of place given to the ILA scheme. Indeed, the only milestone target for the Department in 2001 is:
"Expand Individual Learning Accounts and set up a network of 6000 IT learning centres".
The public might have been forgiven for thinking that there was some solid basis on which to build hope for the future, and that is what they did, but that is also why their businesses face devastation.
That breach of trust is most crucially at issue in respect of the premature premature closing of the scheme overnight on 23 November. The Government decided and announced on 24 October the scheme's closure, giving 7 December as the date to complete registrations for learners already taken on by providers. Providers made plans to register, assuring students that all would be well with their applications, but many were unable to get their application on the web because it seemed unaccountably clogged. I wonder who was registering what.
The Government announced on 23 November that the scheme had been closed overnight due to fear of fraud. What of those who were unable to register their students by that date? The situation is totally confused
216WH
and it appears that the Government will cover only information already logged on the system by that date, so students who arranged to pay one sum for their course will be told that they must pay more, through no fault of theirs or their learning provider.
Depending on how far down the contractual road learners had travelled, they will either have their original expectation met by the provider at the provider's own cost or simply cancel if they cannot afford the new cost of training, again at the provider's cost. Can the Minister and the Government comprehend the sense of being let down and why the blame for that is being laid at their door?
Thirdly, I must draw attention to the sheer incompetence of the system. It failed to get resources to those who needed them most. In a recent Select Committee hearing, the Minister agreed with the estimate of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that up to £150 million may have gone in subsidy to those who did not have need of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made that point. In 1999, the Institute for Fiscal Studies examined the ILA system, saying:
"It is unclear how much of the £150 million subsidy to account holders will result in new training which would not have happened in the absence of the scheme, rather than just being a dead-weight transfer to people who would have done the training anyway."
Why was no account taken of that likelihood?
The system, unlike vocational training relief, seems to have been incapable of detecting unfeasibly large payments. Experienced providers and hon. Members this morning have told us of the attentions of the Inland Revenue when claims for £5,000 a week were registered under the old system—that would get the tax man round—but we have heard a number of stories suggesting that some claims approached £1 million a week.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, that is an enrolment strike rate of 5,000 students a week. Such success in attracting people to education would normally result in an offer to run a failing school and a knighthood, but in this example all it resulted in was a large cheque with no questions asked. One is entitled to ask whether a suspicion has arisen through the payments that needs to be dispelled.
The system appears to have been wide open to fraud, from the alleged sale of ILA numbers direct from Capita—a serious matter reported in the papers at the weekend that must be addressed, one way or another—to setting up front companies for political extremists to draw down cash from the taxpayer, and virtually all points in between. The Government proudly tell us that this wonderful scheme far exceeded its targets, with 2.5 million account holders, but how on earth does the Minister know how many are genuine and how many are completely false?
Fourthly, under pressure, the Government panic and the rest of the country picks up the tab. The scheme was shut down suddenly in October, with the Government citing exceeded expectations rather than abuse. We asked if the shutdown was due to fraud, but we were told, in effect, no, because fraud allegations are such a tiny part of the picture. The scheme was then closed overnight, due to fraud.

217WH
Now, either the fraud was small scale, in which case why not attack it and leave the scheme alone, or the system was riddled with fraud, as providers allege, and should have been dealt with long ago. Of course, the scheme may have been running far beyond budget, so the Chancellor decided to close it down, which has become the most likely suggestion, but how can that be squared with the "expansion" mentioned in the Government's targets? Either way, the announced and then sudden closure has caused massive disruption, significant financial loss and, frankly, a horlicks of Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions proportions. Truly, this is the people's cock-up.
A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who apologises for being unable to attend, writes:
"I am a local businesswoman, single with two small children who opened a commercial Internet centre in Waltham Cross. This centre opened in May 2001, using a £24k bank loan, which was guaranteed by my house.
I was responding to market signals, with the provision of training grants to the individual, by creating a learning environment with internationally recognised computer courses, as well as applying for and receiving accreditation to be a recognised exam centre for the ECDL. Many of my learners are mature women returning to work or seeking to change career.
The accreditation was received 1 week before the suspension of the ILAs. My investment in the necessary software, fees, accreditation fees, training for staff etc has been considerable, and on top of my initial investment.
Yes, my purpose is to repay my bank loan, but the service and facilities at my learning centre are second to none. I open 7 days a week, with late nights for those who work, provide a supportive and welcoming environment…and genuinely care about the achievements of my learners.
My investment, which was personally funded once again, is now a noose around my neck. The suspension of the ILA grants has meant no income flow for my investment, and my livelihood and my house are now in danger. I also have an obligation to my existing learners to be able to provide them with the access and facilities, as they have paid for their courses, but how do I do that with cash flow problems.
I myself complained to the local council and the BSC about the shady and underhand tactics being used by third party marketing companies who were obtaining ILA forms in the hundreds in my local shopping centre, but I do not fall into that category, and had a visit to the learning provider taken place prior to being granted learning provider status much of the fraud could have been avoided.
What now for me, and many centres like me, and what about my learners?"
Fifthly, the Government have not begun to understand the damage done to lifelong learning. Initiatives depend on trust and the public's willingness to get behind them, whether as individuals committing time and effort to a new future or as deliverers working in tandem with the Government to make something happen. If both lose confidence in the Government, how does the Minister expect to engage them again?
What lessons will be drawn from all this? The Government may offer a discount learning scheme to help people out, but it might be withdrawn virtually overnight. If people work with the Government to provide such schemes, the Government's overnight evacuation from responsibility may leave them high and dry, and facing substantial losses.
218WH
I have some questions. What have Scotland and Wales done that England did not do? Why is their scheme alive, well and flourishing? Why was the system so designed as to be incapable of stopping fraud and abuse? When problems were identified, no levers could be pulled to prevent the few from ruining it for the many. Having heard all that evidence, and there is much more to come, will the Minister reconsider his Department's responsibility to learning providers to ensure that future initiatives have credibility? What is the current state of criminal investigations? I tabled written parliamentary questions for answer yesterday, but I received a holding reply. How widespread is the fraud? Crucially, can he say anything about the allegations against Capita, which are most damaging of all?
Finally, who is going to pay? How much is all this costing? Following the Select Committee meeting—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk pointed out—the Minister has done his best to provide costings, which he currently estimates as £58 million prior to 23 November. How much more, and—crucially—where is it coming from?
In the Minister's letter of 30 November to the Chairman of the Select Committee, he tellingly used the phrase
"The overspend will be met from within the Department's existing resources".
We all know what that means: the Treasury has been round and has said, "The cock-up is yours. You sort it out—don't come to us". Which part of the education budget is to pick up the bill for the overspend? Will it be that for primary schools, secondary schools, teachers, new buildings, transport to schools, higher education or further education? Whose pocket will be picked to sort out the mess? The sum of £58 million represents 2,500 teachers—half the Government's commitment to new teachers over the next few years.
I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the Chamber can make their own calculations of what could be done with £58 million of the education budget: or will the Minister go to Queen Anne's Gate and hand the bill to the Home Secretary and ask for a modest contribution from the author of the scheme? Where do we go from this point? What will the new scheme be and when will it kick in? We have tabled written questions and we are now asking for an answer.
In my political experience, I have rarely seen a can as large as the one that the Minister now has to carry. I am intrigued as to how he will go about it and curious to hear what he will say in answer to all our questions.
12.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills(John Healey): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing the debate. He gave a true reflection of his membership of the Public Accounts Committee in the forensic way that he introduced the subject. He is well placed to do so. I welcome his interest in the debate and in the Committee. It is a proper role for Parliament to examine exactly what the Government have done and what we plan to do to sort out the problems that we are uncovering.

219WH
The hon. Gentleman rightly stressed the importance of the issue to learners, to providers and also to taxpayers. However, although hindsight is a fine thing, proper scrutiny and accountability require accurate information and examination of the facts. It is not the case that the scheme was, as the hon. Gentleman maintained, riddled with scams before it started. I hope that the debate and, subsequently, the examination undertaken by the PAC will help accurately to consider the facts and set out the chronology, will look closely at the evidence for the problems and will make a judgment about the details of the action taken by me and my departmental colleagues.
Mr. Bacon: I do not recall using the phrase "riddled with scams from the outset"—the record will show whether I did. Does the Minister agree that the question is far from being merely one of hindsight and that there were people, such as Mr. James O'Brien from Pitman, who warned the Department? Warnings were issued, but they were wilfully ignored.
John Healey: The record will show that the hon. Gentleman talked about the fact that there were scams even before the start of the scheme.
As regards Mr. O'Brien's letter, he was one of several providers who took part in the design of the scheme—they participated in workshops and offered their views. It is true that Mr. O'Brien warned of possible abuse. He also pointed out that the cap to limit information and communications technology, ICT—80 per cent. Discounts—was far too low; he argued that it should be set at £5,000. That would clearly have led to the use of much more public money.
In the context of the debate, I recognise how the decisions taken by my colleagues and me have left the constituents referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to explain that the decisions were right and were indeed the only ones that we could have taken in the circumstances.
Ian Stewart: I welcome the decisiveness shown by the Government. Having taken that decision, does my hon. Friend understand that my constituents—trade unions, non-governmental organisations and private training providers, whose hands are clean—want things to be moved on? They want a new scheme to be set up as soon as possible and they want the Government to consider transitional arrangements. Will the Minister refer to that during his speech?
John Healey: I shall indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall cover compensation or transitional arrangements, as well as the work that we are undertaking to design and re-introduce a successor scheme.
The introduction of individual learning accounts was an important and innovative approach to getting people engaged in learning. When we introduced them, no one knew how they might work. They have far exceeded everyone's expectations. Our original aim was for 1 million ILA holders by March 2002. We beat that target by nearly a year. By July 2001, only 10 months after the national launch of the scheme, we had attracted 1.5 million account holders. At present, there are more than 2.6 million account holders in England alone.
220WH
The hon. Member for South Norfolk asked about the budget. He gave details of the information that I set out when I spent an hour and three quarters with the Select Committee on 28 November. At that stage I could not give all the information as we had not yet calculated it. However, on 30 November, I wrote to the Chairman—the letter cited by the hon. Gentleman—and shall ensure that the letter is placed in the Library.
In that letter, as the hon. Gentleman explained, I pointed out that we had spent more on the programme—and more quickly—than expected. The total budget over two years was £202.1 million, drawn from the annual budgets of the Department for Education and Skills and the resources of the training and enterprise council. By 23 November, the budget was committed to the tune of £260.9 million. That was not surprising as, in the context of a budget set to realise 1 million ILA holders by March 2002, 1.5 million accounts had been opened by the end of July 2001.
I appreciate the introductory comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and realise that as the Minister who became responsible for the Child Support Agency he has some experience of my situation. However, the assertion that the most likely explanation is that the Chancellor closed down the scheme is an argument that beggars belief. It would be a unique event for an educational programme to be wound up for being too successful. If the point were not so serious, it would be laughable to suggest that Ministers are using the police inquiries as a cloak in which to bury a good policy.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) quoted from The Times Educational Supplement. That paper was briefed on the latest details of the police investigations before it went to press, but chose to construct the story from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. My advice to him is straightforward: take no notice of such risible and wretched reporting; take more notice and a good look at the updated information that—as soon as I can do so—I shall regularly give the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills.
Alistair Burt: I am slightly puzzled as to where the overspend occurs in a scheme that was planned to expand. I understand the Minister's point that if the scheme is successful but forms part of future planning, there is no overspend. However, the use of the word "overspend" suggests that something has gone wrong with the budget. Will be clarify that?
John Healey: Yes, of course. The overspend is against the budget. The budget was set to achieve 1 million ILAs by March 2002. As I explained, we achieved 1.5 million by June 2001 and 2.6 million by October this year.
ILAs aimed to attract people back into learning, especially those who had a poor experience of previous learning—memories of failure, low esteem and lack of opportunity. From the outset, the decision was taken that it was vital to design a user-friendly system that avoided excessive bureaucracy and was, of course, simple to use.
Problems began to emerge this summer, however. Until July we had received 2,365 complaints—only 0.18 per cent. of the then 1.3 million account holders. At

221WH
that time, one company was subject to a formal departmental investigation and no fraud was found to have taken place.
At the end of July, there was an increase in the number of complaints to 3,096. In particular, we had started to receive more complaints about misuse and mis-selling. We therefore took various steps to tighten up the operation and the rules of the programme, including new information for learners, a new provider agreement and a full re-registration process for learning providers. That resulted in 700 providers losing their ILA registration.
By the end of September, the number of complaints had increased to 6,053, which was equivalent to 0.25 per cent. of just under 2.4 million account holders. By then, we had also established a compliance unit to give us an additional resource to investigate the increasing volume of complaints; stopped the registration of new providers; withdrawn all the blank application forms distributed by learning providers; and required new ILA applicants to register themselves via the Capita website or the telephone helpline. All those moves sought to introduce a more robust procedure for people to open accounts and to control spending.
Within the terms of the programme, as it was designed, we were simply not able to stamp out the problem. By the end of October, the number of complaints had increased to 8,448, which was equivalent to 0.33 per cent. of the 2.5 million account holders.
Mr. Bacon: Will the Minister give way?
John Healey: I beg to be allowed to continue so that I can cover the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members and deal properly with the debate.
Overall numbers of complaints have always been low, but in a very short time they almost doubled as a proportion of the number of account holders. By the end of October, the number of providers about whom we had received at least one complaint was 404, which was about 5 per cent. of those registered as learning providers for the scheme. Therefore, the trend in those late summer and early autumn months was an increase in the number of complaints, an increase in the nature of more serious complaints, and, consequently, increasing concern felt by me as a Minister and by officials in the Department.
We therefore came to the conclusion that the ILA programme was in need of a radical overhaul. That is what led to the decision to withdraw the programme, which was announced on 24 October by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. At that time she gave six weeks' notice that the programme would end in England on 7 December. The decision was difficult and not taken lightly. It was also reached bearing in mind the disappointment that it would cause to individual learners and the difficulties that it would inevitably cause to providers. I believe, however, that the decision has been vindicated by subsequent events: a continuing increase in the numbers of complaints and in the numbers of cases under investigation.
By 17 November, we had received 10,276 complaints, which was 0.39 per cent. of the number of ILA account holders. Of the 10,000-plus complaints that were logged
222WH
since the start of the national scheme in the previous September, about 4,000 were about providers not complying with the rules of the scheme, mis-selling or potential fraud. The rest included complaints about the service of the ILA centre, the discount levels available for particular courses, cessation of the 150 opening offer and requests to backdate membership. There were also other complaints.
The complaints that seriously concerned us at that point related to 565 providers, which was almost 7 per cent. of the 8,500 that were registered with the ILA centre. The hon. Member for South Norfolk has cited one of the worst examples of the problems that crept into the system in recent months and with which we have had to start to deal: individuals discovering when they attempt to draw down their learning account that their account has been used already. That is a serious example of the problems encountered. It can be described at best as sharp practice and in the worst cases as outright fraud. The first suspension of an ILA provider because of that type of complaint and that type of fraud occurred on 25 June. The Department received the first letter in relation to that case on 11 June.
By 17 November, the Department had received 3,252 complaints from individuals claiming that money had been drawn from their ILA account without their knowledge or consent. The complaints were collated by the Department and the ILA-Capita centre. Those complaints are under investigation but are not yet substantiated.
We have serious concerns about 86 of the 565 providers in the system about whom we have had complaints. Sixty have already been referred for investigation, 27 are being investigated in co-operation with police, and six police forces are involved. So far there have been 39 arrests, with one charge, all of which relate to four learning providers. However, on top of all that, a new problem arose.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
John Healey: No, I shall not. I have five minutes left to reply. I could speak to the hon. Gentleman after the debate.
Acting on new information about serious and sustained allegations of fraud and theft, the Department for Education and Skills special investigations unit confirmed those allegations. Subsequently, the Secretary of State and I took the decision to shut down the programme with immediate effect, from 6.30 pm on 23 November. That decision was taken to minimise a serious risk to public funds, and we called in the police at the same time.
Mr. Bacon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I shall try to be brief. Is he aware that, on Monday, 19 November, individuals were going into training providers and saying, "You'd better buy these numbers that we're offering soon because they're closing the scheme this coming Friday", to which the training providers replied, "We know that they're closing it, but they're closing it on 7 December, as they announced", to

223WH
which those selling the numbers said, "No, trust me—they'll be closing it this Friday." It turned out that the sellers were right.
John Healey: That information is very surprising.
Mr. Bacon: I was given it by a training provider.
John Healey: It is surprising.
The relevant evidence was brought to the attention of the DFES investigations unit on the Wednesday of that week. On Thursday, investigators visited the individual concerned and verified and confirmed the strength of the allegations. On Friday, the investigators informed Ministers of the position. On Friday afternoon, the Secretary of State and I held a video conference, and we closed down the operation that evening.
I hope that hon. Members will understand that I cannot give full details of the allegations as police investigations into them are continuing. I can say, however, that a significant number of ILA numbers had been stolen and were being offered for sale, with the prospect that they would then be used to claim money fraudulently from the Department. The evidence that we were able to substantiate immediately was sufficiently convincing to make us conclude that there was a serious risk to large amounts of public money. That is why we closed the programme immediately.
Our subsequent investigations have confirmed that the ILA numbers had been extracted without authority from the Capita database system. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire will therefore accept that the decision to close down the scheme immediately was not, as he described it, premature.
In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), it was simply not possible to consult training providers because of the need to take immediate action. I am well aware that the closure affects training providers, and we are currently assessing that impact. However, I do not want to give the impression that we are able to put in place provision to support the business and funding streams of learning providers who made a business decision to use ILAs as
224WH
an income source. Our principal concern has to be the public purse, and our principal responsibility has to be to individual learners. I therefore stand by my comments to the Select Committee.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk said that the reputation of good providers is being besmirched because of the bad ones. He is absolutely right that, so far, 60 providers are under investigation. Police are involved in 27 of those cases, and 47 providers have been suspended from the provider register. There may well be more suspensions as we work to get to the bottom of the abuse that the so-called learning providers have inflicted on the ILA system.
Mr. Boris Johnson: Will the Minister give way?
John Healey: I shall not.
Among those so-called learning providers are fraudsters who have burrowed their way into the learning system, acting like a cancer eating away at the opportunities that ILAs were creating for thousands of people. They are a minority seeking to milk the taxpayer with no regard to the deep harm that they were doing to individual learners and to the large number of decent learning providers who had seized on the ILA scheme to develop the support and services that they could offer to people from all walks of life in all parts of the country—
Mr. Bacon: What about the future?
John Healey: Make no mistake: where we confirm cases of fraud we shall pursue those providers for every penny that they have wrongly claimed from the public purse—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the future?"]
As for the future, I have explained to the Select Committee the provision that we are putting in place. We are working hard on developing the design for a new scheme, and we shall re-introduce a scheme as soon as possible. The Secretary of State and I have given a cast-iron commitment that—
Mr. Peter L. Pike (in the Chair): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Water Industry
12.30 pm
Linda Gilroy: I am very pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate. It gives me the opportunity not only to raise an issue of great interest to my constituents but to highlight a matter of importance to the public as a whole.
As well as speaking in my capacity as Labour and Cooperative Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton, I speak as chair of PURGe—the Public Utility Reform Group, a loose coalition of stakeholders with an interest in regulatory issues. The aim of the organisation is to ensure that regulation achieves a fair balance between stakeholders—customers, employees, shareholders and those representing the interests of communities. The latter group is particularly important in respect of environmental issues and our responsibility to pass our country on to future generations in at least as good a state as we found it.
In the short time that I have, I intend to detail some specific and urgent problems facing many people who receive water services from South West Water plc. However, those problems highlight just some of the issues that need to be dealt with in the forthcoming Water Bill. The Bill has been delayed, which is regrettable, although I believe that we now have the chance to ensure that this important piece of legislation enables us fully to address the challenges that lie ahead. As I shall argue, it is my conclusion that a new settlement is required which will take our water industry into the next decade.
However, let us start at the beginning, and in the south-west. Ofwat has just allowed South West Water to increase the bills of constituents by more than £26 in real terms over the period 2001–02 to 2004–05, rather than the original determination of a £13.79 real-terms increase. As if that were not bad enough, it must be borne in mind that our bills are already the highest in the country. A typical South West Water unmeasured household water and sewerage bill in the south-west of England is £357 per annum—before these increases are applied. That represents about 2 per cent. of income for a household with an income of £ 18,500, but 7.5 per cent. of the minimum income guarantee for a single pensioner on £92.15 per week.
A typical metered bill for south-west England is £218—a saving of £139. It is little wonder, therefore, that so many households have moved to having a metered supply. Such customers are estimated to number 55,011 in the period to 2004–05, which is above the November 1999 assumption of 32,698.
The problem is made worse by two Government policies—or perhaps I should say lack of policies. There is no policy that addresses the fact that the south-west has 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom's beaches but only 3 per cent. of the population. So those 3 per cent. pay for the cleaning up and improvements—very welcome and necessary—from which the whole population and many tourists benefit. These are national—some would say international—assets, and what economists call national public goods. Some mechanism that acknowledges that that is not fair would be most welcome. Arguably, the green dowry at the time of privatisation provided such a mechanism,
226WH
but it grossly underestimated the value of our beaches and the costs associated with cleaning them up. Other mechanisms that come to mind are the energy efficiency and the fossil fuel levies. It has also been suggested that a mechanism that includes a cost benefit analysis of environmental improvements, similar to that required in respect of clean air standards, would help to achieve transparency.
There is another problem in the South West Water area—the growing number of people who are switching to water meters. That is not surprising, given that they can achieve savings on the scale outlined. I am pleased that our Water Industry Act 1999 removed the uncertainty of some as to whether they would benefit from a meter, by allowing them to change back at no cost. What about others such as the larger households, whose use does not allow them to benefit from a meter? Their bills are going up, not down, owing to water meters. We therefore have an iniquitous two-tier situation, with two different pricing mechanisms. While some poorer single households are benefiting and so are better-off single people, families who are far less well off are paying more.
The problem with meters in the south-west merely highlights a problem that must be addressed nationwide. The current system, under which non-metered customers pay according to the rateable value of their dwelling while metered customers pay according to usage, is inherently unstable across the country. As the take-up of metering continues, many households on low and medium incomes will lose out in terms of equity—not just the narrowly defined "vulnerable" group.
What, ultimately, are we to do? The absence of solutions and even debate, never mind policy, is alarming. I and others have serious doubts whether this problem—which is but one of a number of future or potential problems in the industry—would be containable within the current legal and regulatory framework. They are essentially political issues, and we should not lose the opportunity to answer them in the forthcoming Bill.
The Government have already made a series of significant, albeit piecemeal, changes with regard to the water industry, such as the very welcome ban on disconnections. While that was surely the right way to start, such changes, especially when combined with industry-inspired developments, eventually need to give way to a more all-embracing approach.
At the beginning of our second term, perhaps we should, with humility and caution, take heed of those who tell us that we may have responsibility for the nation's well-being for some time to come. In the case of the framework governing the water industry, this calls for a fundamental change of perspective. Whatever modifications were made during our first term to the system that we inherited, the challenge now is to create a system that will still function smoothly a decade or more hence.
Water privatisation was especially unpopular. After privatisation in 1989, prices rose by around 40 per cent. until 1999, since when they have fallen back by about 10 per cent., following the last price review. The number of employees has declined by almost a third since privatisation.

227WH
The balance of opinion seems to be that the regulatory system in water has delivered the investment to improve standards. That was, I understand, the major strategic objective at the time of privatisation. Of course, there have been some serious incidents—Camelford and the Yorkshire Water drought come to mind—and some serious criticism, over pay, for example. Nevertheless, the industry has by and large retained public confidence. It has not gone the way of Railtrack, and nor is it likely to do so. However, the structure of the industry and the way in which it operates have changed little since privatisation in 1989. On the whole, water companies continue as monopolies in their country, region or area. In most cases, they continue to own and operate the assets. The ban on taking one another over means that the biggest change has been the acquisition of the companies by foreign companies or domestic, non-water companies.
Beneath the surface, however, considerable pressures are building up, as detailed in a recent report by the New Policy Institute. I am grateful for its permission to draw at length on its report "Energy and Water: the Dangers Ahead". It identifies the following significant risks in the medium and long term. First, there is the long-term sustainability of continuing rises in environmental standards, price controls and the companies' continued reliance on borrowing to fund investment. The strains, which are significant in the south-west, are increasing and are likely to increase elsewhere, with no obvious mechanisms for resolving conflicting objectives. If the structure "gives", either the higher standards will not be achieved, or the companies will get into financial difficulties, or the price controls will have to be eased.
There need to be incentives for investment in infrastructure to maintain the current assets. Some incentives work in the opposite direction; in a short, five-year cycle of the price-setting process, within the regulatory system, investment is deferred where possible. There is an absence of immediate obvious problems if the replacement of ageing but functioning assets is postponed, but that may lead to serious and expensive problems over time. The concern here is more with the sewerage system. That is less discussed but it, rather than the clean water portion, is the larger part of the business and generates most of one's bill.
We also must factor in the balance between supply and demand. The potential for imbalances comes from changes in the climate and our use of water. In a nutshell, our use may go up—some say by as much as 75 per cent. in the next 25 years—yet there may be less rain as warmer weather continues.
The Environment Agency rightly takes a long-term view, but company actions depend on plans put forward to Ofwat within five-year planning cycles, which may be too short. Prolonged shortage—as well as, paradoxically, flooding—could become big political issues, and we must seize the day and, wherever possible, prevent and ameliorate those problems with new solutions. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a huge contribution to getting companies and the regulator to recognise the scope and the need to tackle this issue through leakage reduction. That resulted in a commendable 27 per cent. reduction in the period to 2000, but that very success means that the further scope for that to contribute to companies' options and flexibility is limited.
228WH
The recent developments show that the industry is already trying to resolve some of its problems through various attempts—successful and unsuccessful—to restructure itself. Welsh Water, Glas Cymru, has managed to do so, and its assets and operations are now separated. Scotland is in the process of returning to one company after a brief, six-year experiment with three water boards. English companies are looking for ways to escape from the current industry structure, but there are dangers. Do we want yet more piecemeal change; or do we need an English solution, just as there are separate solutions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where I understand water and sewerage services are paid from general taxation?
Is it not time at least to relax the prohibition on mergers, so that companies can work together for the benefit of all stakeholders? There are also other opportunities, and we should not be afraid to think more widely. For example, we could have some element of public stakeholding in the ownership, or we could free up the companies, so that they develop as international water operators.
Ms Candy Atherton: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument, but does she agree that accountability is still a great issue in the water industry? Does she envisage a role for the regional development agencies or regional assemblies in forthcoming years?
Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that intelligent intervention; she took the words right out of my mouth. We should also examine what roles there may be for the RDAs, regional chambers or, indeed, regional government, and we look forward to the forthcoming White Paper in the new year. If we are to face a period of higher prices to finance improved standards, a model of greater, more open and transparent accountability than we have at present will almost certainly prove necessary.
There is also the matter of the introduction of competition in water. Although the NPI report does not examine that issue in detail, it does raise the question whether competition is the right big challenge with which to present the industry when other strategic issues clearly need to be addressed. Competition would certainly seem to have the potential to produce only a limited effect on the problems that I mention.
The report suggests that there is a sense in which the future of the water industry is uncertain in a way that it was not just five years ago. There are increasing challenges and questions that suggest that the settlement made at the time of privatisation no longer serves and ought to be revisited, and that a new settlement is needed. Besides clarifying the industry's public policy objectives, such a settlement would set out an intellectual framework to guide the resolution of conflicts between environmental, social and economic goals. It would also establish an institutional framework which, while allowing the industry room to develop of its own accord, could steer it as time passes and new circumstances arise.

229WH
Such a settlement could only be created following a review. The Government should take note of that analysis, and I urge them to initiate such a review in water. There is a clear opportunity, given that the new Water Bill is not due until the autumn of 2002. A water review needs to focus on the underlying conflicts now present and the intellectual framework needed to resolve them. In particular, it needs to focus on the tension between meeting environmental standards, the costs of financing the investment to achieve them and charging consumers fair and affordable prices. The instability and possible lack of sustainability in the current two-part pricing structure should also be addressed, as should the scope for new forms of ownership and organisation.
I mention the possible role for regional assemblies and the contribution that a new mutual structure for the industry might achieve, learning the lessons from Glas Cymru. On 16 November, Utility Week reported that efficiency savings at Welsh Water have generated savings of £41 million, which has been earmarked for extra investment. The developing technical and legal body of knowledge being amassed by the mutual sector and its new project "Communicate Mutuality", which I recommend to the Minister, will enable it to launch its new publishing arm, Mutuo, later this week. One of its first publications is entitled, "Ownership Matters—New Mutual Business Models", and has great relevance to today's debate.
A wide-ranging review would also help the Government decide whether competition is the right big issue to guide and shape the industry in the future. In addition, the review would need to address two issues: whether responsibility for driving forward the Government's social agenda for those industries could be vested in a separate institution devoted to the task; and how multiple regulators should take one another's concerns into account, as well as how conflicts between them should be resolved.
That is a lot of questions, but I conclude by reminding the Minister of the problem in the south-west. The challenge that we have faced and continue to face is perhaps a harbinger of things to come. It is clear that those questions need to be resolved by all the stakeholders, companies, unions, consumers and academics, as well as by local, regional and national government in the coming months. If in considering those questions we can perhaps find a solution to the unfairness that is the legacy of the Conservative privatisation programme with which we in the southwest in particular live, my constituents and those elsewhere would welcome it greatly.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): As you know, Mr. Pike, it is traditional to congratulate hon. Members on obtaining an Adjournment debate to raise an issue of their choice. I should like to place on record the fact that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has made a genuinely thoughtful and intellectual contribution to a very complicated issue. She has suggested a thoughtful way forward in relation
230WH
to the water and sewerage services that are provided in our country. I also very much welcome the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), who also raised some important issues.
As a regular visitor to the west country, I am well aware of the concern that was felt post-privatisation. Privatisation was deeply unpopular, and a significant increase in prices took place at that time. Indeed, the people of the south-west now have to face that legacy, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton has referred. As you will know, Mr. Pike, many years ago, I served on the Committee that considered the Water Act 1989, under which the water companies were privatised. Many of the issues to which my hon. Friend refers were raised at that time, and some of the problems that have arisen since then are no surprise. The question is where we go from here. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton focused on, and I congratulate her on doing so.
The Government have made much progress in relation to water provision since 1997. Leakage has been cut by a third. Drinking water is now the safest ever, and rivers and beaches are cleaner. There are improved metering rights, including the right to a free water meter, which is of particular interest in the south-west. Compulsory metering has been ended, which was a big issue in my constituency and other parts of the country. There is a scheme to help vulnerable groups with high water use and low incomes. All that is very important.
After privatisation in 1989, average household bills increased steadily, especially in the south-west. In 1999, a review was introduced, which caused water bills to be reduced, on average, by 12 per cent. across the country and by the 12.2 per cent. in the south-west, which was very much appreciated at the time, although it did not reflect the huge increase in prices that took place in 1998. I am glad to say that, by 31 March 2005, the average household bill will still be lower in real terms than in 1999, although that suggests that the price increase at that time was very large.
Ms Atherton: The problem with average bills is that we in the south-west are at the top end of the scale. If we were taken out of the equation, the average bill would be significantly lower. We are asking for special measures for the south-west to reduce the national average.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. We have to be careful about averages, because the south-west is at the top end of average prices. The issue is how we can best address the particular problems that the west country faces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton put forward some interesting suggestions and asked some pertinent questions, which I shall try to address. As she knows, prices are reviewed every five years. The reviews take account of quality improvements, asset maintenance, and savings made through improved efficiency. South West Water operates under the price limits that were set in 1999. Those imposed a sizeable cut in prices in 2000–01, followed by very small increases to 2004–05. The overall effect would be a decrease of £36 in the average annual household bill by 2004–05. We are back to the issue of averages.

231WH
It is important to be aware of what the bills are paying for. To be fair to South West Water, that includes modernising 5,500 km of drinking water mains and replacing old and rusting pipes which can lead to water becoming discoloured. The river quality objectives will be achieved for 93 per cent. of river length in the area by 2005, and that is good. At the same time, leakage has been reduced by 40 per cent. since 1995–96.
Water companies can apply for interim determinations to increase their price limits because of specified material changes in their circumstances. This year, South West Water appealed for an increase in price limits for four reasons. First, it had a higher than expected take-up of the free metering option. As my hon. Friend said, that was a popular option in the southwest, for understandable reasons.
Secondly, there was an increased spend to meet costs of monitoring cryptosporidium, following requirements placed on companies by the drinking water inspectorate. Thirdly, the company cited costs associated with the climate change levy and, fourthly, changes to the programmes to reduce lead in water. All those are desirable objectives, but they should all be included in the company's forward investment programme.
Ofwat scrutinises closely requests for a change in price limits. In its draft consultative response, Ofwat proposed to accept aspects of some of South West Water's points, but it has questioned and reassessed the costings made by South West Water. In the case of the costs associated with climate change levy, Ofwat proposes to reject that claim, because the costs should be neutral overall. The assessments are only preliminary, but Ofwat expects that the effect would be that the average household bill in the south-west would go up by £27 between 2001–02 and 2004–05—as my hon. Friend suggested. That is compared to the projected cost of £ 14 at the time of the 1999 periodic review. I accept that that is a significant increase, but the average household bill will still be less in 2004 than it was in 1999. However, I will bear in mind the point made about average costs. Having considered all the comments on its consultation, Ofwat will announce its final decision on South West Water's application by 14 December.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the more general future of the industry. As chair of the Public Utility Reform Group—PURGe—she takes a great interest in the future of water and energy utilities. She referred to the draft Water Bill, which already addresses a number of issues facing the industry, and many people look forward to its introduction.
Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the draft Bill, and that the changes taking place in the structure of the industry merit closer examination?
Mr. Morley: I agree, and I shall shortly address some of the detailed points that my hon. Friend made. One of the advantages of a major Bill such as a Water Bill, which we aim to introduce once we have parliamentary time, is the opportunity to consult on it and take into account issues such as the important ones raised by my hon. Friend. That consultation will influence the Government's thinking on the final shape of the Bill.
232WH
At the moment, the Water Bill will include measures aimed at reforming abstraction licensing and improving water management and conservation. That is important in the south-west, as it is all over the country. It will include measures to require water undertakers to prepare and maintain drought plans to address how a water undertaker might restrain demand for water in its area. Recently much of my time has been taken up with the opposite of drought, but we should not forget that parts of the country experienced severe droughts only a few years ago. We need to look ahead and take into account the rising demand for water for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes. Those demands have to be balanced and managed thoughtfully. The Bill will also include proposals to create a consumer council for water, which will be independent of Ofwat. It will provide advice to customers and represent their interests. It will also include measures to improve accountability, including increasing the scope and availability of public information on water resources.
My hon. Friend referred to a recent report by the New Policy Institute. The report raised a number of points that are fundamental to the water and sewerage service in England and Wales. My hon. Friend mentioned the debate about the most appropriate structure for the water industry. Is it public ownership or private? Is there a role for mutual ownership? My hon. Friend gave some examples of mutual ownership, which were very interesting, and the mutual models could have a role to play in providing essential public sector infrastructure. Those areas are worthy of exploration. Other issues include the shift from equity to debt, the rising demand versus the effects of climate change, and the gradual shift from unmeasured to metered charging. That is a logical shift in relation to the most sustainable use of water resources.
I know that my hon. Friend wishes to discuss the NPI report and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment would welcome a meeting with her—and with Ofwat—to discuss the issues and their relevance to future models. My hon. Friend will be aware that she raises fundamental questions that require some thought and discussion. I know that she will wish to be involved in that.
The Government are aware of the challenges facing the industry. We aim to produce a water industry strategy paper for consultation in the new year. Without being complacent, we must not forget the water industry's successes and the quality of drinking water and river and coastal waters that we enjoy as a result, and I know that my hon. Friend regards that as important. I have been pleased with the improvements that we have seen around our coastline, and that many of our beaches now meet the bathing water directive.
Linda Gilroy: I hope that in his consultation my hon. Friend will also address the problem that I raised of 3 per cent. of the population having to pay for the cleaning up of 30 per cent. of the coastline.
Mr. Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Our beaches, coastline, water quality and marine and river habitats are of national importance and interest. The Government inherited a structure that was not of our making and has those inherent weaknesses. To bring about changes in that structure,

233WH
we will need to address the fundamental issues that my hon. Friend raised in her thought-provoking speech. The issues will not be easy to resolve and I do not wish to give my hon. Friend a false impression. However, she has correctly identified serious issues that will face her region and her constituents. We will take seriously the issue of future structures for the water industry and I hope that the Water Bill will give us that opportunity.

Horse Racing
12.59 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. As the Minister will appreciate, however, I did not choose its timing, so I apologise for the effect that it will have on his gastric juices.
Given the paranoia that the House has shown about the declaration of interests, I must declare my interest. I have had ponies and horses all my life and I have been fascinated by them. The financial arrangement involved has not been to my advantage; it has been a distinctly one-way trip. I have been fortunate enough to acquire a little bay colt yearling that will completely reverse all the losses of the past. Such dreams have kept owners going over the years and I look forward to a year or so of reflected glory starting in a few months' time.
I hope that the Minister will excuse me if I make a series of bullet points rather than develop my arguments. To give full justice to the financing of racing, we would need several hours.
The title of the debate is "Horse Racing", but perhaps I should have added the word "industry". Despite all the pleasure and sport involved, it is a huge industry that is much bigger than most of the industries that regularly attract the Government's collective eye. In common with many industries, horse racing will migrate if we do not get its financing right. The participants will go to where the grass is not just seen to be greener but is, in fact, greener.
I wish, for example, to draw attention to the tax regime for the stallion industry. Compared to southern Ireland, those running a stud in the UK are at a distinct financial disadvantage. Southern Ireland companies have been able to buy stallions and pay more for them. Buying better stallions means that more mares are sent to them, and revenue accrues from the travelling of those mares. If one has more mares, one has more foals; if one has more foals, one has more runners; and if one has more runners; one has more winners. It is a virtuous circle.
I am worried by the distinct decline that there has been in this country's stallion industry. This country is the birthplace of racing and I do not want that decline to continue. I do not expect the Minister to comment on the funding of the stallion regime—we can return to the subject at a later date—but I would be interested to hear his views if he has the relevant notes with him.
On the specifics, we must keep in mind the basis on which the whole industry rests—the owners. The returns forthcoming to owners in the UK show that they are among the worst treated. I will not run through the whole list, but the figures for total prize money compared with the total cost of keeping and training a horse show that, on average, a Japanese owner gets 80 per cent. of his expenses back. The second lowest return is found in Germany, with 36 per cent., but we are at the bottom, with 21 per cent. Those figures are not sustainable and will not provide our racing with a firm foundation on which to develop.
As I have said, racing is a huge leisure industry. It therefore needs money to help it to grow into the industry of the size and quality that we want it to be. The

235WH
salaries paid to the staff engaged by trainers are rather low, and they should be higher. Pension rights should be improved so that those caring for and training horses can follow a distinct career.
Some race courses in this country are fine. Brand new grandstands have been built and the improvements are to be commended. However, a huge number of race courses are very old and in urgent need of replacement. We also need funding to continue the veterinary research that is so important. I know that this issue is of great concern to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
It is not all bad news. Over the past few years, we have made tremendous progress and much credit should go to those involved in the industry, to the Government and to Mr. Peter Savill, who has been a driving force in taking steps to producing a sustainable basis for racing's future. The Government are to be congratulated on introducing a gross profit arrangement, rather than a general betting duty, for the bookmaking industry. That has been welcomed by all. It is particularly appreciated by the punters, and I fondly hope and believe that greater income will accrue to the industry and to the bookmaking industry.
The Government are also to be congratulated on the review that has been carried out by Sir Alan Budd. With one hiccup—the proposal to remove slot machines from clubs, which is a retrograde move—the thrust of the review has been positive. The bookmaking and gaming industry in this country has integrity and compares well with those elsewhere in the world. I do not see why it should not be allowed to expand and to produce more revenue for the Government as well as profit for those in the industry.
I hope that the VAT registration scheme that is available for owners will continue. If it does not, the type of migration that has resulted from the stallion regime will take place. If the scheme were to be removed, the effect on horse sales in this country would be catastrophic. I have bought horses in Ireland and the UK, but I would immediately be placed under pressure to buy horses in Ireland rather than at Tattersall's. That would be a crying shame.
The industry produces £500 million in tax revenue each year for the Government; it employs 60,000 people; and it affects every walk of life. If we add the 40,000 people who work in the betting industry, we can grasp the scale of the activities with which we are dealing.
We face some difficulties, however. I welcome the announcement that will determine the future structure and ownership of the Tote. I understand why the Government wish to introduce a new funding mechanism that is based on a direct commercial arrangement between the racing and betting industries and which will replace the commercial levy. I also understand why the Government wish to introduce all that in one Bill. However, the manner of the breakdown in the negotiations on the replacement of the levy is such that I doubt that the problem will be speedily resolved by normal negotiation.
I know that the Minister is aware of the problem, so it will come as no surprise to him when I enter the plea that legislation to determine the future of the Tote should be allowed to proceed without delay. A number of parliamentary mechanisms are available to speed
236WH
such legislation on its way. Not least is the private Bill procedure, and people will appreciate its use because that mechanism was responsible for the Tote's birth in the first place.
Like many in racing, I regret, although I am not surprised, that the racing and betting industries did not reach an agreement on the levy replacement. This is not the time or place to drag out a blow-by-blow account of what went wrong. I have seen the proposals, counterproposals and counter-counter-proposals and know that the problem has swung backwards and forwards. There is no benefit in regurgitating what went on, but the two sides are in a situation that is unacceptable for the long-term benefit of racing. It cannot be allowed to continue. The dispute is not in the best interest of the sport and must be resolved.
The matter is with the Minister for determination. I understand why he desperately wanted to avoid that, and he has my sympathy. However, he has to make the decision. I do not envy him his task. Faced with the instigation of an inquiry into the sport by the Office of Fair Trading, the appeal by William Hill on data rights and the difference between the two parties on the levy, it would be sensible to take some time out. That could be purchased by continuing the existing levy scheme, which has the advantage of being easily understood by all members and so would not require explanation or selling.
The Government have to take a greater and more proactive role. I leave it up to the Minister to decide whether he sets up a small group to hear both sides of the argument and to calculate the processes and procedures. There has to be an investigation, in some shape or form, based on independent research that looks abroad to see how other racing authorities are financed. On the raw data, it appears that Britain is low down the list when it comes to finance. We have to examine the figures to see what odds the bookmaking industry offers the punters on particular races and whether the return abroad is lower than it is in the United Kingdom. We need an equity and an understanding. It might be decided that the bookmakers can maintain the same level of profitability, but must slightly shave the odds so that they help to finance racing and it continues to be successful.
I am not going to develop my thoughts on that further. The facts and figures need to be in front of us and understood by both sides of the industry so that we know where we stand. The problem must be resolved. There has to be a replacement for the levy, because racing cannot develop and expand until its financial base is secure. The Minister might have a replacement scheme for the levy which he is ready to roll. If so, this is the ideal time and place to make that announcement, and I shall be delighted to hear it. If not, in my usual calm, collected and courteous fashion, and on bended knee, I ask him to consider my comments and I look forward to hearing his response.
1.14 pm
The Minister for Sport(Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on initiating the debate. It is time to take stock of the industry. The hon. Gentleman is well informed because he is joint chairman of the all

237WH
party racing and bloodstock industries group. I have had the privilege of addressing that group, which has an interesting mix of members.
On Budd, it is important to see the bigger picture. It is Government policy to modernise the gambling industry, which is a multi-billion pound concern. In the light of the development of information technology and the way in which gambling is changing, we thought it right to take stock because the Act that governs the vast majority of gambling was put on the statute book in the 1960s. Electronic gambling is coming into effect and we have to decide what role the British gambling industry will play in the international field. As Budd explained, that would need primary legislation.
We instituted the Budd inquiry and it produced a good report that sets the agenda for modernisation. We put it out to a consultation that closed towards the end of October, after three months. We are reflecting on that and I hope that we will give the Government's considered reply early in the new year. I am mindful that uncertainty is not good for business. The gambling industry is an expensive commodity and we want it to know how we will manage our decisions. Of course, we need to get time on the Floor of the House, but at least the industry will have some certainty.
I will deal with gaming machines in clubs. Of 2,000 responses, about 1,500 were on gaming machines in Conservative clubs, Labour clubs, Liberal clubs and working men's clubs. The consultation created quite a hoo-hah. Nevertheless, we will cover that and other important issues. I did not realise until I took responsibility for gambling that the integrity of the industry is internationally renowned and respected. We want to keep that important ingredient if we deregulate or modernise gambling. I hope to ensure also that we have a sustainable industry.
On the specific issues, yesterday I had the privilege of cutting the first sod at the residential block of the Northern Racing college in Doncaster. It is one of only two such colleges, Newmarket being the other. When it is built, the residential block will accommodate 40 to 50 young people who attend the college to learn about the arts of riding. Hopefully, it will produce our future jockeys. I could not agree more that we have to look carefully at how we invest in the human capital of the racing industry to ensure that it is of a high professional standard and is sustainable.
Yesterday I suggested that we have a meeting with the industry, probably in late spring or early summer next year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's all-party group can consider that, and I shall be pleased to talk to him about it. The industry should come together to consider how best to invest in its future through the young people whom I spoke to at the college. The social inclusion agenda has had a considerable impact. Young offenders who went on a 10-week course have been placed with owners around the country. Hopefully they will realise that it is better to earn a living through racing than through crime, and that is welcome.
The taxation system as it relates to the stallion regime and the industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. No doubt he will consider that. He took a favourable approach to the gambling tax, which the industry welcomed.
238WH
I cannot say much about the levy because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the matter has been referred to the Secretary of State and me for determination. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry that the industry was unable to come together to find a solution to the problem. In the wider gambling industry of which horse racing is a part, genuine opportunities will arise as a result of the removal of the levy, and we are trying to open up a dialogue about that and about privatising the Tote. The Chancellor's action on the gambling tax demonstrated our belief that the industry was ready for growth and modernisation, so it was disappointing that, in such an atmosphere, the industry was unable to respond by setting the levy. However, that is life. We will have to come to conclusions on those matters, and I hope that we will do so sooner than later.
The industry's lack of confidence was disappointing. Battle lines had been drawn which reinforced a "them and us" approach. I hope that the industry can work together to agree on the highest, rather than the lowest, common denominator—the latter sometimes bedevils its progress. I think that it has a tremendous future and that this can be a win-win situation.
There are commercial negotiations for the sale of racing's media rights, which have been assumed to be a replacement for the levy, but that implies technical links that do not exist. The negotiations are separate. The levy was established some years ago to protect the industry and off-course betting, and we believe that it has now outlived its usefulness and it is right to remove it. We will then return to the marketplace. The sale of the media rights will also take place, but that is a commercial proposition that must be negotiated properly, as it would in any marketplace.
There have been major debates about what will replace the levy when it is eventually abolished. I respect what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will take on board his remarks about what should replace the levy, but that is a matter for future discussions.
We would like to privatise the Tote sooner rather than later, and we would like to introduce that measure in a Bill that will also abolish the levy, but the timing of that is up to those who manage Parliament's business, and like Ministers in every Department, we are at their mercy. However, the Government's intention has been established, and the introduction of the legislation is only a matter of time. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about a private Member's Bill. I think he knows that measures with financial implications are not usually introduced in such Bills.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating this debate on horse racing, which is an important part of the wider gambling industry. It provides many jobs, it has integrity and it is loved by many throughout the country. That situation may be unique. In France, the number of those attending race meetings is considerably smaller than it is in the UK, and England in particular. Horse racing is a part of our heritage which I hope we can continue to develop and modernise. I am sure that if the industry is prepared to form a stronger partnership, this can be a win-win situation for everybody.
1.24 pm
Sitting suspended.

Office for National Statistics (Runcorn)
1.30 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: It is customary to start by saying that is a pleasure to have an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, but the topic of this debate does not give me or my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) any pleasure; we are here to record our dissatisfaction and discontent at the decision to close the Runcorn office of the Office for National Statistics. My hon. Friend and I act as a partnership and have spent a great deal of time in the past four or five years trying to make sure that we secure a future for the ONS in Runcorn. We are therefore disappointed at last month's decision.
To understand that decision, we must look at the history of the Runcorn operation. Just after the 1997 election, my hon. Friend and I went to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who was then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to impress on her the need to keep it running. A review of ONS operations concluded that there was no economic justification for closing the Runcorn office because the cost of redundancies at Runcorn would far outweigh savings that would be made by transferring the operation to Newport. My right hon. Friend therefore decided to keep the Runcorn office open, giving it a guaranteed future for five years. There was a proviso, however, because it was made clear to us that if the economic situation changed and the cost of redundancies went down, it might be economic to close the Runcorn office. The decision, therefore, was to be reviewed and revisited.
As we approached the end of the five-year review period, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton and I went to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, our hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), to talk about the future of the Runcorn office. It was obvious that the economic arguments for closing the office had not been made. We tried to impress on her the fact that the ONS had made known its wish to close the Runcorn office for managerial convenience; it is a small office, and the ONS did not think that it had a future. Its preferred option was therefore to close the office.
We were certain that in 1997 the ONS had been given two opportunities to deal with the problem—to transfer work from any other part of the organisation to the Runcorn site, thereby offering the office a viable opportunity to survive and a sustainable future, or to move staff from the Runcorn office, reducing redundancy costs and making it economic to close the office. However, it did neither of those things, which surprised me; instead, it tried to allow the Runcorn office to wither on the vine. That is not good management, and it created a bad feeling among the work force, whose morale was low, having been poorly managed for four or five years as a direct result of the ONS decision to allow the office to wither on the vine.
When my hon. Friend and I went to see our hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, we gave her a straightforward message. We told her that we were not interested in any arguments about closing the Runcorn office for the convenience of ONS management. We said that the work force were loyal, had been there a long time and were committed to the ONS; we did not want
240WH
the office to be closed for the convenience of management. We wanted a comprehensive and transparent review of the whole ONS operation to take a proper look at what was going on in the ONS, recognise what it needed to do to meet the challenges of the 21st century and identify problem areas—clearly Runcorn is a problem for the ONS. We wanted the ONS to put all that together in a comprehensive review and come up with a blueprint for taking the organisation into the 21st century.
The ONS could have looked at the major problem of office space in London. It has expensive, overcrowded offices in London, where recruitment and retention are a problem; it could easily have tackled that by distributing work to Runcorn, where office accommodation is abundant and cheap. Employment costs are far lower in Runcorn than in the capital and retention and recruitment are far easier. Such a review could have taken place but, sadly, it did not. Instead, there was a review of the Runcorn office in isolation to see how the particular problem that had been found there could be tackled.
The National Statistician made an announcement on 13 November giving a number of less-than-convincing reasons for deciding to close the Runcorn office. He started by mentioning something that those of us interested in the ONS had known for some time: that integrating a small office in Runcorn with the major statistical centre at Newport was a long-term problem. In this day and age, that should not be a problem; with modern technology, we could have remote working. A range of information technology should mean that such working is not a problem for anybody—and certainly not for anybody with any imagination.
The National Statistician said the ONS wanted greater integration of statistical processes, and that its operations would be driven by new technologies. I do not see that that is a problem; if the ONS wants new technology, there is no reason whatsoever why it could not install it at Runcorn. The National Statistician also said:
"Staff will have to be re-skilled and work processes changed".
Again, there is no barrier to re-skilling the staff at Runcorn and changing the work processes, which could be connected by a remote link to those in Newport. The National Statistician then came up with a gem:
"Over the next 4/5 years ONS will employ fewer staff across all its sites."
Of course, in the next four or five years, the ONS will not employ fewer staff at Runcorn; it will not be employing any, but that is no reason to close the office. At the end of his statement, the National Statistician returns to an old chestnut:
"Runcorn does not fit into these plans because it is too small".
If Runcorn is too small, it is because it has been kept that way by the ONS, and that problem could have been tackled.
Almost as a throwaway, we were told:
"The move will make the Newport site more efficient and flexible and it will strengthen the statistical services it provides."
I do not disagree; the move may well achieve those aims. However, that is not a strong enough justification for the decision to close the Runcorn site.

241WH
The Runcorn decision appears to have been made in isolation; there was no full and comprehensive review of ONS operations, and the process has not been transparent. The ONS has provided a feeble excuse for closing Runcorn, which it is doing for the convenience of management. There is no strategic overview to the decisions and the ONS has not taken the opportunity to tackle the problems that it faces in the 21st century. Sadly, it has not shown any vision or the will to keep the Runcorn office open. The decision will cost up to £5 million in redundancy costs; that money could be used to strengthen ONS services elsewhere.
I shall conclude with a straightforward point. We would like the decision to be put on hold; we doubt very much that that will happen but we would like to press the Economic Secretary for a response. There should be a full, comprehensive and transparent review of what the ONS wants to do in the UK to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It should look at all ONS operations, not just the Runcorn problem in isolation, and should come up with a blueprint of what can be done in future. It would benefit my local community and be in the Government's interest to move work from the capital to Runcorn. Government always bring benefits, such as an economic benefit, because they spend a lot of money, employ a lot of people and do a lot of work, and we should share those benefits throughout the regions. That would be a great benefit to the borough of Halton. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton will elaborate on the fact that Halton is the 18th most deprived borough in the UK. We need more Government investment, not less. The work force need the Government to say that they are committed to the site in Runcorn and that the work force have a future. That is a challenge. It may take five or six months to carry out a review, but it should not be difficult.
If, at the end of the day, we still cannot make a case for keeping the Runcorn site open, we might have to accept its closure, but I am not convinced that the measures that we have asked for have been taken. The work force in Runcorn, who have given dedicated service in the employment of Government over a number of years, have not been treated fairly.
Even though there are still 12 months to go, the ONS has already made a decision to take work away from the Runcorn site. That is wrong and has left the work force feeling even more demoralised. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary can give us some comfort and will undertake to reconsider the decision.
1.40 pm
Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) on securing the debate, which is of great importance to us locally, and on his excellent contribution setting out the background and our concerns as local Members of Parliament. As colleagues, we work closely for the Halton borough and we have had many successes as a result of that partnership, but on the present issue we have not had the success that we hoped for. However, that does not detract from the need for a case to be made for keeping the Office for National Statistics at Runcorn and for questions to be asked about the decision that was taken.
242WH
It is worth pointing out the human aspect of the case. I have worked with a number of people who now work in the ONS. I know what a tragedy the decision is for people who previously worked in Runcorn at the Department for Education and Employment and at the ONS site. Many people have been there for well over a decade—16 years or more. The work force is well established and have given their loyalty and commitment to Government and to the need to provide a good service.
The loss of those jobs would be a loss to the local economy. They are good-quality jobs, requiring specific skills. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Halton is the 18th most disadvantaged borough in England and Wales, so any job loss is a blow. Only a few years ago, the work force numbered 120 to 140, but now only 80 to 90 people are employed at the ONS. You will know, Mr. Pike, of the various economic pressures in the north-west and the loss of jobs that is occurring. We want to avoid that.
The only positive aspect of the decision about the future of ONS Runcorn is the fact that a decision has been made. It has been outstanding for a number of years, which has had an effect on staff. Despite the decision, people who work at the site have told me that they still have not been given adequate information to justify the closure. They have suffered much frustration and stress over the years. As my hon. Friend noted, there was an argument about the business case four and a half years ago. We proved that there was no business case, and the then Minister accepted our argument. We were therefore surprised when the ONS outlined the reasons for the current decision, which in our view moves the goalposts.
One of the factors that has been mentioned in our discussions is investment in new technology and in the management systems for the ONS. Given that new technology can stretch out around countries and continents, I find it difficult to see that as an important argument for closing the office at Runcorn. On the contrary, it is probably an argument for keeping it open.
We accept that the Runcorn site is the smallest; it was part of a general Government office site in Runcorn. The efforts made by the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that exit jobs were created at the Runcorn site of its headquarters across the road from the ONS site have sustained and consolidated the Department's headquarters buildings there. ONS management did not seem to want to go down the same road, even though it has been proven that that can be done.
My hon. Friend outlined the argument for transferring jobs out of London, where there are hundreds of employees in a very expensive building. Some, if not all, of those jobs could be transferred to Runcorn, which has a higher level of unemployment, social stress and disadvantage. Not only would that be good for us in Halton, but it would be good for the Government. The cost of jobs and buildings in London is much higher, staff turnover is much greater, and keeping good-quality staff is much more difficult. None of those is a problem in Runcorn and Halton. I do not understand why ONS management did not consider that feasible.
The decision took a long time to be reached. That may be due partly to the representations made by us and others in favour of retaining the site at Runcorn. During

243WH
that time, management provided little information. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has been in post for but a few months and I do not blame her or her predecessors. Management were lax about providing regular information to staff, which is part of the reason why such frustration has built up among staff, and why they would rather have even a negative decision than none at all. They have had enough of the way in which they have been treated. That illustrates how the ONS has been managed in recent times.
From speaking to members of staff and constituents at the Runcorn site, I know that they feel that they should have the opportunity to get another job locally or to take a redundancy package if that suits them. There is talk of avoiding compulsory redundancies. When managers went to the site to talk to staff on the day that the decision was made, they gave the impression that they did not expect any problem in finding jobs for staff or making available a proper redundancy package for those who wanted to take it. That is what some people want; they are keen to move on and find new careers. I want my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to be aware of what staff were promised on the day that the meeting took place.
I should be interested to know what consultation took place with personnel managers in the Department for Education and Skills prior to the announcement and since. There is a rumour going around, which may not be true but which I should make public, that personnel managers in the DFES were surprised to learn that they were so closely involved in trying to find a solution. I could be wrong, but this is probably the right forum in which to mention the rumour. What response has been forthcoming from personnel managers in the DFES about providing help in finding new jobs?
There is concern among staff—which demonstrates their commitment—about whether ONS will be able to provide the same service post-Runcorn or even in the immediate future, or whether there are moves afoot to reduce the services that the ONS supplies to its customers and users.
I cannot stress enough how loyal the staff have been at the Runcorn site, and how hard working, how committed and how skilled they are. They would clearly prefer the decision to be reversed so that they could have a future and a career there. I shall not repeat the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale presented so coherently and succinctly about why we believe that the decision could still be reversed and the jobs saved.
I wonder whether part of the problem is the way in which the ONS has been managed. Again, I stress that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has been in the job for only a few months, but I am sure that she is aware of some of the shortcomings that have been mentioned. I believe that ONS management have let down the staff at Runcorn, have not managed the situation well for a number of years and are still not managing it well. I believe that some of the issues that have arisen in the ONS in the past year or two indicate poor management control and involvement. I want my hon. Friend to be aware of the concerns that have been expressed about those issues. I am sure that, being new in her job, she will consider them.
244WH
Finally, the closure of the Runcorn office is a loss to Halton and to the local economy. These are the sort of skills that we can ill afford to lose. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is still a great deal of anger about the decision. We feel that the jobs should still be saved and that jobs should be brought to Runcorn from the London headquarters of the ONS.
1.50 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury(Ruth Kelly): It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr. Pike.
I must start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) on securing this debate, which deals with a very important issue. The closure of the Office for National Statistics in Runcorn is a matter of significant concern for his constituents, for the north-west and for me as the Minister who has departmental responsibility for the ONS. I know about the contribution that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) have made on this subject and about their commitment to the welfare of their constituents.
Nobody likes to see offices close, and I should like to assure everyone that the decision to close Runcorn was not taken lightly. Before addressing the key matters in this debate, I should like to remind members that the Office for National Statistics operates from five sites: Newport, Titchfield and Runcorn, which deal with statistics, Southport, which deals with registration services and, of course, London. The Runcorn office is by far the smallest of those sites and employs fewer than 100 people on a permanent basis—all the other offices employ at least 600 people—and its work is very closely linked with that of Newport.
The ONS has been reviewing the future of Runcorn since 1996, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale pointed out. In 1997, my predecessor agreed with the ONS that, in the longer term, Runcorn was not seen as having a strategic future as part of the ONS. However, a final decision was not taken at that time. Indeed, a commitment was given to staff that the site would not be closed before October 2002, unless that could be accomplished without a significant number of redundancies. As has been pointed out, uncertainly about the future of Runcorn has caused staff considerable concerns since that time. Morale is low, career opportunities are extremely limited and, although staff perform a much-valued role in very difficult circumstances, concern about the long-term future of the site has had an unwelcome impact. Indeed, the one key point that was made during the recent consultations on the future of the site was that a final decision one way or the other was seen as being at least as important as the decision itself, if not more so.
In order finally to settle the issue, further consideration was given to the future of the site, most recently by Len Cook, the new National Statistician. On taking office, he considered the matter as part of his reappraisal of the business and the development of a longer-term business strategy for the organisation as a whole. Part of that emerging strategy is concentration of the production of statistics on the two main sites of Newport and Titchfield. The Runcorn site was considered too small to remain viable in its own right,

245WH
especially as the work conducted there has very close links with that which is undertaken at Newport. Investment decisions always require priorities to be established. At a time when the ONS is facing considerable challenges in the development of the infrastructure to support national statistics, it decided that the maintenance of a small and remote site could not be justified. I shall explain why I have come to agree with that view.
Closing a site, no matter how small, is always a very difficult decision. It has become clear to me that this decision is not justified purely on the basis of financial costs in respect of redundancy and moving staff to another site. It rests fairly and squarely in the context of a much broader strategy for the ONS as a whole, which includes an accommodation strategy and a management strategy, as well as the modernisation of the ONS service itself. The ONS is implementing a challenging new business strategy agreed by Ministers earlier this year, which focuses on radically overhauling statistical infrastructure, investing in information technology to support the ONS in becoming an e-business, modernising the administrative systems and investing in staff to ensure that they have the skills, flexibility and so on that are needed under the new process.
The decision was certainly not taken in isolation from the other major strategic decisions concerning the ONS. I would never have taken a decision on that basis. In particular, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale and for Halton know, I specifically asked the ONS to consider options such as the transferral of headquarters functions from London to the site at Runcorn. However, that option was also presented as non-viable in the context of wider strategic reforms and modernisation of ONS output. None the less, that option was explored in detail and presented to me for consideration.
Having considered the issue and asked for options to be explored, my conclusion is that the decision of the ONS and its new director on the closure of the Runcorn office is grounded in the overall business strategy of the ONS and will lead to improved efficiency for the organisation as a whole in the longer term. Maintaining the site would have required further investment in accommodation, in addition to the overheads of maintaining a fifth site, and would not have been optimal in the context of the overall business and investment strategy.
In supporting the decision of ONS management to close the Runcorn office, I have been especially mindful of the following key points. First, this is a business decision the ONS wishes to make—a fairly obvious point, but one that needs to be borne in mind. In terms of the overall business and strategy of the ONS, this consolidation offers the opportunity for all-important efficiency gains that would be difficult to achieve if its operations were more thinly spread. For example, small specialist teams are needed in Runcorn to support staff. Such support for computer systems, training or personnel will be available in Newport from bigger
246WH
teams and at lower costs. Costs for infrastructure such as computer networking or building maintenance will all be considerably lower following consolidation.
Regardless of the timing of the decision, even if it had been decided to keep Runcorn open for a little longer, its future was, given its size, always going to remain uncertain. Above all, it was certainty that all the staff wanted. The ONS plans to transfer the work with minimal disruption to the timeliness and quality of the affected outputs. Finally, I took into consideration the fact that the ONS would ensure that the consequence of the closure would be managed sensitively, taking account of the staff's wishes as far as was practicable. It is, of course, important that the ONS achieves that business transition efficiently, but it is an even higher priority that it achieves it with thoughtful regard to the staff in Runcorn—the people who are most affected by the decision. I completely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale about the loyalty and commitment of the staff in Runcorn, who have been working in circumstances of considerable uncertainty for a long time.
The ONS will offer all staff the opportunity to work at other ONS sites. If they choose to do so, they will be reimbursed for any costs that they incur by transferring. Initial consultation with staff indicates that about a dozen people are considering that option. The ONS will also liaise with other Government Departments working in the region to ensure that ONS staff have maximum opportunity to continue working in the civil service. My understanding is that an agreement in principle has been reached with the Department for Education and Skills, which has said that it will consider ONS staff and try to accommodate them where possible. For those who do not continue in work, the ONS will offer full redundancy payments in accordance with the terms laid out in the civil service management code. In the meantime, it will continue to invest in its Runcorn work force in terms of training and development in the 15 months up to the final closure date. That will help not only to maintain the quality of ONS output throughout this period, but to prepare staff for new job opportunities, whether they are inside or outside the civil service.
In conclusion, this is an important issue, and as such, Len Cook, the director of the ONS, himself announced the decision to Runcorn staff. He took questions from them on the day and has supported initiatives to help in finding opportunities for alternative employment in the area. That has included the development of contacts at working level with the DFES. What is most important is that the uncertainty of the last few years is resolved and that staff know where they stand. The future of the Runcorn site has been under consideration for a long period and has been formally reviewed several times. I am convinced that the decision to close the Runcorn office is the right one for the longer-term business plan of the ONS. It is the only decision that brings the certainty that everyone wanted. The transfer of work from Runcorn to Newport will take place over a period from April 2002 to March 2003.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

HEALTH

  Dementia
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recent research into the causes and treatment of dementia. [19666]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People, launched in March this year, drew on available evidence, and existing research on the causes and treatment of dementia was comprehensively assessed. A research strategy for older people is being drawn up as a result of the National Service Framework and mental health services for older people will be a high priority in shaping it.

  Private Care Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the state of the private care home sector. [19667]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 9 October, we announced an extra £300 million investment over this year and next year for local councils to spend on community care services. This major cash investment will be used to reduce bed blocking and will help to stabilise the care home sector, giving them greater confidence in the future.

  We also launched a new agreement, 'Building Capacity and Partnership in Care', on 9 October. The agreement focuses on councils and the independent sector working together as partners throughout the commissioning process. This should promote a more strategic, inclusive and consistent approach to capacity planning at local level.

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the improvement of care for cancer patients. [19668]

  Ms Blears
  Enormous progress is being made in improving cancer services thanks to the efforts of frontline staff. Details are given in the first annual progress report "The NHS Cancer Plan—Making Progress" which was launched on 3 December. Copies are available in the Library.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent progress has been made on speeding up diagnosis and treatment of cancer for patients. [19672]

  Ms Blears
  Between July to September 2001 91.3 per cent. of all urgent general practitioner referrals for suspected cancer were seen within two weeks. A730W
  programme of investment and reform is in place to support the rollout of new cancer waiting times targets to 2005.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards achieving the Government's target for the percentage of referred cancer patients seen within 14 days. [19674]

  Ms Blears
  Between July to September this year 91.3 per cent. of all urgent general practitioner referrals for suspected cancer were seen within two weeks. Over the period January to September 2001 over 233,500 people urgently referred with suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within two weeks.

  Children's Hospices
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase funding to children's hospices. [19669]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children's hospices have access to national health service funding, the level of which may increase by agreement with health authorities and primary care trusts following assessment of local options available to support children with life threatening illnesses, and their families. The New Opportunities Fund will also be available from next year and has a budget of £48 million to support projects for children with life threatening illness.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timing of the(a) publication and (b) implementation of the National Service Framework for diabetes. [19670]

  Jacqui Smith
  I announced on 15 October that the Diabetes National Service Framework standards would be published this year and the delivery strategy in summer 2002. This will enable the national health service to prepare to plan for the 10-year implementation programme which will start in April 2003.

  General Practitioner Consultations
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations his Department makes to general practitioners regarding the amount of time that should be made available for consultation per patient; and if he will make a statement. [19673]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients' needs vary from one to another and it is best left to the clinical judgment of each general practitioner to decide how long to spend on a consultation. Accordingly, the Department has issued no guidance on this.

  NHS Expenditure
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent NHS spending has been(a) over and (b) under planned levels in the (i) financial year 2000–01 and (ii) first half of this financial year. [19675]

  Mr. Hutton
  The resource underspend for the Department of Health (which includes national health service spending) in 2000–01 was £712 million. The Department plans to spend all resources in the current
  731W
  financial year. To ensure that best use is made of resources in year, end-year flexibility arrangements allow expenditure to be carried forward into the next financial year.

  Falls (Older People)
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of progress with respect to the(a) prevention of falls and (b) treatment of older people who suffer injury through falls. [19676]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People recognises the importance of preventing falls and providing effective treatment and rehabilitation to those who have fallen. It sets a standard and milestones for the introduction of integrated falls services. No formal assessment has yet been undertaken of progress towards the NSF falls milestones which are set annually from April 2003.

  Hospital Star Ratings
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made following the publication of hospital star ratings. [19677]

  Mr. Hutton
  For national health service trusts who were awarded no stars, action plans are being drawn up and implemented. These will improve the areas of significant under-performance and bring them up to the standard the public and patients have the right to expect.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the WHO on the guarding of smallpox virus stocks. [19678]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is represented on an ad hoc Committee set up by the World Health Organisation to review scientific and technical aspects relating to smallpox. A report of this work is due to be considered by the World Health Assembly in May 2002.

  These matters are kept under continuous review.

  Barnsley Health Authority
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the projected deficit of Barnsley area health authority for 2001–02. [19679]

  Jacqui Smith
  For 2001–02, Barnsley health authority submitted a balanced financial plan, but with only limited contingency funding set aside to address in year pressures. As at the end of October 2001, against their allocation of £198 million, Barnsley HA is forecasting a deficit of £2 million (or 1 per cent.). This is attributable to higher than expected community prescribing costs. In response to the current position, the health community is collectively working on a recovery plan to ensure delivery of a balanced financial position in 2001–02 without adversely affecting the delivery of agreed service targets.

  HIV
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how HIV prevention work will be commissioned after 1 April 2002. [19680]
  732W
  Jacqui Smith
  From 1 April 2002, local HIV prevention will be commissioned by Primary Care Trusts. In addition, the Department of Health will continue to fund national HIV prevention work. Both national and local work will be undertaken in accordance with the priorities set out in the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV. Implementation of the Strategy will be underpinned by robust performance management, for example using information collected under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how specialist commissioning for HIV prevention and treatment will be carried out after 1 April 2002. [19681]

  Jacqui Smith
  Both HIV/AIDS treatment and care and local HIV prevention will be commissioned by Primary Care Trusts. For the year ahead, Primary Care Trusts must honour existing agreements—both financial and otherwise—negotiated by Regional Specialised Commissioning Groups and current specialised service commissioners.

  Both national and local work will be undertaken in accordance with the priorities set out in the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV. Implementation of the Strategy will be underpinned by robust performance management, for example using information collected under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987.

  Delayed Discharges
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to tackle delayed discharges from hospitals. [19682]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are investing an additional £300 million over this year and the next as part of a radical 'cash for change' programme. This is aimed at reducing delayed discharges and targeted on the worst performing areas. This investment and reform will help to free up beds in hospitals, reduce waiting times for treatment and ensure patients, particularly older people, are cared for in the most appropriate place.

  Redbridge council has received £369,000 from the £100 million announced on 9 October to fund reductions in delayed discharges in 2001–02.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on reducing delayed discharges from hospital. [19690]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are investing an additional £300 million over this year and the next as part of a radical 'cash for change' programme. This is aimed at reducing delayed discharges and targeted on the worst performing areas. This investment and reform will help to free up beds in hospitals, reduce waiting times for treatment and ensure patients, particularly older people, are cared for in the most appropriate place.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of delayed discharges. [19848]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures for September 2001, the latest available, show some 6.6 per cent. of discharges involved a delay. We have allocated an extra £100 million this year to reduce the number of delayed discharges by at least 1,000 by the end of the financial year.
  733W

  Health Authority Funding Criteria
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors other than population are taken into account in calculating the payment made annually to each health authority. [19683]

  Mr. Hutton
  A weighted capitation formula is used to inform revenue allocations to health authorities. The formula weights each health authority's population according to their relative need for health care and the unavoidable geographical differences in the cost of providing health care.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about waiting times for NHS treatment. [19684]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department regularly receives correspondence from patients and hon. Members about waiting times for both inpatients and outpatients.

  Bed Blocking (East Sussex)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on bed blocking in East Sussex. [19685]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are aware that delayed discharges remains a particular problem in East Sussex. A Performance Improvement Plan was developed by East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority and the East Sussex and Hove social services departments to address the issue. The number of delayed discharges has been falling steadily since September 2001.

  Delayed discharges is a problem common to many parts of the country. To address this the Secretary of State, on 9 October, announced an additional £300 million over this year and next to tackle delayed discharges. East Sussex county council was recognised as a local authority in need of extra help and was allocated £1,255,000 this year from that money.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he issues to air travellers concerning the risk of deep vein thrombosis. [19686]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's "Advice on Travel Related Deep Vein Thrombosis" was published on 30 November. It has been sent to airlines and will be made available to the public through the health services, the internet, the airlines and NHS Direct.

  The advice provides information about deep vein thrombosis and gives practical advice about how air passengers on long haul flights may reduce the risk of getting a blood clotting condition. In particular it describes simple in-seat exercises which should be recommended to all air passengers.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collect and publish regular statistical information on the general state of health of the population. [19688]
  734W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department commissions a range of surveys designed to provide regular information on various aspects of the nation's health which cannot be obtained from other sources. It is our normal practice to publish the results of all such surveys. These will be available in the Library and on the departmental website.

  Anti-impotence Drugs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the prescribing of anti-impotence drugs on the NHS. [19689]

  Jacqui Smith
  Earlier this year we held a public consultation about the arrangements governing eligibility for impotence treatments on the national health service. Expenditure on impotence treatments, at £25 million a year, is above what we expected and continues to increase. We concluded that the extra cost of allowing unrestricted prescribing might involve diversion of funds from other NHS priorities. Therefore we decided to maintain the restrictions introduced on 1 July 1999. To maintain a consistent approach the new drug treatment, Uprima, has been subject to the same restrictions since 1 November 2001.

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the chairman of Worcestershire acute hospital trust. [19691]

  Mr. Hutton
  Two parliamentary questions regarding the chairman of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust were raised recently by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff).

  The National Health Service Appointments Commission was established on 1 April 2001 to take over from Ministers the responsibility for appointing, training and appraising chairs and non-executives to the boards of national health service trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts. This includes responsibility for matters relating to resignation of individuals from board positions.

  Care Home Beds
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care home beds there were in(a) December 2000 and (b) December 2001. [19692]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main statistical collections on care home beds relate to 31 March each year. There were 539,200 care home beds at 31 March 2000 and 528,000 at 31 March 2001. The Department is currently collecting information on the number of care beds at 30 November 2001. Data on care home beds are requested by local capacity planning groups (that is aggregated at health authority level) as part of work to plan winter capacity. Details including proformas, can be found on the internet at http://www.doh.cov.ukkapacityplanning/capplan.htm

  CT and MRI Scanners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria will be used to distribute the next 50 CT and MRI scanners. [19693]
  735W
  Jacqui Smith
  Criteria for the distribution of the 50 CT and 50 MRI scanners announced in the NHS Cancer Plan have yet to be decided.

  However, databases of current equipment and regional provision as well as local information, such as the cancer networks facilities and equipment strategies, will be used to help formulate criteria for allocation.

  York Health NHS Trust
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many York Health NHS Trust beds were occupied on average on each day of the last month for which figures are available by patients awaiting discharge to a nursing or residential care home. [19694]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data are not collected in the format requested. The table shows the number of York Health National Health Service Trust beds occupied by patients awaiting discharge to a nursing home or residential care home at the end of each seven day period during November 2001.

  Seven days ending

  Awaiting public funding or residential/nursing home placement

  4 November 2001

  35

  11 November 2001

  33

  18 November 2001

  31

  25 November 2001

  28

  Edgware Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress on services at the new hospital at Edgware. [19687]

  Mr. Hutton
  Clearing the site of the new hospital has been completed. Invitations to tender for the building of the new hospital have been invited by 21 December.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the National Health Service spent on hiring agency nursing staff in the last 12 months. [20735]

  Mr. Hutton
  The expenditure on non-National Health Service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, in England, for the financial year 2000–01 was £447,248,470. The non-NHS staff figures include all nurses, midwives and health visiting staff not directly employed by the NHS. We are unable to disaggregate agency nurses. The 2000–01 figure is the latest available and is provisional.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimates he has made of the impact of staff shortages on NHS capacity. [20625]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, acknowledges that the shortage of human resources is the biggest constraint faced by the national health service 736W
  today. The plan sets targets for recruiting 20,000 more nurses, 7,500 more consultants, 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals and 2,000 more general practitioners by 2004 over the 1999 baseline. The Government's manifesto carried these commitments forward.

  The NHS Plan also contains targets for increasing the number of students in training. There will be: 5,500 more nurses and midwives entering training each year by 2004 than there were in 1999, 4,450 more therapists and other key professional staff being trained by 2004, 1,000 more specialist registrars and 450 (since raised to 550) more doctors training for general practice by 2004.

  Taken together, these targets will address current shortages and provide for growth required to improve services in line with National Service Frameworks, the Cancer Plan and waiting time commitments.

  Adult Stem Cell Research
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the progress and effectiveness of adult stem cell research in treating health disorders. [19671]

  Ms Blears
  Adult sources of stem cells along with those from cord blood, foetal and now embryonic sources are being studied by researchers around the world. However, with the exception of the well established use of bone marrow derived cells in transplantation and some very early clinical trials using foetal cells in Huntington's and Parkinson's disease, this research has not yet reached the stage of treatment for any health disorders where assessments of this kind can be made.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy on(a) sanctions against and (b) bombing of Iraq. [22199]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 28 November 2001,Official Report, columns 965–66.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on his discussions with the civil service commissioners about the terms of appointment of the next head of the civil service; [19948]

  (2) what proposals he has to look outside the civil service for the appointment of the next Cabinet Secretary; what plans he has to fuse the Cabinet Office with the office in 10 Downing street; and what new conditions an applicant will be required to agree to before appointment as (a) head of the civil service and (b) Cabinet Secretary. [19949]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 626W.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what and action he instituted on and before 9 December into 738W
  reports of a campaign by persons in Government to undermine the reputation of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. [22726]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answers I gave the right hon. Member for Chingford 2001,Official Report, columns 323–24.

DEFENCE

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21311]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information follows on the number of people employed by my Department and its agencies under the new deal for young people. 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 be readily identified.

  On 30 September 2001, the latest date for which information is available, 19 people between the ages of 18 and 24 were employed by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies under the new deal for young people. It is not, however, possible without disproportionate cost to identify the number serving who are now over age 24 but originally appointed through the young people's scheme.

  RAF Finningley
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Manchester Airport submitted an expression of interest in acquiring the RAF Finningley site for development as a civil passenger airport; what meetings with his Department were held; and if he will publish the documents relating to the expression of interest. [21436]

  Dr. Moonie
  Expressions of interest from potential bidders for the former RAF Finningley were invited on 28 July 1996 in the Estates Gazette, as part of the first attempt to sell the site.

  Manchester Airport (consortium) was interviewed on 10 October 1996 along with a number of other parties.

  When the site was re-marketed in 1997, Manchester Airport did not apply.

  The release of documents relating to the expression of interest is a matter for Manchester Airport.

  Defence Employment (Glasgow)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in Glasgow are employed in defence work. [21620]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of directly employed Ministry of Defence jobs in the city of Glasgow local authority area as at 1 July 2000 is as follows.
  740W

  Number

  Military

  1,204

  Civilian

  1,832

  Civilian casual

  7

  Total

  3,043

  In addition to this direct employment, the MOD supports a significant number of defence related jobs throughout the UK. The Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) is currently unable to provide data relating to the number of jobs created or sustained directly or indirectly as a result of MOD expenditure at a national or regional level. DASA is currently reviewing their methodology on the estimation of employment figures dependent on UK defence expenditure.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Type 45 destroyers will be constructed in Scotland. [21619]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the shipbuilding procurement strategy for the Royal Navy announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 10 July 2001,Official Report, columns 675–85, the first Type 45 destroyer will be assembled and launched at Scotstoun on Clydeside. It is planned that the remainder of the class, of up to 12 ships, will be assembled and launched at Barrow in Furness. However, significant sections of each ship will be manufactured by Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth and BAE Systems Marine at Barrow and on the Clyde.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training exercises have been carried out by the armed forces(a) in and (b) from Gibraltar during the last three years; and how many of these were (i) Royal Navy (ii) RAF (iii) Army and (iv) all services. [22125]

  Mr. Ingram
  About 300 training exercises have been carried out by the UK armed forces in and from Gibraltar during the last three years. Of these, five exercises each year are conducted off Rock by Gibraltar-based forces. Around 30 each year were maritime based including maritime/air and amphibious exercises, 50 predominantly Army and the remainder joint exercises.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have docked in Gibraltar in the last three years. [22126]

  Mr. Ingram
  149 Royal Navy ships have docked in Gibraltar since April 1998.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are based in Gibraltar. [22127]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army presence on Gibraltar comprises 400 regular and reservist members of the Gibraltar Regiment plus around 60 UK-based Army personnel in a range of other posts.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effect in military activity in and around Gibraltar as a result of the Brussels process. [22128]
  741W
  Mr. Ingram
  Military activity on and around Gibraltar has not been affected by the recent Brussels process discussions.

  Terms of Service
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what respects the terms of service of(a) regular servicemen and (b) reservists, including members of the Territorial Army, on full-time service differ. [22109]

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

  Regulations
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regulations his Department has proposed to Parliament since June; what regulatory impact assessments have been made for those regulations his Department has implemented in 2001; and what plans his Department has to reduce the number of regulations affecting small businesses. [21973]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a non-regulatory Department, the Ministry of Defence has not proposed any regulations to Parliament since June and no regulatory impact assessments have been made.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his Department's policy to draw up a specific memorandum of understanding governing the presence of the USVF at RAF Menwith Hill. [22149]

  Mr. Ingram
  The presence of the United States Visiting Forces at all bases made available to them in the UK is governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 and additional confidential arrangements. A separate memorandum of understanding governing the presence of the USVF at RAF Menwith Hill is not required.

  Promotions
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) executive and (b) administrative officers in his Department may be promoted at the age of 58 years or over. [22335]

  Dr. Moonie
  Executive and administrative officers aged 58 years or over in the Ministry of Defence may apply and be selected for promotion opportunities.

  Age Equality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the compulsory retirement age is for(a) executives and (b) administrative officers in his Department, if the MOD's policy on retirement of (i) executive officers and (ii) administrative officers, complies with (A) the Government's Code of Practice on Age Diversity in employment and (B) the EU Employment Directive on Equality; if his policy is the same as other Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [22336]

  Dr. Moonie
  The normal retirement age in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is 60 for executives and 65 for administrative support staff. Like other Government 742W
  Departments, the MOD has delegated authority to frame its retirement polity to meet its business needs, compliant with the Code of Practice, and there are differences between Departments.

  The MOD is reviewing its retirement policy in light of the Code, and the Performance and Innovation Unit's report on "Winning the Generation Game". This review will also take into account the implementation in the UK of the EU Equal Treatment Directive.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21833]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is committed to the work/life balance of its civilian staff. A range of flexible working patterns, including part-time working, flexible working hours, job sharing and homeworking, is available to staff by agreement with their managers. The MOD publicises its policy on flexible working and encourages managers to respond positively to requests as part of its commitment to diversity.

  97 staff are formally registered as homeworkers and many others have the opportunity to work at home occasionally. Funding is available to provide equipment to enable staff to work from home on a full or part-time basis. A pilot scheme has been established to explore more formally the practical issues of working from home, and the lessons learned will be used to publicise and promote homeworking.

  Defence Sites, Corsham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in the Basil Hill and Copenacre sites in Corsham by(a) the Defence Communication Services Agency and (b) other units; how he expects the totals to change in the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [21933]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of Ministry of Defence (MOD) directly employed military and civilian staff employed at the Basil Hill and Copenacre sites is:

  (a) Defence Communication Services Agency (DCSA): 527

  (b)Other MOD Units: 219.

  In addition, the Rudloe site, which forms an integral part of the Corsham estate, is home to the Joint Support Unit (JSU) Corsham with a strength of 240. The JSU is a sub unit of the DCSA.

  There are also 130 staff of business partners working with the DCSA employed in these locations.

  The total number of MOD staff on the Corsham estate is therefore 1,116.

  As a result of work carried out for the Corsham Development Project, it is expected that the present on-site numbers will change in the next five years as follows:

  (a) DCSA inclusive of the JSU: 1,380

  (b) Other MOD Units: 194

  (c)Business Partners: 280.

  743W

  Cruise Missiles
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cruise missiles have been used in the conflict in Afghanistan by(a) Britain and (b) the United States. [21652]

  Mr. Hoon
  UK submarines have launched a small number of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. I am withholding details of the precise number launched in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The number of cruise missiles fired by the United States is a matter for them.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the definition of "British" as it applies to civilian former prisoners of the Japanese was clarified; when the need for clarification was identified; and when and how the new criteria were first made public. [22308]

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

  Army Cadet Force
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reinstate the use of barrack trousers as part of the Army Cadet Force standard uniform; and if he will make a statement. [20980]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to issue barrack dress trousers to members of the Army Cadet Force.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures there are to increase cadet participation in Regular and Territorial Army exercises. [20979]

  Dr. Moonie
  Generally, cadets do not participate in Regular and Territorial Army exercises. If, however, there is activity that is deemed appropriate by the County Commandant—such as acting as casualties during first aid training—the cadets may participate. My hon. Friend may like to note that any such participation must be properly supervised and carried out in accordance with the rules laid down for cadet activities.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cadets in the Army Cadet Force there have been in each year since 1997; and how many Army Cadet Force units have been(a) opened and (b) closed since 1997. [20981]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of cadets in the Army Cadet Force in each year since 1997 are shown in the table. These figures represent average numbers across each year.

  Year

  Strength

  1997

  40,047

  1998

  40,707

  1999

  42,550

  2000

  42,491

  2001

  40,573

  Between 1 January 1997 and 1 November this year a total of 45 ACF detachments have closed and 66 have opened.
  744W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procedure that is to be taken when promoting an army cadet within the Army Cadet Force; and what qualifications a cadet must have to achieve a higher rank in the organisation. [20982]

  Dr. Moonie
  Promotions in the cadets are granted in accordance with regulations contained in the Army Cadet Force manual; they depend entirely on merit and are achieved usually when cadets have qualified for the appropriate stars. The achievement of stars is linked to the successful completion of certain skills tests at various levels (such as fieldcraft, drill and skill at arms).

  To achieve promotion to Cadet Lance Corporal the cadet must have passed 1 star, for Cadet Corporal he or she must have passed 2 star, for Cadet Sergeant he or she must have passed 3 star and for Cadet Warrant Officer he or she must have passed 4 star.

  Cadets with exceptional or outstanding service may also be appointed as a Master Cadet or a Lord Lieutenant Cadet. Both appointments are made on the recommendation of the County Commandant.

  Army (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers from ethnic minorities there are in each of the Guards regiments; how many soldiers from ethnic minorities there are in the British Army not including the Gurkhas; and if he will make a statement. [20983]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of soldiers from ethnic minorities, not including Gurkhas, in each of the Guard regiments and in the British Army as a whole is set out in the tables:

  Strength of Army soldiers in Guards regiments by ethnicity as at 1 November 2001

  White1

  Non-white1

  Unspecified

  Total

  Grenadier Guards

  713

  22

  5

  740

  Coldstream Guards

  816

  7

  5

  828

  Scots Guards

  719

  10

  7

  736

  Irish Guards

  614

  22

  10

  646

  Welsh Guards

  660

  9

  3

  672

  Strength of all Army soldiers by ethnicity as at 1 November 2001

  Number

  White1

  88,974

  Non-white1

  2,309

  Unspecified

  4,546

  Total

  95,829

  1Provisional

  Notes:

  1. The ethnic origin marker is currently being re-surveyed to align with the codes used in the 2001 Census. During this process all current intake is being recorded as being of unspecified origin. Strength figures are therefore shown as provisional.

  2. The figures provided are based on UK Trained Army Personnel (UKTAP) only; this does not include Full Time Reserve Service, Royal Irish Home Service or Gurkhas.

  3. Figures provided include Commonwealth personnel.

  The Army remains firmly committed to its long-term aim of achieving levels of ethnic minority representation which more closely reflect the population it serves. This

  745W
  was recognised earlier this year in a report following the Business in the Community's Race for Opportunity campaign, which rated the Army as Britain's top public sector organisation for race equality.

  HMS Glorious
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent revisions he has made to the account of the sinking of HMS Glorious. [22103]

  Dr. Moonie
  There has been no revision to the account of the tragic sinking of HMS Glorious placed in the Library of the House in February 2000.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made

  Annex 1: Examples of DFID-supported bilateral projects, and research and studies, that have a strong focus on wildlife/bushmeat species

  Name of project

  Country

  Period of support

  £000

  Mbomipa Community Wildlife Project

  Tanzania

  1997–2001

  1,973

  Wildlife Intensification for Livelihood Development (WILD)

  Namibia

  1999–2002

  1,040

  Madikwe Community Wildlife Management

  South Africa

  1997–1999

  622

  Amboro Rural Development

  Bolivia

  1996–2000

  3,200

  Mount Cameroon Project

  Cameroon

  1995–2002

  10,602

  Community Forest Development Project

  Cameroon

  1999–2002

  1,049

  Indonesian Multi-Stakeholder

  Indonesia

  1998–2005

  25,150

  Cross River State Community Forestry Project

  Nigeria

  1996–2001

  2,000

  Forest Sector Development Project Phase II

  Ghana

  2000–04

  11,963

  Joint funding scheme with WWF

  Gashaka-Gumpti/Kupe

  Nigeria/Cameroon

  1991–2001

  6,289

  Coastal forests/Bogoria/Udzungwa

  Kenya/Tanzania

  1990–2001

  Kunene/Caprivi

  Namibia

  1990–2001

  Mamiraua/Varzea

  Brazil

  1991–2000

  Studies and research:

  Livestock-wildlife interactions

  Africa

  1997–2001

  1997–2001

  Illegal hunting in Serengeti NP

  Tanzania

  1997–2000

  Bushmeat in rural livelihoods of west Africa

  Ghana/Cameroon

  2000–01

  China
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what investigation she has made into the funding provided by(a) the United Nations Population Fund and (b) the International Planned Parenthood Federation to China's population control authorities: and if she will make a statement. [22102]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) programme in China is one of the most scrutinised of their global portfolio. UNFPA Executive Board members including the United Kingdom, United States, European Union and developing countries, have reviewed the programme with the UNFPA representatives in Beijing and visited programme counties on five occasions since December 1997. My Department, including the DFID Health Adviser in Beijing, closely monitors the development of the programme.

  My Department also receives periodic reports from the International Planned Parenthood Federation on its work to promote awareness and implementation of international standards in reproductive health and greater respect for
  746W
  of the impact the trade in bushmeat has on the environment in West and Central Africa. [20562]

  Clare Short
  We have not made any specific assessments of the impact the bushmeat trade per se has had on the environment in West and Central Africa. However, we are conscious that the unsustainable escalation in the commercial bushmeat trade is a growing problem that is in large part a result of poverty and is facilitated by the expansion of the forestry and mining industries into natural forest areas.

  We are aware of the dangers posed to eco-systems by the unregulated expansion of these industries in west and central africa and are concerned to ensure that the long-term interests of poor people in sustainable natural resource management are addressed. DFID is currently working closely with DEFRA and other international, National and Civil Society bodies to address this issue. To this end we are involved in various initiatives that contribute to the conservation of wild animals and their habitats (see Annex 1).

  reproductive rights through its affiliate the China Family Planning Association (CFPA). The work of the CFPA was the subject of an independent review in 1996 led by Professor John Hobcraft of the London School of Economics who concluded that the IPPF was playing an effective and valuable role in influencing the work of the CFPA.

  British Council Scholarships
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many British Council scholarships have been awarded to students from Southern Sudan in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [21521]

  Clare Short
  There were no British Council scholarships awarded to Sudanese students during this period.

  However, there were (a) 22 students from Sudan managed by the British Council in calendar year 2000; and (b) 22 in 2001. These 44 were funded either by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Chevening Scholarships) or the United Nations.
  747W
  The British Council figures do not identify which Sudanese students are from the south.

  War Against Terrorism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how she expects her Department's development policy to be affected by the war against terrorism. [21872]

  Clare Short
  Tackling the poverty and ignorance which feed extremism and violence is vital to ending global terrorism. It has never been more evident that ending world poverty is in all of our self-interests. The 1997 and 2000 White Papers on international development set our policies for eliminating poverty and making globalisation work for the world's poor. The need to tackle terrorism provides additional impetus to my Department's efforts to implement these policies.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of her Department in Sierra Leone. [21871]

  Clare Short
  In Sierra Leone, my Department is engaged primarily in promoting security and good governance. We are providing long-term support to the police, strengthening the Ministry of Defence to ensure the armed forces are more democratically accountable, and helping reintegrate ex-combatants wishing to return to civilian life. We are supporting the Anti-Corruption Commission, helping to reform the judiciary, training the media, assisting the Government to prepare for elections next year, and providing budgetary support to help meet the running costs of government. We also provide substantial support to meet the ongoing humanitarian needs of those displaced by the conflict.

  Date

  Minister

  Event

  Event type

  12 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Boris Gudunov" at the Riverside Studios

  Theatre

  13 June 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of Hideo Furuta's Sculpture in the Park Exhibition

  Art Gallery

  18 June 2001

  Secretary of State and Minister of State for the Arts

  Vermeer Exhibition at the National Gallery

  Art Gallery

  19 June 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Pakistan v Australia One Day Cricket International

  Sporting Event

  19 June 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  BP Portrait awards at National Portrait Gallery

  Art Gallery

  21 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  "My Fair Lady" at the Royal National Theatre

  Theatre

  25 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  Tour of Brooklands Museum

  Museum

  25 June 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tate Britain—tour of the new galleries (work in progress)

  Art Gallery

  26 June 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of Ingres to Matisse: Masterpieces of French Painting Exhibition at Royal Academy

  Art Gallery

  30 June 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Lawn Tennis Championships, Wimbledon

  Sporting Event

  5 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Rachel Whiteread Exhibition at Serpentine Gallery

  Art Gallery

  5 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "Lady Macbeth" at English National Opera

  Theatre

  7 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Lawn Tennis Championships, Wimbledon

  Sporting Event

  8 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Lawn Tennis Championships, Wimbledon

  Sporting Event

  10 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Reception to celebrate the completion of the Everyman Millennium Commission Library at British Museum

  11 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Royal Ballet School Performance at the Linbury Studio Theatre, Royal Opera House

  Theatre

  12 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of the Theatre 2001 conference report at Prince of Wales Theatre

  Theatre

  12 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "Un Giomo di Regno" at Buxton Festival Opening Night

  Theatre

  12 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tour of Somerset House

  Art Gallery

  15 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Formula One Grand Prix

  Sporting Event

  17 July 2001

  Secretary of State

  Predators Exhibition at Natural History Museum

  Museum

  17 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "Wabi-Sabi" Exhibition of Japanese jewellery, metal and textiles at Contemporary Applied Arts

  Art Gallery

  17 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  European Cadet Boxing Championships Sporting Event

  22 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  130 Open Golf Championships

  Sporting Event

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the oral answer from the Minister for Sport on 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 14, who (a) attends and (b) chairs the ministerial meetings on sports issues. [21598]

  Mr. Caborn
  The meetings are attended by ministerial representatives from: the Department for Education and Skills; the Department of Health; the Home Office; the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. In addition senior representatives from Sport England, and the New Opportunities Fund attend. Sue Campbell, the joint adviser for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Skills, and Ben Chapman MP also attend. As Minister for Sport I chair the monthly meetings.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which(a) museums, (b) theatres, (c) art galleries and (d) sporting events (i) she and (ii) other Ministers in her Department have visited in an official capacity since 8 June; and what was the (1) purpose and (2) date of each visit. [21377]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The information requested is shown in the following table. Visits to such events allow Ministers to see developments in their sector at first hand and demonstrate our support for such projects and initiatives. These are, of course, in addition to visits made in a private capacity or for party reasons.
  749W

  Date

  Minister

  Event

  Event type

  31 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tour of National Maritime Museum, Greenwich

  Museum

  31 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of "Priestley—Making Time and Space for Theatre" at Criterion Theatre

  Theatre

  31 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  BBC Proms 14 at the Royal Albert Hall

  Theatre

  1 August 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "The Shape of Things" at the Almeida Theatre, Kings Cross

  Theatre

  3–7 August 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  World Athletics Championships

  Sporting Event

  7 August 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to Howard Hodgkin Exhibition at the Dulwich Picture Gallery

  Art Gallery

  8 August 2001

  Secretary of State

  "The Winter's Tale" at Royal National Theatre

  Theatre

  9 August 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Twelfth Night" at Royal Shakespeare Theatre

  Theatre

  15 August 2001

  Secretary of State

  Howard Hodgkin Exhibition at Dulwich Picture Gallery

  Art Gallery

  16 August 2001

  Secretary of State

  BBC Proms—Beethoven Fidelio at Royal Albert Hall

  Theatre

  19 August 2001

  Secretary of State

  BBC Proms—Dvorak Cello Concerto at the Royal Albert Hall

  Theatre

  28 August 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Hamlet" at Young Vic

  Theatre

  28 August 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Theatre's Kids Week—Playhouse Theatre

  Theatre

  28 August 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "The Tragedy of Hamlet" at the Young Vic

  Theatre

  29 August 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  British Amputee Open Golf Championships 2001

  Sporting Event

  1 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Germany v England World Cup Qualifier

  Sporting Event

  5 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  England v Albania World Cup Qualifier

  Sporting Event

  5 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "Swan Lake" at Sadler's Wells

  Theatre

  9 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tour of the exhibition at Jewish Museum, Berlin

  Museum

  9 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Concert by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at the Philharmonic Hall, Berlin-Tiergarten

  Theatre

  10 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tour of Volksbuhne Theatre, Berlin

  Theatre

  11 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "All My Sons" at the Lyttelton Theatre

  Theatre

  12 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Jerwood Applied Arts Prize at Crafts Council Gallery

  Art Gallery

  13 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of Julian Stair Exhibition at Contemporary Applied Arts

  Art Gallery

  14 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  BBC Proms 72, at the Royal Albert Hall

  Theatre

  15 September 2001

  Secretary of State

  Last Night of the BBC Proms at Royal Albert Hall

  Theatre

  15 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  St. Leger Horserace

  Sporting Event

  18 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Stockport County v Sheffield United

  Sporting Event

  19 September 2001

  Secretary of State

  Rembrandt's Women at Royal Academy of Arts

  Art Gallery

  25 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of new Collections Centre, Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Museum

  25 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to the People's History Museum (part of the National Museum
  of Labour History)

  Museum

  28 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to the Rose Theatre excavation exhibition site

  Theatre

  4 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of the Japan 2001 "Facts of Life" exhibition at the
  Hayward Gallery

  Art Gallery

  5 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "Rigoletto" at the Royal Opera House

  Theatre

  6 October 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  England v Greece Word Cup Qualifier

  Sporting Event

  8 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Opening of Robin Howard Dance Theatre

  Theatre

  8 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of the Paul Robeson Exhibition at the Theatre Museum,
  Covent Garden

  Museum

  9 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "Leonore" at Sadler's Wells

  Theatre

  10 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tour of Crafts Council

  Art Gallery

  10 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of Exhibition of early Indian photography at Brunei
  Gallery, London School of Oriental and African Studies

  Art Gallery

  12 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Leonore" at Sadler's Wells Theatre

  Theatre

  13 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Julius Caesar" at Royal Shakespeare Theatre

  Theatre

  13 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Pisanello: Painter to the Renaissance Court Exhibition at National Gallery

  Art Gallery

  16 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of the "Radical Fashion" Exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum

  Museum

  17 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Design Conference at Imperial War Museum

  Museum

  17 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of "Art on The Line" Exhibition at Courtauld Institute Gallery

  Art Gallery

  22 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to "The Dig" project at the Museum of London.

  Museum

  23 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Pisanello: Painter to the Renaissance Court Exhibition at the National Gallery

  Art Gallery

  24 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to the Conservation Centre at National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Museum

  25 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to the Science Museum

  Museum

  25 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Exposed: The Victorian Nude Exhibition at Tate Britain

  Art Gallery

  25 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Preview of Linbury Galleries at Tate Britain and the inaugural
  exhibition `Exposed: The Victorian Nude'

  Art Gallery

  30 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Paris/Barcelone: de Gaudi a Miro Exhibition at Grand Palais, Paris

  Art Gallery

  31 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Opening of London Transport Museum Learning Centre

  Museum

  1 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to ENO London Colliseum

  Theatre

  4 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  BT Swimming National Short Course Championships 2001

  Sporting Event

  5 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Music for Youth Schools Prom at Royal Albert Hall

  Theatre

  7 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Schools Prom, Royal Albert Hall

  Theatre

  8 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Concert at the Royal College of Music

  Theatre

  9 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Linbury Biennial Prizes for Stage Design at National Theatre

  Theatre

  750W

  751W

  Date

  Minister

  Event

  Event type

  10 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  England v Sweden

  Sporting Event

  13 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to Wakefield Museum

  Museum

  13 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to Magna Centre

  Museum

  13 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  "Boy Gets Girl" at the Royal Court Theatre

  Theatre

  15 November 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  National Film Theatre

  Theatre

  16 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tour of Millennium Point

  Museum

  19 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of British Galleries 1500–1900 at Victoria and Albert Museum

  Museum

  20 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Opening of British Galleries 1500–1900 at Victoria and AlbertMuseum

  Museum

  22 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Switzerland Lights Up Tate Modern" at Tate Modern

  Art Gallery

  25 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Shakespeare Schools Drama Festival Showcase at Duke of York's Theatre

  Theatre

  26 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Tour of the British Museum

  Museum

  30 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Visit to the National Gallery

  Art Gallery

  5 December 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  West Ham United v Aston Villa

  Sporting Event

  Football (Safe Standing Areas)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library a copy of the Football Licensing Authority report of 5 March relating to safe standing areas at football stadia. [22361]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Football Licensing Authority's report of 5 March, entitled Report on the "Kombi" seating, Volksparkstadion, Hamburg, 23 and 24 February 2001 concerned the technical merits of one of a number of convertible seating systems which are in use at certain football stadia in Germany. I am arranging for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tourism (Euro)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact on the UK tourism industry of Britain not being part of the Eurozone in January 2002. [20127]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  In his October 1997 statement to the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out five economic tests which will define whether a clear and unambiguous case for UK membership of the single currency can be made. An assessment of the five economic tests will be produced within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment will be comprehensive and rigorous; all relevant economic issues will be dealt with as part of the assessment.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Superintendent AU Dizaei
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) when the Crown Prosecution Service received the file from the Metropolitan police investigating Superintendent Ali Dizaei; [21608]

  (2) what action she has taken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has maintained its independence from the police and acted fairly and with impartiality when considering the case against Superintendent Ali Dizaei; [21610]
  752W
  (3) when Crown Prosecutors advised the officers investigating Superintendent Ali Dizaei; [21609]

  (4) what the reasons were for the delay by the Crown Prosecution Service in deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Superintendent Ali Dizaei. [21607]

  The Solicitor-General
  A full file of evidence was submitted on 12 October 2001 and additional information is still being submitted.

  Since 31 May 2000, the police have been submitting information and requests for advice to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS has been advising the police on an ongoing basis. This advice has covered matters of admissibility and the sufficiency of evidence upon a number of discrete criminal allegations.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has not delayed and has dealt with this case expeditiously. This police investigation has encompassed a number of separate criminal allegations and has resulted in the submission of a large volume of evidence. In the light of the complexity and sensitivity of the issues raised advice has been obtained from Senior Treasury Counsel. The review of the large volume of evidence and proper consideration of all the issues involved has necessarily required adequate time to complete.

  The Crown Prosecution Service works very closely with the police but makes decisions about cases through careful, independent and impartial consideration of all the evidence and application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which states that a prosecution will only be brought if there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution is required in the public interest. The decision to start a prosecution is taken independently of the police and in this particular case will have the benefit of advice of independent Counsel.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorists
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what process suspected terrorists who are wanted for alleged crimes are having prosecutions against
  753W
  them stopped; and if he will list their names, giving in each case the details of the charges that are being dropped and the known paramilitary affiliations. [12932]

  Jane Kennedy
  Decisions on ending prosecutions are a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities based on a strict application of evidential and public interest tests. Separately, in relation to terrorist prisoners on the run, the Government announced in September 2000 that they were dropping extraditions against those who would have had little or no time left to serve if they returned to Northern Ireland. This has no bearing on cases where there remains an outstanding need to prosecute but relates specifically to cases where the individual concerned has escaped from custody before the completion of their sentence. The Government have dealt with these individuals in a way that is consistent with the Sentences Act 1998, which provides for the accelerated release of prisoners. For the most part this has meant allowing the individuals back into the jurisdiction in order to allow them to make an application for early release to the Sentence Review Commissioners. In a handful of cases, individuals had served the same or longer periods in custody than those already released under the Sentences Act but fell outside the strict application of that legislation, either because time in custody had been served outside Northern Ireland or because their offences had not been scheduled at the time they were committed. In these cases the Secretary of State uses his powers under the Northern Ireland Prison Act 1953 to release life sentence prisoners on licence or to recommend use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to remit outstanding portions of determinate sentences.

  To date these arrangements have been made in 19 cases. This arrangements does not represent an amnesty. The actions taken by the Government involve decisions on whether these individuals should be allowed to return to Northern Ireland without serving further time in custody because they have met the principles of the early release scheme. The early release scheme is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement.

  Following the proposal made at the Weston Park talks, the Government have agreed to such steps as are necessary as soon as possible, and in any event by March 2002, to resolve the issue about supporters of organisations now on cease-fire against whom there are outstanding prosecutions, and in some cases extradition proceedings, for offences committed before 10 April 1998, who would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early release scheme. We are currently considering the options for delivering this.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wireless Telegraphy Regulations
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications she has received from the European Commission concerning the draft Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Material Substances Forming Part of the Telecommunications System) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement. [18472]
  754W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Government received a detailed opinion from the Commission on 29 November and I will be responding, after receiving comments from the Radiocommunications Agency.

  Home Working
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received on the financial and other costs of fraudulent homeworking schemes on(a) the legitimate homeworking industry and (b) victims of such schemes; [21254]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the provisions of the Outworking Bill introduced in the last Parliament by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield; and if she will incorporate similar provisions in the forthcoming Enterprise Bill; [21252]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the impact of fraudulent homeworking schemes on people with low incomes. [21256]

  (4) what plans she has to introduce legislation to safeguard consumers from fraudulent homeworking schemes; [21251]

  (5) what estimates she has made of the number of fraudulent homeworking schemes in operation. [21255]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since January 2001:

  (a) No representations have been received from the legitimate homeworking industry.

  (b) Eight representations have been received from, or on behalf of, victims of fraudulent homeworking schemes.

  In the Regulatory Impact Assessment published with the Outworking Bill we assessed there could be up to one million victims of all the 300 schemes that are estimated to exist at any one time. The initial outlay by the victim is typically between £10 and £60, with some schemes eliciting supplementary payments. These schemes tend to attract vulnerable and low paid people.

  Due to the difficulty of monitoring the scam operatives' activities it is difficult accurately to gauge the size of the problem in financial terms.

  When the Outworking Bill was introduced we supported it as a way of further clamping down on homeworking scams although we recognised there was some scope to tackle these under existing legislation such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (CMARS). Since then we have strengthened the powers of Trading Standards officers by introducing Stop Now Orders. These enable trading standards authorities and the Office of Fair Trading to seek an injunction against anyone who is in breach of consumer protection legislation in a number of relevant areas, in particular misleading advertising. We plan to strengthen consumer protection by extending the injunctive regime through the Enterprise Bill. The Stop Now regime will cover all consumer protection legislation, and include Trading Standards as well as the OFT as enforcement bodies. This will further strengthen the ability of Trading Standards to shut down scams including homeworking scams.
  755W
  In 1999, 869 alleged scams were reported to the National Group on Homeworking. Based on their figures the Regulatory Impact Assessment, which accompanied the Outworking Bill, worked on the assumption that 300 schemes were operating at any one time.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 306W, on small businesses, if she will identify the title of the Government response and the date it was issued; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [22364]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The "Government Response to the Better Regulation Task Force Shopkeepers Report" was issued on 17 October. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. It is available on the Cabinet Office website at the following address: http:// www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/TaskForce/2001/ response localshops.htm

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what structures exist to facilitate communication between her Department and small businesses. [21807]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service provides a focal point within Government for small business issues. SBS has a wide variety of contacts with small firms themselves, their representative bodies, and the various other organisations, such as regional development agencies, with an interest in helping small firms. The Small Business Service also has a programme of research to identify the needs and concerns of small businesses.

  The Small Business Council, made up primarily of small business owners, was appointed to advise the chief executive of the Small Business Service and report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on issues affecting small businesses.

  The council organised 12 town hall meetings in spring 2001, meeting small businesses owners across the country to hear their views on issues affecting small businesses. These findings were incorporated in the council's first annual report 2001 outlining 22 recommendations to Government to help SMEs operate more successfully.

  The Ethnic Minority Business Forum (EMPF) was set up to strengthen the dialogue between Government and the ethnic minority business communities to ensure that the Government are addressing the needs of all businesses.

  Manufacturing Summit (Birmingham)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) Ministers, (b) Government officers, (c) Members of Parliament and (d) delegates attending the Manufacturing Summit in Birmingham on 5 December; what criteria were used to select them; and what the terms of reference were for the event. [20542]
  756W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The full list of delegates is as follows:

  Patricia Hewitt—Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Nick Brown—Minister for Work

  Andrew Smith—Chief Secretary, HM Treasury

  Sir Ken Jackson—General Secretary, AEEU

  Chris Liddell—General Secretary, Transport and General Workers

  Eddie Lynch—General Secretary, Iron and Steel Trade Conference

  Paul Gates—General Secretary, KFAT

  Roger Lyons—General Secretary, MSF

  John Monks—General Secretary, TUC

  Estelle Morris—Secretary of State for Education and Skills

  Alan Johnson—Minister for Employment Relations and the Regions

  Tony Burke—Deputy General Secretary. Graphic Paper and Media Union

  Martin Temple—Director General, Engineering Employers Federation

  John Weston—Chief Executive, BAE Systems

  Paul Barron—President, Alstom UK

  Sir Ian Gibson—Innovation and Growth Team

  Ken Poulter—Small Business Service

  James McAdam—Chairman, Textile and Clothing Strategy Group

  John Edmonds—General Secretary, GMB

  Christine Wood—Regional Secretary, TUC Midlands Region

  Ray Griffiths—AEEU

  Kevin Curran—GMB

  Bill Holmes—MSF

  Bob Dover—Chief Executive, LandRover

  Graham Speechley—Managing Director, Benteler Automotive UK Ltd.

  David Warren—Director Business Group, British Trade International

  Graham Garbutt—Regional Director, Government Office for the West Midlands

  Mike Warnock—Director, Strategic Planning, Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board

  Greg McConnell—Deputy Secretary DETI, Northern Ireland

  Charlie Woods—Senior Director Knowledge Management, Scottish Enterprise

  John Wilson—Director General, British Apparel and Textile Confederation

  Sue Battle—British Chamber of Commerce

  Mike Baunton—Perkins Engines

  Michael Stark—Learning and Skills Council

  Digby Jones—Director General, Confederation of British Industry

  Dr. Julie Madigan—Chief Executive, The Manufacturing Institute

  Professor Kumar Bhattacharrya—Chief Executive, Warwick Manufacturing

  John Cushnaghan—Managing Director, Nissan UK

  George Barlow—Chairman, London Development Agency

  Graham Hall—Chairman, Yorkshire Forward

  Alex Stephenson—Chairman, Advantage West Midlands

  Lord Thomas of Macclesfield—Chairman, North West Development Agency

  Derek Mapp—Chairman, East Midlands Development Agency

  Chris Farrow—Welsh Development Agency

  Rita Donaghy—Chair, ACAS

  Adrian Hill—HEFCE

  Vincent Watts—Chairman, East of England Development Agency

  757W

  Sir Michael Lickiss—Chairman, South West Regional Development Agency

  John Bridge—Chairman, One North East.

  In addition, there were 31 observers from Government Departments and from the other organisations represented at the summit.

  Delegates were selected on the basis that there should be a good, representative spread of manufacturing interests around the table, which would lead to a manageable and informed discussion.

  There were no specific terms of reference for the event. Its purpose was to provide an opportunity for government and its partners to come together and share views on what the key issues are, and to focus on the practical steps for dealing with them.

  Broadband Services
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage the wholesale market for broadband capacity in areas with no current broadband infrastructure. [20648]

  Mr. Alexander
  On 3 December I set out a range of actions in the Government response to the broadband stakeholder group to further intensify competition, drive up demand, stimulate the production of new broadband content and facilitate broadband rollout in rural areas. We have also provided £30 million for regional projects to extend broadband networks, while challenging the industry to market and price broadband services effectively. Oftel has additionally required the provision by BT of wholesale ADSL on non-discriminatory terms.

  Consignia
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Consignia about proposed changes to the delivery of the mail. [20355]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. Consignia's proposals in relation to the delivery of mail are operational issues for the company provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by the Postal Services Commission.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the financial position of Consignia for the current financial year; what resulting action she has asked the chairman to take; and what action she plans to take in respect of the chairman. [18921]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: As shareholder we are obviously disappointed at the losses made by Consignia for the current financial year. It is clear that the company urgently needs to improve its performance. The company has been given the greater commercial freedom that the management and the unions had long wanted and its challenge is now to improve its performance.

  The Government as owner of Consignia are actively taking steps to strengthen the company's management. Earlier this year a new Finance Director (Marisa Cassoni)
  758W
  joined the Board; this was followed by the appointment of Allan Leighton to the non-executive team to take a special interest in the post office network; a Chief Executive of the new Post Office Ltd. (Consignia's network subsidiary) is currently being recruited. The appointee will be on the main Consignia Board.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions she has made about the future membership of the boards of the eight regional development agencies outside London; and if she will make a statement. [22727]

  Alan Johnson
  I am pleased to announce 39 new appointments to the Regional Development Agency boards; their names are as listed. These appointments begin on 14 December 2001 and are for three years, expiring on 13 December 2004. 50 per cent. of board members now have current or recent business experience. 35 per cent. of the new appointments are women and 18 per cent. are from ethnic minorities. I have placed further details of the new appointees in the Libraries of the Houses.

  Decisions on appointments have been made following fair and open competition and following consultation with key national and regional players.

  One NorthEast

  Christopher Edwards

  Jackie Fisher

  Geoffrey Hodgson

  Tim Cantle Jones

  Jane Nolan

  David Walsh

  NWDA

  Neville Chamberlain

  Sir Martin Harris

  Pauleen Lane

  Anil Ruia

  Brenda Smith

  Michael Storey

  Yorkshire Forward

  Eileen Bosomworth

  Dr. Christopher King

  Kathryn Pinnock

  EMDA

  Kashmir Bilgan

  Samantha Gemmell

  Jonathan McLeod

  Rita Patel

  Peter Ramsden

  Andrew Scarborough

  Advantage West Midlands

  Isabella Moore

  Tony Sealey

  Paul Tilsley

  759W
  EEDA

  Roger Ali

  Ruth Bagnall

  Sal Brinton

  Marco Cereste

  Leo Murray

  Chris Paveley

  Yasmin Shariff

  SEEDA

  James Brathwaite

  Elizabeth Brighouse

  Robert Douglas

  Ken Thornber

  SW RDA

  Nicholas Buckland

  Brian Kemp

  Robin Nicoll

  Colin Skellett.

  Atlantic Telecom
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had regarding the collapse of Atlantic Telecom; and if she will make a statement. [18279]

  Mr. Alexander
  I met with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on 19 November and with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on 21 November. From these meetings, and those which the Scottish Executive Minister held at the same time, we were clear about the difficulties facing Atlantic's business customers in particular.

  I then had discussions with the Director General of Telecommunications on 20 November expressing my resolve that everything possible should be done to smooth the transfer of customers from Atlantic to other operators. I then met the Chief Executive of BT, Sir Peter Bonfield, and the Group Commercial Director, Colin Green, on 22 November where I sought BT's assistance to ensure that they would expedite the connection of ex-Atlantic customers. BT assured me it would do all it could to help facilitate a quick transfer of customers.

  As a result of further intensive discussions, we therefore announced on 24 November, along with the Scottish Executive Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, a £0.5 million joint rescue package, extending the operation of fixed wireless telephone services to allow customers to switch to an alternative telecoms supplier. The extended operation will end on 2 January 2002 at the latest.

  Miners' Pensions
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the pension rights of miners dismissed during the 1984–85 strikes. [22728]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following the consultation process last year, I am persuaded that a number of miners dismissed in connection with the 1984–85 strike, and not subsequently re-employed by British Coal, were harshly treated.
  760W
  I have concluded that the most appropriate way forward would be to enhance the pensions of these miners in recognition of the years of further service they lost as a result of British Coal's decision not to re-employ them. The costs of this will be met from the residual assets of British Coal. I would emphasise that those whose offences involved serious acts of violence or intimidation or actions which jeopardised the safety of others will not qualify for this enhancement of pension.

  I will shortly be writing to interested parties with details of how this will be put into effect.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government received from mining pension fund surpluses in 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [18719]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: In 2000–01 the Government received £425.3 million from the mining pension fund surpluses. This included £114.4 million that was held over from the previous year.

TREASURY

  RenewCo
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Treasury(a) provided new information to the Office for National Statistics on the structure of RenewCo; and (b) subsequently requested confirmation of the classification of RenewCo. [22070]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 10 December 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what date the Treasury provided new information to the Office for National Statistics on the structure of Renewco and subsequently requested confirmation of the classification of Renewco (22070).
  On 14 September 2001 the Treasury provided new information on Rewnewco to the Office for National Statistics and requested advice on its classification within National Accounts. The Office for National Statistics requested further detailed information, which arrived on 24 September 2001.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice the Treasury has received from the office for national statistics on the treatment of Government loans to Railtrack while in administration in the national accounts. [22065]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 10 December 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what advice the Treasury has received from the Office for National Statistics on the treatment of government loans to Railtrack while in administration in the national accounts (22065).

  761W
  The Treasury did not seek advice on the national accounts treatment of these loans and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) did not provide any. Once ONS had decided on the national accounts classification of Railtrack while in administration, the classification of government loans to it is straightforward. These are classified as central government loans to the private non-financial corporations sector. This treatment has been reflected in the National Statistics public sector finances release, which is based on national accounts definitions and jointly published by ONS and the Treasury.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect on risk premium which will have to be budgeted for in future partnerships with the private sector, following the events surrounding Railtrack going into administration. [8445]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We do not anticipate that there will be any long-term impact on the risk premium for PPPs as a result of Railtrack administration. In its report of 23 October, credit rating agency Standard and Poors said:"the Railtrack situation has no direct credit implications for rated PFI projects".

  PPPs are fundamentally different from the regime under which Railtrack operated. Whereas PPPs involve output focused bilateral contracts which provide a clear allocation of risks, Railtrack was privatised under a broadly standard utility-style regulatory structure; although, unlike any other privatised utility, some two thirds of its revenue came from Government.

  Public Sector Net Investment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of public sector net investment was as a share of GDP in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; what estimates were made by his Department in the Budgets of (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [20342]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The table sets out public sector net investment (PSNI) as a proportion of GDP in the years requested, together with the projections made in the Budgets between 1997 and 2000.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Pre-Budget report 2001

  0.7

  0.5

  0.7

  1.3

  Budget 2000

  0.6

  0.6

  0.9

  1.2

  Budget 1999

  0.4

  0.6

  0.8

  1.0

  Budget 1998

  0.8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Budget 1997

  0.9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  PSNI figures are regularly revised by the Office for National Statistics, and can be affected by revisions to depreciation, as well as actual public sector capital spend. In particular, the Office for National Statistics made very significant revisions in the summer of 1998, which makes the figures before and after Budget 1998 difficult to compare.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the level of public sector investment as a share of gross domestic product in each year from 1978–79 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [20214]
  762W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The level of public sector net investment, as a proportion of GDP, between 1978–79 and 2000–01 is set out in table B23 of the pre-Budget report. Projections for this year, and future years, are set out in table B6 of the same report.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the growth of current expenditure in the total departmental expenditure limit, in real terms, for the period 1998–99 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [20303]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The annual average real growth in current expenditure within departmental expenditure limits between 1998–99 and 2003–04 is 4.1 per cent.

  Savings Gateway and Child Trust Fund
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the cost of consultation on the(a) Savings Gateway and (b) Child Trust Fund; [21022]

  (2) what he expects to be the cost of (a) the Savings Gateway pilot projects and (b) the follow-up report, "Delivering Saving and Assets"; and when he expects each of them to be completed; [21023]

  (3) what his current target date is for the introduction of (a) the Savings Gateway and (b) the Child Trust Fund. [20995]

  Ruth Kelly
  Consultation on proposals for the Savings Gateway and Child Trust Fund, including publishing the follow-up consultation document "Delivering Saving and Assets", has been conducted at negligible cost and within Departmental Expenditure Limits.

  The costs of the Savings Gateway pilot schemes and further consultation on the Savings Gateway and Child Trust Fund will also be contained within existing spending plans. Detailed proposals of the pilot schemes remain to be decided, but based on the proposed size and scope of the pilot projects it is anticipated that the costs of operating them might be up to about £1.5 million. Proposals for both the Savings Gateway and the Child Trust Fund will continue to be developed through the process of consultation, as well as being considered as part of Spending Review 2002. It will be important to get the design of these new proposals right and no fixed deadline has been set for the introduction of either initiative.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecast is of the savings ratio for the next two quarters. [20997]

  Ruth Kelly
  The household saving ratio can be very volatile from quarter to quarter, so the Government do not publish quarterly forecasts. Annual forecasts can be found in the pre-Budget report (Cm 5318).

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21328]
  763W
  Ruth Kelly
  Specific information is not available in the form requested for HM Treasury and Customs and Excise.

  The available information on the number of people specially recruited under the new deal for young people is as follows. As at 1 April 2001 Inland Revenue employed 19 people and the Office for National Statistics employed one person. These recruits took 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 be readily identified.

  Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21338]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 563W.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the saving to public funds in 2000–01 from achievement of the Public Service Agreement target for the reduction of surplus buildings on the Government Estate. [21273]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  £23.8 million.

  Productivity Growth
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of productivity growth in(a) the UK and (b) other members of the G7 and the OECD over the last three years. [22036]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government make regular assessments of trends in productivity growth both within the UK and compared to other G7 member countries. The most recent assessment was published in the pre-Budget report 2001.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 66W, on the climate change levy, if the CCL will lead to additional VAT receipts of about £30 million per annum; and if this VAT revenue will be recycled via a reduction in employees national insurance. [22201]

  Mr. Boateng
  The CCL is estimated to generate additional VAT receipts of, at the most, £30 million per annum. This represents the portion of VAT on fuel inputs which cannot be reclaimed. All revenues resulting from the introduction of the CCL, including VAT receipts, are recycled via a reduction in employers national insurance contributions and funding of energy efficiency measures.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown for each of the last two Parliaments of the change in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for over six months. [20462]
  764W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 11 December 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for a breakdown for each of the last two parliaments of the change in the number of 18 to 24 year olds unemployed for over six months (20462).
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for unemployment from surveys following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition.
  ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  The table provides a breakdown of the available figures.

  United Kingdom: changes over the last two parliaments for 18–24 year olds (a) ILO unemployed for 6 months or more; (b) claiming unemployment benefit for 6 months or more

  Number

  ILO unemployment1 6 months or more duration LFS reference period2

  March to May 1992

  364,000

  April to June 1997

  189,000

  May to July 2001

  104,000

  Change March to May 1992 to April to June 1997

  -175,000

  Percentage

  -48.1

  Change April to June 1997 to May to July 2001

  -85,000

  Percentage

  -45.0

  Claimant count3,4claiming for 6 months or more Claimant count reference month5

  April 1992

  358,114

  May 1997

  169,498

  June 2001

  40,089

  Change April 1992 to May 1997

  -188,616

  Percentage

  52.7

  Change May 1997 to June 2001

  -129,409

  Percentage

  -76.3

  1Seasonally adjusted

  2As asked for in the question, the periods shown are centred around the General Election dates. It would be more useful to make comparisons are made between consecutive 3 month periods.

  3 Not seasonally adjusted

  4Monthly claimant count data by age and duration are on the basis of all claims for April 1992 and computerised claims only for later years.

  5For data that is not seasonally adjusted comparisons should normally be made between data for the same month each year. For this reason, comparisons between different months should be used with caution.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of people over the age of 16 in rural areas had been unemployed for over 12 months in June of each of the last four years. [22034]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 11 December 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about unemployment in rural areas (22034).

  765W
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of unemployment, based on the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition. However, it does not currently provide estimates of unemployment on an urban/rural basis.
  The ONS is aware of the growing need for statistics and information to be available for rural and urban geographies. To this end, we are playing an active role in a cross-government group, led by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is developing guidance on common definitions of rural and urban areas. These definitions will then form the basis of developing statistics for those geographies.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of people between 16 and 60-years-old in rural areas had been unemployed for(a) six, (b) 12 and (c) 18 months in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000 and (vi) 2001. [20910]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Malcolm Bruce, dated 11 December 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about unemployment in rural areas (20910).
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of unemployment based on the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition. However, it does not currently provide estimates of unemployment on an urban/rural basis.
  The ONS is aware of the growing need for statistics and information to be available for rural and urban geographies. To this end, we are playing an active role in a cross-government group, led by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is developing guidance on common definitions of rural and urban areas. These definitions will then form the basis of developing statistics for those geographies.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 270W, on capital assets, what his estimate is of the contribution to public sector net investment made by PPPs in each financial year from 1997–98 to 2003–04. [19187]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public Private Partnerships (PPP) cover a wide range of projects. They have been set up in most central Government Departments and local authorities, and in some public corporations. No information is held centrally on their total value.

  In many cases the private sector owns the capital assets used in PPPs. In most of these cases the capital expenditure would not count as public sector net investment because it is private sector expenditure. The exceptions are when a PPP involves a lease of an asset by the public sector, and the accountants classify it as a finance lease. In those circumstances the capital expenditure, and the depreciation of the asset, would be part of the calculation of public sector net investment.

  Although private sector investment does not usually count within public sector net investment, it is included as part of the total investment in our public services. This year, it is estimated that private sector investment through PFI will be £4.4 billion out of total investment of £34.2 billion.
  766W
  Figures for estimated private sector investment through PFI can be found in tables c17 and estimated payments by Departments in table C18 of Budget 2001. Private sector investment in off-balance sheet PPPs does not score as public sector net investment.

  The vast majority of total investment in public services is funded by the public sector—this year over 85 per cent. of total investment in public services will be funded in this way.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, columns 741–42W, on records kept under Clause 9 of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, if he will list the internal purposes to which he referred. [20383]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: These are set out in Clause 9 of the Code to which the hon. Member refers.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Crown Estate has spent on corporate hospitality in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [18535]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Crown Estate spent the following on corporate hospitality:

  Year

  £

  (a) 1998–99

  9,198

  (b) 1999–2000

  12,173

  (c) 2000–01

  135,415

  This figure includes costs for special receptions to mark the millennium, held for Crown Estate tenants. These comprised a garden party in the Windsor Estate for some 1,500 guests, and a dinner in Stirling Castle for some 200 guests.

  (d)2001–02: Projected to be £16,610.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Crown Estate spent on corporate sponsorship in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [20549]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The Crown Estate contributes to activities related to land and property management and figures for these contributions are supplied:

  Year

  £

  (a) 1998–99

  26,450

  (b) 1999–2000

  45,896

  (c) 2000–01

  72,730

  (d) 2001–021

  37,431

  1Predicted to date

  These activities include items such as contributions to the cost to the Marine Conservation Society's Beachwatch scheme, the Marine Education Centre in Kimmeridge, Dorset and the Moray Firth Partnership (coastal forum)

  767W
  newsletter. The Crown Estate does not, as a general rule, provide corporate sponsorship for cultural or sporting events.

  In addition, in Regent street where the Crown Estate owns all the property between Piccadilly circus and Oxford circus (an estate valued at £742.5 million) the Crown Estate contributed £193,836 (1999–2000) and £200,000 (2000–01) to the Regent street Christmas lights and £61,796 (2000–01) to the Regent street festival, as part of its management strategy to maintain and enhance Regent street's reputation and position as one of London's premier shopping destinations.

  Royal Finances
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he has taken to distinguish, for the purpose of treatment of royal finances, between the private wealth of the sovereign and that held in trust by the sovereign in her capacity as head of state; and if he will make a statement; [21535]

  (2) if he will list the taxation provisions where the treatment of the sovereign in her private capacity differs from that applied to the rest of the population; [21533]

  (3) if he will take steps to make mandatory the arrangement under which Her Majesty the Queen pays tax on her private income. [21532]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answers 10 December 2001]: The taxation arrangements for Her Majesty are set out in the Memorandum of Understanding in the Royal Trustees Report (HC 464) published on 11 February 1993. Assets held by Her Majesty as Head of State, i.e. on behalf of the nation, include the Royal Collection, the assets of the Crown Estate, the occupied and Historic Royal Palaces, and the Royal Parks. These are distinct from private assets, whose tax treatment is covered in the Memorandum of Understanding. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  National Income
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of national income is spent on(a) work and pensions, (b) health, (c) national debt, (d) defence, (e) education and skills, (f) trade and industry, (g) environment, food and rural affairs, (h) transport, local government and the regions, (i) international development, (j) law and order, (k) asylum and immigration and (l) culture, media and sport. [21231]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Government spending by function, as a percentage of national income, is detailed in Table 3.4 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02", published in April 2001, as Command Paper 5101.

  Public-Private Venture Capital
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to achieve his target of £1 billion of public-private venture capital funding; and what proportion of this target he expects to be(a) public and (b) private. [20482]
  768W
  Mr. Boateng
  The target will be achieved over several years. The split between public and private funding will depend on commercial considerations.

  Benefits (Portsmouth, South)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people received(a) tax credits and (b) means-tested benefits in the constituency of Portsmouth, South in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [21218]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest available information for Portsmouth, South is in the following table:

  Recipients of (a) tax credits and (b) certain income related benefits in the Portsmouth, South constituency—May 2001

  Number

  Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC)

  2,100

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC)

  24

  Income Support (IS)

  7,600

  Jobseeker's Allowance (income based)(JSA)

  1,300

  Total

  11,000

  Notes:

  1. Apart from DPTC, the figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample. They are subject to sampling error and therefore shown to the nearest hundred.

  2. Recipients of WFTC or DPTC who also receive IS or JSA are included only in the first two columns. This eliminates doubling counting in the total.

  3. DPTC figure is for April.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 2001

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 2001

  Working Families Tax Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 2001

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry April 2001

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit figures are not available for the Portsmouth, South constituency but are available for the Portsmouth local authority.

  Recipients of housing benefit and council tax benefit in Portsmouth—May 2001

  Number

  Housing benefit

  15,900

  Council tax benefit

  13,710

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to benefit units, which can be single persons or couples.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest ten.

  3. Housing benefit figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  4. Council tax benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock

  Tax Credits (Glasgow)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Glasgow have received(a) the working families tax credit, (b) the child care tax credit and (c) the disabled persons tax credit. [21664]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the numbers receiving the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) in each local authority and parliamentary constituency are published in the WFTC and DPTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of
  769W
  which are in the Library. It is estimated that about 2.6 thousand families in Glasgow City were receiving the child care tax credit within WFTC or DPTC at May 2001.

  The estimates for WFTC and for the child care tax credit are however based on 5 per cent. samples of awards, and are therefore subject to sampling error.

  Public Services Productivity
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the paper on public services productivity mentioned in paragraph 1.13 of 'Productivity in the UK: The evidence and the Government's approach'; and if he will make a statement. [21417]

  Mr. Boateng
  Work on the paper is well under way, and the paper will be published in due course.

  Employment Tax Credit
  James Purnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of how the employment tax credit could be combined with training to increase the earnings potential of the low paid. [21625]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Recent work by CBI-TUC and the Performance and Innovation Unit has underlined the importance of workforce development and skill acquisition in the UK. Their reports identify significant market failures that restrict training opportunities for lower skilled employees. To tackle these market failures and deliver a long-term improvement in workplace training the Government are considering a range of options for a new policy framework to reform the UK training system and encourage more training among people with low skills. In the PBR, the Government said they would examine an approach based on four complementary, linked elements which would require commitments by stakeholders—the Government, employers and individuals. These are: financial support for employers whose staff take time off; free learning provision for employees; and entitlement to take-up training and extended guidance and support.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Government have made of the relationship between incentives to work for a second earner and the introduction of the employment tax credit. [21626]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The working tax credit aims to make work pay and tackle poverty. The working tax credit will improve work incentives for second earners by:assessing against gross income, enabling the second earner in the household to take advantage of national insurance contributions thresholds, income tax allowances and rate bands. In this way, gross tapers should lessen the unemployment trap for tax credit recipients by reducing the average deduction rate;
  allowing couples with children with joint working hours of over 30 hours to qualify for an extra credit, even if neither of them individually works 30 hours or more.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Matthew Taylor:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Capital Modernisation Fund made no allocations in 2001. [22196]
  770W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Over £1 billion was allocated from the Capital Modernisation Fund in March 2001 to support 55 new projects.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 4 December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [22057]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended ECOFIN on 4 December.

  ECOFIN agreed reports to the Laeken European Council on pensions and on structural performance indicators (to measure progress on economic reform). The report on pensions respects the position of the Government and other member states that decisions on pensions are primarily for member states. I reminded ECOFIN colleagues of the importance of economic reform and it was agreed that ECOFIN should closely monitor progress.

  There was a discussion of the tax package, including the directive on taxation of savings. I made it clear, along with 11 other Finance Ministers, that the substantial content of this directive had been agreed by ECOFIN in November 2000, reflecting the principles agreed at the Feira European Council, and that this should now be reopened. The Commission noted that it would shortly commence formal negotiations with third countries on the adoption of equivalent measures. I reported on the Government's discussions with United Kingdom dependent territories, noting that every jurisdiction recognised and fully supported the need for greater co-operation in the fight against tax abuse and evasion.

  ECOFIN received a written report from the Code of Conduct working group, which the Paymaster General chairs. There was no discussion of the report.

  The Commission provided a progress report on its negotiations with the European Parliament on the Lamfalussy procedure to fast-track financial services legislation. During a short discussion of the draft prospectus directive, I emphasised that it must meet its objective of reducing the cost of capital, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

  The Court of Auditor's annual report was presented to Ministers.

  The Commission noted that, since not all member states had yet ratified the new Own Resources Decision, the 2002 Community budget would in the meantime need to be based on the old Own Resources Decision. The UK has already ratified this Decision.

  Along with six other Finance Ministers—a majority of those speaking—I called for further analysis of the Galileo satellite navigation project before additional funds are committed.

  Most member states could accept a March 2002 cut-off date for ending Government guarantees for airline insurance. The Government recently extended their scheme—Troika—until 22 January 2002
  771W
  In a discussion of the forthcoming UN Financing for Development (FfD) conference, I emphasised that EU aid should be reformed to make it more effective and that untying was an important way to meet aid targets. I also advocated the international development trust fund as a way to lever in more resources to reach the $50 billion target in the Zedillo report.

  The Commission agreed to examine an Austrian proposal to tackle VAT fraud.

  It was agreed that concrete proposals would be brought forward on gender mainstreaming the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines.

  Agreement was not reached on EIB loans to EFTA countries. This will be discussed again on 13 December.

  ECOFIN was followed by a dialogue with the Finance Ministers of the 13 candidate countries and the European central bank, which focused on the need for structural reforms in the candidate countries and real convergence with the EU. A joint communiqué was agreed.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Pension Tax Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the pension tax credit in each of the next three years. [22037]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested can be found in "Table B4: Estimated costs of the pre-Budget report measures and other measures announced since Budget 2001" in the pre-Budget report, November 2001 (Cm 5318).

  Contingent Risks
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the reference to contingent risks as set out in Treasury guidance document: "Appraisal and evaluation in central Government", paragraph 4.42 includes political risks; and if he will make a statement. [22254]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The paragraph specified refers to contingent liabilities which are commitments to future expenditure if certain events occur, such as premature termination of contract. A wide range of factors must be taken into account when appraising the likelihood of their occurrence, including where appropriate regulation and legislation risks.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason Ulgham was not included in the list of disadvantaged wards in Northumberland eligible for stamp duty relief; and whether it was his policy to include in that list any ward which met the Objective 2 measure of deprivation. [21746]

  Mr. Boateng
  For England, the exemption is available for the 15 per cent. most deprived wards as identified by the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000. The ward of Ulgham, in the Castle Morpeth district, does not fall within this category. The qualifying areas were identified by reference to each country's most recent index of deprivation.
  772W

  Small Businesses
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what structures exist to facilitate communication between his Department and small businesses. [21806]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers and officials have a wide range of contact with small businesses and the organisations that represent them. HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are also both committed to understanding and fulfilling the expectations of their customers better. Both Departments offer specific support to small businesses to help them understand and comply with their obligations.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the air passenger duty has been since 1997. [21787]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Passengers to:

  European economic area (EEA) destinations

  Other destinations

  Up to 31 October 1997

  15

  10

  From 1 November 1997

  110

  20

  From 1 April 2001

  Lowest class of travel

  25

  20

  Other than lowest class

  210

  40

  1Nil on passengers travelling on the return leg of a round trip within the UK.

  2Nil on passengers travelling on flights leaving airports in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

  Tax and Excise Duty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average proportion of the purchase price of a bottle of whisky that is accounted for by tax and excise duty. [22161]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is contained in the HM Customs and Excise "Spirits Factsheet", a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average proportion of the purchase price of a litre of unleaded petrol that is accounted for by tax and excise duty. [22159]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is contained in the HM Customs and Excise "Hydrocarbon Oils Factsheet", a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the revenue to the Exchequer was in each of the last four years from tax and excise duty on(a) alcohol, (b) tobacco and (c) fuel. [22160]

  Mr. Boateng
  Receipts of excise duty on alcohol, tobacco and fuel for the financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are published in Table Al of the tables and Statistics accompanying the Customs and Excise Annual Report for 2000, available on the Customs and Excise website. (Address: www.hmce.gov.uk/general/about/ index.htm—scroll down to 'Annual Report 2000', click on 'Tables and Statistics'.)
  773W
  Details for the year 2000–01 can be found in the National Statistics Publication "Financial Statistics" Table 2.1D.

  No official figures exist for receipts of VAT on alcohol, tobacco and fuel.

  X-ray Equipment
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance is issued to officers of HM Customs and Excise on the use of bulk X-ray equipment. [22039]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 a risk assessment is required before any X-ray source is used. The Defence Science Technology Laboratories Radiation Protection Service is Customs' Radiation Protection Advisor for the freight X-ray scanner project and they prepare each risk assessment. Each risk assessment is site and machine specific and includes local rules for setting up the scanner, operating practices and safety procedures. The risk assessment is kept with the scanner for production, as required, to any Health and Safety Executive Inspector or any other person.

  Alcohol Smuggling
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people entering the UK were questioned by HM Customs and Excise in each of the last five years on suspicion of alcohol smuggling; how many were carrying more alcohol than the suggested guidelines for imports for personal use; and how many of these were allowed to enter the country on the grounds that the alcohol was for personal use. [22041]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available in the format requested.

  Customs carefully target their anti-smuggling activity on those thought likely to be smuggling, and have no interest in legitimate cross-border shoppers. Accordingly only a very small proportion of the 90 million travellers who enter the UK each year are stopped by customs officers. Indeed, in 2000–01 less than 0.2 per cent. of the estimated 14 million travellers through the channel ports had goods seized by customs. The majority of people entering the UK with goods in excess of the minimum indicative levels were able to satisfy customs that the goods were for their own personal use.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce his policy on charitable status for community amateur sports clubs. [22032]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 30 November 2001 the Charity Commission announced its decision to recognise as charitable:"the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation"
  which now enables community amateur sports clubs (CASCs) to apply to become charities.

  Trader Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to public funds of value-added tax missing trader fraud in each of the last four years.[22038]
  774W
  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 19 of the Customs and Excise paper "Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud" that was published on 27 November 2001 and a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This gives fraud estimates for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. There are no estimates for any earlier years.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the balance of trade in(a) food products and (b) meat products for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [20774]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows the value of UK trade in total food, feed and drink (including meat and meat preparations) between October 2000 and September 2001.

  £ million

  Imports

  Exports

  Meat and meat preparations

  2,727

  491

  Dairy products and eggs

  1,282

  620

  Fish and fish preparations

  1,404

  747

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  1,216

  1,214

  Fruit and vegetables

  4,230

  413

  Sugar, sugar preparations and honey

  779

  362

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  1,103

  605

  Feedingstuffs for animals

  775

  298

  Miscellaneous edible products

  838

  604

  Alcoholic drinks

  2,845

  3,218

  Oil seeds, oleaginous fruits, oils, fats and waxes

  836

  153

  Total

  18,034

  8,724

  Note:

  Figures are given on the 'Overseas Trade' basis. Exports are valued `free on board' and imports are valued 'cost insurance freight'. Thus for imports into the UK, the cost of transportation between the port or place of despatch and the port of entry into the UK is included and as a result of the value of imports are overstated relative to exports by about 5 per cent.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Living Allowance
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 539W, on winter fuel allowance, (1) by what factors and measures the (a) care and (b) mobility components of disability living allowance (i) were first and (ii) are calculated; [19918]

  (2) what calculations have been made to ensure that (a) nursing, (b) dressing, (c) essential provision purchasing, (d) domestic cleaning, (e) personal hygiene and (f) heating costs are properly reflected in the amounts claimable for those receiving lower, middle and higher rates of disability living allowance [19919]

  Mr. McCartney
  Disability living allowance provides a contribution towards the generality of extra costs faced by severely disabled people as a result of their disabilities. The amounts payable are not based on calculations of the costs of specific items, and recipients are free to spend the benefit according to their own priorities and requirements
  775W
  When the allowance was introduced in 1992, the highest and middle care components were set at the same weekly amounts as the higher and lower rates of attendance allowance, and the higher mobility component was set at the same weekly amount as the mobility allowance which it replaced. This was because the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' major surveys of disabled people in Great Britain in the 1980s had found that those allowances were well directed towards the most common costly disabilities, and were more than sufficient to cover disability-related expenditure in most cases. For less severely disabled people, the lowest care component and the lower mobility component were set above the average weekly amount of disability-related expenditure found by the disability surveys. Since 1992, all components have been uprated annually in line with the movement in prices.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been paid in compensation in each year since 1997 as a result of cases related to his Department decided by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. [19506]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Comprehensive details of financial redress paid in cases where the Ombudsman has completed an investigation and issued a formal report are not held centrally. However, the following information has been extracted from such records as are available. Details for previous years are for the then DSS.

  These figures exclude cases where a statutory resolution has been found.

  Year

  Amount paid

  1997–98

  1—

  1998–99

  442,363

  1999–2000

  173,896

  2000–01

  191,060

  2001–02

  266,435

  1No figures are available

  2Payments authorised between 1 April and 31 October 2001

  The sums quoted are the total sums paid in cases investigated by the Ombudsman. Some of those payments were made prior to the Ombudsman's intervention under the Department's standing scheme for financial redress.

  Random Assignment Evaluation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how he intends to ensure informed consent to participation in random assignment for those with(a) learning disabilities and (b) mental health problems; [19497]

  (2) for what reasons the random assignment evaluation was delayed until six months into the national extension of New Deal for Disabled People; and for what reasons this evaluation was not conducted during the pilot programmes; [19498]

  (3) what advice he has given to job brokers about recruitment to the New Deal for Disabled People during the random assignment evaluation period; how job brokers' presentation of the random assignment research will be monitored; and how long volunteers to the New
  776W
  Deal for Disabled People will have to wait before they are told whether they are part of the control group for the random assignment evaluation; [19500]

  (4) what responses were received from (a) job brokers and (b) other interested parties about the random assignment evaluation. [19501]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The new Jobcentre Plus service pathfinder offices opened in October and will be rolled out nationally from April 2002. As a result of the decision that this service would include mandatory work-focused meetings for new customers making claims to incapacity benefit, which would be a gateway for NDDP, it is no longer appropriate for random assignment to be used as one of the evaluation tools. We have therefore abandoned plans for its use. We are now reviewing options for alternative approaches.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the study "A Review of the Use of Random Assignment" will be completed; and if he will place it in the Library. [19502]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  It is currently anticipated that the study called "A review of the use of social experiments" will be published in February 2002. This study covers random assignment methods. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Pension Service
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the siting of the Phase 2 Pension Service locations. [22478]

  Mr. McCartney
  In my written answer on 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 195W, I announced plans for the new Pension Service and explained that it will offer a local service working in partnership with local authorities and voluntary organisations. To support the local service network, we will bring together the backroom processing in 26 locations rather than over 400 at present, allowing frontline staff to concentrate on dealing with customers.

  At that time I also announced 19 of the first phase pension centre locations.

  I am now pleased to announce that six additional new centres for the Pension Service have been secured in the Dearne Valley, Derby, Motherwell, Seaham, Stockport and York. In addition one of our existing social security offices in Norwich will become a pension centre.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the Jobcentre Plus computer system; and when he expects it to be fully operational in the new offices; [14034]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that Jobcentre Plus staff have access to a single computer system that will allow the linking of data from Benefits Agency and Employment Service sources; and if he will make a statement. [14299]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answers 12 and 13 November 2001]: The information technology systems being used in the Jobcentre Plus pathfinders are based on the systems currently in use in the Benefits Agency and

  777W
  Employment Service, with enhancements to enable the Jobcentre Plus process to be carried out. All of these systems are currently operational.

  We are investing in order to upgrade and replace the Department's outdated computer systems. We want to ensure that all people, including those who use Jobcentre Plus, can receive a modern service. The new and improved IT we are developing will allow us to capture the necessary information from people face-to-face or over the telephone, instead of getting them to fill in multiple benefit claim forms. And we will be able to offer on-the-spot calculations of by how much a person would be better off if they took a particular job. We will be replacing the main income support and jobseeker's allowance benefit processing systems and modernising the payment system so as to improve the efficiency of the service we provide.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the public service and service delivery agreements developed in the corporate serving directorate of his Department in 2000–01; [19265]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for access to funded second pensions; [19044]

  (3) if he will make a statement on progress since the publication of the Departmental report 2001 towards the public service agreement target for the payment by the Department for goods and services; [19005]

  (4) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the completion of a new assessment of liability to pay child support maintenance; [19017]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for the ratio of in-work income from earnings and benefits to out-of-work benefits in 2001–02; [19033]

  (6) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the delivery of the new deals for the unemployed lone parents and disabled people;[19037]

  (7) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the level of compliance by absent parents with agreed child support arrangements; [19048]

  (8) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for investment in modernisation; [19013]

  (9) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for minimising the regulatory burden on employers in respect of pension and child support arrangements; [19021]

  (10) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the provision of an electronic claiming facility for benefit claimants; [19029]
  778W
  (11) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target of achieving an accuracy rate for assessments and reviews in child support cases of not less than 90 per cent; [19046]

  (12) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the achievement of an annual efficiency gain; [19011]

  (13) if he will make a statement on performance in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 against the public service agreement target for average pensioner income as a percentage of average earnings; [19019]

  (14) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for reducing the average cost of processing retirement pension claims; [19027]

  (15) if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the public service agreement target for reducing losses from fraud and error; [19035]

  (16) if he will make a statement on the progress towards meeting the public service agreement target for the percentage of Benefits Agency customers whose benefits are paid into their bank accounts; [19031]

  (17) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the reduction of the number of children in households with no-one in work; [19042]

  (18) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for reducing the number of children in poverty by at least a quarter by 2004; [19078]

  (19) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the reduction of sickness absence rates by 2003; [19003]

  (20) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the development of better measures of efficiency; [19023]

  (21) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for access for disabled people with broken work records to second pensions; [19045]

  (22) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the reduction by March 2002 of benefit losses from fraud and error; [19010]

  (23) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for increasing the collection of maintenance from non-resident parents who pay the CSA's collection service; [19018]

  (24) if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the public service agreement target for the reduction of the average cost of processing minimum income guarantee claims and the maintenance of the caseload; [19026]

  (25) if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the public service agreement target for value for money; [19034]

  (26) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the percentage of departmental business transactions to be carried out electronically; [19014]
  779W
  (27) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the provision of pension forecasts by employers and pension providers; [19022]

  (28) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the establishment of payment arrangements in child support cases; [19047]

  (29) if the Benefits Agency met its target to contribute to the reduction in public sector sickness by reducing absences by 10 per cent. from 1998 public service agreement baseline levels; [18993]

  (30) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the control of central costs and overheads; [19012]

  (31) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for changing the ratio of public expenditure to private expenditure on pensions; [19020]

  (32) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the roll-out of new IT equipment to staff of the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency; [19028]

  (33) if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the public service agreement target for reducing by 2002 the number of lone parents dependent on income support; [19036]

  (34) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the reduction of the amount of money that is incorrectly paid in minimum income guarantee; [19024]

  (35) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the modernisation of service delivery; [19032]

  (36) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for increasing employment rates of disadvantaged areas and groups; [19043]

  (37) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the speed and extent of access to occupational health and rehabilitation services; [19004]

  (38) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the transition into work and reduction of dependence on benefits of people with disabilities. [19016]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The 2001 departmental report, Cm 5115, sets out our progress against the public service targets. The 2002 report will set out our progress in the current financial year.

  Housing Benefit Help Team
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) in which local authorities the housing benefit help team has intervened since its creation; and when; [19507]

  (2) how many repeat visits the housing benefit help team has made to individual local authorities; and to which ones; [19508]

  (3) how long the housing benefit help team has spent with each local authority housing benefit office. [19509]
  780W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The help team initiative is a voluntary partnership between central and local government. The team only visits local authorities which request its assistance, and works with these authorities to identify ways of improving their housing benefit administration.

  The help team's visits started on 12 March 2001 and to date the team has visited Hull during March and April; Bristol during May and June; Lambeth during July and August; Northampton during August; Derwentside during September and October; and East Ayrshire during October and November. The team spent around four to five weeks at each local authority, apart from Northampton, where the visit lasted around two weeks.

  At the conclusion of an initial visit, arrangements can be made for the help team to remain in contact by telephone and give informal advice, or for members of the team to undertake short return visits. Such return visits have taken place at Hull, Bristol and Lambeth, and one is planned for Northampton in mid-December.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of the Expert Help Team set up to assist in the improvement of housing benefit delivery. [19008]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Separate figures are not available for 2000–01 as the help team visits did not start until March 2001. The total forecast costs for the project until March 2002 are £970,000.

  Integrated Inquiry Service
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place the report he has received from Affinity on the Integrated Inquiry Service in the Library. [19510]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Reports provided to the Department by Affinity are restricted by a statement of confidentiality. Affinity have not consented to their reports on the Integrated Inquiry Service being placed in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer(a) questions 10435 and 10434, on the Child Support Agency, tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon on 23 October, (b) questions 14034 and 14299, on the Jobcentre Plus computer systems, tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon on 7 and 8 November, and (c) question 14298, on post-11 September security measures in benefit offices, tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon on 8 November. [22310]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Questions 10435 and 10434 were answered on 10 December 2001,Official Report, columns 610–11W and questions 14034, 14299 and 14298 were answered today, Official Report, columns 776–77W.

  State Pension (Hospital Stays)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the practice of
  781W
  docking state pensions as a result of a hospital stay of more than six weeks; what representations he has received on the issue; and if he will make a statement. [14386]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department in conjunction with the Department of Health, is looking at issues affecting hospital in-patients, including the rules governing the downrating of benefits.

  Child Support Agency
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints his Department has received in each of the last five years from members of the public in respect of the work of the Child Support Agency. [17950]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Norman Lamb, dated 7 December 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
  You asked how many complaints the Department has received in each of the last five years from members of the public in respect of the work of the Child Support Agency.
  My records show that the following number of complaints were received about our work—for completeness 1 also show our caseload as at the end of each year.

  Year

  Number of complaints

  Caseload

  1996–97

  23,588

  579,200

  1997–98

  27,875

  758,580

  1998–99

  28,073

  923,960

  1999–2000

  21,159

  1,030,100

  2000–01

  19,634

  1,048,920

  I hope this is helpful.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he will identify eligible recipients for the pension credit who are above state pension age; and if he will make a statement. [22373]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pensioners who already receive the minimum income guarantee (MIG) will not have to make an application. They will automatically receive pension credit. For other pensioners who become eligible for pension credit as a result of the more generous rules, we are building on lessons learned from other recent initiatives. We will ensure our communications to pensioners are closely targeted and designed to help them to understand their entitlements.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Housebuilding (Floodplains)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he has taken to ensure that local planning 782W
  authorities follow Government guidelines regarding housebuilding on floodplains; and if he will make a statement. [13889]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government are continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the new Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 through the high-level targets published by the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1999. The reports for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 provide a baseline for the situation before PPG 25 was published. We are also looking with the Environment Agency at monitoring PPG 25 through data on planning applications and land-use change statistics. We are committed to a general review of the guidance three years after publication in the light of emerging experience of its use and of developing information on climate change.

  Should there be substantive evidence that the guidance is not being followed, we would consider the introduction of a flooding Direction requiring local planning authorities to refer to the Secretary of State applications they are minded to permit in the face of sustained objections from the Environment Agency.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the amount of brownfield land available for development which is located in areas susceptible to flooding. [14255]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on previously developed land in England in areas susceptible to flooding was included in the Supplementary memorandum by the Minister for Housing and Planning to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, published in Volume II of their Second Report for Session 2000–01, "Development on, or affecting the floodplain".

  Based on sites reported by responding local authorities, the estimated total area of previously developed land suitable for housing in England was at least 22,210Ha, of which 2,960Ha (13 per cent.) were within areas of flood risk identified on the 1999 indicative floodplain maps produced by the Environment Agency.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which advisers were present at the meeting convened by his Department on 13 September to discuss Railtrack. [18223]

  Mr. Byers
  Details are contained in the documents placed in the Library on 23 October.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much money the administrator of Railtrack has said will be required for renewals, maintenance and operating expenses for Control Period 2 of 2001 to 2006; [18945]

  (2) how much was the Railtrack administrator's most recent estimate of the network's infrastructure investment needs in Control Period 2 of 2001 to 2006; [18957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The administrator is currently reviewing Railtrack's expenditure needs.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many contracts for(a) lawyers, (b) accountants, and (c) consultants have been

  783W
  (i) let and (ii) advertised since 5 October on matters related to (A) Railtrack and (B) railway policy by (1) his Department, (2) the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and (3) Railtrack in Administration. [19429]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is in the process of letting three contracts since 5 October, to provide financial, legal and technical advice to the team being assembled to develop proposals for a company limited by guarantee. The SRA let or advertised none. Railtrack's contracts are a matter for them.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Railtrack pension fund was in surplus or deficit and by how much immediately prior to Railtrack administration. [20090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railtrack Shared Cost Section is a section of the Railways Pension Scheme. The most recent valuation for funding purposes was carried out by the actuary as at 31 December 1998. The results of the valuation showed that at 31 December 1998 the actuarial value of the assets of the Railtrack section was £867.2 million, liabilities and reserves totalled £804.3 million, leaving a surplus of £62.9 million. The funding level of the Railtrack section was 108 per cent. After a package of benefit improvements the section funding was 102 per cent. The next valuation is due as at 31 December 2001, with the results expected at the end of 2002.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the morale of Railtrack employees. [20749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are many dedicated, efficient and effective people at Railtrack committed to the rail network. Both we and the Administrator attach great importance to maintaining staff morale. We support the work being done by the Administrator with Railtrack's management to achieve this.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what representations he has received from(a) individuals, (b) non-governmental organisations and (c) companies regarding the feasibility of Railtrack plc operating as a company limited by guarantee (i) prior to and (ii) after Railtrack plc was placed into administration; and if he will place copies of the documentation in the Library; [21042]

  (2) what assessments have been conducted (a) by his Department, (b) by other Departments and (c) by other organisations for his Department to study the feasibility of Railtrack plc operating as a company limited by guarantee (i) prior to and (ii) after Railtrack plc was placed into administration; and if he will place copies of the documentation in the Library; [21041]

  (3) if he will list the documents on which he consulted (a) prior to and (b) after Railtrack plc was placed into administration when considering which alternative model for Railtrack plc to put forward to the Railway Administrator; and if he will place the documents in the Library. [21043]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The outline of a proposal for a company limited by guarantee (CLG) has been developed by Government and their advisers. The proposal is 784W
  soundly based and reflects lessons learned as a result of the failures of the existing regime. The CLG model is tried and tested elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not consulted on the CLG proposal either prior to or since Railtrack plc was placed into administration. It will be for the CLG bid team, currently being established under the leadership of Ian McAllister, to develop a robust proposal and to consult as it sees fit. The views of rail industry stakeholders and others will be important in developing the bid.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the(a) length and (b) proportion of track not meeting the minimum required standard for each month between January 2000 and November 2001 (i) in total,(ii) subdivided by zonal area and (iii) subdivided by train operating company area. [21037]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack advise that they do not hold information to this level of detail.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had regarding the possible safety implications of(a) the Administration and (b) a possible successor organisation to Railtrack with (i) the Health and Safety Executive, (ii) the Health and Safety Commission, (iii) HMRI, (iv) Lord Cullen and (v) others. [21031]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department and the Administrators have consulted fully with the Health and Safety Executive on all safety matters.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requests he has received for funding additional to those detailed in section 2 of the commercial loan agreement with the Railtrack administrator, as provided for in those clauses. [21481]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No additional monies have been requested beyond the initial amount of the loan agreement.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what benchmarks are used to assess budget variations in section 8.1.6(a) of the commercial loan agreement with the Railtrack administrator. [21485]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The management accounts required under section 8.1.6(a) of the commercial loan agreement, are prepared by Railtrack plc and represent actual results. These are compared to the budgeted results for the same period. Railtrack plc provides a commentary explaining the major variances between the budget and actual results.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what management accounts have been supplied by the Railtrack administrator under section 8.1.6(a) of the commercial loan agreement. [21487]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Two sets of management accounts have been received.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial forecasts have been made by the Railtrack administrator under the terms of section 8.1.6(f) of the commercial loan agreement. [21484]
  785W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no such requirement on the administrator.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rate of interest is being received by the Government under section 4.2 of the commercial loan agreement with the Railtrack administrator. [21479]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rate of interest will be calculated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 4.2 of the loan agreement and will be paid to him, and at a date determined by him, in accordance with the said agreement.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been made available as(a) cash, (b) loan and (c) guarantee to Railtrack in administration. [22117]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: £1,222,734,244 under the trust facility outlined in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the commercial loan agreement.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action has been taken to ensure high safety standards by Railtrack in administration. [22122]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Health and Safety Executive is working closely with both Railtrack plc and the administrator to ensure that safety in the railways is maintained. The administrator has recruited the HSE's former Deputy Chief Inspector of Railways to ensure technical issues are properly considered.

  On 8 October, the HSE issued a formal Direction to Railtrack plc, as holders of an accepted railway safety case, to prepare and submit a revision to the safety case in the light of the changed organisational and administrative arrangements. The HSE also summarised for Railtrack plc, and brought to the attention of the administrator, the key continuing responsibilities of Railtrack plc's management under its safety case. HSE recently confirmed acceptance of Railtrack's revised safety case.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what reports he receives from Railtrack in administration concerning(a) finance and (b) safety; and how often he receives reports. [22121]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: To date the Secretary of State has received nine weekly reports and two four-weekly management reports. Safety regulation is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many miles of track are subject to speed restrictions pending repair or renewal; and how many speed restrictions are in place on the network. [22120]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Railtrack reports that the number of temporary speed restrictions in place across its network in Great Britain as at Monday 3 December 2001 were 650.315 miles of track subject to speed restrictions pending repair or renewal.
  786W

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the turnover of London Underground staff has been in each of the past six years. [20113]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for LUL who have provided the following advice:

  Year

  Percentage turnover

  1997

  7

  1998

  6.7

  1999

  6.4

  2000

  6.4

  2001

  7

  Notes:

  1 Figures are by calendar year.

  2 Reliable data are not available pre 1997.

  3.Turnover excludes those who retired, left on TUPE grounds, left on voluntary redundancy/severance terms or reached the end of contract.

  4.Figures for 2001 are to the end of November and exclude the infrastructure companies.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how frequently London Underground carries out detailed surveys of its track; and if he will make a statement on the most recent survey. [20771]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 561W.

  London Underground acknowledges that its track needs major investment. The age and quality of the track requires intensive maintenance and/or the imposition of speed restrictions to enable services to run safely. With limited resources for investment, London Underground has had to prioritise the level of track renewals to ensure that the overall conditions do not deteriorate further. However, once London Underground's tube modernisation plans are in place, the investment backlog will be tackled and the standard and condition of the track will be improved significantly.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the register of assets held by London Underground. [20768]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 560W.

  Rents (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many properties in Barnet will not reach the formula rent cap level for the unit size for(a) registered social landlords and (b) council tenants by 2011. [20838]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available. I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 562W.
  787W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households in Barnet in(a) registered social landlord and (b) local authority accommodation will have formula rents at the appropriate cap level for their size in 2011. [20820]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is currently not available. 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 rents) and periodic reviews by the Housing Corporation (for registered social landlord rents). Moreover, individual landlords retain responsibility for rent-setting.

  Polling Booths (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that all polling booths are accessible to people with physical disabilities. [20828]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The SCOPE report 'Polls Apart' on the June general election concluded that there had been some improvements on polling station accessibility, but that more needs to be done. In the light of this we will continue to work, with the Electoral Commission, to secure further improvements on polling station accessibility.

  Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21330]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As the Department has only existed since 8 June 2001 it is not possible to reply in the form requested.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent research his Department has(a) conducted, (b) commissioned and (c) made reference to with regard to the future financial viability of train operating companies. [21047]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department conducted a study of the financial needs of all parts of the railway industry to inform the development of the 10 Year Plan and the last Spending Review. Two recent research studies were commissioned by the Department to assess Eurostar's passenger number and revenue forecasts and Freightliner's application for Track Access Grant. The Department has had regard to advice from the Strategic Rail Authority which receives monthly financial reports from train operating companies and monitors the financial position of their parent companies on a regular basis. When awarding new franchises the SRA makes assessments of bidders' financial standing.

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how 788W
  many staff worked within his Department's Railway Inspectorate in each month since June 1997; and what changes in the number of staff within the inspectorate are planned. [21025]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railway Inspectorate is part of the Health and Safety Executive. Monthly staffing figures for the Railway Inspectorate are not available. Yearly staffing figures for the Railway Inspectorate since 1997 are:

  Total number of staff (administrative and inspectors)1

  Date

  Number

  31 March 1997

  85

  31 March 1998

  88

  31 March 1999

  98

  31 March 2000

  108

  31 March 2001

  145

  30 November 2001

  161

  1The above figures represent staff in post on the given date. They do not include additional staff employed to fill posts on an ad hoc basis (currently 20 staff).

  The staff allocation for the Railway Inspectorate to March 2002 is 210.

  Signal Failures
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many reported signal failures there were on the railway infrastructure controlled by Railtrack for each month from January 2000 to November 2001. [21029]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack compile figures for four-week periods rather than monthly. The reported signal failures on the railway infrastructure controlled by Railtrack for each four-week period from January 2000 to the latest date for which figures are available show:

  Year/period

  Period

  Number of signal failures causing delays of more than 10 minutes

  2000–01

  1

  1,747

  2

  2

  1,958

  3

  3

  2,077

  4

  4

  1,810

  5

  5

  1,760

  6

  6

  1,829

  7

  7

  1,764

  8

  8

  1,788

  9

  9

  1,970

  10

  10

  2,213

  11

  11

  1,959

  12

  12

  2,098

  13

  13

  2,006

  2001–02

  1

  1,910

  2

  2

  2,614

  3

  3

  2,089

  4

  4

  2,559

  5

  5

  2,339

  6

  6

  1,855

  7

  7

  1,999

  8

  8

  2,260

  789W

  Railway Management
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received regarding(a) the merger of and (b) closer co-operation between the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator. [21055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are considering how the regulatory framework can be streamlined, and my officials have had informal discussions with some industry players. A number of suggestions have been put forward.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give details of the progress made in respect of each recommendation made by the Health and Safety Commission in its agreed action plan of August 2000 since its further progress report of February. [16992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Commission published progress reports on its action plan to implement the recommendations of the Southall Rail Accident Inquiry Report in August 2000 and February 2001. No further reports are required from rail industry stakeholders until the end of the implementation period in February 2002.

  Housing (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) private rented units, (b) social0 rented units and (c) owner-occupied units there were in the Greater Portsmouth area in (i) 1990, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 2000. [21216]

  Ms Keeble
  The available information provided by Portsmouth city council on their annual Housing Investment Programme returns is as follows:

  Stock of dwellings as at 1 April

  1990

  1995

  2000

  Social rented dwellings

  16,625

  16,550

  16,491

  Private sector dwellings

  59,565

  61,500

  64,006

  Total dwellings

  76,190

  78,050

  80,497

  Rail Regulator
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to meet the Rail Regulator. [21495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend maintains regular contact with the Rail Regulator.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what road safety awareness schemes he plans in the next 12 months; and if he will estimate their cost. [21499]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's major effort in the area of raising the awareness of road safety is the "Think!" publicity campaign. My Department launched this campaign in June 2000, with the aim of encouraging 790W
  all road users to think about their own and others' safety. The generic "Think!" message enables us to link the promotion of a range of specific road safety messages that can help to make our roads safer for all. The campaign also links the promotion of road safety messages by a range of supporters in the public, private and voluntary sectors. The long-term campaign is a key commitment in the 10 year strategy, launched by the Prime Minister in March 2000, for reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. (and 50 per cent. for children) by the year 2010.

  In the campaign to date we have given priority to addressing those behaviours that are most likely to put road users at risk, eg driving too fast, driving after drinking, driving while tired, passenger seat belt wearing, unsafe child pedestrian behaviour. Over the coming year we shall continue to address safety in these areas, particularly the safety of children. But in addition we shall be preparing a major effort to address the growing number of powered two wheeler casualties (almost one in six of the deaths on our roads last year were riders of these vehicles). The outline programme of forward activity is available on the "Think!" website at www.think.dtlr.gov.uk.

  The estimate of expenditure for the next 12 months is 1 3 million.

  Al
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to upgrade the A1. [21605]

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

  Letter from David York to John Mann, dated 11 December 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, asked Tim Matthews to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Al. I am replying in Tim's absence on official business.
  Current policy is to target improvement schemes at particular problem areas, rather than have a large programme of schemes which are unlikely to be financed within a reasonable timescale.
  For the A1, this means a series of improvement schemes at specific locations aimed at increasing safety and tackling congestion. The lengths between Ferrybridge and Hook Moor, in South and West Yorkshire and Wetherby and Walshford, in North Yorkshire are due to be upgraded to motorway standard as part of a Design, Build, Finance and Operate contract which is currently at tender stage.
  In the East Midlands, the Highways Agency has identified, as part of its Ten Year Plan, a number of major improvements to existing junctions on the Al between Peterborough and Blyth, in Nottinghamshire. These include the replacement of roundabouts with flyover junctions at Carpenter's Lodge near Stamford, Colsterworth, Gonerby Moor near Grantham, Markham Moor (junction with A57), Apleyhead (A57/A614 junction) and Blyth.
  This project is at an early stage, having only recently entered the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements for trunk roads and it is too early to give a detailed timetable. However, public consultation on options for providing a two level junction at the existing Blyth roundabout is expected to start in the spring of next year, with consultation on options for the other five roundabouts starting later in the summer. Progress thereafter will depend on how quickly the proposals can be taken through the necessary statutory procedures, which involve the publication of Orders and the

  791W
  opportunity for objection. Subject to that, construction of a new junction at Blyth could begin in 2004/05, with the other improvements phased to minimise traffic disruption.
  In addition, three other initiatives have implications for the A1. The length between London and the South Midlands is included as part of a wider ranging "multi modal" study which is examining all transport needs within that corridor. The section between Peterborough and Blyth has been selected for a new approach to the future management of trunk routes.
  Consultants are preparing a 10 year Route Management Strategy for this length which will look at all aspects of its operation, including junctions, laybys, accesses and cross-over gaps. Further assessment work is being undertaken as a result of a safety study on the section between Bramham, West Yorkshire, and Barton, North Yorkshire.
  We shall be writing to you again in more detail as part of the consultation process for the Peterborough to Blyth roundabout scheme but if you would like further information, please contact the Project Sponsor for the scheme, Neil Owen, at the Agency's Birmingham office. He can be contacted at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL or by telephone on 0121 678 8223.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what further plans he has to improve the Al motorway. [21758]

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

  Letter from David York to John Mann, dated 11 December 2001
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, asked Tim Matthews to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A1. I am replying in Tim's absence on official business.
  Current policy is to target improvement schemes at particular problem areas, rather than have a large programme of schemes which are unlikely to be financed within a reasonable timescale.
  For the A1, this means a series of improvement schemes at specific locations aimed at increasing safety and tackling congestion. The lengths between Ferrybridge and Hook Moor, in South and West Yorkshire and Wetherby and Walshford, in North Yorkshire are due to be upgraded to motorway standard as part of a Design, Build, Finance and Operate contract which is currently at tender stage.
  In the East Midlands, the Highways Agency has identified, as part of its Ten Year Plan, a number of major improvements to existing junctions on the Al between Peterborough and Blyth, in Nottinghamshire. These include the replacement of roundabouts with flyover junctions at Carpenter's Lodge near Stamford, Colsterworth, Gonerby Moor near Grantham, Markham Moor (junction with A57), Apleyhead (A57/A614 junction) and Blyth.
  This project is at an early stage, having only recently entered the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements for trunk roads and it is too early to give a detailed timetable. However, public consultation on options for providing a two level junction at the existing Blyth roundabout is expected to start in the spring of next year, with consultation on options for the other five roundabouts starting later in the summer. Progress therefore will depend on how quickly the proposals can be taken through the necessary statutory procedures, which involve the publication of Orders and the opportunity for objection. Subject to that, construction of a new junction at Blyth could begin in 2004/05, with the other improvements phased to minimise traffic disruption.
  In addition, three other initiatives have implications for the A1. The length between London and the South Midlands is included as part of a wider ranging "multi modal" study which is examining all transport needs within that corridor. The section between Peterborough and Blyth has been selected for a new approach to the future management of trunk routes. Consultants are preparing a 10 year Route Management Strategy for this length which will look at all aspects of its operation, including junctions, laybys, accesses
  792W
  and cross-over gaps. Further assessment work is being undertaken as a result of a safety study on the section between Bramham, West Yorkshire, and Barton, North Yorkshire.
  We shall be writing to you again in more detail as part of the consultation process for the Peterborough to Blyth roundabout scheme but if you would like further information, please contact the Project Sponsor for the scheme, Neil Owen, at the Agency's Birmingham office. He can be contacted at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL or by telephone on 0121 678 8223.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what was the average cost associated with(a) job losses, (b) removal costs, (c) informing the resident population of the change, (d) changes to records, (e) administration costs and (f) election costs incurred by the establishment of the new unitary authorities in 1996; [21634]

  (2) what responsibility (a) local and (b) central Government have for the costs associated with changes in (i) finance structure and (ii) administration structure when setting up a new unitary authority. [21635]

  Dr. Whitehead
  These costs were met by the local authorities concerned and this information is not held centrally. The Government expected local authorities being reorganised to take the opportunity to cut costs and improve efficiency. So supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) were given for authorities to borrow money to meet the one-off indirect costs of reorganisation until the savings and receipts arising from the process were realised. The SCAs provide a rough proxy for the transitional cost of reorganisation, though they do not necessarily capture all local authorities' expenditure. The total for the 1995–96 authorities was £143.8 million.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many unitary authorities are buying in services from neighbouring authorities; and what the net effect is on expenditure for each authority of this action; [21411]

  (2) what research has been commissioned investigating the cost saving benefits of unitary authorities buying in essential services from neighbouring authorities; and if he will publish the results. [21410]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government do not collect any local authority trading information centrally.

  However, we recently commissioned research for the Byatt Review of Local Government procurement which showed that 42 per cent. of authorities overall have joint contract arrangements with other authorities, that is 98 authorities. 17 of the 30 unitary authorities responding to this question have joint arrangements with other local authorities. Many of these joint arrangements are facilitated through buying consortia.

  We believe that a truly mixed economy of service provision is the best way to ensure genuine innovation and true competition. We want to see partnerships that are public-public, public-voluntary and public-private. This could involve the best in-house providers using their expertise in wider markets within the public service.

  We envisage laying orders before Parliament in the new year to allow local authorities to be able to use the new trading powers proposed in the consultation paper "Working With Others To Achieve Best Value".
  793W
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the total amount of Government funding to the unitary authority of Torbay since its creation. [21697]

  Revenue grants paid into general fund revenue account (GFRA) and capital grants

  £000

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 outturn

  2000–01 outturn

  2001–02 Budget

  Specific grants inside AEF

  4,215

  3,880

  111,597

  10,664

  Revenue support grant

  45,489

  46,700

  46,209

  48,886

  Redistributed non-domestic rates

  29,087

  31,366

  35,416

  34,910

  Revenue grants paid into GFRA

  78,791

  81,946

  93,222

  94,460

  Capital grants

  1,159

  1,670

  15,798

  1,682

  Total

  79,950

  83,616

  99,020

  96,142

  1 Includes extra funds to support a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project.

  Local Government Commisssion
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the members of the Local Government Commission from its inception to the present date. [21508]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The current members are:

  Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman)

  Professor Michael Clarke CBE (Deputy Chairman)

  Peter Brokenshire

  Km Desai Pamela Gordon

  Robin Gray

  Robert Hughes CBE.

  The past members are:

  David Ansbro

  Sir John Banham (Chairman)

  Professor Michael Chisholm

  Christopher Chope, MP OBE

  Sir David Cooksey (Chairman)

  Sir Kenneth Couzens KCB

  Ken Ennals CB

  Brian Hill CBE DL

  Margaret Hodge, MP MBE

  Howell Harris Hughes

  Mary Leigh Ann Lev ick Bob Scruton

  Dame Helena Shovelton

  David Thomas OBE

  Lord Norman Warner

  Lady Judith Wilcox

  Clive Wilkinson.

  Note:

  Margaret Hodge and Christopher Chope were not MPs when serving on the Commission.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the factors taken into consideration by the Local Government Commission when conducting a structural review of an existing unitary authority; [21510]
  794W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Torbay unitary authority has reported the following government funding:

  (2) what procedures are followed when he directs the Local Government Commission to undertake a structural review into an existing unitary authority. [21511]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The factors and procedures to be considered in a structure review are those specified in Part II of the Local Government Act 1992. Under that Act, a structural review is a review as to whether unitary local government should be created, and hence such a review of an existing unitary authority is not possible.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what basis he will ask the Local Government Commission to undertake a structural review of an existing local authority. [21630]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no plans to ask the Local Government Commission to undertake a structural review of an existing local authority. The functions of the LGC are to be transferred to the Electoral Commission on 1 April 2002.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the research supporting the decision to amalgamate the Local Government Commission into the Electoral Commission; and what the effect of this change will be in terms of(a) change-over cost, (b) administration costs, (c) employment and (d) responsibilities for structural and electoral reform. [21515]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The White Paper "The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom. The Government's proposals for legislation in response to the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life" (Cm4413) proposed the amalgamation, building on the Financial Management and Policy Review of the Local Government Commission which was placed in the Library of the House on 1 July 1998,Official Report, column 192W.

  All the staff, with the exception of the Chief Executive, are to be transferred to the Electoral Commission under their existing terms and conditions. The principal transitional cost is that of securing accommodation for all staff on a single site—to achieve long term operational efficiency—for which provision of up to £700,000 has been made available.
  795W
  The responsibility for implementing structural reform (on the advice of the Electoral Commission) remains with the Secretary of State. The responsibility for implementing electoral arrangements—the number and boundaries of electoral areas and the number of councillors—will become the responsibility of the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 April 2002. Other electoral reform issues remain with the Secretary of State but the Electoral Commission has a remit to keep under review electoral law and practice and to promote public awareness of the electoral process.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) biographical details, (b) professional qualifications, (c) political affiliations and (d) salary, pensions and benefits of the members of the Local Government Commission. [21514]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Chairman is Professor Malcolm Grant LLD, Professor of Land Economy at Cambridge University and a Professorial Fellow of Clare College. He is the Editor of the Encyclopaedia of Planning Law and Practice, the Joint Editor of the Encyclopaedia of Environmental Law, and the author of several books on planning law, environmental protection and local government finance law. He is chairman of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and the Independent Member of the Greater London Authority's Standards Committee. Salary £20,775.

  The Deputy Chairman is Professor Michael Clarke CBE, Pro Vice Chancellor of Birmingham University, and Professor and Head of the School of Public Policy. He served as Chief Executive of the Local Government Management Board and prior to that Director of the Local Government Training Board and has published a number of books and articles on local government. Salary £5,805.

  Peter Brokenshire is currently Chairman of Redbridge and Waltham Forest Family Health Services Authority. He has also served as a Director and latterly Acting Controller of the Audit Commission. His main career has been in local government, where his experience has included being Chief Executive of the London Borough of Greenwich and of Epping Forest District Council. Salary £5,805.

  Robin Gray is a former civil servant who has spent most of his career in the Department for the Environment. He was seconded to West Sussex County Council in the 1980s and also served as Secretary to the London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission. He is a member of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. He has been a freelance management consultant since 1992. Salary £5,805.

  Pamela Gordon has spent 40 years in local government service. She was an Assistant Director-General with the Greater London Council before becoming Chief Executive of the London Borough of Hackney and then, for nearly eight years, Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council. She was President of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives in 1996–97. She is Governor of Sheffield Hallam University. She was Special Adviser to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Local Government (Organisations and Standards) Bill 1999. She has recently been appointed as an Electoral Commissioner. Salary £5,805.
  796W
  Robert Hughes CBE, FCIS was, until his retirement, Chief Executive of Kirklees Metropolitan Council. Before that he was Chief Executive of Great Grimsby Borough Council. He was President of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers during 1997–98. He was formerly an adviser to both the Local Government Association and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He is Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. Salary £5,805.

  Kru Desai is a Principal Consultant at KPMG. Before moving to KPMG in November 1993 she worked for Westminster City Council in a number of policy development and implementation roles, in particular the development and co-ordination of Westminster's outsourcing programme. She is also a governor of Malory School in Lewisham. Salary £5,805.

  None of the Commissioners has any political affiliations, given the nature of their role.

  Pensions will be based on final pensionable salary and the length of pensionable service. Full details are included in the Annual Report and Accounts of the Local Government Commission which has been laid before Parliament and is available in the Library.

  Local Government Structure
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has to change the local government structure in England and Wales; and on what basis he will exercise these powers. [21631]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The powers in relation to England are in Part II of the Local Government Act 1992 which provides for the basis on which these powers must be exercised. Matters relating to local government structure in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent research the Government have commissioned on the financing of changes in local government structure; and if he will publish the results. [21512]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No such research has been commissioned.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the next round of periodic structural reviews for local authorities in England and Wales will take place. [21509]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are no plans for any periodic structural reviews for local authorities in England. The position in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will publish plans to change the local government structure. [21633]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we intend to publish a Regional Governance White Paper, and this will set out how we plan to take forward our manifesto commitment that provision should be made for directly
  797W
  elected regional government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established.

  Physical Agents Directive
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome was of the meeting of Coreper on 16 November on the Physical Agents Directive in respect of vibrations. [21502]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At the Coreper meeting on 16 November member states confirmed their support for the Council's common position on the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive and noted that there would be problems in accepting all the amendments proposed by the European Parliament.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21829]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Following a study of flexible working, a number of pilot implementations, presentations to staff and positive feedback from a staff survey, the DTLR Board gave approval to a project to implement flexible working in DTLR(c) on 22 November 2001. Working at or from home is one option for working flexibly which the Department will support with appropriate furniture and equipment and due regard to compliance with health and safety requirements.

  At present 766 members of staff regularly use the Remote Access Service to dial in DTLR's office automation system when working away from their normal workstation. About 37 per cent. of staff work at home on an informal basis at some point during the course of a year.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the figures for rough sleeping for each local authority area in England that are available, with the relevant HiP estimates, for each year since 1996 for which figures are available. [22054]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The first national estimate of rough sleeping in England, combining information from local authority Housing Investment Programme (HIP) estimates and the results of head counts of people sleeping rough was reported in a written answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on 19 May 1999, Official Report, column 357W. It provided a national estimate of the number of people sleeping rough on a single night as at June 1998.

  Tables showing the local authority HIP estimates and results of street counts for 1998,1999,2000 and the latest figures for 2001 have been placed in the Library. Local authorities not listed in the tables for those years submitted either an estimate of 0–10 or no estimate in their HIP returns.
  798W
  Tables showing HIP figures submitted by all local authorities in 1996 and 1997 have also been placed in the Library.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact central Government action has had on reducing the number of(a) priority homeless and (b) homeless in bed and breakfast accommodation in England since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [22050]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The figures for households accepted by local authorities as unintentionally homeless and in priority need of accommodation and for those housed in bed and breakfast are as follows:

  Quarter ending

  Priority need acceptances

  Households in bed and breakfast

  30 June 1997

  24,290

  4,500

  30 June 2001

  29,110

  11,345

  The increase in these figures is not acceptable. These problems are partly the result of inadequate investment in affordable housing before this Government took office. We are taking steps to tackle this, but problems of this scale cannot be turned around overnight.

  We have reversed the last Government's cuts, with this year's capital investment in housing more than double the 1997 level. And, as an on-going part of our commitment to public investment, we are nearly doubling the Housing Corporation's programme for new affordable housing between now and 2003–04.

  These are very substantial measures, and reflect our commitment to tackling homelessness and ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home. But these measures take time to come to fruition. We have to recognise that they will not solve the current problems at a stroke.

  In response to the growing number of homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation the Government established a new Bed and Breakfast Unit. Working with local authorities and other stakeholders, the unit is reviewing both central and local policy and practice in order to reduce the use of B&B accommodation. The unit has already held a national conference to discuss targets. The targets will be announced in the new year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has also announced that new Action Advice Teams will be available to support LAs in tackling B&B.

  We are also taking through Parliament new homelessness legislation, which will strengthen the safety net for homeless households and place a new duty on local authorities to take a strategic approach to tackling and preventing all forms of homelessness.

  The Government's strategy on rough sleeping has been shown to be successful and, from January, we are establishing a new Homelessness Directorate to bring together and invigorate this existing work to help homeless people as well as develop new work to prevent homelessness and investigate its underlying causes. Any

  799W
  strategy will also continue to help vulnerable people sleeping on the nation's streets, and help people to rebuild their lives.

  The new Directorate will be responsible for taking forward the Government's strategic framework for homelessness in the new year.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average annual increase was in(a) parish and (b) town council precepts in (i) each of the five years before and (ii) each year since the introduction of the uniform business rate [21449]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The available information is given in the following table. Separate figures for parish and town councils are not available.

  Increase over previous year

  Financial year

  Parish and town council precepts, England

  £ million

  (Percentage)

  Before the introduction of the national non-domestic rate

  1985–86

  52

  5

  11

  1986–87

  57

  5

  10

  1987–88

  62

  5

  9

  1988–89

  70

  8

  13

  1989–90

  80

  10

  14

  After the introduction of the national non-domestic rate

  1990–91

  86

  6

  8

  1991–92

  87

  1

  1

  1992–93

  98

  11

  13

  1993–94

  108

  10

  10

  1994–95

  115

  7

  7

  1995–96

  122

  7

  6

  1996–97

  133

  11

  9

  1997–98

  144

  11

  8

  1998–99

  154

  10

  7

  1999–2000

  165

  11

  7

  2000–01

  181

  16

  10

  2001–02

  193

  12

  7

  Railways
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the prospects for a greater regionalisation of the railways. [21735]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: This is an issue we keep under review.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with European Transport Ministers on greater co-operation between the different national railways; and what form such co-operation will take [21713]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The form of co-operation between different companies in the European railway industry is essentially a matter for those companies, subject to the provisions of domestic and European law. The only recent specific discussions my Department has had on this issue have been in the context
  800W
  of an official-level Commission Committee established under Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity. These discussions have concerned the implementation of the particular requirements in that Directive for co-operation between infrastructure managers to achieve the efficient operation of train services across more than one network.

  Gibraltar
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will bring forward legislation to give the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in the 2004 European parliamentary elections. [21529]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Our aim is to bring forward this legislation at an appropriate opportunity to secure giving the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in the 2004 European Parliamentary elections.

  Enron
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received about the deaths of employees at Enron power station, Teesside; and what recent measures he has taken to improve safety at power stations in the United Kingdom. [21950]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has received one representation from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). The electricity industry made and continues to make representations.

  To help improve health and safety at gas turbine power stations HSE published specific guidance last year and have periodic meetings with gas turbine manufacturers and users to discuss national health and safety issues.

  In response to the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy the electricity industry has agreed national targets for improving health and safety over the next 10 years and developed an action plan that will include health and safety at power stations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what annual data in respect of(a) population and (b) council tax base he has based his calculations of standard spending assessment and revenue support grant for the financial year 2002–03. [21879]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The provisional calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) for 2002–03 use the Registrar General's estimates of mid-2000 population as provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  For the council tax base, the figures used in the provisional calculation are based on Valuation Office Agency valuation lists as at 16 October 2001, taking account of information on council tax discounts and exemptions as at 1 November 2000, based on CTB 1 returns for November 2000. For the calculation for the final settlement for 2002–03, we expect to use figures based on Valuation Office Agency valuation lists as at

  801W
  16 October 2001, taking account of information on discounts and exemptions as at 1 November 2001, based on CTB1 returns for November 2001.

  A table showing population (rounded to the nearest 100 persons) and council tax base for all English local authorities has been placed in the House of Commons Library. All the data used in the provisional calculations are now on the Local Government Finance website at: www.local.ddr.gov.uk/finance/ssaissa0203.htm

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the effect will be on(a) the standard spending assessment and (b) the revenue support grant allocation, by authority, of the incorporation of data changes relating to the New Earnings Survey in the area cost adjustment for 2002–03. [21878]

  Dr. Whitehead
  A table has been placed in the Libraries of the House comparing the standard spending assessments (SSAs) and revenue support grant (RSG) allocations for 2002–03, as announced for consultation on 4 December, with what they would be if based on the area cost adjustment (ACA) for 2001–02. This shows the effect of updating the data underpinning the area cost adjustment from the New Earnings Survey for 1999 (on which the 2001–02 ACA is based) to the New Earnings Survey for 2000 (on which the 2002–03 ACA is based). The figures also include the effect of updating the rates cost element of the ACA, but this element only makes up a very small proportion of the overall adjustment. The RSG figures are before the application of floors and ceilings.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he intends to use his reserve capping powers this year in respect of any local authorities' council tax increases. [22732]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The reserve capping powers will not be used this year.

  Aviation Website
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will review the information available on the aviation organophosphate information website; what estimate he has made of the severity of the problems identified in that site; and if he will make a statement. [22303]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are broadly aware of concerns expressed in relation to the possible contamination of aircraft cabin air by organophosphates, but have not reviewed the contents of any websites. The Civil Aviation Authority, which has responsibility for investigating incidents involving fumes in aircraft cabins, is currently working with aircraft and engine manufacturers to identify and analyse potential aircraft cabin pollutants and to minimise the potential for engine oil leaks. A considerable amount of cabin air quality research at a European level is either under way or about to start. The Government are monitoring these developments closely and are prepared to commission specific work on organophosphates if this proves necessary.
  802W

  Education Budgets
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each of the years 1995–96 to 2001–02 the(a) total amount of education SSA provided to LEAs, (b) the final education budget agreed by LEAs and (c) the amount by which the education budget exceeded SSA. [22369]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is given in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  SSA

  Expenditure

  Difference

  Percentage

  1995–96

  17,024

  17,903

  879

  5.2

  1996–97

  17,764

  18,359

  595

  3.3

  1997–98

  17,840

  18,237

  397

  2.2

  1998–99

  19,384

  19,640

  256

  1.3

  1999–2000

  20,414

  20,582

  168

  0.8

  2000–01

  21,479

  21,812

  333

  1.6

  2001–02

  22,513

  22,860

  347

  1.5

  Expenditure data are outturns for 1995–96 and budgets for 2000–01 and 2001–02 because outturn data are not yet finalised.

  Council Salaries
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what figures he has collated on the average salaries in 2001–02 of the leader and other cabinet members of each English(a) city council, (b) county council, (c) district council and (d) London borough council. [21412]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department does not collect information from councils on the average salaries of leaders and other cabinet members.

  The Improvement and Development Agency has asked all English local authorities to submit information on member allowances following The Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (England) Regulations 2001. Authorities are asked to send details once they have come to a decision following a review of allowances by an independent panel as required under the new regulation. The average allowances of leaders and other cabinet members of local authorities who have reviewed their schemes under the new regulations and made the information available to the Improvement and Development Agency, by local authority type, as of 4 December 2001, are as follows:

  Average allowances

  Number of councils

  Leader (£)

  Cabinet/ Executive (£)

  London borough

  6

  19,454

  9,030

  Met district

  8

  20,737

  10,155

  Shire county

  13

  20,701

  11,643

  Shire district

  79

  8,444

  4,474

  Unitary

  16

  15,112

  7,682

  source

  www.idea.knowledge.gov.uk. Member Allowances Summary Survey.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what means he proposes to keep hon. Members informed of the progress and outcome of the Government's Quinquennial Review of English Partnerships. [21554]
  803W
  Ms Keeble
  We propose to announce the outcome of the first stage of the review to Parliament in the new year. A full report on the outcome of the review will be published at the conclusion of stage two of the review. We expect this to be completed by Easter.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the figure for the council tax base of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead given in tables accompanying his statement of 4 December includes an estimate of non-collection. [21723]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: No. The council taxbase figures given in tables accompanying my statement of 4 December are for the taxbase used in the calculation of local authorities' revenue support grant

  1999–2000 Outturn

  London borough councils2

  Metropolitan district

  Unitary authorities

  Shire counties3

  Shire districts

  Corporate and Democratic Core4 (£ million)

  166.82

  187.41

  167.04

  134.62

  317.21

  Administration and support services5 (£ million)

  1,096.55

  1,101.22

  1,054.81

  788.40

  1,929.57

  Cost of local elections (£ million)

  1.11

  4.75

  3.99

  0.32

  19.02

  Population figures (million)

  7.29

  11.13

  8.30

  23.04

  23.04

  Corporate and Democratic Core cost per capita (£)

  22.90

  16.83

  20.14

  5.84

  13.77

  Administration and support services cost per capita (£)

  150.52

  98.91

  127.15

  34.22

  83.76

  Cost of local elections per capita (£)

  0.15

  0.43

  0.48

  0.01

  0.83

  1 Total expenditure consisting of employee expenses plus running expenses (includes joint arrangements).

  2 Includes City of London.

  3 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  4 Includes expenditure in Councillors' allowances and expenses.

  5 Some authorities may record some administrative and support services expenditure under individual services.

SCOTLAND

  Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointments she has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in her gift. [15486]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am responsible for appointing two members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. I have made no appointments since 7 June 2001.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [21236]

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

  Long-term Care
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she 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. [21627]
  804W
  allocations, which takes no account of council tax collection rates. It is the taxbase used by local authorities when setting council taxes that reflects an assumed collection rate.

  Council Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what figures he has collated on(a) the total cost and (b) the cost per capita in the last year for which figures are available of running (i) London borough councils (ii) English county councils, (iii) English city councils, (iv) English unitary authorities and (v) English district councils broken down into (A) administration costs, (B) electoral costs, and (C) councillor salaries. [21513]

  Dr. Whitehead
  English local authorities have reported the following expenditure' figures:

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with Ministers in the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues. We have discussed the implications for the Government of the report by the Care Development Group. During these discussions, both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive made it clear that the provision of care services is a devolved matter for the Executive.

  Press Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press officers are employed by the Scotland Office; and how many are located in London at Dover House. [22367]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department employs four press officers, two of whom are located in Dover House.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years [21331]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average sickness absence in working days per member of staff in the Cabinet and its agencies for the years 1996–99 is as follows. This is the most recent period for which a four-yearly analysis of statistics is available.
  805W

  Year

  Working days absence Year per staff-year

  1999

  6.8

  1998

  7.3

  1997

  6.6

  1996

  6.4

  The Cabinet Office is committed, through a series of policies and practices on monitoring absence and managing attendance, to reduce the impact of sickness absence on its business consistent with its Service Delivery Agreement targets.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for the answer of correspondence to Ministers. [21257]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office public service agreement is that 90 per cent. of ministerial correspondence should be replied to within the 15 working day target, as shown on the Cabinet Office website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/2000/ service.delivery.agreement/statement.d.htm

  The Department is currently performing at 88 per cent. and figures for 2001–02 will be published in the Cabinet Office annual report shortly.

  Qualified 1993 left service by March 1996

  Qualified 1994 left service by March 1997

  Qualified 1995 left service by March 1998

  Qualified 1996 left service by March 1999

  Qualified 1997 left service by March 2000

  City of London

  2—

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Camden

  17

  21

  18

  11

  14

  Greenwich

  16

  17

  18

  12

  24

  Hackney

  8

  2—

  5

  9

  2—

  Hammersmith

  19

  18

  18

  21

  23

  Islington

  18

  15

  17

  18

  24

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9

  8

  6

  2

  12

  Lambeth

  13

  11

  8

  7

  10

  Lewisham

  22

  27

  18

  13

  19

  Southwark

  6

  6

  11

  17

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  14

  13

  8

  16

  20

  Wandsworth

  12

  23

  19

  22

  30

  Westminster

  17

  8

  18

  8

  11

  Barking

  14

  6

  6

  9

  19

  Barnet

  28

  34

  33

  43

  38

  Bexley

  9

  18

  12

  14

  15

  Brent

  17

  17

  10

  15

  21

  Bromley

  17

  18

  24

  33

  30

  Croydon

  30

  35

  28

  26

  37

  Ealing

  20

  30

  27

  22

  41

  Enfield

  15

  21

  12

  25

  11

  Haringey

  10

  14

  13

  23

  18

  Harrow

  8

  7

  11

  5

  14

  Havering

  13

  15

  11

  15

  9

  Hillingdon

  20

  18

  19

  18

  28

  Hounslow

  15

  23

  26

  21

  28

  Kingston upon Thames

  14

  7

  14

  17

  7

  Merton

  12

  19

  21

  12

  12

  Newham

  17

  28

  37

  30

  45

  Redbridge

  17

  22

  15

  22

  16

  Richmond upon Thames

  12

  21

  21

  15

  10

  Sutton

  2

  14

  12

  14

  16

  Waltham Forest

  10

  21

  13

  13

  20

  Birmingham

  50

  72

  64

  56

  65

  Coventry

  19

  13

  16

  13

  17

  Dudley

  13

  9

  10

  8

  10

  806W

  Local Authority Websites
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that local authority websites are accessible to those with a range of disabilities; and which organisations have been consulted on this issue; [19065]

  (2) what action his Department has taken to promote good practice in the creation and development of local authority websites. [19064]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), on 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 24W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teacher Retention
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers,(a) in total and (b) by local education authority, left the teaching profession within two years of qualification in each of the last five years. [17132]

  Mr. Timms
  Qualified teachers who entered full and part-time regular service in the maintained schools sector in England within two years of qualification and were not in service in the third year are as follows. The most recent year for which data are available is 1999–2000.
  807W

  Qualified 1993 left service by March 1996

  Qualified 1994 left service by March 1997

  Qualified 1995 left service by March 1998

  Qualified 1996 left service by March 1999

  Qualified 1997 left service by March 2000

  Sandwell

  7

  14

  15

  21

  21

  Solihull

  18

  17

  15

  16

  14

  Walsall

  8

  8

  19

  12

  9

  Wolverhampton

  9

  8

  11

  11

  9

  Knowsley

  10

  9

  7

  11

  8

  Liverpool

  14

  21

  18

  21

  15

  St. Helens

  7

  11

  7

  6

  9

  Sefton

  14

  18

  17

  9

  14

  Wirral

  9

  11

  9

  14

  10

  Bolton

  8

  13

  12

  13

  11

  Bury

  12

  9

  7

  6

  10

  Manchester

  22

  23

  27

  33

  46

  Oldham

  7

  9

  8

  13

  10

  Rochdale

  7

  5

  5

  12

  13

  Salford

  6

  12

  8

  11

  13

  Stockport

  11

  10

  19

  16

  19

  Tameside

  5

  7

  10

  2

  11

  Trafford

  2

  8

  11

  33

  12

  Wigan

  2

  13

  14

  11

  17

  Barnsley

  10

  8

  10

  7

  16

  Doncaster

  11

  14

  13

  11

  10

  Rotherham

  10

  12

  7

  8

  14

  Sheffield

  18

  14

  19

  23

  18

  Bradford

  26

  25

  38

  19

  32

  Calderdale

  9

  7

  12

  9

  8

  Kirklees

  12

  17

  8

  17

  12

  Leeds

  35

  28

  32

  23

  25

  Wakefield

  17

  24

  14

  12

  15

  Gateshead

  5

  2

  10

  2

  6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  11

  14

  9

  25

  10

  North Tyneside

  6

  5

  6

  6

  2

  South Tynside

  8

  2

  8

  11

  2

  Sunderland

  17

  10

  9

  5

  17

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cornwall

  13

  17

  23

  16

  27

  Cumbria

  18

  18

  14

  13

  18

  Gloucestershire

  25

  36

  28

  34

  31

  Hertfordshire

  60

  85

  73

  80

  101

  Isle of Wight

  6

  7

  6

  5

  7

  Lincolnshire

  26

  23

  19

  19

  23

  Norfolk

  31

  33

  36

  32

  28

  Northamptonshire

  30

  38

  29

  55

  27

  Northumberland

  13

  20

  11

  16

  18

  Oxfordshire

  33

  48

  37

  57

  66

  Somerset

  19

  19

  19

  23

  24

  Suffolk

  18

  26

  40

  30

  45

  Surrey

  70

  65

  82

  74

  92

  Warwickshire

  23

  29

  25

  35

  41

  West Sussex

  41

  39

  49

  38

  50

  Reorganised LEAs'

  Avon

  49

  16

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  Bath and North East Somerset

  n/a

  9

  15

  16

  13

  City of Bristol

  n/a

  15

  17

  20

  21

  North Somerset

  n/a

  2

  10

  9

  8

  South Gloucestershire

  n/a

  13

  14

  9

  17

  Cleveland

  29

  8

  2—

  n/a

  n/a

  Hartlepool

  n/a

  2—

  2 —

  2—

  2—

  Middlesbrough

  n/a

  0

  2—

  7

  Redcar and Cleveland

  n/a

  2—

  2—

  7

  6

  Stockton on Tees

  n/a

  2—

  1

  7

  10

  Humberside

  37

  10

  2—2

  n/a

  n/a

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  n/a

  6

  11

  8

  7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  n/a

  5

  23

  12

  11

  North East Lincolnshire

  n/a

  9

  2—

  2—

  2—

  North Lincolnshire

  n/a

  2—

  9

  6

  2—

  "old" North Yorkshire

  29

  10

  2-

  n/a

  n/a

  North Yorkshire

  n/a

  6

  12

  29

  22

  York

  n/a

  5

  6

  6

  7

  "old" Bedfordshire

  35

  38

  9

  2—

  n/a

  Bedfordshire

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  22

  29

  Luton

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  14

  9

  808W

  809W

  Qualified 1993 left service by March 1996

  Qualified 1994 left service by March 1997

  Qualified 1995 left service by March 1998

  Qualified 1996 left service by March 1999

  Qualified 1997 left service by March 2000

  "old" Buckinghamshire

  35

  37

  19

  2—

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  n/a

  n/a

  33

  25

  22

  Milton Keynes

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  11

  9

  "old" Derbyshire

  36

  35

  16

  2—

  n/a

  Derbyshire

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  11

  35

  City of Derby

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  5

  13

  "old" Dorset

  31

  24

  6

  2—

  n/a

  Dorset

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  10

  14

  Poole

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  7

  5

  Bournemouth

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  9

  11

  "old" Durham

  22

  33

  7

  2—

  n/a

  Durham

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  30

  36

  Darlington

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  0

  2—

  "old" East Sussex

  43

  44

  14

  6

  n/a

  East Sussex

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  29

  26

  Brighton and Hove

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  15

  19

  "old" Hampshire

  88

  95

  38

  6

  n/a

  Hampshire

  n/a

  n/a

  53

  68

  74

  Portsmouth

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  14

  12

  Southampton

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  18

  31

  "old" Leicestershire

  37

  37

  12

  2—

  n/a

  Leicestershire

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  32

  19

  Leicester City

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  16

  10

  Rutland

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  0

  2—

  "old" Staffordshire

  26

  35

  12

  2—

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  37

  51

  Stoke-on-Trent

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  10

  11

  "old" Wiltshire

  34

  27

  10

  6

  n/a

  Wiltshire

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  11

  22

  Swindon

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  14

  9

  Berkshire

  52

  53

  54

  22

  6

  Bracknell Forest

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  9

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  12

  West Berkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  18

  Reading

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  11

  Slough

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  2

  Wokingham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  10

  "old" Cambridgeshire

  29

  48

  47

  13

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23

  37

  City of Peterborough

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  10

  "old" Cheshire

  49

  55

  42

  11

  5

  Cheshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23

  30

  Halton

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  9

  Warrington

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  12

  "old" Devon

  59

  44

  66

  22

  2

  Devon

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  34

  City of Plymouth

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  12

  Torbay

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  5

  "old" Essex

  63

  79

  105

  49

  5

  Essex

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  56

  69

  Southend

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  8

  Thurrock

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  2—

  Hereford and Worcester

  24

  33

  25

  12

  n/a

  Herefordshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  5

  Worcestershire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  26

  "old" Kent

  69

  89

  84

  33

  7

  Kent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  74

  83

  Medway

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  22

  "old" Lancashire

  57

  56

  55

  14

  2—

  Lancashire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  55

  Blackburn and Darwen

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  5

  Blackpool

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  2—

  "old" Nottinghamshire

  47

  27

  50

  14

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  15

  City of Nottingham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  8

  "old" Shropshire

  13

  8

  17

  5

  n/a

  Shropshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  11

  Telford and Wrekin

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  8

  Not known

  58

  86

  102

  177

  175

  England

  2,397

  2,651

  2,697

  2,916

  3,106

  1Some teachers had their old local authority allocated to their record after the data of local government reorganisation.

  2Less than five

  810W 811W
  The figures exclude 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-time teachers not included on the Teacher Pension Scheme records.

  Some teachers who leave service will return after a career break.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if work has begun on the research project into why teachers leave the profession. [21862]

  Mr. Timms
  Work has begun on this research project. The Department has commissioned Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson, from the University of Liverpool, Centre for Education and Employment Research to undertake this study. We expect the report to be published in March 2003.

  Pre-schools
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pre-schools have closed since 1997 in(a) England and (b) the Buckingham constituency. [17841]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department collects information on playgroups and pre-schools defined in terms of the sessional care that they provide for children aged mainly between three and five. It does not collect information on pre-schools separately from playgroups.

  Information for England and Buckinghamshire Local Authority area is shown in the table.

  Number of playgroups and pre-schools

  1997

  2001

  England1

  15,800

  14,000

  Buckinghamshire LA area2

  290

  200

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures for 2001 for England and Government Office Region were published in Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care Facilities as at 31 March 2001", which is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/ and from the Library.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pre-schools have closed since 1997 in(a) England and (b) Arundel and South Downs. [18330]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department collects information on playgroups and pre-schools defined in terms of the sessional care that they provide for children aged mainly between three and five. It does not collect information on pre-schools separately from playgroups.

  The available information for England and West Sussex Local Authority area is shown in the table.

  Number of playgroups and pre-schools

  1997

  2001

  England1

  15,800

  14,000

  West Sussex LA area2

  350

  300

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Note:

  Local Authorities provided the data.
  812W
  Figures for 2001 for England and Government Office Region were published in Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care Facilities as at 31 March 2001", which is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/ and from the Library.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department has given to(a) local education authorities and (b) Early Years Development Partnerships on the distribution of funding for nursery places for three-year-olds on the basis of postcodes; and if she will make a statement. [18501]

  Margaret Hodge
  The responsibility for setting criteria for the distribution of nursery education places at a local level rests with the Local Education Authority in conjunction with the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership, within the strategic framework set by the Department requiring the most socially disadvantaged to be targeted first.

  Our strategic framework does not prohibit Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships from allocating nursery education places for three-year-olds by postcode area if they believe that to be the most appropriate method of targeting social disadvantage for their area.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of three-year-olds in Leicestershire will receive free nursery places in 2001–02; and what is the national average. [18503]

  Margaret Hodge
  The current national average for the take up of nursery education places for three-year-olds is 62 per cent. We are well on the way to meeting our stated target of 66 per cent. by March 2002.

  The Department does not hold comprehensive local data on the percentage of three-year-olds receiving a free place in 2001–2002 for Leicestershire or other individual local authorities.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when ILA providers will receive funding for learners booked into the system before the programme was shut down. [19549]

  John Healey
  Officials are setting up, as a matter of priority, arrangements to validate outstanding payments and claims for payment from learning providers so that the majority of providers, who have acted honestly throughout, can be paid as quickly as possible. We will pay for learning that has already taken place and for learning that is already booked, providing we are satisfied that eligible learning is undertaken, in accordance with the rules of the programme.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are in place for students who have started ILA courses but were not booked into the system before the programme was shut down. [19551]
  813W
  John Healey
  Courses that were not booked onto the ILA system before the programme was shut down will not benefit from an ILA discount. However, officials are setting up, as a matter of priority, arrangements to validate outstanding payments and claims for payment from learning providers so that the majority of providers, who have acted honestly throughout, can be paid as quickly as possible. We will pay for learning that has already taken place and for learning that is already booked on the ILA Centre's system, providing we are satisfied that eligible learning is undertaken, in accordance with the rules of the programme.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to launch a successor to Individual Learning Accounts. [20419]

  John Healey
  The Government remain committed to support those who find a lack of money a barrier to returning to education, learning or training and we are developing future plans, which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 122–32, what arrangements she has made to enable people who already hold individual learning accounts to use them. [20676]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Officials are setting up, as a matter of priority, arrangements to validate outstanding payments and claims for payment from learning providers so that the majority of providers, who have acted honestly throughout, can be paid as quickly as possible. We will pay for eligible learning that has already taken place and for learning that is already booked on the ILA Centre's system, providing we are satisfied that eligible learning is undertaken, in accordance with the rules of the programme. Learning which was not booked onto the ILA system before the programme was shut down on 23 November will not benefit from an ILA discount. The programme is now closed to the further booking of learning by learning providers.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under what powers she shut down the individual learning account programme on 23 November without notice to individual learning account(a) holders and (b) providers. [20678]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Section 104 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and the Regulations made under that section allow the Secretary of State a wide discretion as to how, and whether, to operate an individual learning account scheme. The powers allow the Secretary of State to begin such a scheme, to change it or to close it down.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is her estimate of the number of holders of individual learning accounts who had not used them by 23 November; and what arrangements are being made to enable these accounts to be used. [20679]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: As at 17 November, there were 1,235,190 individual learning account holders who had not used their accounts.
  814W
  The closure of the programme on 23 November was as a result of evidence of serious potential fraud and theft involving individual learning accounts, which are being investigated by the police. All eligible learning booked onto the system before 6.30 pm on 23 November will be honoured, subject to new validation arrangements. It will only be after we have been able to complete our validation of claims and bookings from learning providers that I shall be in a position to provide an updated figure of ILA holders who have not used their accounts.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial advice is being provided by her Department to firms which have suffered loss as a result of the closure of the individual learning account programme. [20680]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: It is not expected nor appropriate for the Department to offer financial advice to any firm which has suffered a loss as a result of the closure of the individual learning account programme. Similarly, the Department did not offer financial advice to any provider at the point when they became registered with the ILA Centre.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were employed in the individual learning account centre on 23 November; how many are employed; and whether the closure of the programme will result in redundancies in her Department. [20681]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The number of staff in place at the individual learning account centre fluctuates in response to demand and to the extent to which people make use of the range of services. The ILA centre has a flexible workforce to meet these demands, with many working part-time or in a pattern of shifts. The precise number of staff is a matter for Capita Business Services Ltd. who perform this service under contract to the Department. The contract with Capita is output based and fees paid are reliant on certain key operational indicators being met.

  I do not anticipate any redundancies within the Department relating to the closure of the ILA programme. These staff are fully occupied with residual issues resulting from the wind down of the present ILA programme, and development of a successor programme or programmes.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what compensation is being offered to holders of individual learning accounts who had intended to use them on or before 7 December 2001 but had not used them by 23 November. [20683]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: There are no plans to offer compensation to individual learning account holders who had intended to use them on or before 7 December 2001 but had not used them by 23 November.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many letters were sent out to holders of individual learning accounts to advise them that the accounts must be used on or before 7 December; and what warning was given to the recipients of the letters that the date, 7 December, had been changed to 23 November. [20684]
  815W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Between 29 October and 5 November every one of more than 2.5 million individual learning account holders was sent a letter about the withdrawal of the programme on 7 December. Because of the need to take immediate action it was not possible to notify account holders prior to the decision to shut down the programme on 23 November. The shutdown meant that the ILA account holders database was not available to us. However, we issued a press statement on 23 November and provided notification of the shut down on both the Department and Capita websites which we updated as new information became available. We were also able to resume the operation, on a limited basis of the ILA helpline for account holders on 27 November.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is given to those students whose applications for individual learning accounts had been submitted prior to the deadline of 7 December. [20999]

  John Healey
  On 26 October the Individual Learning Account Centre stopped accepting applications to open new accounts. Between 29 October and 5 November every one of more than 2.5 million Individual Learning Account holders was sent a letter about the withdrawal of the programme on 7 December. Notices were placed in nine national newspapers on 26 and 27 October and the ILA helpline advised account holders on their individual circumstances.

  Because of the need to take immediate action it was not possible to notify account holders prior to the decision to shut down the programme on 23 November. However, we issued a press statement on 23 November and provided notification of the shut down on both the Department and Capita websites which we updated as new information became available. The ILA helpline for account holders also resumed operation, on a limited basis, on 27 November.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) learning provider companies and (b) applicants of her decision to close the individual learning account scheme earlier than the published date of 7 December. [21306]

  Academic lecturing staff' in UK HE institutions 1999–2000

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Terms of employment

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Permanent

  66,520

  80

  4,870

  29

  71,390

  72

  Fixed term contract

  16,380

  20

  8,350

  50

  24,730

  25

  Hourly paid/casual staff

  10

  0

  3,390

  20

  3,400

  3

  Other

  60

  0

  120

  1

  180

  0

  Total

  82,970

  100

  16,730

  100

  99,700

  100

  1Covers staff whose primary employment function is either teaching or teaching/research. Staff whose primary employment function is research are not included

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency's Staff Record. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10 and percentage to the nearest whole number
  816W
  John Healey
  Because of the need to take immediate action it was not possible to notify account holders or ILA registered learning providers prior to the decision to shut down the programme on 23 November. I do recognise the impact this decision will have on learners and learning providers and I am taking steps to keep them informed about developments.

  Out-of-school Schemes
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to develop out of school and holiday schemes for 11 to 14-year-old children. [20493]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government have recognised that out-of-school-hours learning activities play a key role in developing young people and raising their attainment. "Extending Opportunity: a national framework for study support", published in 1998, set out our vision for providing more opportunities for older primary and secondary pupils to enrich their learning through out-of-school-hours learning activities. Since then £160 million has been made available through the New Opportunities Fund, including £25 million specifically for summer schools. In addition, the Department's Standards Fund has provided nearly £75 million for study support programmes this year.

  The National Childcare Strategy was established to promote childcare for children aged 0–14 and for children up to age 16 with special needs. Between 1999 and 2004,–225.5 million is being made available from the New Opportunities Fund to help create new out-of-schoolhours child care in England, including breakfast, after school and holiday schemes. This can benefit all children in education, including 11 to 14-year-olds. Since 1997, through the New Opportunities Fund support and other Government support, nearly 275,000 new child care places have been set up for the 3 to 14 age range.

  Higher Education Staff
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of higher education lecturing staff are on non-permanent contracts. [21269]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information is shown in the following table.
  817W
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average turnover has been of teaching staff in higher education institutions in each year since 1997. [21271]

  Turnover of full-time and part-time academic lecturing staff in UK HR institutions

  Academic year

  Average

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1997–2000

  Total staff2

  90,250

  92,170

  94,360

  92,260

  Inflow3

  7,940

  8,670

  8,510

  8,370

  Outflow3

  7,140

  7,120

  7,060

  7,110

  Total turnover4

  15,080

  15,790

  15,570

  15,480

  Turnover as percentage of total staff

  16.7

  17.1

  16.5

  16.8

  1 Includes staff whose primary employment function is teaching or teaching/research. Staff whose primary employment function is research are not included

  2 As at 31 July

  3 Includes entrants from, and leavers to, other (non HE) educational institutions, the public and private sectors, and overseas. Staff who move between other HE institutions in the UK are not included

  4 Total of inflow and outflow

  Astra Group Pension Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what actuarial assessment has been made of the shortfall in the Astra Group pension scheme; and if she will make a statement. [21416]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The latest actuarial valuation of the Astra Group Pension Scheme was by William M Mercer in April 2001. My understanding is that it showed that at the due date of valuation of 30 April 2000, had the winding-up of the scheme been completed, it would have been in deficit by £10.72 million. However, the completion of the winding-up is still some time away and only when this process is complete will the extent of any deficit be known. This matter is entirely in the hands of Astra' s administrators. The actuary (William M Mercer) has recommended that the next actuarial valuation be carried out with an effective date no later than 30 April 2003.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collates on the educational attainments of young people with disabilities and special educational needs compared with their peer group, with particular reference to(a) qualifications attained and (b) access to higher education. [20952]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The primary source of information on the activities and attainment of young people in the years immediately after completing compulsory education is the Youth Cohort Study (YCS). A question designed to identify those with a current long-term disability or health problem as defined under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was introduced in the 1998 YCS surveys. Questions on Special Educational Needs (SENs) were included in the most recent survey of 16-year-olds in 2000.

  Key results from the YCS are published in Statistical First Releases (SFRs). The tables include information on attainment and participation in higher education for those with and without a long-term disability or health problem.
  818W
  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  DfES SFRs are available in the House of Commons Library and on the DfES website at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics/DB/SFR/.

  In response to the call for more information in the 1997 Green Paper "Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs" the Department has commissioned a longitudinal piece of research about the experiences of young people with SEN once they have left school.

  The study looks at the experiences, achievements, and attitudes of young people with SEN during their transition from secondary education to early adult life. It aims to identify barriers to further education, training, employment and independent living.

  Post-16 Learning
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each local education authority(a) the sum spent on post-16 education in 2000–01, (b) the sum budgeted for post-16 education in the current year and (c) the sum top-sliced from the SSA in 2002–03 for post-16 education. [21725]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The following table lists for each local education authority (a) estimated spend on post-16 education in 2000–01, consisting of the amount for each school with a sixth form which was used as the baseline for calculation of the Real Terms Guarantee, and an estimate of each authority's spend on post-16 Special Educational Needs; and (c) the provisional deduction from each local education authority's post-16 SSA for 2002–03, which each authority will receive back from the Learning and Skills Council in grant for post-16 provision. Estimated budgets for post-16 for each LEA for 2001–02 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  LEA

  (a) Estimated spend 2000–01

  (c) LSC allocation 2002–03

  City of London

  0.005

  0.006

  Camden

  9.789

  11.188

  Greenwich

  7.173

  8.521

  Hackney

  1.849

  2.095

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4.863

  5.491

  819W

  £ million

  LEA

  (a) Estimated spend 2000–01

  (c) LSC allocation 2002–03

  Islington

  1.879

  1.839

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2.996

  3.248

  Lambeth

  1.624

  1.947

  Lewisham

  4.994

  5.193

  Southwark

  1.250

  1.866

  Tower Hamlets

  4.912

  6.039

  Wandsworth

  7.000

  8.252

  Westminster

  4.846

  6.020

  Barking and Dagenham

  5.229

  5.967

  Barnet

  14.448

  16.589

  Bexley

  7.005

  8.375

  Brent

  9.347

  11.170

  Bromley

  13.505

  16.116

  Croydon

  3.448

  3.961

  Ealing

  7.508

  9.925

  Enfield

  11.377

  13.172

  Haringey

  5.564

  5.742

  Harrow

  0.490

  0.520

  Havering

  3.665

  4.276

  Hillingdon

  9.892

  11.944

  Hounslow

  9.773

  11.589

  Kingston upon Thames

  5.399

  6.730

  Merton

  1.897

  2.682

  Newham

  2.024

  2.765

  Redbridge

  14.594

  16.135

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.271

  0.287

  Sutton

  7.966

  10.092

  Waltham Forest

  2.866

  3.628

  Birmingham

  25.905

  30.486

  Coventry

  8.802

  11.831

  Dudley

  1.508

  1.995

  Sandwell

  3.710

  4.625

  Solihull

  2.708

  2.871

  Walsall

  9.028

  11.702

  Wolverhampton

  7.277

  9.099

  Knowsley

  1.691

  1.787

  Liverpool

  16.815

  19.372

  St. Helens

  4.000

  4.413

  Sefton

  7.700

  9.012

  Wirral

  10.275

  12.818

  Bolton

  5.066

  5.781

  Bury

  0.514

  0.545

  Manchester

  3.369

  3.737

  Oldham

  3.459

  4.004

  Rochdale

  3.542

  3.874

  Salford

  0.615

  0.653

  Stockport

  0.474

  0.503

  Tameside

  1.108

  1.360

  Trafford

  5.708

  6.469

  Wigan

  2.307

  2.605

  Barnsley

  1.049

  1.217

  Doncaster

  9.098

  11.155

  Rotherham

  5.756

  7.017

  Sheffield

  6.178

  8.378

  Bradford

  16.678

  20.827

  Calderdale

  5.641

  7.971

  Kirklees

  5.656

  7.256

  Leeds

  18.997

  21.509

  Wakefield

  4.391

  5.436

  Gateshead

  5.035

  5.633

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7.441

  9.121

  North Tyneside

  4.841

  6.146

  South Tyneside

  1.261

  1.427

  Sunderland

  3.252

  4.728

  Isles of Scilly

  0.000

  0.000

  Bath and North East Somerset

  5.536

  6.397

  Bristol, City of

  4.577

  5.435

  North Somerset

  4.887

  5.704

  South Gloucestershire

  7.005

  9.148

  Hartlepool

  1.106

  1.466

  Middlesbrough

  0.323

  0.344

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0.471

  0.498

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1.864

  1.987

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  0.902

  1.109

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  9.539

  12.183

  North East Lincolnshire

  1.419

  1.664

  820W

  £ million

  LEA

  (a) Estimated spend 2000–01

  (c) LSC allocation 2002–03

  North Lincolnshire

  0.903

  1.055

  North Yorkshire

  18.363

  21.637

  York

  3.260

  4.078

  Bedfordshire

  14.782

  17.995

  Luton

  0.725

  0.894

  Buckinghamshire

  20.648

  23.678

  Milton Keynes

  7.788

  8.891

  Derbyshire

  16.020

  19.485

  Derby

  3.762

  5.039

  Dorset

  11.600

  14.238

  Poole

  4.330

  5.312

  Bournemouth

  3.505

  4.181

  Durham

  10.337

  12.320

  Darlington

  0.748

  1.007

  East Sussex

  9.031

  9.872

  Brighton and Hove

  3.739

  4.122

  Hampshire

  7.604

  8.245

  Portsmouth

  0.000

  0.230

  Southampton

  0.723

  0.674

  Leicestershire

  21.388

  26.023

  Leicester

  3.611

  3.955

  Rutland

  0.000

  0.065

  Staffordshire

  21.102

  26.819

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1.254

  1.800

  Wiltshire

  10.934

  12.910

  Swindon

  1.654

  1.640

  Bracknell Forest

  2.948

  3.192

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  4.460

  5.120

  West Berkshire

  5.932

  7.450

  Reading

  3.083

  3.746

  Slough

  3.845

  4.385

  Wokingham

  5.263

  5.972

  Cambridgeshire

  8.931

  10.414

  Peterborough

  7.543

  8.376

  Cheshire

  19.278

  22.764

  Halton

  1.873

  1.769

  Warrington

  4.203

  5.113

  Devon

  14.471

  17.098

  Plymouth

  10.320

  11.507

  Torbay

  4.042

  5.384

  Essex

  30.079

  35.289

  Southend-on-Sea

  5.190

  6.491

  Thurrock

  0.000

  0.232

  Herefordshire

  1.346

  1.579

  Worcestershire

  12.238

  16.077

  Kent

  49.630

  56.891

  Medway

  9.614

  11.284

  Lancashire

  15.639

  19.250

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1.338

  1.520

  Blackpool

  0.798

  0.798

  Nottinghamshire

  19.492

  23.494

  Nottingham

  2.210

  2.776

  Shropshire

  4.377

  4.851

  Telford and Wrekin

  1.452

  1.649

  Cornwall

  9.283

  11.413

  Cumbria

  14.467

  17.697

  Gloucestershire

  15.302

  19.646

  Hertfordshire

  37.939

  47.742

  Isle of Wight

  4.739

  5.615

  Lincolnshire

  18.553

  22.222

  Norfolk

  16.632

  20.702

  Northamptonshire

  18.623

  22.292

  Northumberland

  12.691

  15.781

  Oxfordshire

  13.796

  17.319

  Somerset

  5.881

  6.790

  Suffolk

  19.638

  24.194

  Surrey

  21.970

  24.793

  Warwickshire

  12.221

  14.257

  West Sussex

  16.247

  18.231

  Total

  1,133.320

  1,356.000

  821W

  Vocational Education
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to upgrade the standards and status of vocational education. [21813]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The White Paper "Schools: achieving success" sets out our plans to make available high quality vocational options to all students from the age of 14, which are widely recognised and offer the opportunity of entry to higher education. We have introduced vocational A levels, are reforming and extending modern apprenticeships and are introducing foundation degrees. The new GCSEs in vocational subjects to be available from September 2002 will provide a qualification of the same standard as academic GCSEs. A forthcoming consultation paper on the 14–19 education phase will address how best to break down the traditional prejudice against vocational education, and to enable more students to pursue vocational options.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the findings of the pilot areas for education maintenance allowances; and when the scheme will be extended to the rest of the country. [22179]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) pilots are subject to a rigorous three-year evaluation study.

  Early findings from the evaluation show that EMA appears to have raised participation in education. The statistical analysis estimates an average gain in participation in pilot areas compared to control areas, among EMA eligible young people, of around 5 percentage points. These findings were published in March this year.

  Although we do not yet have figures on attainment, the qualitative aspect of the evaluation has found some evidence of a positive effect on young people's commitment to study, and their performance.

  However, although these first findings are encouraging, it is important that we do not make any decisions on the future of EMAs until we have received further evaluation evidence.

  University Teaching
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to(a) monitor and (b) improve the standard of teaching in universities. [22285]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are working closely with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to ensure that revised systems are put in place to monitor and improve teaching quality which are not unnecessarily bureaucratic and costly. Proposals are currently out for consultation and we will look closely at the outcome of that process. In addition, we have requested that HEFCE produces, by July 2002, a strategic plan for enhancing teaching quality.
  822W

  Homework Clubs (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in the promotion of homework clubs in schools in Portsmouth; and if she will make a statement. [22439]

  Mr. Timms
  We are committed to providing opportunities for young people to enrich their learning through out-of-school-hours activities. "Extending Opportunity: a national framework for study support", published in 1998, set out the contribution homework clubs can make to a school's wider programme of out-of-school-hours learning activities.

  We also published Homework Guidelines, which require school homework policies to refer to any opportunities that exist for pupils to do homework, under supervision, at places other than home. In addition to school homework clubs, these may also include libraries and community centres. The homework area on the Department's Standards website supplements the guidelines with examples of good practice and case studies which teachers, governors, parents and pupils can access.

  Within that framework, the promotion of homework clubs in specific parts of the country is a matter for individual local authorities and schools.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list each college of further education subject to a recovery plan, together with the allocation to each college from the Learning and Skills Council standards fund; and if she will make a statement. [19618]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Information about colleges that are subject to a recovery plan is commercially sensitive and confidential between the individual colleges and the LSC. We are unable to release this information as it may adversely affect individual colleges' ability to attract new, non-government funded, business and may also adversely affect the colleges' ability to attract new learners. This would increase problems at the individual college. Not supplying this sensitive information is in accordance with Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) the criteria used for categorising the financial health of further education colleges and (b) the number of colleges, in each of the last five financial years, in each of the categories; and if she will indicate which existing colleges are in category C. [19909]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The financial health of further education colleges is assessed by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) as falling into one of three categories:

  Group A comprises providers that appear to have sufficiently robust finances to implement their strategic plan and to deal with the circumstances most likely to occur during the planning period.
  823W
  Group B comprises providers that show signs of financial weakness that might limit their ability to implement their strategic plan if they encounter adverse circumstances during the planning period.

  Group C comprises providers that are financially weak and that are, or may become, dependent on the goodwill of others. This might involve, for example, a loan from their bank for solvency purposes.

  The number of colleges in each of the categories in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year1

  Group A

  Group B

  Group C

  1996

  206

  148

  93

  1997

  197

  151

  96

  1998

  213

  142

  80

  1999

  242

  124

  65

  2000

  242

  102

  69

  1Source:

  Colleges' audited financial statements

  Information about colleges in category C is commercially sensitive and is confidential between the LSC and colleges. We are unable to supply the information as doing so may adversely affect individual colleges' ability to attract new, non-government funded, business and may also adversely affect the colleges' ability to attract new learners. This would increase the financial pressure on the colleges. Not supplying this sensitive information is also in accordance with Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Education Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each of the years 1997–98 to 2001–02(a) the name of each local education authority where education SSA increases have not been passported, (b) the total amount of education budget and (c) the total amount of education SSA and the surplus order deficit over education SSA. [22371]

  Mr. Timms
  Tables 1 to 3 list those local education authorities which did not passport in the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, together with their total education budget, their education SSA, and the spend above or below SSA. Passporting is defined by whether an authority passed on to the education budget the year on year increase in education SSA, rather than by the relationship between budget and SSA. However, it is not possible to assess whether passporting took place simply from an analysis of budget and SSA figures, since in assessing passporting adjustments were made for items such as Capital Expenditure from the Revenue Account (CERA), one-off payments, and the ceiling on grant increases in 2001–02. There were no passporting exercises in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Table 1: 1999–2000

  £ million

  LEA

  Education budget

  Education SSA

  Surplus or deficit

  Lambeth

  115.032

  111.391

  3.641

  Lewisham

  127.548

  127.492

  0.056

  Haringey

  110.586

  110.650

  -0.064

  Merton

  63.906

  66.325

  -2.419

  Redbridge

  115.074

  118.368

  -3.294

  824W

  Table 1: 1999–2000

  £ million

  LEA

  Education budget

  Education SSA

  Surplus or deficit

  Richmond upon Thames

  53.338

  52.456

  0.882

  Waltham Forest

  110.433

  111.051

  -0.618

  Birmingham

  546.234

  505.954

  40.280

  Walsall

  123.863

  124.648

  -0.785

  Knowsley

  85.322

  85.232

  0.090

  St. Helens

  80.741

  76.502

  4.239

  Trafford

  105.130

  91.100

  14.030

  Wigan

  131.721

  125.345

  6.376

  Doncaster

  134.658

  136.085

  -1.427

  Gateshead

  81.637

  78.264

  3.373

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  121.426

  111.037

  10.389

  Bath and North East Somerset

  68.329

  62.342

  5.987

  North Somerset

  70.967

  67.996

  2.971

  South Gloucestershire

  99.418

  93.808

  5.610

  Redcar and Cleveland

  66.086

  66.199

  -0.113

  Hull City

  115.990

  114.819

  1.171

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  129.087

  121.259

  7.828

  Milton Keynes

  87.284

  92.700

  -5.416

  Darlington

  39.133

  39.671

  -0.538

  Brighton and Hove

  84.059

  82.767

  1.292

  Southampton

  90.432

  87.375

  3.057

  Leicestershire

  236.428

  228.194

  8.234

  Swindon

  71.156

  73.292

  -2.136

  Herefordshire

  60.529

  61.103

  -0.574

  Lancashire

  484.874

  468.489

  16.385

  Blackpool

  50.677

  52.808

  -2.131

  Cornwall

  191.623

  189.829

  1.794

  Somerset

  185.943

  175.623

  10.320

  West Sussex

  275.729

  269.166

  6.563

  Note:

  Education budget is taken from Local Authorities' Revenue Account returns. Non-passporting authorities are those which were published in the LEA comparative expenditure tables in June 1999.

  Table 2: 2000–01

  £ million

  LEA

  Education budget

  Education SSA

  Surplus or deficit

  Southwark

  132.620

  130.405

  2.216

  Barnet

  144.869

  143.030

  1.838

  Brent

  122.579

  129.463

  -6.884

  Redbridge

  123.490

  125.904

  -2.414

  Salford

  100.503

  98.773

  1.730

  North Somerset

  72.244

  70.855

  1.389

  Somerset

  191.534

  186.168

  5.365

  Note:

  Education budget is total education revenue expenditure recorded at line 5 on local education authorities' section 52 budget statements for 2000–01, less income from grants recorded at line 6. Non-passporting authorities are those which were published in the LEA comparative expenditure tables in June 2000.

  Table 3: 2001–02

  £ million

  LEA

  Education budget

  Education SSA

  Surplus or deficit

  Brent

  126.841

  135.195

  -8.354

  Harrow

  91.492

  90.818

  0.674

  Wolverhampton

  125.771

  120.747

  5.024

  City of Bristol

  161.303

  145.611

  15.691

  North Somerset

  74.582

  74.508

  0.073

  York

  68.251

  66.287

  1.965

  Swindon

  80.047

  80.046

  0.001

  Northumberland

  141.303

  139.663

  1.640

  Note:
  825W
  Education budget is total education revenue expenditure recorded at line 5 on local education authorities' section 52 budget statements for 2000–01, less income from grants recorded at lines 6a and 6b. Non-passporting authorities are those which were published in the LEA comparative expenditure tables in June 2001.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many publications were issued by his Department in each of the last four years. [11836]

  Mr. MacShane
  The total number of publications issued was:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  194

  1998–99

  224

  1999–2000

  179

  2000–01

  161

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office produces a range of booklets aimed at overseas audiences. It also issues recruitment literature, and leaflets to raise consular awareness among UK nationals travelling abroad. The figures include parliamentary publications such as annual FCO departmental reports on the Government's expenditure plans and human rights.

  Gibraltar
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the constitutional arrangements agreed between the UK and the Irish Republic involving joint decision-making in the affairs of Northern Ireland are being used as a model for the future constitutional status of Gibraltar. [19963]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member 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 communiqué issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs when they met under the Brussels Process in Barcelona on 20 November has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Ministers discussed the full range of issues set out in the November 1984 Brussels Communiqueé. Their discussions did not include the relevance of the Northern Ireland constitutional model to Gibraltar.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if an agreement to offer Spain any joint decision-making over the affairs of Gibraltar will be put to a referendum of the people of Gibraltar. [19964]

  Peter Hain
  I refer 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 for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs reiterated this in response to a
  826W
  question from the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on 27 November 2001, Official Report, columns 822–23.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which aspects of agreement on the future status of Gibraltar with Spain(a) will and (b) will not be subject to a referendum in Gibraltar. [21432]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to a question from the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 822.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to enter into discussions with Spain over the future status of Gibraltar. [21683]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 312W.

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to raise the issue of border delays with the Government of Spain. [21601]

  Peter Hain
  I last raised the issue of border delays with the Spanish Minister for Europe on 10 December, and will continue to do so on all future appropriate occasions.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20669]

  Mr. MacShane
  This information is not available at present as the figures for 2001–02 cannot be finalised until the end of the financial year. We are in any case unable to provide the figures for 2002–03 as the FCO's paybill is negotiated annually with HM Treasury.

  The FCO's forthcoming Departmental Report (to be published spring 2002) will give full retrospective costs.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21314]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information follows on the number of people currently employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the new deal for young people. New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy where appropriate, and any additional training which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot readily be identified.

  In 2001 the FCO has recruited three young people under the scheme. Since 1999, 10 have been employed. They are paid an A1 salary, (the grade at which we recruit New Dealers) currently £12,600 per annum. The Employment Service subsidy is £60 per week for the first six months of their employment.
  827W

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21824]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to the Work Life Balance of its staff. A range of flexible working patterns—including part-time working, job sharing and home working—is available to staff by agreement with their management.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office publicises its commitment to flexible working and encourages managers to respond positively to requests as part of their commitment to the diversity agenda.

  On the basis of the latest information available, there are currently around 20 people in the FCO who work permanently or regularly from home; many more work from home on an informal or occasional basis. Other working patterns in place include term time, school hours, compressed hours, shift working, flexitime, staggered hours, reduced hours, part-time and job sharing.

  Indonesia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the Indonesian authorities regarding the actions of Laskar Jihad in the Christian villages surrounding Tentena; [21765]

  (2) what action he is taking regarding the attacks on religious minorities in the Poso region of Sulawesi in Indonesia. [21766]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 23 November our charge d'affaires in Jakarata lobbied Bambang Yudhoyono, the Indonesian Co-ordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs, on the security situation in Sulawesi. Mr. Yudhoyono said that the Government were anticipating an upswing in violence and that additional military and police had been deployed to the region. Our concern was further reinforced by the charge d'affaires at a meeting with Manuel Kaisieppo, the Minister of Development in Eastern Indonesia on 29 November. We will continue to monitor developments closely.

  Al-Qaeda
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 404W, on al-Qaeda, if he will rule out support for military action against states where there is no evidence of state support of the terrorist activities of al-Qaeda. [22151]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our aim is to eliminate the threat posed by the international terrorist networks of al-Qaeda, and other international terrorist organisations. We will take the action we deem necessary in support of this aim. It would not be sensible to rule out any option in advance.

  Many countries around the world suffer from the presence and activity of international terrorists. Most are prepared to address the problem, but some lack sufficient capability to do so. In co-operation with the international community we are stepping up assistance to states which oppose terrorist activity but lack the means to prevent it.
  828W

  Suicide Terrorists
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 315W, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the level of preparedness up to 11 September for the willingness of suicide terrorists to use aircraft and other vehicles to inflict substantial loss of life. [22129]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Alongside national and international measures aimed at deterring and preventing terrorist activity, our contingency planning takes account of all types of terrorist threats. Although we are constantly alert to the threat of international terrorism, we had no specific warning of the 11 September attacks.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation his Department has made of the role of Russia in the decision by the Northern Alliance to occupy Kabul. [22170]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In Kabul, the Northern Alliance took over a city abandoned by the Taliban. We are not aware of any Russian role in this decision.

  Russia has made a valuable humanitarian contribution to the coalition's campaign against terrorism. We also welcomed their political support for the Bonn conference and the newly agreed Interim Administration.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the expected nature and extent of Russian influence in post-conflict Afghanistan. [22172]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Russian Government welcomed the results of the Bonn conference and saw it as an important step towards a post-conflict settlement in Afghanistan. We expect their political support to continue to ensure implementation of the decisions adopted. We also expect this to be reinforced by on-going humanitarian assistance (including medicines, a field hospital and de-mining assistance).

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support an investigation into events at Mazar-i-Sharif to establish(a) whether adequate steps were taken at the outset (i) to deter a revolt and (ii) to prevent access to the weapons used for the revolt, (b) the circumstances under which Taliban prisoners who had their hands bound were killed and (c) the standard of treatment of Taliban fighters (I) who tried to surrender, (2) became incapacitated and (3) who otherwise stopped fighting. [22205]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take very seriously our obligations under the Geneva Conventions with regard to the enforcement of international law and have urged the Northern Alliance to treat humanely all those who have surrendered and are taken prisoner. But we do not think it appropriate to call for an investigation into the events at Mazar-i-Sharif at the present time.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the UK will be involved in setting up procedures for the(a) safe surrender, (b) disarming and (c) detention of captured fighters in Afghanistan. [22203]
  829W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Most fighters in Afghanistan are being held by the Northern Alliance or other Afghan groups. We have urged those groups to set up the necessary procedures to handle prisoners in accordance with international norms. We would look to the ICRC to monitor these procedures. The UK itself does not have sufficient forces on the ground to handle captured fighters.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the UK Government and their coalition allies in Afghanistan provide logistic support to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners in their custody. [22202]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK does not have sufficient forces on the ground to provide logistical support nor handle captured fighters in Afghanistan. We have urged the Northern Alliance to treat humanely all those who are prisoners in their custody.

  EU (Public Information)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken to inform people about the law-making process in the European Union. [22733]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has published a leaflet which summarises the process by which European Directives and Regulations are made. This is being given a wide distribution and is available on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk. Copies are available for collection in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken to inform people about the meaning of the European Union treaties. [22734]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has published a leaflet which summarises the European Union Treaties in under 300 words. This is being given a wide distribution and is also available on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk. Copies are available for collection in the Libraries of the House.

  British Council
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many indemnity undertakings were given by his Department in respect of loss or damage to works of art loaned to the British Council for exhibition overseas for the six-month period ended 30 September; and what the value was of the contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings which remained outstanding at that date. [22735]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council, although not a Government Department, receives a substantial Grant in Aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It regularly organises or sponsors exhibitions overseas of works of art loaned from National Galleries and private collections in the United Kingdom. It provides certain assurances or guarantees in respect of loss or damage while these works are on loan.

  In the six month period ended 30 September 2001 the British Council provided such assurances to two national lenders and undertakings to 14 private lenders. The value of the contingent liabilities that remained outstanding as
  830W
  at 30 September 2001 in respect of national lenders was £464,200 and in respect of private lenders was £3,797,125 ie a total of £4,261,325.

  International Judicial Procedures
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what judicial procedures will be set up to try those in custody accused of(a) war crimes, (b) crimes against humanity and (c) other serious violations of international law. [22204]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction in respect of crimes against humanity and war crimes (which include serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict) only when the offences are committed in the United Kingdom or, outside the United Kingdom, by a national or resident of the UK or by a person subject to UK service jurisdiction. New judicial procedures are not therefore needed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for efficiency in the criminal justice system. [17064]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There is a broad range of activity to modernise and improve all of the criminal justice organisations. This work has enabled us to achieve our Youth Justice Pledge of halving the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.

  The Government are also considering and consulting on two major reports (Making Sentencing Work— report of the Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales, and Lord Justice Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts In England and Wales) which will lead to wide ranging programmes to improve efficiency in the Criminal Justice System. Although there is no cross-cutting public service agreement target for efficiency, the public service agreement does contain a value for money target which it is envisaged will be set by March 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance his Department provided in 2000–01 to those charities which are on the central register of charities but did not receive guidance under the public service agreement target set out on page 169 of the 2001 Department report. [21283]

  Angela Eagle
  None. This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department which has a range of statutory powers to help and supervise charities. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the public service agreement target to ensure by March 2001 that charities are able to operate for their proper purpose by increasing the percentage of cases where legal authority is exercised at Charity Commission instigation was achieved; [21280]
  831W
  (2) if the public service agreement target for efficiency gains in the Charity Commission was achieved in 2000–01; [21285]

  (3) what is the role of the Charity Commission in the cases in which it does not initiate the provision of substantive guidance on governance and administration; [21290]

  (4) if the public service agreement target for the staff cost per charity monitored was achieved by March 2001; [21277]

  (5) if the public service agreement target to monitor 85 per cent. of the target grant of charities by March 2001 was achieved; [21278]

  (6) if the public service agreement target to benchmark impact indicators for the Charity Commission and implement them from January was achieved; [21287]

  (7) what progress was made in 2000–01 in reducing absence on sick leave by staff of the Charity Commission; [21286]

  (8) if the public service agreement target to improve by March 2001 the effectiveness of charities' operations by the Commission initiating the provisions of substantive guidance on governance and administration was achieved; [21279]

  (9) if the public service agreement to increase the cost effectiveness of the Charity Commission's investigative results to 90 per cent. was achieved; [21276]

  (10) if the public service agreement target to determine by March 2001 charities status within 95 working days of the application for registration being received was achieved; [21281]

  (11) if the public service agreement target to provide guidance by 31 March 2001 to 58 per cent. of charities which are placed on the central register of charities was achieved. [21282]

  Angela Eagle
  These are matters for the Charity Commission, who will write to the hon. Member. A copy of the Commission's reply will be placed in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of failed asylum applicants who will be removed from the UK in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [17085]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: The current Service Delivery Agreement target relating to the removal of failed asylum seekers from the United Kingdom is to remove 30,000 in 2001–02; 33,000 in 2003–04; and 37,000 in 2003–04. The totals include dependants.

  The 30,000 target for this year has always been ambitious and high risk. To enable us to reach it we need to remove about 2,500 people a month. It remains our aim to achieve this monthly total by March 2002.

  So far in 2001, 7,400 failed asylum seekers have been removed, which, from April onwards, includes dependants.
  832W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reform the asylum system, particularly in terms of the effects on the provision of housing. [21016]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the steps he is taking to reform the asylum system on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 627. These include the establishment on a trial basis of 3,000 accommodation centre places. For the remainder of asylum seekers existing support arrangements will continue to be provided.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changes to the departmental expenditure limit and administration cost limit within his responsibility. [19514]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit, which covers Request for Resources 1 (building a safe, just and tolerant society) and Request for Resources 2 (protecting the public by holding prisoners in decent conditions and reducing re-offending after release), will be increased by £75,547,000 from £9,786,720,000 to £9,862,267,000. The administration costs limit will be decreased by £8,194,000 from £2,413,837,000 to £2,405,643,000.

  A detailed breakdown of the winter supplementary changes has been placed in the library.

  Illegal Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent surveys have been undertaken by his Department on how illegal drugs enter prisons in England and Wales. [20436]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available evidence shows that the predominant route of supply of drugs into prisons is through the social visits process. Further research into the supply of drugs in prisons is being commissioned by Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

  Leave to Remain
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time is that applicants wait between being granted(a) indefinite and (b) finite leave to remain in the UK and their receipt of the necessary documents; what is the longest wait in both cases at present; and how many residents of (i) Beckenham constituency and (ii) Bromley Borough are awaiting their documents. [20352]

  Angela Eagle
  Once an application has been granted it is normally dispatched by first class recorded delivery. Depending on Post Office delivery it should normally take one to two days after dispatch to be received. The other requested information is not centrally recorded.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reporting centres for conducting immigration interviews have been set up in the north-east
  833W
  since January 2000; how many appeals by the Immigration Appeals Authority have been heard in courts based in the north-east; and how many were planned to be heard in the north-east in 2001. [19490]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The north-east has one reporting centre at Waterside Court, Leeds, which opened in October 2000.

  I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that the number of adjudicator hearings undertaken by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) in courts in the north-east since October 2000 until the end of September 2001 was 4,911 for asylum appeals and 976 for immigration appeals. The number of tribunal hearings was 107 for asylum appeals and 31 for immigration appeals. Data prior to October 2000 are not available.

  The IAA plan to receive a specified number of adjudicator appeal cases from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate each year. As the current IAA policy is to list cases into the court nearest the appellant's place of residence, area distribution can only be undertaken when appeal papers are received and consequently cannot be planned in advance.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the Biocidal Products Regulation for animal testing. [20924]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible for the Home Office to give an estimation of the impact of the Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC), which came into force in the United Kingdom in April 2001, on the scale and nature of animal use.

  As a consequence of it coming into force, there will be a requirement for all biocidal products and their active substances to be authorised for use and therefore the new testing requirement may increase animal use in this area.

  To minimise duplicate testing, Article 13 of the Directive requires authorisation holders to take all reasonable steps to share data. Furthermore, the Article also allows for member states to oblige applicants to share data, specifically to avoid unnecessary and duplicate testing on animals.

  It continues to be our aim to reduce, refine and replace the use of animals in scientific procedures and to ensure that the benefits to humans, other animals or the environment outweigh the costs to the animals involved. In August 2000 the Home Office announced the agreement of a cross-Government concordat to increase data sharing in all United Kingdom regulatory safety testing.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to assess the effects of genetic modification in laboratory animals on the animals' welfare. [20920]

  Angela Eagle
  The production of genetically modified animals (as well as their use in experiments or other scientific procedures) is controlled under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. In deciding whether to grant a licence to produce, breed or use 834W
  genetically modified animals, the 1986 Act requires, as with ordinary animals, that the likely benefits of the programme are weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment) and that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise pain and suffering (3Rs). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives.

  Since the genetic modification of animals was first achieved, the number of genetically modified animals produced and used under the terms of the Act has increased considerably, and is likely to continue to increase. The production and use of such animals allows new areas of medical and other scientific research to be explored; provides the potential for investigating a wide variety of conditions including cancer, cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis; and allows the quality of the science in many areas of research and testing to be improved.

  It is not always possible to predict the likely welfare effects of novel genetic modifications. However, project licence authorities are framed to permit only apparently healthy genetically modified animals to be produced or maintained unless, and exceptionally, a specific scientific justification is made and accepted for the production of genetically modified animals whose welfare may be compromised.

  The vast majority (over 95 per cent) of GM animals produced and used are mice.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of each type of animal have been used in laboratory testing in each year since 1997. [20922]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of animals, listed by species, used in scientific procedures for each year since 1997 for which figures are available, is given in Table 1A in the annual publication "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain", copies of which are in the Library. Table 5A in the same publication gives the numbers of each type of animal used in non-toxicological work, which is primarily research, and Table 10A gives the numbers of animals used in toxicological work, consisting mainly for safety testing and quality of control of medical and veterinary pharmaceuticals and other products.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Government have invested in developing alternatives to animal testing in the last five years. [20923]

  Angela Eagle
  Most of the work done on alternatives is neither done by the Government nor with Government money. The budget the Home Office has made available to the Animal Procedures Committee for research in this area over the last five years is as follows:

  £

  Year

  Budget made available

  1997–98

  182,000

  1998–99

  259,000

  1999–2000

  259,000

  2000–01

  265,000

  2001–02

  280,000

  835W
  By "alternatives", we are referring to the development and promotion of alternatives which (1) replace animal use, (2) reduce the number of animals used or (3) refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering (3Rs).

  This money is not the only money spent by Government Departments on alternatives. In 1999, the Home Office asked the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office for an indication of the level of each Department's funding of alternatives. Unlike the Home Office, the funding of alternatives by other Government Departments is neither ring-fenced nor clearly demarcated from the funding of other areas of science. The Home Office was, however, provided with an estimated figure, totalling over£2 million, for the yearly expenditure across Government for research into alternatives.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Home Office inspectors there are with responsibility for scrutinising the impact of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and what their duties are. [20921]

  Angela Eagle
  There are currently 22 inspectors appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Plans have recently been announced to further increase the number of inspectors to 33 over the next three years. Five more inspectors will be taking up post in the new year and an additional six will be appointed in 2003.

  The duties of an inspector are set out as follows in section 18 (2) and 18 (3) of the 1986 Act.

  "18 (2) It shall be the duty of an inspector:

  (a) to advise the Secretary of State on applications for personal and project licences, on requests for their variation or revocation and on their periodical review;

  (b) to advise him on applications for certificates under this Act and on requests for their variation or revocation:

  (c) to visit places where regulated procedures are carried out for the purpose of determining whether those procedures are authorised by the requisite licences and whether the conditions of those licences are being complied with;

  (d) to visit designated establishments for the purpose of determining whether the conditions of the certificates in respect of those establishments are being complied with;

  (e) to report to the Secretary of State any case in which any provision of this Act or any condition of a licence or certificate under this Act has not been or is not being complied with and to advise him on the action to he taken in any such case.

  18 (3) If an inspector considers that a protected animal is undergoing excessive suffering he may require it to be immediately killed by a method appropriate to the animal under Schedule 1 to this Act or by such other method as may be authorised by any personal licence held by the person to whom the requirement is addressed."

  The Inspectorate plays an active part in promoting the 3Rs (of reduction, refinement and replacement) in animal experimentation by, for example, preparation of Codes of Practice for the care and use of animals, the provision of technical expertise to others leading initiatives in this area, and participation in numerous awareness raising events.
  836W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been issued for the use of GM(a) mice and (b) other animals in laboratory testing in each year since 1977. [20919]

  Angela Eagle
  Project licences for particular programmes of scientific research have only been granted since 1987, when the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into force. Prior to this date live animal research was authorised via a personal licence system which did not set out the scientific issues in detail.

  Home Office records do not show the subdivision of project licences into those that authorise the use of genetically modified (GM) animals and those which do not. It would not be possible to obtain the requested information by other means without disproportionate effort or with any guarantee of completeness. We can only say that a growing number of GM animals are used as models within some licensed programmes, often in conjunction with other live animal models.

  However, since 1988 annual statistics published by the Home Office have contained information on the overall use of GM animals in scientific procedures. The detail provided has increased over the years, and the latest publication entitled 'Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2000' (Cm 5344) contains a great deal of related data. Table 3 of the publication provides comprehensive data on scientific procedures by species of animal, primary purpose (including breeding) and genetic status. Copies are available in the Library.

  Illegal Employment
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to deal with the illegal employment of those who have entered the country illegally. [21398]

  Angela Eagle
  A cross-departmental working group has been established under the Chairmanship of Lord Rooker to bring forward proposals to deal with illegal employment. The planned White Paper will provide details.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if bid and tender documents relating to the(a) design, (b) build and (c) management of prisons are published; and if he will make a statement. [21636]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Invitation to Tender (ITT) issued by the Prison Service at the start of a competition for the design, construction, management and financing of a new prison is freely available. The bids made in response to the ITT are commercial in confidence and therefore not published.

  Drug Abstinence Orders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Drug Abstinence Order pilots began in each pilot area; how many Orders have been(a) commenced and (b) breached in each area; and if he will make a statement. [21640]
  837W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Piloting of the Drug Abstinence Order (DAO) began on 5 November in Staffordshire, Nottingham and Hackney.

  As of 6 December, one DAO has been commenced in each pilot area. No DAO has been breached.

  The courts have only had this sentencing option available to them for one month, and it is too early to draw any conclusions at this stage. An interim evaluation report is due in spring 2002, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Extended Court Hours
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for individuals to be received by local prisons beyond normal hours in pilot areas for extended court hours; and if he will make a statement. [21637]

  Beverley Hughes
  Pilot projects for extended court sittings are to operate in Manchester and London from April 2002. The Manchester pilot will involve an earlier court start of prisoners arrested overnight, as well as non-custody trial court in the evening, to explore the benefits of access to justice. There is no requirement to extend prison opening hours for this pilot since prisoners will only be committed to custody during normal court hours. In London, the plans for the proposed pilot remain to be finalised.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the(a) start and (b) expected completion dates for extended courts sittings hours pilots; what the planned extended hours are in the pilot areas; and if he will make a statement. [21645]

  Mr. Wills
  Planning is under way involving all criminal justice partners for pilot studies to find the most cost-effective means of extending court hours. The aim is to test whether extended hours would have an impact on delays, deter local criminals, improve access to justice and help reassure local communities. The pilots are expected to start in the spring of next year and run for approximately six months. In Manchester three remand courts will start at 9 am on Monday to Friday to deal with remand cases more quickly and release more court space in the afternoon. Additional evening trial courts will be available on Tuesday and Thursday sitting from 4 pm to 8 pm at the request of victims and witnesses who would find these times more convenient. The objective for the Manchester pilot is to extend court sitting to support the key criminal justice objectives of access to justice, reducing delay and improving services to victims and witnesses.

  The objective in London is to deal immediately with evening arrests to deter criminals and provide reassurance to the public. Plans in this area are not yet finalised.

  HMP Wold
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the costs incurred for developing the bids for the running of HMP Wold by each bidder are included in the overall tender; whether this is a factor in the consideration of the bids; and if he will make a statement. [21646]
  838W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Director General of the Prison Service, as Accounting Officer, is responsible for deciding whether to include or exclude the bidding costs in the Prison Service's in-house bid made under a market test of a prison. The Director General decided, following advice from Her Majesty's Treasury, that these costs should be included in the case of Wolds prison on the basis that the equivalent costs incurred by private sector bidders have to be absorbed by the companies concerned.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual administrative cost of the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit in the Cabinet Office was over the last three years. [22139]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The average annual administrative cost of the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit in the Cabinet Office over the last three years was £813,000.

  Assets Recovery Agency
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial steps his Department has taken to prepare for the(a) setting up and (b) running costs of the proposed Assets Recovery Agency. [22136]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 4 December 2001, Official Report, column 230W, it is currently estimated that the agency will cost £3 million to set up and that its running costs will be £13 million per annum. These estimates are subject to revision as planning for the agency proceeds. Sufficient provision was made in the Spending Review in 2000 to cover the costs of the agency and related expenditure.

  Young Offenders (Statistics)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15 and 16-year-old boys were remanded in custody during(a) 2000 and (b) January to June 2001, broken down by age and ethnicity, on the last date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [21549]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Receptions of 15 and 16-year-old boys remanded into custody in prisons in England and Wales in (a) 2000 and (b) January to June 2001, by age and ethnicity, are shown in the table.

  Total

  15 years

  16 years

  2000

  Total

  2,791

  1,001

  1,790

  Asian-Bangladeshi

  28

  11

  17

  Asian-Indian

  13

  8

  5

  Asian-Pakistani

  39

  15

  24

  Asian-Other

  59

  23

  36

  Black-African

  71

  23

  48

  Black-Caribbean

  268

  119

  149

  Black-Other

  176

  62

  114

  Chinese

  2

  2

  0

  Other

  40

  13

  27

  White

  2,097

  726

  1,371

  20001

  839W

  Total

  15 years

  16 years

  Total

  1,284

  417

  867

  Asian-Bangladeshi

  12

  5

  7

  Asian-Indian

  5

  2

  3

  Asian-Pakistani

  12

  1

  11

  Asian-Other

  15

  3

  12

  Black-African

  44

  14

  30

  Black-Caribbean

  89

  30

  59

  Black-Other

  108

  37

  71

  Chinese

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  24

  8

  16

  White

  975

  317

  658

  1 Data for 2001 cover 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2001 only, and are provisional.

  EU (Co-decisions)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the basis upon which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), made her statement of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 422, on the powers of co-decision of the European Parliament on some Third Pillar measures. [21866]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: For the role of the European Parliament in relation to Third Pillar measures, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for Europe gave to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on 29 November 2001, Official Report, column 1080W. I have, through my officials, written to the editor of Hansard making it clear that the applicable procedure is consultation with the European Parliament rather than co-decision. The point I made in my statement of 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 422— that the European Parliament have a role in the development of Third Pillar measures— is absolutely correct. The European Parliament must be consulted on all Conventions, decisions and framework decisions. It has delivered opinions on the European Arrest Warrant and on the Framework Decision on Terrorism. It will be reconsulted on the terrorism framework decision and, if the Council achieves consensus, on the European Arrest Warrant. This demonstrates that the European Parliament does in fact have oversight of Third Pillar matters.

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison ships are in use; and what plans there are to increase the number. [20960]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The prison service currently operates one prison ship, Weare, which is berthed in Portland Harbour and has been operating successfully as a medium security training establishment since 1997 accommodating 400 men over the age of 25 serving the last nine months of their sentence. There are currently no plans to increase the number of prison ships. However, the prison service is always prepared to consider a wide range of options for safely accommodating the prisoner population when it is rising including the use of floating facilities, but would prefer to give primary consideration to other alternatives which provide better long term accommodation.
  840W

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freedom of Information
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when members of the public will have rights to access information held by public authorities as set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [21643]

  Mr. Wills
  January 2005.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, columns 1135–36W, on judges' accommodation, what (a) sporting, (b) recreational and (c) leisure facilities are provided in each of the judges' lodgings listed. [21604]

  Mr. Wills
  The only sporting, recreational and leisure facilities provided at lodgings are as follows:

  Birmingham—Snooker room

  Leeds— Snooker room

  Nottingham— Snooker room

  Plawsworth— Tennis court.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, columns 1135–36W, on judges accommodation, what assessment has been made of the scope that exists for savings to be obtained by his Department if it accommodates judges on circuit other than in the judges' lodgings listed. [21603]

  Mr. Wills
  As part of the Triennial Review of Judges Lodgings, a notional comparison was made of the value for money provided by lodgings with alternative forms of accommodation providing appropriate standards of security, privacy and comfort. The review concluded that, taking account of the security requirements and extra environmental benefits offered by lodgings, they continue to provide the best balance between meeting the needs of the judges on the one hand and obtaining fair value for money on the other.

  While the review therefore recommended that there be no change to the overall principle that lodgings continue to be the main method by which accommodation is provided, the Lord Chancellor has now decided that it will be taken forward in the context of relevant recommendations of Lord Justice Auld's report which was published on 8 October.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, columns 1135–36W, on judges' accommodation, if he will list for each of the judges' lodgings in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01, (i) the capital value and date of last valuation, (ii) the rent paid, (iii) the number of staff employed, their job titles and whether full or part-time, (iv) the cost incurred on (A) security and (B) non-security staff, (v) the amount spent on refreshments, (vi) the running and maintenance costs, not covered by (ii), (iv) or (v) above, (vii) the number of bedrooms for judges accommodation, (viii) the number of days that judges

  841W
  were in residence and (ix) the number of days that one or more of the bedrooms for judges accommodation were empty.[21602]

  Mr. Wills
  The information requested is contained in the schedules I am placing in the Library, save for the following: the estate was last valued on the 30 June 2000. However data relating to the individual capital values are classified as 'Commercial in Confidence'.

  An analysis of the number of staff and their job titles was carried out as part of the Judges Lodgings Review and figures for 1999–2000 are therefore available; to provide a similar analysis for the other years would incur a disproportionate cost. Collation of the information regarding the number of days when bedrooms were empty would also incur a disproportionate cost.

  An all-encompassing allowance covers a judge's stay at a lodgings; the amount spent on refreshments is not separated out from this allowance.

  Conditional Fee Arrangements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the savings in 2000–01 resulting from the introduction of conditional fee arrangements. [15037]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Conditional fee arrangements were introduced in 1995 and are now widely used in personal injury cases. Because of the availability of conditional fees, personal injury and some other areas of law were taken out of the scope of civil legal aid in April 2000 when the funding code for the community legal service fund was introduced.

  We estimate that net the direct savings to legal aid in 2000–01 from taking most personal injury cases out of scope were £32 million. This is based on a comparison with the previous year. It is not possible to quantify separately savings in 2000–01 resulting from the use of conditional fee arrangements in other types of cases which were taken out of the scope.

  The figure of £32 million understates savings to legal aid from the introduction of conditional fees. Expenditure on personal injury cases fell substantially in the years before 2000–01 following the introduction of conditional fees, but our records do not enable us to cost this accurately.

  Mental Capacity Legislation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will publish in draft her proposed legislation on mental capacity. [21414]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are committed to reforming mental incapacity law when parliamentary time allows. If practicable, draft legislation will be published in advance of the Bill's introduction before Parliament.

  Crown Leaseholders
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what effect the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will have on the rights of Crown leaseholders(a) to enfranchise and (b) to acquire (i) a new and (ii) an extended lease. [22799]
  842W
  Mr. Wills
  Following a statement made on 2 November 1992 by Sir George Young, the Crown authorities gave an undertaking that the Crown would, as landlord and subject to specified conditions, agree to the enfranchisement or extension of residential long leases under the same qualifications and terms which applied by virtue of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to lessees who hold from other landlords.

  It was announced on 3 April 2001, Official Report,columns 175–76W, that the Crown authorities had confirmed that they would apply the undertaking to the provisions of the 1967 Act and the 1993 Act as amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill which was then before Parliament. As was announced by my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton during the Third Reading of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which is before this Parliament, on 19 November 2001, Official Report, House of Lords,column 927, the Crown authorities have now confirmed that this also applies to those Acts as amended by the current Bill. This undertaking accordingly supersedes the one given on 3 April 2001

  The full terms of the agreement made by the Crown are as follows:

  (1) the Crown as landlord will, subject to the conditions described below, agree to the enfranchisement or extension of residential long leases or the grant of new residential long leases, under the same qualifications and terms which will apply by virtue of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to lessees who hold from other landlords;

  (2) enfranchisement will be refused where property stands on land which is held inalienably;

  (3) enfranchisement will also be refused where certain circumstances, which only apply to the Crown, obtain. These are:

  (i) where there are particular security considerations (on the advice of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Group of the Metropolitan police or other security agencies);

  (ii) where properties are in, or intimately connected with, the curtilage of historic Royal Parks and Palaces;

  (iii) where properties, or the areas in which they are situated, have a long historic or particular association with the Crown.

  (4) the areas referred to in paragraph (3)(iii) include the Off Islands within the Isles of Scilly (St. Agnes, Bryher, St. Martins and Tresco), the Garrison on St. Mary's, the village of Newton St. Loe and parts of central Dartmoor. The properties referred to in that paragraph include Old Land Revenue and reverter properties and grace and favour properties.

  (5) where enfranchisement is refused on the grounds set out in paragraphs (2) and (3), but the tenant would otherwise qualify for enfranchisement, lease extension or the grant of a new lease by analogy with the statutes, the Crown will be prepared to negotiate new leases.

  (6) the Crown will follow the valuation bases set out in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

  (7) the Crown will agree to be bound by arbitration where there is dispute over valuation or other terms, except in cases under paragraphs (2) and (3). The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal will be empowered to act as the arbitration body, and will hear such disputes on voluntary reference.

  (8) the Crown will be entitled to apply to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for approval of a scheme of estate management in the same way as other landlords.

  843W

  Electronic Conveyancing
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the analysis of the responses to the consultation paper, "Electronic Conveyancing: A Draft Order Under Section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000". [22736]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has today published an analysis of the responses under the title "Electronic Conveyancing: Analysis of the responses to the consultation paper on a draft order under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000" (CP(R): 05/2001). I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [21995]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, the volume of correspondence and percentage of replies within each of the specified timescales was, as follows:

  Total number of correspondence: 102

  Replied to in under 15 days: 41 (40 per cent.)

  Replied to in under 20 days: 31 (30 per cent.)

  Replied to in under 30 days: 13 (13 per cent.)

  Replied to in under 40 days: 12 (12 per cent.)

  Replied to in over 40 days: 5 (5 per cent.)

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Portland Cement
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the location of British Portland cement manufacturing plants accredited to the EU eco-management and audit scheme. [20515]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Portland cement manufacturing plants registered under the EU eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) are: the site of Rugby Cement at Barton on Humber, North Lincolnshire; and sites of Blue Circle Cement UK at Aberthawe, South Glamorgan; Barnstone, Nottinghamshire; Cauldon, Staffordshire; Cookstown, County Tyrone; Dunbar, East Lothian, Hope, Derbyshire; Northfleet, Kent; Weardale, County Durham; and Westbury, Wiltshire.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of 844W
  the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20671]

  Mr. Morley
  The level of wage costs within the Department's budget this year and in future years will be dependent upon negotiations. Departmental reports published next spring will give full retrospective costs.

  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 measures her Department will use to ensure that all payments are made within the 16 November to 31 January window. [21359]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is currently taking a range of measures to ensure that delays on the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) are kept to the minimum, including:

  Encouraging overtime working

  Redeploying all RPA staff with relevant experience on to the AAPS

  Back filling staff redeployed with casual/agency staff Increasing the number of staff authorising claims

  Using validation reports to determine which claims can best be handled by less experienced staff so that better use is made of those with more experience

  Switching staff periodically from casework to payment authorization

  Deploying staff returning from FMD duties.

  Institute of Animal Health
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to recover the public money committed to the Institute of Animal Health study into sheep TSEs. [21425]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Permanent Secretary for DEFRA is currently considering this issue, in his capacity as the Departmental Accounting Officer.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance was issued to valuers with regard to the calculation of slaughter premium when valuing cattle for slaughter during the foot and mouth outbreak; and what change has been made to that guidance. [14002]

  Mr. Morley
  The valuation of animals to be compulsorily slaughtered for animal disease control purposes (eg TB and brucellosis) is an established practice, carried out on DEFRA's behalf by independent valuers. The valuation process should take into account any relevant factors which would have a bearing on the real market value of an animal which is due to be slaughtered. Eligibility for slaughter premium can be taken into account if, in the opinion of the valuer, this eligibility would have an impact on market value.
  845W
  The system for valuing animals for foot and mouth disease was no different from established practice until the option of standard values was introduced on 22 March 2001. Standard values include an element in respect of slaughter premium where relevant. However, in the light of a number of queries on valuations from farmers and industry organisations, it was decided to issue central guidance to valuers which confirmed the Department's position. This was issued on 11 September, as follows:
  "The Department has long considered "the value" to mean the price an animal might reasonably have been expected to achieve on that day from a purchaser at an open livestock market. Any factors relating to the animal that would be taken into account had the animal been sold on the open market should thus be taken into account when assessing its value for the purposes of compensation. Such factors would include (but not be limited to) the species, its breed, age, weight, pedigree and (if appropriate) its state of pregnancy or lactation. If, for certain animals, the price obtainable at market would normally include some element for Beef Slaughter Premium, that should also be considered. If it is considered that such an element should be included, the age of the animal and the amount relating to the premium must be listed next to the animal on the valuation sheet."

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms included in the foot and mouth cull but not recognised as infected premises have had laboratory tests conducted for the presence of foot and mouth; and what proportion of these recorded positive results. [286]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 November 2001] [pursuant to the reply, 6 November 2001, c. 145–46W]: The original reply was incorrect, and should have been as follows.

  A total of 248 premises currently classified as Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) and 396 premises currently classified as Dangerous Contacts (DC) had laboratory tests conducted for the presence of foot and mouth disease. Of these, one DC premises returned a positive result.

  Notes:

  Details of positive DC

  This premises was sampled as part of the 3 km cull in Cumbria. Sampling policy for this cull was to sample as many sheep as possible within the constraints of laboratory facilities. Sheep were blood sampled as they were slaughtered. If a sample tested positive all other animals on the premises were culled.

  Dangerous Contact (DC) premises classified from 3 km culls only converted to IPs when results from a further stage of laboratory tests called probang returned positive, indicating the presence of live virus.

  For this one DC, initial laboratory results came back positive for the presence of antibodies, which indicated exposure to disease, thus its status was recorded as that of a DC. This premises did not have samples submitted for probang testing as all the animals on the premises had already been slaughtered and therefore the tissue samples required for probang could not be taken.

  The premises was therefore not converted to IP status because only one of the 32 blood samples, taken initially, returned a positive result. This is insufficient for a change in premises classification.

  Source:

  DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 17:30 4 December 2001. Figures subject to change as more data become available.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will instruct her Department's offices in Leeds to involve(a) local practising veterinarians and (b) other organisations with local knowledge to help eradicate foot and mouth disease. [20823]
  846W
  Mr. Morley
  The Leeds Disease Control Centre (DCC) has, from the onset of foot and mouth disease, involved and consulted with local veterinarians and other stakeholder organisations in an effort to promote an integrated approach to eradicating the disease. The Leeds DCC appointed a highly experienced local veterinarian—from the Thirsk area— as Liaison Officer for the Local Veterinary Inspectors, three local farmers as National Farmers Union Liaison Officers, an industrial Liaison Officer and local authority personnel to provide additional links with local communities. Regular meetings and consultation with local stakeholders have provided opportunities for the exchange of information and expertise.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the lines of communication between her Department and the farming community in Thirsk during the foot and mouth outbreak. [20826]

  Mr. Morley
  The Leeds Disease Control Centre has endeavoured to maintain good relations with the Thirsk farming community, both directly and through the National Farmers Union and other organisations, since the initial outbreak in the Thirsk area on 5 July. The importance of the strict biosecurity enforcement measures in the Thirsk 'Restricted Infected Area' (RIA), introduced on 30 July, which were designed to halt the spread of the disease made the need for good communications particularly important. The improvement in the biosecurity arrangements of farmers and others while the RIA was in place, as measured by the reduction in infringements of the biosecurity requirements, suggests that key messages were communicated effectively.

  Fishing Industry
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the negotiating position of the UK delegation to the December EC Fisheries Council will be determined. [21868]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The position of the UK delegation to the December Fisheries Council is determined by taking account of the scientific advice from ICES and in consultation with the industry as well as my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the relative importance of the fishing industry to(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the UK. [21870]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The fishing industry is important to all parts of the UK.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who will lead the UK delegation to the EC Fisheries Council in December. [21867]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: I will lead the UK delegation to the Fisheries Council in December.
  847W

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 18 July from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire concerning dormant quarries in the Peak District National Park. [17963]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The hon. Member's letter of 18 July has been transferred to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for response.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the letter of 8 October from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on the export of sheep and sheep meat to continental Europe; [21860]

  (2) when she will reply to the letter of 8 October from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on the export of sheep and sheep meat to continental Europe. [21472]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the letter from the hon. Member on 6 December 2001.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that outstanding correspondence with her Department will receive a reply by 19 December. [21964]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members of Parliament on 14 November explaining the scale of the current problems faced by the Correspondence Section and setting out the mechanisms put in place to overcome these problems. However we shall certainly endeavour to respond to all the hon. Member's current outstanding correspondence by 19 December.

  Rural White Paper
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost is of each research project to determine measures for the headline indicators as set out in the Rural White Paper is. [19235]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: A number of research projects contribute to determining measures for the headline indicators as set out in the Rural

  Annexe A: UK imports of meat and meat products from Argentina (October 2000 to September 2001)

  Tonnes

  Type/product

  October to December 2000

  January to to September 2001

  October 2000 September 2001 (total)

  Beef/beef product

  Bovine carcase meat

  287

  1,022

  1,308

  Bovine meat and offal preparations

  1,609

  3,392

  5,001

  Bovine offal

  157

  154

  311

  Beef/beef product total

  2,053

  4,568

  6,620

  Sheepmeat

  Lamb

  108

  98

  206

  Mutton

  —

  9

  9

  Sheep and Goat edible offal, frozen

  —

  34

  34

  Sheepmeat total

  108

  141

  248

  848W
  White Paper. A consolidated list is being developed and will be placed in the Library. I will write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned concerning(a) the Rural White Paper indicator measures and (b) other indicator measures for her Department; and when this research will be made available. [19140]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: A number of research projects have been commissioned on indicator measures following publication of "A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom", "Towards Sustainable Agriculture— A Pilot Set of Indicators" and the Rural White Paper. A consolidated list is being developed and will be placed in the Library. I will write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  Argentinean Meat
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what imports of Argentinean meat have entered the UK food chain in the last 12 months; if the meat is from vaccinated sources; and if it is organically produced. [20002]

  Mr. Morley
  The table at Annexe A shows the amount of meat of foot and mouth disease susceptible species imported into the UK during the last 12 months for which statistics are available. There is no guarantee that all this meat entered the UK food chain as some meat may be re-exported.

  The importation into the UK of fresh meat derived from foot and mouth disease susceptible animals originating in Argentina is currently prohibited. Prior to the prohibition, meat from vaccinated animals could be imported from Argentina, but had to be deboned and fully matured so as to remove any risk of the live foot and mouth disease virus being present.

  According to an estimate in the Soil Association Organic Food and Farming report 2001 some 45 per cent. of organic meat sold in the UK is imported. It is therefore possible that some meat from organic production has been imported from Argentina. Customs import figures are not available for organic meat from Argentina because organic products are not distinguishable from conventional products in the data collected by Customs.
  849W

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the conditions which need to be fulfilled to allow the reopening of livestock markets. [19740]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Some livestock markets have re-opened in Scotland reflecting the lower number of FMD cases there. A decision to re-open livestock markets in England and Wales will be made in the light of scientific and veterinary advice on progress with the eradication of foot and mouth disease. It is not possible to give a precise date but it is expected to be in the early part of 2002, provided there are no further outbreaks.

  The Department has held a number of meetings with representatives of the Livestock Auctioneers Association to discuss the conditions required for the re-opening of markets, particularly as regards biodiversity. A number of ideas were discussed and these are now being reviewed by my Department. We will continue to consult fully with the LAA on this very important matter and hope to announce the outcome before Christmas.

  Sugar Beet Industry
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to promote the viability of the British sugar beet industry. [20754]

  Mr. Morley
  Support for the sugar beet industry is regulated under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A revised Sugar Regime under the CAP was agreed at the May 2001 Agriculture Council and runs for five years until 1 July 2006, with a review in the early part of 2003. We continue to believe that further substantive reform is needed to take account of trade liberalisation resulting from the "Everything But Arms" agreement and to put the industry on a more sustainable basis for the future.

  National Forest Company
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the financial management and policy review of the National Forest Company. [21877]

  Mr. Morley
  We hope to be in a position to do so in the next few months.

  Fluvial Trent Strategy
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on the Fluvial Trent Strategy; and if she will make a statement. [21450]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency will be developing a strategy for the fluvial Trent over the next 18 months. I understand that the agency are already in discussions with consultants about preparing the strategy and plan to confirm their appointment later this month. The completed strategy will inform the agency's plans for flood management between Stoke-on-Trent and Newark.
  850W

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of her Department's budget in 2001–02 is spent on administration costs; and if she will make a statement. [21677]

  Mr. Morley
  Administration costs currently make up 19 per cent. of the Department's expenditure limit for 2001–02.

  Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she will take to compensate farmers whose pigs have been infected by Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome. [20780]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans to compensate farmers for loss of pigs infected by Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PWMS) or Porcine Dermatitis Nephropathy Syndrome (PDNS). The disease is not notifiable. I met representatives of the pig industry in October to discuss proposals for control measures and research. The Department is taking the following action:

  Extensive collaboration and information exchange with other organisations both within the United Kingdom and with other countries;

  Raising awareness about these diseases and providing technical assistance to private veterinary surgeons in diagnosing and investigating disease incidents;

  Publication of results of three telephone surveys to assess the severity and extent of the diseases. A fourth survey is planned for later this year;

  Publication of the results of a case control study to identify risk factors in the control of the diseases;

  Research to identify and characterise agents involved. Wider international research collaboration is being pursued.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to tighten security at(a) airports and (b) sea ports to ensure that illegal meat is not smuggled into the UK. [20778]

  Mr. Morley
  Checks on meat imported at airports and sea ports is the responsibility of the local authority in which the port or sea port is situated. DEFRA officials are co-ordinating a number of initiatives, involving interested Government Departments and local authority enforcement bodies, aimed at ensuring that rules for importing animal products are enforced effectively and efficiently. We have taken action to improve publicity to travellers about import rules, to improve the collection and analysis of information about illegal imports and to use that information to better target enforcement activity. We are keeping these measures under constant review and we are looking at a wide range of other options for improvements, including, for example, the use of sniffer dogs, X-ray machines, on-the-spot-fines and changes to administrative structures.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to create a properly funded single regulatory
  851W
  body to apply best international practice at UK sea and airports to protect humans and animals from smuggled contaminated meats. [20779]

  Mr. Morley
  None. No decision has been taken that a single regulatory body is the best way to enforce import controls.

  Animal Health Bill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure(a) that the Animal Health Bill will not impose a regulatory burden on the fanning community and (b) that there will be a more rapid response to future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [20825]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) The foot and mouth disease provisions of the Animal Health Bill will not impose any additional burden on those farm businesses which are meeting current requirements, as it does not introduce any new
  852W
  obligations. In fact quicker containment and eradication of the disease, for which the powers contained in the Bill would provide, would indirectly benefit all farmers, other sectors of the rural economy and the taxpayer in general.

  Similarly, the scrapie provisions of the Bill would not directly impose additional regulatory burden or costs on the industry. However, if the relevant enabling powers were applied, there would be a minimal increase in the level of regulatory burden and cost associated with compliance. The Bill provides powers to compensate for losses suffered or costs incurred as a result of the exercise of these powers.

  (b) If there were to be a resurgence or future outbreak of foot and mouth disease the measures in the Bill provide powers to contain the disease more effectively and eradicate it more quickly. The Bill will enable us to limit the spread of disease more effectively than has been possible to date, and thereby to protect the farming community in general from further damage.

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.

Gibraltar: Financial Services
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the implications for the economy of Gibraltar of any challenge to Gibraltar's position as an offshore financial centre.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords,
Her Majesty's Government fully support international financial initiatives that promote enhanced co-operation on taxation and regulatory issues, including through the IMF, the OECD harmful tax practices initiative and the EU tax package. We believe that Gibraltar's finance sector can continue to flourish within the framework of those initiatives and we are in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar on those issues. Gibraltar co-operates with the appropriate international bodies and was inspected earlier this year in accordance with the financial action task force criteria and the IMF.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full and helpful reply. Are the Government confident that Gibraltar's financial services industry, which was set up with the encouragement of the British Government, will not be undermined by any action of the European Commission? How are the Government going to persuade the Commission to spend less time looking at Gibraltar's taxation arrangements and more time protecting British citizens in Gibraltar from interference by Spain in their right of free movement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are confident that Gibraltar's financial services industry will not be undermined. There are many initiatives in progress—non-tax initiatives as well as the taxation initiatives to which the noble Lord referred, which include the EU tax package and the directive on taxation of savings. We do not believe that either of those will harm Gibraltar. We believe that Gibraltar is in a position to comply. As the noble Lord knows, we have also been pursuing the other matters that he raised through the European Union. I hope that we shall continue to be able to make progress on those issues.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the anxiety in Gibraltar about Spain's attitude in regard to telephone communications?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are discussing that with the Spanish Government. We
1230
are concerned about the various telecommunications problems that Gibraltar is experiencing. The Commission is fully aware of our concerns. We have raised the issue with the Spanish Government at official and ministerial level. As my noble friend may know, Spain has agreed to increase the total number of telephone numbers available to Gibraltar from 30,000 to 100,000. We hope that that constructive first step will help to alleviate the immediate shortage.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with 20 per cent of Gibraltar's GDP now coming from financial services, there is the potential for a flourishing development of that business? If Gibraltar has greater self-determination in the future, it could become a very active and effective micro-state. Will she assure us that nothing is being raised in the current negotiations that could put obstacles in the way of that development? Does she also agree with the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place that if Spain does not normalise border relations as they should be normalised, the British Government should not hesitate to invoke Article 227 of the Treaty of Rome in dealing with the matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Gibraltar's financial sector accounts for 20 per cent of its GDP. That is a remarkable growth from virtually nothing 10 years or so ago. Over the years, successive British governments have welcomed and supported the development of the financial sector and we shall continue to do so. Part of the way in which we are able to support the financial sector is through good regulation to ensure its long-term future and to maintain its reputation, not only in Gibraltar, but in a number of our overseas territories. We have also regularly defended Gibraltar's interests in international bodies. For example, earlier this year we successfully defended Gibraltar's record on money laundering and last summer we refused to give in to unreasonable Spanish demands on the OECD initiative.
The noble Lord also raised a point about the European Union. We are trying to resolve some of the difficulties in our discussions with Spain, but we have not ruled out turning to the European Union if necessary.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have previously noted that British dependencies account for a significant proportion of the world's offshore financial centres. While they serve useful functions, there are also a whole range of semi-legal and non-legal activities associated with all offshore financial centres. Do the Government have a clear strategy for the whole range of British dependencies that now operate as offshore financial centres, several of which have had substantial increases in their activities in recent years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are addressing

1231
those issues. I did so when I was the Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my noble friend Lady Scotland did so when she took over that position and my noble friend Lady Amos does so. A wide range of issues is involved, including money laundering and terrorist financing. Gibraltar has been investigated but it has been decided that it should not be blacklisted or included among those countries that are subject to further queries in relation to such issues. Another issue includes tax initiatives, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. We are looking at OECD harmful tax practices and, again, we hope that Gibraltar will be in a position to comply with the OECD exercise. Other issues include the EU tax package. That range of issues applies to Gibraltar and the whole strategy must be applied to our overseas territories as a group.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while no one would wish to damage an excellent financial services sector, can my noble friend assure us that action is being taken to deal with money laundering, including the laundering of terrorist money—assuming it can be found? In that context, there is also the question of tax evasion, which undoubtedly often takes place in some of those offshore centres.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the EU directive on the taxation of savings is designed to deal with tax evasion. The United Kingdom wants that legislation to go ahead. It is important because it deals with the very issue of tax evasion. The whole purpose of the proposal—it is currently a draft proposal—is to create a level playing field, which we all need in this respect. We continue to press other countries, including, as I am sure my noble friend knows, the United States and Switzerland, to implement equivalent measures in those countries.

NHS: Decontamination Services
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take with regard to the report on the inadequate sterilisation of surgical instruments made in the BBC "Panorama" programme of Sunday, 11th November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, over the past year, we have carried out a comprehensive survey of decontamination facilities and practices in the NHS. Those hospitals falling below the necessary standard were required to produce action plans. As a result, all NHS acute hospitals in England now have access to satisfactory decontamination services. The results of that work, and a comprehensive survey, are being published today.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it correct that the Government asked an expert in this field, Mr David Hurrell, to investigate the effectiveness of the methods used to sterilise hospital instruments in the NHS? If so, why was it that after Mr Hurrell produced his report and the Government had read it, he was given orders to keep it strictly confidential and to destroy all copies of it, as the "Panorama" programme disclosed? Is not the chairman of the panel investigating CJD quite right to say:
"It is astonishing to hold back such information from the public"?
Finally, since Scotland has made similar information public, why cannot we have the same openness in England?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the snapshot survey to which the noble Baroness referred is being published alongside the full survey that the Government are publishing today. The snapshot survey was a small-scale survey that was based on a limited number of NHS trusts, and it informed the advice and guidance that was given to the NHS. It was followed by a full-scale survey and a requirement for action plans from those NHS trusts that were not producing adequate services. As a result, all acute trusts are providing satisfactory services in relation to decontamination. The snapshot survey has informed the whole process. It was undertaken during the past two years and it, too, is being published today.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister remember that on 28th September 2001, the Government said in their Response to the Report of the BSE Inquiry:
"Experience in dealing with public health concerns has demonstrated the value of an open and consultative approach to risk management"?
Does he also remember that the Government said in that report:
"Openness was seen as essential to regaining public trust"?
Does he feel that that squares with the suppression of David Hurrell's report from the public and from the CJD Incidents Panel? Should it have taken the tabling of this Question to produce that report?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness talks about suppression. I have already informed the House that the survey to which she referred has been published today, alongside a much fuller comprehensive survey. On the process, surely the process that we have followed is satisfactory. It involved an initial sample survey identifying problems and the giving of advice to the NHS. That was followed by a comprehensive survey and further advice. Actions plans were required and then action was taken. That process has ensured that he NHS has moved from a position in which a good many of its decontamination services were unsatisfactory to the current position, in which all such services are up to a satisfactory level.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, bearing in mind the increase in hospital infections and their resistance to antibiotics, does the Minister agree that infection control, which includes sterilisation of instruments, has become much more important? Is it not important to push hospital trusts to come forward with reports, because some of them did not produce reports as they were told to do?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I pay tribute to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, which has drawn to the attention of the Government and the NHS the problems of antibiotic use. Since its report was published, we have seen a reduction in the use of antibiotics. Your Lordships' Select Committee also reported on the issue of hospital-acquired infections, which is very much linked to that problem. As a result, we have introduced into the NHS a controls assurance scheme, which requires all NHS trusts to take a serious interest in hospital-acquired infection. Since 1st April 2001, all acute trusts have been required to participate in a new surveillance service and to provide data on MRSA. With robust, base-line data we can performance-manage the NHS to ensure that it improves the way in which it deals with hospital-acquired infection.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend has been very helpful to the House. However, can he clarify one point? Why was this material not published until today?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have explained to the House—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe that I have done so—certainly to my satisfaction. A couple of years ago an original piece of work was undertaken to indicate the type of issue and state of preparedness of the NHS in relation to decontamination standards. That work informed the issue of what guidance should be made available to the NHS, and was followed up by a comprehensive survey. The results of that survey are published today, alongside the snapshot survey. In addition, a huge amount of extra money has been spent by the NHS on improving decontamination services. As noble Lords will see if they read the comprehensive report published today, the result is that all acute trusts in England now have satisfactory decontamination standards.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, perhaps I may ask—
Noble Lords: Next Question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are now into the 16th minute and a Question about cats and dogs is to follow.

Dog and Cat Fur Trade
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Gale Baroness Gale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will follow the lead of the United States of America and introduce a ban on the import, export and trade in domestic dog and cat fur.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government agree that the import, export and trade in domestic dog and cat fur is abhorrent. I can therefore tell the House that we are exploring what proportionate and enforceable steps we might take to ban any such imports. Over the coming months we shall work with the European Union to see whether there is a practical way forward on this issue. In the meantime, I shall be sending a letter to all MPs explaining what the Government propose to do about the matter.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very positive reply. I am sure that all animal lovers in this country and those who care about animal welfare will be greatly heartened by her response. Is she aware that one reason that the United States introduced a ban was because fur traders in America were mislabelling the product in order to disguise its true origin and that, therefore, consumers were unaware of what they were purchasing? Is she further aware that a recent "Newsnight" undercover investigation showed that fur traders in this country were quite happy to do the same?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the United States ban on the import, production and use of cat and dog fur. I believe that it is clear that in the United States large quantities of cat and dog fur were mislabelled to mislead consumers. I remind my noble friend that legislation is already in place to stop consumers being misled about what they are buying. Under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 it is a criminal offence to apply to goods by any means false or misleading statements. I am also aware of the "Newsnight" investigation which was undertaken a couple of years ago. We are carrying out further investigations into the current situation in this country and I hope to be able to report further.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a very strong case for a major increase in such traffic, given the very beneficial effects that it would have on the preservation of wildlife and, in particular, small song birds?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord knows what he is letting himself in for in terms of the post bag that he will undoubtedly receive. I am kindly not naming the noble Lord in pointing out that in this country there is an enormous surge of public opinion about this trade. I

1235
believe that it is right to see what, if anything, can be done to meet the substantial public opinion that exists in relation to this matter.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say what labels are used to describe these furs?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, no fur in this country is labelled "cat fur" or "dog fur". Some fur is labelled simply as "fur"; some as "other fur"; and some as "exotic fur". It is not illegal per se to import cat or dog fur and it is not illegal to label it simply as "fur". However, it is illegal to misrepresent such fur as, for example, rabbit or wolf fur. When none of it is labelled "cat" or "dog" fur, it is very difficult for us to be precise even about how much is coming in to the country.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, so far as we know, there is no Cruella De Vil in Britain, unless it is my noble friend Lord Marsh in heavy disguise?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is a bolder lady than I am in naming her noble friend. It is important for me to say that the British Fur Trade Association has assured us that it does not deal in cat and dog fur. However, of course, some fur traders outside that organisation may be undermining the stand that the British Fur Trade Association has taken.

European Arrest Warrant
2.57 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What decisions have been taken concerning the European arrest warrant and what further consultations will take place.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels on 6th December did not reach political agreement on the framework decision on the European arrest warrant. It will be considered again by the heads of state at the meeting of the European Council at Laeken at the end of this week.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that some of us were astonished to read the Home Secretary's protestations of outrage to his Greek opposite number, Mr George Papandreou, about the continued detention of 12 British plane spotters? Will the Minister confirm his written reply that those 12 people, if accused of espionage by the Greeks, would have been extraditable to Greece without substantive court proceedings? If the Home Secretary is serious in the expressions that he has made about the suffering of
1236
these people in a Greek prison, is this really the time to continue to back a proposal that would allow people to be extradited without the elementary requirement of justice—the presentation of prima facie evidence against them in a court?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the European arrest warrant system will work only after charges are laid. People cannot be extradited for the pursuit of inquiries. Therefore, it is not as though one is jumping the gun. Some 32 serious offences are now on the list, including trafficking in human beings, arson, rape and a whole host of other crimes. If charges are made against people in relation to those offences, then the extradition process will follow. But it should not necessarily follow that the process will be dragged out over years and years.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the people arrested is the wife of one of the plane spotters, who said that she is not in the least interested in plane spotting and went along only to keep her husband company?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, noble Lords are asking me to comment on a case on which the judges have delayed until tomorrow their final decision. I have nothing to say about the case of the plane spotters in Greece. That would be inappropriate, even though I might want to make a few choice remarks about the tourist industry between our two countries.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, given that, like all dictatorial regimes, the European Union is legislating in secret on this matter, are the Government aware of a leak by the Greek Justice Minister published in a Greek Sunday newspaper known as "Free Press" to the effect that the warrant, even in its present form, would allow British subjects to be extradited from this country for a crime which carries a prison sentence of one to three years in the issuing country, even if that is not a crime in this country? In those circumstances, can the Government give the House an undertaking that they will respect their promise to Parliament and will not agree this measure in Laeken or anywhere else until the scrutiny reserve has been lifted by your Lordships' Select Committee?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is right that scrutiny must be carried out. I understand that tomorrow the Minister concerned, Bob Ainsworth, will appear before your Lordships' scrutiny committee as he did before the Commons yesterday. Let us not assume, as some noble Lords do, aided and abetted by "The Forgers' Gazette"—the media in this country—that this issue is current legislation; it is not. It will be subject to primary legislation in an extradition Bill. That will not be rushed through or done behind closed doors. It will be done on the Floor of this House and in the other place.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that those of us who recognise that

1237
serious crime in this country is often aided by the ability to escape to other EU countries and fight extradition for prolonged periods nevertheless have some questions about the European arrest warrant in terms of dual criminality? We should very much like the British Government to be tougher on that issue than they appear to have been so far.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the issue of dual criminality is sensitive as regards matters which are not crimes in this country but are crimes elsewhere. Different countries have different processes. Some areas of dual criminality have not been finalised. I refer, for example, to the issues of euthanasia and abortion. I know nothing about the legislative process in other countries, but both those issues are free vote issues in this Parliament. While all laws are equal, issues passed on free votes must carry a greater force. No decisions have been taken. But all these matters will be debated in terms of the law of this country in primary legislation in a Bill to be brought before Parliament relating to extradition in the early part of next year.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it sounds as though the extradition Bill will be a large new Bill. When it comes before this House and the other place, will we in practice have any opportunity to alter it or will it all have been sewn up in prerogative treaty form so that there is not much room for amendment? For instance, will we be able to amend the crimes listed for this process? Will there be any freedom at all or is this just a rubber stamp on a matter which will be agreed in the Council of Ministers and which we shall have little opportunity to alter?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I freely admit that there will be an international treaty obligation. The list of crimes referred to currently stands at 32. That has changed in the past few days. I do not know whether that will be the final list, nor how big the extradition Bill will be. However, no one can claim that it will come as a surprise. It will be the result of a consultation document published this year. There has been a review of extradition law over a period of time following recent high profile cases. It is no surprise that there will be an extradition Bill. However, it is a fact that, as regards the European arrest warrant, an extradition Bill is a better vehicle for legislating for it. I do not know how flexible the legislation will be. However, the primary legislation will be debated and, I presume, amended at each stage of the process in both Houses before a final Act of Parliament is passed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has cleared up the matter. If an agreement is reached at Laeken and the matter is brought before Parliament for primary legislation, will it be possible for that agreement, whether or not it is a treaty, to be altered by Parliament—by the House of Commons or the House of Lords or by both acting together? That is what we want to know. If such primary legislation goes through the House of Commons on a guillotine Motion, so
1238
leaving little time for individual clauses to be debated, will this House be able to debate it properly and not be insulted when it makes reasonable amendments to what might not be a satisfactory Bill?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in answer to the second part of my noble friend's question, I do not know in which House the Bill will be first introduced. Therefore, I shall not speculate about how each House will deal with the matter. As regards the first part of his question, I cannot add to what I have said. I do riot know what will be the nature of the Bill. Work is being conducted at present. An agreement on the European arrest warrant has not yet been reached at a political level in Europe. Until it is, we are speculating in hypothetical circumstances.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to consider supporting the Eurobail system, which would enable people charged in one country of the Union to be released on bail to return to their home countries pending the hearing of a case? Would not that have enabled the plane spotters in Greece to be released on bail pending a decision taken by the Greek courts on whether they were to be proceeded against?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it might have done. However, if charges are to be made by another country with which we have an extradition treaty, there is a due process. The idea of the European arrest warrant is to speed up the process so that we do not have months and years of delay during which time alleged criminals seek to avoid justice. There is nothing new intrinsically. Extradition laws are old, almost 19th century legislation. We are trying to modernise them so that people cannot play off one country against another depending on where the crimes are committed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the local government White Paper.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 26 [Certification: review]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 14, line 24, after "that" insert "at the time of the review"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. These amendments are based on the 5th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published last week. Clause 25(2)(a) of the Bill provides that on appeal, SIAC must cancel a

1239
certificate issued by the Home Secretary under Clause 21 if it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant's presence in the UK is a threat to national security or there is no reason to suspect that he is a terrorist. Under Clause 25(2)(b) SIAC must also cancel the certificate if it considers for some other reason that it should not have been issued. For example, that could be relied on in a case where there has been a procedural irregularity in the issuing of the certificate.
I turn to Clause 26, which deals with SIAC's powers on review, as opposed to an appeal. On review, SIAC can cancel a certificate only if there are no reasonable grounds for the belief that the appellant's presence in the UK is a threat to national security or that there is no reason to suspect that he is a terrorist.
SIAC has no power to cancel a certificate for any other reason.
Clause 26 raises two problems that were considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. First, it is not clear that SIAC can cancel a certificate if the Home Secretary had a reasonable belief or suspicion at the time he issued the certificate but subsequently new information shows that that belief was mistaken. That difficulty is covered by Amendment No. 1. It makes clear that the reasonableness of the belief or suspicion must be based on facts as known at the time of the review and not simply on the information available at the time of the certificate.
Secondly, SIAC cannot, on a review as opposed to an appeal, cancel the certificate on the basis of a procedural irregularity, which means that the certificate was not validly issued, even though it would have been cancelled if the proceedings had been by way of appeal rather than review. There seems to be no logical reason for distinguishing between the powers of SIAC on an appeal under Clause 25 and on a review under Clause 26. The Joint Committee on Human Rights rightly considered that the powers on review should be brought into line with those on appeal.
Amendment No. 3 covers a different point. It was raised by the Joint Committee on Clause 27(9). At present it states:
"Cancellation by the commission of a certificate issued under section 21 shall not prevent the Secretary of State from issuing another certificate, whether on the grounds of a change of circumstance or otherwise".
On the face of it, that gives the Home Secretary power to issue a new certificate if, for example, he disagrees with the conclusion of SIAC that the detainee was not a threat to national security. He could grant a new certificate and start all over again, perhaps with a new SIAC panel. On that issue the Joint Committee stated:
"This could result in cases being batted backwards and forwards indefinitely between the Secretary of State and the Commission, and would not offer adequate protection for detainees against arbitrary interference with their right to liberty under Article 5 of the ECHR".
Some time ago the Home Secretary said that he was willing to look again at the wording of Clause 27(9). However, the Government have not come up with any new wording.
1240
I go back to the report on the issue. It states:
"We believe that it should be possible to amend clause 27(9) in a way that will reflect the Government's intentions, which seem to now to have been spelt out sufficiently clearly to enable a satisfactory amendment to be drafted. The Secretary of State could be enabled to issue a new certificate if, and only if, (a) there is fresh evidence, (b) the original certificate was quashed on technical grounds rather than because there were insufficient grounds for making it, or (c) there has been a material change of circumstances justifying the making of a new certificate. We still consider that the sub-clause as currently drafted does not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrary detention".
Amendment No. 3 achieves the objectives pointed out by the Joint Committee. New paragraph (a) allows a new certificate to be issued where SIAC cancelled the original certificate on technical grounds but does not allow a new certificate to be issued where SIAC disagreed with the Home Secretary's conclusion that reasonable grounds for the relevant belief or suspicion existed. New paragraph (b) covers the case of new evidence or some other change of circumstances.
We want to hear what the Government have to say on these issues. These are obviously issues which would have been better brought up at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill through the House. However, owing to the extremely tight schedule that has been imposed on your Lordships' House, that has not been possible. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will be prepared to accept these uncontroversial amendments. If they need drafting improvements those can be provided in the other place. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sure that the Joint Committee, of which I am a member, will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Goodhart for drafting the amendments in accordance with the recommendations of its report. My noble friend has put the matter so clearly that I wish to add only a couple of additional points.
First, given that this is a derogation from the fundamental right to liberty and that the European convention requires the Government to demonstrate that the derogation is strictly necessary to meet the exigencies of the situation, the Joint Committee in both its reports attached particular importance to there being adequate safeguards against abuse of these wide powers. One of the ways in which it sought to do that is by narrowing the otherwise broad words in the way that these three amendments seek to do.
At the back of the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights there is the evidence given by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. If Members of the House are interested and look at col. 5, question 34 onwards, that is where the matter of Clause 27(9) is dealt with. Vera Baird, a Labour MP, who is a member of the committee, asked the Home

1241
Secretary questions about the vagueness and unsatisfactory nature of Clause 27(9). The Home Secretary said:
"I am, unusually for me, pausing because the intention is that there would have to have been a change in circumstances or material evidence that has not previously been available, in circumstances where I would take the case back to SIAC having failed".
He went on to state:
"We did consider the question of whether a certificate could be issued by any Home Secretary in circumstances where it was necessary to override such a judgement. I adduced that that would be a breach or human rights and would not be an acceptable process, nor did I think that it would accord with the terms of the derogation which were envisaged by those who drafted the Convention".
Then he said:
"So I am prepared to look at the term 'otherwise—'".
Mr Harry Carter, the assistant legal adviser at the Home Office, asked whether he could assist the committee. The Home Secretary invited him to do so. The legal adviser said:
"One of the reasons for the words 'or otherwise' is to deal with the case where SIAC cancels a certificate on appeal, but the Secretary of State appeals that cancellation in a court of law and wins that appeal in a court of appeal. In that type of case he might wish to issue a fresh certificate".
Then the Home Secretary said:
"We need to make sure that we make that absolutely clear then, because we are otherwise asking for the appeal to go back to SIAC".
Vera Baird then said:
"Thank you very much",
and went on to another matter.
We took that to be very encouraging. It shows, in the words that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has used several times, that this is a listening government; that they are open-minded; and that, on the crucial question of safeguards against abuse, they are willing to write them into the Bill. Therefore, we very much hope that that can now be done, even at this late stage, in order to produce a wide consensus and make it less likely that lawyers will successfully challenge the compatibility of the measure as applied before British courts or before the European Court of Human Rights.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for moving the amendment. It is very much in sympathy with some of the themes of the critique made of the Bill; namely, the function and workings of SIAC. The amendment will give SIAC more teeth and—if I may add to the imagery—not tie its hands behind its back too much.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should say at the outset, because we have a small group of amendments to deal with on Third. Reading, that we have continued—right up until I came to the Chamber—to consider the issues raised in the House and by the Select Committee. While we do not necessarily agree with all the points made or all the amendments, that does not mean that we have not given them serious consideration.
1242
This group of amendments relates to the operation of SIAC and the issuing of certificates. We agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 1, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Goodhart, but I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that it is unnecessary because the Bill already delivers the outcome that they seek.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is not exactly a high-profile body in the country at large, but we have given it a good airing. It has not just turned up. It is not created by the Bill. It was legislated for in 1997 by both Houses—by and large without dissent, as far as I am aware. So it is not a court invented for the purpose of the Bill; it is already in operation—although I accept that so far it has dealt with only three cases. It is indeed special Lind was set up to deal with a highly limited number of cases.
SIAC will be able—indeed, it is required—to take account of information post-dating the Secretary of State's decision at the review stage as well as at the appeal stage. That requirement stems from the wording in Clauses 25(2)(a) and 26(5)(a) respectively. Those provisions are identically worded and state that a certificate is to be cancelled if SIAC considers that there are no reasonable grounds for "a" suspicion or belief. So on review, as well as at the appeal, SIAC will need to come to its own view as to whether there are reasonable grounds for "a" suspicion or belief, and in doing so it will have regard to relevant information that has come to light since the original decision—including, where applicable, since the appeal or previous review.
I appreciate that the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its discussion at paragraphs 12 to 16 of its second report, issued a few days ago, may have come to a somewhat different reading of what the wording in the review provision means. But we are clear that the current wording does require SIAC to take account of all relevant information up to the time that it hears the review, and that it is compliant with Article 5(4) or the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amendment No. 2 would provide for the review procedure an additional ground on which SIAC could cancel a certificate. That would bring the wording mole closely into line with that in Clause 25 relating to the appeal, although they would not be made identical. There is a reason why the two clauses differ. The provision in Clause 25(2)(b) of the Bill—namely that SIAC
"considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued"—
is there specifically to enable SIAC to cancel a certificate where there has been some form of procedural irregularity. That issue will not arise at the review stage as, if there had been any irregularity in making the Section 21 certificate, the matter would already have been considered by SIAC at the appeal stage.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not a distinct possibility that, in some cases, there could be a review when there has been no previous appeal?
Lord Rooker: My Lords. I hope that I shall he able to address that point. If I may, I shall continue but shall certainly return to that point.

1243
There would be no scope for procedural irregularity in the making of a certificate to arise between the appeal and a review, or between one review and the next. We accept that SIAC would be able to cancel a certificate on review under the amendment only where
"the certificate could not properly have been issued immediately before the review if it had not previously been issued".
But that seems to envisage a situation in which a review follows immediately upon the issuing of a certificate. There is no realistic prospect of such a situation arising because, following the making of a certificate, the first avenue of redress for the person concerned is an appeal, not a review. On appeal, procedural irregularities can be addressed. The right to an immediate appeal against a certificate applies as much to a second certificate issued in respect of the same individual as it does to a certificate issued for the first time to an individual.
I should also add that we believe that there is more than adequate opportunity for a person to make an appeal to SIAC, especially following the amendment that we made on Report enabling SIAC to hear out-of-time appeals in appropriate cases. We do not therefore think that an equivalent of Clause 25(2)(b) needs to be provided in Clause 26(5).
I now turn to Amendment No. 3, which returns us to an issue that we have previously debated: the circumstances under which it is open to the Secretary of State to issue a certificate under Clause 21 after SIAC has cancelled a previous certificate. The amendment identifies three exhaustive cases under which it would be open to the Secretary of State to remake a certificate—provided, of course, that the other requirements have been met. They correspond to the cases identified by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They also correspond to the list of potential circumstances that the Government mentioned in debate at an earlier stage of the Bill, although we also mentioned a fourth circumstance—namely, where a decision by SIAC to cancel a certificate had been overturned.
As I said in Committee, we fully understand your Lordships' wish to ensure that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State arbitrary power to reissue a Clause 21 certificate in defiance of a decision by SIAC to cancel the first certificate. We have continued to give thought as to whether an alternative formulation can be found to that currently in Clause 27(9), but, to be honest, we remain of the view that the current wording is the best.
We accept that the list provided in the amendment, possibly with the addition of the fourth circumstance to which I just referred of an overturned certificate, captures all the circumstances that we—and, I suspect your Lordships, otherwise there would have been more items in the list—can currently think of where it might be justifiable for a new certificate to be made. But there is always a risk in creating an exhaustive list that something that none of us have thought of will be overlooked, and we do not want to take that risk in this area.
1244
Another approach, which was referred to in Committee or on Report, would be to delete Clause 27(9) and argue that the Secretary of State would be able to issue a fresh certificate in appropriate cases. But that carries risks, the greatest of which is that if the Bill is silent on the matter, the consequences would be uncertain. We therefore prefer to include the provision in the Bill.
We confirm, as we did in Committee, that the intention is that the Secretary of State will issue a fresh certificate only where that is justified. SIAC would take a dim view of any Secretary of State who seemed to be ignoring its decisions, and would, I am sure, cancel any inappropriately made future certificate in short order. It would clearly be in possession of all the facts and the reasons why the second certificate had been issued, and those reasons would have to be good.
Furthermore, it might well be a breach of Article 5(4)—and perhaps also of Articles 6 and 13—of the European Convention on Human Rights for the Secretary of State to take such a course without justification. So it would not just be SIAC that would take a robustly dim view of a Secretary of State acting irresponsibly and arbitrarily; it would be open to challenge by authorities outside SIAC under those articles of the ECHR, with which we of course want to comply. For those reasons I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I shall of course he happy to answer—or to try to answer—the question that follows.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, realising the procedural position that we are now in, I shall be brief in my question, but it is important to get the matter clear. The words "or otherwise" are completely unfettered. That is the problem. As I understand it, the Minister said that although they are unfettered, they may well have to be read down—given some limited effect—in order to comply with the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. But then he said that that may happen outside SIAC.
In order to be absolutely clear, will the Minister confirm that I am right in thinking that SIAC, as the Attorney-General has accepted, will he bound by the Human Rights Act to apply the European Convention on Human Rights; that SIAC will have all the powers of judicial review that a judicial review court will have; and that SIAC will therefore be able to ensure that the words "or otherwise" are not used to authorise arbitrary detention? The Minister understands that I am putting the question because it ties in with the exclusion of judicial review.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, exactly, and I believe that the noble Lord has got it right. As I suspect that I have caused apoplexy in the Box to my left, I must add that the words "outside SIAC" do not appear anywhere in my notes. The fact is that we want to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. We have derogated from Article 5, using the procedures set out.

1245
The noble Lord is right in saying that the words "or otherwise" stand in the Bill but they are fettered in the way he has described. First, SIAC would take a dim view of a Secretary of State who without good reason simply issued another certificate after the first had been cancelled. Secondly, the Secretary of State in doing that, or in contemplating doing that, would be under legal advice from the Law Officers and others who would be involved in such cases, pointing out the high risk of possible breaches of Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That does indeed fetter the Secretary of State and, although it is not another limb as regards the words "or otherwise", the fact that those words appear in the background means that the words are fettered in the way the noble Lord described.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the only matter which is still unclear to me is that there is a derogation from Article 5. Therefore, I do not understand how SIAC or any other court will be able to read it in the context of Article 5. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to that, but I should be grateful if he could have one at some stage.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that question off the top of my head. However, I shall get one—I shall indeed get one—but I do not know whether it will be during today's proceedings. If so, I can interject and give the noble Lord the answer.
The derogation is from Article 5.1, not Article 5.4, so it is not a complete derogation from Article 5. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to put that on the record because a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights is extremely narrow and targeted. We did not want to take that action but it was the only course open to us. We are happy to be "fettered" by the rest of the European Convention.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He got it absolutely right when he said that these matters will be considered outside SIAC. I believe that he was right because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that SIAC did not have the full powers of judicial review and that there was a residual jurisdiction.
I intervene only because when the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said what he said I was taken straight back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said. I think that the noble Lord has got it right.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, I am extremely fettered myself in responding to that comment. Some noble Lords will understand but will not necessarily sympathise with me. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is right in what he says about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers to Amendment No. 1, which is satisfactory. It is clear and on the record that the Bill
1246
is intended to give SIAC power to look at the facts as they exist at the time of the appeal or review and not simply as they existed when the certificate was granted.
We are less satisfied with the answers to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Amendment No. 2 does not deal with what I believed may be a problem. It is that some detainees may not appeal, so the first time SIAC will come across a case will be at its first review at the end of the initial six months. Even if at that stage SIAC identifies a procedural irregularity, which would have meant that the certificate ought not to have been issued, it will be unable to deal with it.
As regards Amendment No. 3, it seems to me that we have not entirely met the problems raised by the Joint Committee on Clause 27(9). That shows one of the problems of dealing with the Bill too rapidly. Had we been given more time, it would more than likely have been possible to agree a satisfactory form of wording. As it was, it was not possible.
We do not intend to press the amendments further and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Appeal and review: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Certificate that Convention does not apply]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 18, line 4, leave out "issues" and insert "has issued both a certificate under section 21 in respect of the appellant and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No, 4 is grouped with Amendment No. 5 and it deals with Clauses 33 and 34, which were Clauses 34 and 35 at the Report stage.
The aim of our amendment is to restrict the number appearing before SIAC. In reality, no one other than those against whom a certificate has been issued—and I suspect that the number will be low—will fall into the category. To an extent, our amendment will restrict the free-standing nature of the clauses. That is precisely what the Minister tried to do and failed at the Report stage.
Our main concern is two-fold. First, genuine asylum seekers may be victimised as a result of public prejudice and unduly restrictive legislative or administrative measures; and, secondly, the carefully built refugee protection standard may be eroded. Current anxieties about international terrorism risk fuelling a growing trend towards the criminalisation of asylum seekers and refugees. Asylum seekers increasingly have a difficult time in a number of states, either accessing procedure or overcoming presumptions about the validity of their claims, which stems from their ethnicity or mode of arrival. The fact that asylum seekers have arrived illegally does not vitiate the basis of their claim. The fact that certain ethnic or religious backgrounds may be shared by those who have committed grave crimes does not mean that they themselves are also to be excluded.

1247
We saw the evidence of that during the time of the Gulf crisis when a substantial number of people were locked up either because they were Iraqi or because they came from the Arab states. The culmination of that was that at the end of the process all of them were found to have no claim against them and were granted asylum in this country.
At the Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spoke at length in order to assure us about the difficulties of unifying Clauses 34 and 35, now Clauses 33 and 34. He has obviously failed, but I suspect that our amendments give him a leeway in which he can address the matters in a proper manner. I do not want to rehearse the arguments which we put forward at the Report stage last Thursday, but perhaps I may take up some of the comments the Minister then made and offer our observations now on what he said then.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested (col. 1042) that the thrust of most of the speeches against Clauses 4 and 35 was that Articles 1(F) and 33.2 of the refugee convention should not exist. That is not the case. We want to reaffirm our commitment to the current convention regime where exclusionary factors are considered currently with inclusionary factors. Does the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mean to suggest that the intention of the legislation is to give effect to Articles 1(F) and 33.2? Those articles already have effect in UK law and therefore there is no need for additional legislation to give effect to Articles 1(F) and 33.2.
It is in any event unrealistic to suggest that inclusionary and exclusionary aspects can be neatly separated in all cases. The noble Lord stated (col. 1043) that we should not just take an ill-considered decision on exclusion without hearing the person's case and that nothing in the clause is intended to produce such an approach. Does the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mean that the inclusionary aspect will be considered if that is deemed necessary in order to assess the exclusionary aspect of the claim? How might that be judged? Can the Government give an assurance that all the relevant factors will be assessed? How will that be possible if the full asylum hearing is denied?
It is worth noting that the exclusion of a full examination of the asylum aspects of a claim in the first instance could generate further bureaucracy and costs in cases where the Secretary of State later revokes a Clause 34 certificate or where the issue of the certificate is quashed by SIAC under the terms of Clause 33(5). In such a case the applicant would have to go back to the beginning in order to have the inclusionary aspect of the claim examined once more. Considerations of time and expense are always persuasive when establishing practical guidelines.
Moreover, it is possible that in certain cases the Secretary of State will be legally obliged to rule on a refugee claim irrespective of the applicability of the exclusion clause. That possibility would arise in the context of spousal and dependent refugee claims.
My noble friend Lord Avebury has pointed out that it is not stated on the face of the Bill that factors leading to a proper consideration of an individual's
1248
case would be fully considered before a certificate is issued under the terms of Clauses 34 and 35. My noble friend went on to say that the Secretary of State should be required to consider proportionality in each case, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, responded by saying:
"I take it as axiomatic that those considerations will be in the mind of the Home Secretary before he issues a certificate".—[Official Report, 6/12/01; col. 1044.]
Can the Government confirm that the proportionality test, as codified in the terms of the refugee convention, will remain intact under the new legislation?
Clauses 33 and 34 concern certification by the Secretary of State for the purposes of expulsion, whereas Clause 21 concerns certification for the purposes of detention. Do the Government agree that, under the terms of Clause 21, there are no equal provisions for removing the asylum seeker's right to have his or her full asylum claim examined? Indeed, we have been given to understand that, under Clause 21, the suspected terrorist will remain entitled to have the inclusionary elements of his or her claim assessed at the same time as the exclusionary elements are addressed. Does the noble Lord acknowledge the absurdity of creating a higher standard for cases to be brought before SIAC, which merely concern issues of national security, than more serious cases of suspected terrorism under Clause 21? I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I rise to support these two amendments. It would be desirable to ensure that the number of cases going before SIAC should be kept to an absolutely irreducible minimum. I say that because those hearings are closed. The public is not admitted and no media are present. The whole procedure is opaque and held in secret.
Perhaps I may add that, in my view, it is extremely desirable that hearings concerning the vast majority of normal asylum claim cases should be conducted in full under the most open procedures. The amendments would provide a means to ensure that that would take place.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I know that repetition is not a virtue, in particular at Third Reading, but like the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I am disappointed that, since this matter was debated on Report we have not made the progress towards a possible amalgamation of these clauses that some had hoped to achieve. Frankly, I would prefer it if the two clauses were not included in the Bill, for the reasons given in the debate held last Thursday night. I hope that the amendments will be given active consideration, even at this late stage. I think it is extremely important to achieve progress in this area.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments. In my personal opinion, they are amendments of substance. They are important and essential. I hope that the Minister will take them at more than their face value. The amendments form a part of the machinery of this statutory form of justice.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Avebory: My Lords, I do not wish to add much to the comments I made in the debate on Report. However, in light of the fact that tomorrow we are to hold a debate on Zimbabwe, perhaps noble Lords would like to consider during the course of those proceedings the treatment of Zimbabwean asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. Most asylum seekers are fast-tracked through Oakington. They tend to finish up in prison or being held in a detention centre. Finally, they are sent back to a country where the rule of law does not prevail.
Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State would have the power to issue a certificate stating that a person who came here from Zimbabwe, having been convicted of an ordinary criminal offence in the courts of that country, would not be eligible for substantive consideration of his application for asylum. However, we know that the courts in Zimbabwe have been suborned and fatally undermined by President Mugabe. We have seen the recent report produced by representatives of the International Bar Association as a result of their visit to Zimbabwe last March. We have also seen the report of the Commonwealth mission on the failure of President Mugabe to observe the terms of the Abuja accords.
The situation in the country is very well known; namely, that it is not possible to trust the convictions of a Zimbabwean court of law. Preferential prosecution of members of the opposition is widespread and members of the MDC are constantly under threat of being arrested, thrown into prison and sometimes suffer torture before being brought before the courts of law.
Under the terms of Clause 34, an individual who came to this country from Zimbabwe to claim asylum could become the subject of a certificate issued by the Secretary of State. My noble friend has already pointed out that other instances were drawn to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, at the previous stage. The Minister responded by commenting that the Secretary of State would hear those matters "in mind" when considering whether to issue a certificate. But it does not say that on the face of the Bill. There is no form of words to make it plain that the Secretary of State would consider the proportionality of signing a certificate against all the surrounding circumstances pertaining in a country such as Zimbabwe.
I think that the Minister should seek to reassure the House by adding to what he said during the previous debate. He should promise that, when the Secretary of State issues a certificate, he will make clear what factors he took into consideration and how he sought to strike a balance between the fact that an individual might have been technically ineligible under the terms of Article 1(F) and the considerations that I have already mentioned regarding the application of the rule of law in the country concerned. If a certificate was accompanied by such a statement it would be, in effect, equivalent to a substantive determination of the
1250
individual's asylum application. In this way the Minister would be able to reassure the supporters of the amendment that the power will not be misused.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is important to try to grasp what Clauses 33 and 34 seek to achieve. We are considering here the circumstances where a refugee, or an alleged refugee, has applied for asylum and has failed in the first instance to establish the main ground; namely, that he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality and so forth. The individual then lodges an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. At that stage, the Secretary of State would intervene and slap on to that individual a certificate, which will have the following effect.
The commission, which would normally balance the arguments as regards whether there is a well-founded fear of persecution, would then turn away from the issue raised in the appeal itself to consider whether the Secretary of State was right intervene by issuing the certificate on the appellant. If, having examined the statements and certificate, the commission agrees with the former, the appeal is dismissed without the commission ever considering the gravity of the events or fear—by virtue of which Article 1A would or might apply to the person or the threat by reason of which Clause 33(1) might apply. The Secretary of State's intervention completely distorts the appeal process.
That apart, under Clauses 33 and 34 the asylum seeker does not have to be a suspected terrorist. Clause 33 does not make clear what it is that the commission considers when deciding on the statements and the certificate. The clause does not state, for example, that SIAC will take evidence on either side—only that it will consider the statements. Presumably the commission is entitled to or must take into account evidence on either side but only in relation to the statements in the certificate—not to the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution.
That seems to be an extraordinary interference in the provisions regarding a commission which we have been told will in effect exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court by way of judicial review. The commission will not be reviewing the decision against which the appeal is brought. It will be sidetracked into reviewing something quite different.
Article 32(2) of the 1951 United Nations convention states that the expulsion by a contracting state of a refugee,
"shall only be in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority".
Presumably the Government are trying to take account of
"except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require".

1251
That brings us within the scope of the anti-terrorism provisions for suspected international terrorists. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 seek to ensure that the curious intervention by the Secretary of State in the normal appeal process will only be in circumstances where he is in a position to issue a certificate under Clause 21, believing that the asylum seeker is a suspected international terrorist. We take the view that it would be wrong to apply Clauses 33 and 34 to every asylum seeker, whether or not he is a suspected international terrorist.
If this is truly an anti-terrorism Bill, we invite the Government to reconsider whether it is necessary to include provisions that apply to all asylum seekers or whether intervention by the Secretary of State shall take place only where he is also of the view that the person is a risk to national security and suspects that the person is a terrorist.
If those small amendments were made, that would greatly alter the scope of Clauses 33 and 34 and maintain our world standing as the foremost country for the protection of people who seek relief from persecution. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to think again.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who tabled the amendments as they provide the opportunity to revisit the issue in the latter stages of the Bill. The substance of Amendment No. 5 in particular was debated on Report.
As to Amendment No. 4, the provisions in Clauses 33 and 34 are separate from those in Clauses 21 to 32 and do not cover exactly the same set of people. Nor are they intended to do so. A person may be identified as a suspected international terrorist as someone whom the Secretary of State considers is excluded from the protection of the 1951 convention and whose removal would be conducive to the public good.
For such a suspected terrorist, there is no legal or practical barrier to his removal. A certificate under Clause 21 would be inappropriate and would not be required because the person would not be detained. However, we would want Clause 33 to apply to such a person because its purpose is to make more upfront use of the 1951 convention exclusion. Clause 33 is already narrowly focused and further narrowing, as Amendment No. 4 proposes, would not be appropriate.
Clause 21 exists because we envisage that we will want to prosecute alleged international terrorists first, before removing them from the country. If we cannot do that, we shall want to detain them. There may be people whom we want to prosecute but cannot—but we shall still want to remove them. If they can be removed, we would not want to detain them—so a certificate would not arise. On the other hand, if Clause 33 says that the convention does not apply, it is necessary to have that extra power.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, almost every asylum seeker who fails in his claim is detained prior to removal.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, persons may be removed from their homes and detained for a few hours. At some holding centres, we cannot detain people for more than six hours anyway. We must either let them return home or keep them overnight at a detention centre. Detention may take the form of transport from the person's home to the airport. The noble Lord is correct to that extent but not in general. Not everyone necessarily passes through Immigration Service detention centres. I do not know the numbers off the top of my head.
4 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Government's whole argument for the expansion of the present detention centres by 1,900 places is that we need them to speed up the process of the removal of people who are not entitled to be here. The supposition is, therefore, that these people do spend time in detention centres prior to their departure from this country.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is what I am saying, but I could not agree with the noble Lord's first question without extra advice. It is true that people are detained, but not necessarily in a detention centre. Incidentally, detention centres have been renamed "removal centres", and even I have to get used to that. That is the purpose of the centres; they are for removal.
But not everyone passes through these centres. There are areas other than detention centres—for example, some of the reporting centres—where we can detain people for up to six hours prior to removal. People who will not leave voluntarily are necessarily detained. In some ways, the process of removal could be described as a detention because people are escorted.
A very small number of people—I cannot offer the House a view as to how many—will he covered by a Clause 21 certificate and a very small number will be covered by Clause 33. They could be the same people, but not necessarily. I hope that that is an answer—it may not be satisfactory—as to why we need the power in Clause 33. It would not apply necessarily to everyone who had a certificate under Clause 21 issued against them.
I shall come to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in a moment. Amendment No. 5—with which, I should say to the right reverend Prelate, many of us have sympathy—seeks to provide that the construction provision in Clause 34 should apply only in cases where a certificate has been issued under Clause 21. For the reasons I have given already, I do not believe that there should be a linkage back to Clause 21.
However, I agree that there is a question as to whether Clauses 33 and 34, as they are now numbered, should be linked together. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said at Report stage, originally, in an earlier draft, they were one clause. They have been separated for clarity. I have taken this matter away, thought about it and discussed it with my ministerial colleagues and advisers. I have some sympathy with the view that

1253
the clauses should be linked because the Bill is concerned with a specific set of people and, in some ways, should not read across to the generality of the public. We have thought about the issue carefully and we have concluded that we will be better off leaving the Bill as it stands.
The Government believe that, as a matter of law, there is no inherent balancing test within Articles 1(F) and 33(2) of the refugee convention. If Clause 34 was to be linked to Clause 33, that might incorrectly suggest that we took the view that the legal construction of Articles 1(F) and 33(2) was different in cases not covered by the Bill to which those exclusion clauses would apply.
Based on the evidence and the discussions we have had, we believe that there is a fine legal balance—which has been put to Ministers—and that we could have problems in some cases by linking the two clauses. I freely admit to noble Lords that we have changed our mind every few hours since we debated the clause on Report, but that has been the nature of our considerations.
There are two further points I should like to cover before I answer specific questions. First, we have been reviewing our policy on the exclusion clauses in the refugee convention in relation to cases not covered by the Bill. We shall make our views known in the new year. I am not able to share any parts of the review at the moment.
Secondly, Clause 33 is confined to a small group of individuals. The procedural approach set out in the Bill for certain Article 1(F) and Article 33(2) cases will not always be applied to cases which fall outside Clause 33. That approach is confined to cases where not only do the exclusion clauses apply but where the removal would be conducive to the public good.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I wish to put on record that there is nothing in the Bill to state that a person who enters the UK illegally would be automatically excluded from protection under the refugee convention; nor would a person from a particular ethnic background be automatically excluded. Everything relevant to whether a person is excludable under the convention would be assessed. However, this does not mean that all matters relevant to whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution would be considered, but only those matters which had a bearing on the exclusion clause.
That brings me to the issue of proportionality. Clause 34 provides that Articles 1(F) and 33(2) will not have a proportionality test in the sense that the degree of mistreatment a person might face if returned would not be taken into account when considering whether the exclusion clause applies. But, in considering whether an exclusion clause applies, the Secretary of State would take account of all factors relevant to whether the exclusion clause should apply. For example, he would consider whether allegations that a person had committed a crime abroad were true—as in the Zimbabwean example given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—or whether the alleged crime had a
1254
strong political motive. The Secretary of State would not return someone who had been excluded from the refugee convention if to do so would breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
I know that there is a division between the two opposition parties on this issue. It is quite clear that the Liberal Democrats are with the Government and that the Conservative Party would like us to pull out of Article 3 and return people. We are not prepared to countenance returning anyone in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I want to make that absolutely clear. We have said it before and it does not need any qualification.
As to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—which I hope to answer if I have not done so already—if an appellant raises human rights issues as part of an appeal, SIAC would go on to hear those issues after it had upheld the Secretary of State's certificate. The noble Lord is correct to say that SIAC could hear both sides of the case as to whether a certificate should have been issued. I hope that that is a positive answer to the noble Lord's question.
As regards Article 32 of the refugee convention, we do not consider that Clauses 33 and 34 of the Bill are contrary to the safeguards provided in that article. This is a matter that we shall come back to when the review I have referred to is produced in the new year. I suspect that the matter will figure very much in our debates on the Bill referred to during Questions today.
I should tell noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate that, along with my ministerial colleague, I met today with a representative of the United Nations refugee body, but I was not able to go into great discussions about this issue. Indeed, I was not able to give the conclusions of our considerations because they are on-going following the brief meeting I had this morning.
We are very conscious of the United Kingdom's position internationally. We are carrying out practices and upholding the convention for those who have a well-founded belief of persecution in the way that we have done—and been proud to do—over the past five decades. We are not seeking to cause ourselves any problems internationally in the way that the Bill is drafted. I agree with the arguments that if the two issues were linked it would make matters clearer, but that would present us with the fine balance of legal arguments to which I have referred. This has caused us to structure the Bill in this way.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope he will forgive me, but I am a little confused by his response. Let us take an ordinary asylum case. Let us suppose that a person makes an application for asylum and, without the issue of any certificate by the Secretary of State, the initial adjudicator turns him down because the other side have succeeded in establishing under 1(F) that there are serious reasons for considering that the applicant has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge.

1255
Let us suppose that under Clause 33(2) the Government establish that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the person as a danger to the security of the country. That is just an ordinary case. Does that mean that the initial adjudicator, as a result of the drafting of Clause 34, is not entitled to take into account the degree of persecution that individual might suffer were he to be returned to a particular country? Are all those aspects excluded simply because grounds in Article 1(F) and 33(2) are urged at first instance or does it mean that the appeal from that initial decision must ignore the degree of persecution which the individual is likely to suffer?
As it appears in the Bill, it seems to me that whenever the Government put forward Article 1(F) or 33(2) in answer to a claim for asylum, that immediately precludes the applicant from relying on his basic right of establishing that he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality and so on. Is that really what the Government intend?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question when he spoke about an ordinary asylum case, those that are before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission cannot in any way be considered as ordinary asylum cases. At present there are 1,200 applications a week. That has been the rate in a constant flow for a couple of years. There are approximately 60,000 applications a year. Of that number only a few in single figures will be subject to SIAC or this Bill. We are talking about a handful of people and we have never spoken of any larger number. So to try to translate these issues to an ordinary asylum case does not carry across. That may be an unsatisfactory answer from a non-lawyer, but it is satisfactory for a person such as myself as a former constituency Member in the other place for asylum seekers and now the Minister dealing with the case work as well.
But the ordinary asylum case bears no relation whatever to the people who are subject to parts of this Bill, particularly as regards the issue of certificates under Clause 21 of the Act or anyone who comes near SIAC. That commission was set up four years ago and in that time there have been three cases. We have been dealing with 60,000 cases a year for the past four years, which represents 250,000 cases. To try to translate those figures to this Bill does not work. There is no comparison whatsoever.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord said that Clause 34 applies only to appeals before SIAC. That is not what it says.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. Clause 34 does not say that. In Clause 33 the certificate of the convention does not apply. Subsection (1) states:
"This section applies to an asylum appeal before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission".
1256
Clause 34 is not linked in that way for the reasons I have explained.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation that he has offered and to all noble Lords in all parts of the House who have contributed to this debate. It is rather unsatisfactory that the review of the convention's exclusion clauses will be published in the new year when in reality some of the implications should have been known at this stage, particularly in how they apply to Article 1(F) and 33(2). That would have been most helpful.
I do not know whether the Minister had completed his contribution, but I am grateful that his views are now on record. Therefore, I shall not seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Government White Paper
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the local government White Paper, which we are publishing today. This White Paper sets out a new vision for local government at the beginning of the 21st century. It seeks to establish a partnership between central and local government, reflecting the critical importance of local authorities both as a tier of democratic government and with the responsibility to deliver high quality public services to local people.
"Democratically elected councils should be part of the fabric of our communities. The services they provide have a vital part to play in sustaining and enhancing the social and economic prospects and environmental quality of our towns, cities and countryside.
"They can have a profound effect on the opportunities and quality of life of the people who live and work there: educating children, providing care for the vulnerable, making places safer and cleaner to live in, and providing reliable local transport.
"People therefore expect a great deal from their council; and those expectations are rising. To meet them, councils have constantly to seek new and more effective ways to deliver customer-focused services and lead their communities. The proposals in this White Paper will provide a framework in which all can do so, through the application of the Government's four principles of public services reform. These are: establishing a national framework for the delivery of high quality services and effective community leadership—for example,

1257
people everywhere want high quality education for their children; within this framework, freeing up local councils to meet their communities' particular needs—these will be different in a London borough from a shire district; making sure that councillors and council staff have the skills and money to do their jobs well, and providing more choice for people in the services they want to use.
"I want to tackle the trend towards excessive central prescription and interference, which dominated central/local relations in the 1980s and 1990s. We are reversing that approach. The White Paper marks a pronounced step away from centralisation.
"It is about increased freedoms, better incentives, and a significant reduction in the number of controls, consent requirements, plans and over-elaborate guidance which have been all too characteristic of the top-down approach to local government. It is truly about local government. It is a significant shift away from local administration, based on a belief that we do not need to control everything, and a recognition that local authorities are often in the best position to respond to local needs and aspirations.
"I hope that this will encourage local political and civic leadership. Today's reports into this summer's disturbances in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford show how important it is to have a leadership with a democratic mandate, who are prepared to take the often sensitive, always difficult, decisions necessary to ensure social cohesion. So this White Paper has at its heart community leadership and the democratic renewal of local government.
"For all councils we want to reduce the bureaucratic burden and give them the freedom to innovate and focus on driving up standards. We therefore intend to cut the number of plans and strategies that councils are required to produce, to scale back the number of area-based initiatives and give greater scope to rationalise partnerships.
"We shall remove many of the present requirements to obtain government consent before acting. Over 50 will be abolished with another 30 under review. We shall also provide councils with wider powers to provide services to others.
"With these new freedoms come responsibilities. For the first time we will produce a clear performance profile for each council. The Audit Commission will compile a scorecard and will identify each council as either high performing, striving, coasting or poor performing. It is our intention that further freedoms over and above those for all councils will be applied to high performing authorities.
"We will also intervene decisively where councils are failing their local people. Where councils are not collecting their council tax or providing high quality services, for example, this will not be acceptable, and we will take action.
1258
"The Government agree with the Local Government Association that there should he joint ownership of the service priorities for local government. It is therefore our intention that—through negotiation and dialogue—we will agree a single list of priorities for local government.
"The White Paper also sets out our specific proposals for the reform of our local government finance system. Last week, I announced that next year will be the final year in which grant to local authorities would be based on the present standard spending assessment formula.
"We will be bringing forward our detailed proposals for a new system of grant distribution next year. But I can inform the House that I have decided to abolish the standard spending assessment mechanism and replace it with a system which is easier to understand, better reflects the real cost of services and the needs of a local area.
"We also intend to give local authorities greater flexibility to undertake capital investment. We shall scrap the system of credit approvals and, instead, authorities will be free to borrow for capital investment without consent provided they can afford to service the debt. So where a council sees the need, for example, for a new library or leisure centre, it will no longer need our permission to raise the necessary funds, provided it acts prudently.
"As a consequence of this approach, we shall abolish the receipts taken into account mechanism—which has acted as a disincentive for local authorities to dispose of surplus assets. I know that there has been concern about the growth of ring-fenced funding and the way in which this limits local discretion. We will therefore restrict ring-fenced funding to areas which are genuine high priorities for the Government and where we cannot achieve our policy objectives by specifying outcome targets.
"The setting of council tax itself is very much a local decision. But we also recognise that the risk of high council tax increases falls on local taxpayers. We have already ended pre-announced universal capping. Our long-term goal is to dispense with the reserve capping powers altogether. But we intend to proceed cautiously.
"We do feel that we should take the first step towards the ending of capping—and so I can announce that the power to cap will not be used in respect of high-performing authorities. A large number of authorities and honourable Members have raised with me the difficulties being created by the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme. The principles underlying the scheme are sensible. However, in practice its application has proved to be very complex. Some have proposed that we should simplify the scheme or find other ways of reducing its impact. Having considered all of the options, I have decided to abolish the scheme altogether.
"These proposals form part of the Government's agenda for modernisation and reform. For many, they will be challenging. They are meant to be. We

1259
proposed these changes not for their own sake, but because local people will benefit—benefit from the requirement that all services should be delivered to an acceptable standard; benefit from the fact that the changes we all really want to see—better schools and social care, improved local environments, better transport and other vital local services—will get the priority they deserve; and benefit from effective community leadership by councils in touch with local people and working to meet their aspirations.
"These proposals will put the 'local' back into local government—allowing local councillors to really make a difference for their communities. This is vital if we are to re-engage people, and as a result see an increase in turnout at local elections.
"This White Paper outlines a new and lasting basis for effective local government. I want to see central and local government working together in a constructive partnership to deliver the high-quality public services that local people have the right to expect. In a practical way, this White Paper shows how we can do so. I commend this White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I must make my usual declaration that I am a member of a local authority in London.
I am slightly breathless from having tried to deal with the Statement in a remarkably short time. I have drawn a number of conclusions. Local Government will be delighted that there is to be yet another new vision for it! It may not have quite the profound feeling of relief that the Government believe it should have.
It is impossible to respond in detail to the content of the White Paper. However, one of the things that affects local government most is the system by which it receives its pay and rations from the Government. We have heard a great deal over the past few years about the importance of reforming local government finance. The expectation today will have been for more than merely a statement that the standard spending assessment system is to be abolished. That will be welcomed. But when will new proposals he produced that give an indication of the new mechanisms and formulas that will be used?
Every system disadvantages someone. The present one has been manipulated each year to take from one part of the country and give to another. Local authorities need stability of finance. I hope that this is what they will get for the start of 2003. I also hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss in this House the methods that will be adopted by the Government for the future of local government finance. The White Paper contains brave words regarding the freeing up of local authorities, but they will only be as free as the money they have available to spend.
1260
I have little doubt that the ability to undertake capital investment will be welcomed. It is long overdue. Councils which can demonstrate that they can afford to pay the debt charges and can manage the major capital schemes that might he involved should be able to do so. That is a welcome step.
All councils will rejoice at the abandonment of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. I recommend that any noble Lords who want a little amusement should turn to what is euphemistically described as the "simplified" explanation of council tax benefit subsidy limitation which appears in the White Paper. However hard anyone tries, it is almost impossible to rationalise, justify or explain what the council tax benefit subsidy limitation ever was, or ever shall be, and what was its benefit. The explanation is so abstruse that it is no wonder that no one has every readily understood it.
The Government have indicated that they believe that councils—that is, some well-behaved councils—should have more control over their own finances. I have no doubt that that will be welcomed, so long as there really is true freedom.
Since 1997, ring-fencing of grant to specific requirements has risen from 5 per cent to 15 per cent of the total grant. We discussed the matter briefly in relation to the previous White Paper on local government finance. Perhaps the Minister would he kind enough to explain how that ring-fencing will change—now that the Government have admitted that it brings with it an over-heavy-handed approach—a council's ability to deliver services to its own priorities.
The Statement places great emphasis on the fact that the White Paper envisages better incentives and a significant reduction in the number of controls exerted on local government. It will be interesting to see how or whether this works out. For example, councils are being banded into "high-performing", "striving", "coasting" and "poor-performing" on the basis of a "balanced scorecard" to be compiled by the Audit Commission. I must say that the designations are enchanting. Can the Minister give any further facts about what this will involve? Will it include results from "best value" and Audit Commission inspections, and indeed from Oftel and the other inspectorates? Or will it be based on financial prudence and financial outcomes? In other words, what will influence the bandings? And what is the implication for council management?
The Statement indicated that capping will be abolished for high-performing councils. I assume that that means "high-performing" according to the banding. But that will probably lead to the majority of councils being potentially subject to capping.
It is clear from what little of the White Paper I have been able to absorb in the extremely brief time available that the good management of councils remains a totem of the Government. Rightly, they are concerned about democratic legitimacy, but will the Minister say where he believes that will end? We have elected mayors, although there are not many so far and

1261
they do not seem to be wildly popular. There is a suggestion in the White Paper that if councils perform poorly, pressure will be exerted by the Government to have those led into an elected mayor/council manager system. That does not seem to me to resemble local democracy. What is the future for local government if central government are to have an influence on that? What about the problems arising from the new current structure of councillors who have little to do and a somewhat inadequate role as scrutineers of policy? What are the expectations arising from the further reforms predicated in the forthcoming White Paper on regional government?
I am sure that there will be much in this White Paper with which we shall be able to agree. but the history of central government's control of local government does not lead one to have any confidence that the brave words about encouraging local democracy will, in truth, have much meaning. Every year the Government has promised more autonomy for local councils, but in fact they have centralised and reduced local discretion. It will take a significant change of attitude, which I hope is in this paper, for that to come about.
There are also indications in the paper that the expectation is that it will encourage greater interest in local councils on the part of the local electorate. We shall see. It is fair to say that none of the other initiatives has had much success in that direction. It is also true to say that the electorate will not be interested until they truly believe that they can affect what happens. If this White Paper and the proposals in it lead to greater autonomy and to a greater interest on the part of the local electorate in what happens in their local area, they will have served a good cause.
Finally, there must remain grave concerns about the promises to give more powers to local councils when it is intended to strip counties of their planning powers and to replace many councils with a new tier of regional local government. There are brave words in the Statement about reducing bureaucracy and freeing local government to innovate and giving more powers to provide services to others. I hope that that will happen in practice, but there will also need to be a great deal more discussion before action is taken on many aspects of the White Paper so that we can see that its proposals are truly reflective of the Government's stated determination to let local government do its own thing.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly which I believe will he affected by many of the proposed changes. We are told that the White Paper sets out a new vision for local government. That term is in danger of being rather overworked. We have had much reform since 1997 and I think that we are entitled to ask whether this is a new, new vision or the old new vision recycled.
1262
We have had reform in structure, as the noble Baroness has mentioned. Many of us—certainly my noble friends and I—would like to see greater reforms than we have seen so far in the area of powers. The Government have not been prepared to let local government exercise a power of general competence and functions are largely set by central government.
The Paper makes much reference to services and uses the term "customer". However, we have to remember that local government is about far more than delivering services, although I readily admit that services are an important part of its work. I welcome the reference to the community leadership role. I hope that there is much reference to that in the White Paper which, like the noble Baroness, I have not had time to read in the short time available. That is not a complaint as I understand how that situation arose.
We are told that the proposals in the White Paper sit with the Government's principles of public services reform. Certainly, the delivery of public services requires the ability and the local intelligence of local authorities. This is a government Statement, not just a Statement from the Minister's own department. I note that earlier this month the Secretary of State for Education and Skills mentioned putting even more pressure on local authorities to delegate more money to schools, apparently promoting her tight control of local education authorities. I am not sure how those two matters sit together. The Government apparently also want to provide more choice for people. That concept would stand a five hour debate in itself and therefore I shall not try to analyse it now.
A reduction in the bureaucratic burden would, of course, be welcome, as would freedom to innovate arid to focus on driving up standards. We must accept—it is important to make the point in the context of the bureaucratic (if I may say so) reforms which support the measure—that the freedom to innovate must include the freedom to get things wrong. If local authorities are not allowed occasionally to make mistakes, they do not genuinely have the freedom that the Government say that they will give them.
The Statement refers to removing requirements to obtain government consent before acting in 50 cases, with another 30 under review. Can the Minister tell the House after the review how many circumstances will require central government consent before action can be taken? The Statement also refers to wider powers to provide services to others. That is welcome. Can the Minister confirm that that will include the power to charge for those services? Can he confirm that local government will be—I am afraid I shall use a term that I rather deplore—on a level playing field with the private sector?
We are told that the Audit Commission is to compile a scorecard and that the Government will produce a clear performance profile for each council. In a Statement which refers to removing top-down control, I find that a slightly odd notion. What is the difference between a set of scorecards and a league table? We are only a short way into a relatively new regime, that of best value. I believe that local authorities should have

1263
the opportunity to get that right working with central government. At present the matter is very centralised. I do not believe that we even know yet when local authorities will be allowed to set their own performance indicators. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that today. Certainly, one hears all around that the only growth in local government is in the form filling required for inspections related to the best value regime. The notion of best value parishes in the White Paper is, frankly, mindboggling.
The noble Baroness referred to the categories of local councils. There was a clear reaction around the House when the Minister set out the terms. I look forward to describing "striving" and "coasting" local councils on the doorstep.
As regards intervention where councils are failing, the Statement says that central government will take action. I believe that we are shortly to have annual elections. Is that not the real test? Do not elections constitute the real action here? The Statement quite rightly started with a reference to democracy and that needs to be borne in mind throughout.
Clearly the alterations to the financial arrangements will require a good deal of consideration. The replacement of the standard spending assessment with a much easier system is a Holy Grail which I sincerely hope the Government can find.
We welcome the greater flexibility for capital investment. The Minister says that that is provided that the council can afford to service the debt and acts prudently. Who will judge whether the local council can service the debt and is acting prudently? Also, as a result of these proposals, will councils now be able to spend the receipts from council house sales?
We welcome the restriction of ring-fencing—I should prefer to see something closer to abolition—although we are entitled to treat it with a little scepticism given last week's government settlement which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, increased ring-fencing by 15 per cent.
The White Paper says that the setting of council tax is a local decision. Indeed it is, but it is based on, among other things, awareness of the gearing effect. Local authorities will not be totally autonomous until they are financially autonomous. When we come to the actual legislation, I am sure that we shall spend a great deal of time on that.
I note that the benefits that the Government want to see include matters such as better personal care and better transport. But we have to acknowledge that demographic change and the increased need for social care are outside our control, and that better transport can be achieved only to a limited extent in a regime where, for instance, buses are deregulated.
From these Benches we prefer to see a regime which praises rather than blames. If the new proposals go in that direction in practice, they will be welcomed. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his foreword to the 1998 White Paper, talked about the "special status" of councils. They do have a special status and we should all recognise that; in other words, each authority
1264
should have freedom—and not just when the Government judge that they should have it. If local government is entitled to freedom, why is it required to earn it? Should it not have it by right?
4.43 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I congratulate both noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Hamwee, on the competent and clear way in which they dealt with the Statement. I shall go through the points they raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that pay and rations were important. She asked when announcements would be made about the financial regime. My right honourable friend in another place said that we aim to share our thoughts on the new formula in the new year. The new formula will come into effect for next year's settlement; that is, the settlement for the years 2003 and 2004.
The noble Baroness welcomed the capital investment freedom and the abolition of council tax benefit subsidy limitation. She drew attention, quite rightly, to the fact that even trying to explain it proves to be difficult. The noble Baroness welcomed also the greater freedoms and asked for an explanation of what the effect will be in relation to ring-fencing. Perhaps I may deal with that briefly. We shall be looking closely at all ring-fenced grants to ensure that they are restricted to those cases which are genuine priorities for us and where we cannot achieve our policy goal by specifying output or outcome targets. We are committed to restricting ring-fenced funding to those cases.
The noble Baroness asked why we should end capping only for high performers. Local taxpayers bear the risk of ending capping so we are moving cautiously towards that goal. Protecting those who use and pay for local services has always been a central plank of this reform agenda. Reserve capping powers may also be needed to provide safeguards at times of revaluation. That is why we are restricting it to high performers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the description of categories of council produced some reaction in the House. The description seeks to convey the qualities of councils. As the reaction indicated, the words did convey an element of what their performance would be like. The Audit Commission will do the assessments, as has already been said. Its assessment methodology will draw on the widest possible range of local authority performance information from existing audit inspection-based outcomes and performance-indicated data, including user satisfaction. It will reflect performance at both individual service level and corporate level and take into account current performance and proven capacity to improve.
Given the depth and breadth of information which has been brought together for the first time, no significant area of a council's performance will be overlooked. Moreover, high performing councils will have to be high performers in priority services and

1265
must not perform poorly in any service. The methodology will be developed and piloted by the Audit Commission in consultation with local government and other relevant parts of the public sector to ensure both its reliability and robustness.
The noble Baroness asked where it will end. That is another way of asking what will happen to poor performers. Where a council is failing with little or no prospect of improvement, we will apply early intervention measures. The measures used will depend on the specific circumstance of the authority and the nature of the failure. They could include transferring functions to other providers and giving stronger councils or other public bodies a role in running failing councils.
All councils will be expected to address the extent to which greater diversity of service provision will improve performance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pointed out, stimulating greater interest in local government among local electorates is one of the aims in that regard. We seek to achieve that by ensuring that service delivery improves and that the role of local authorities as community leaders becomes established. It is those two aspects which will contribute to a greater interest being taken by the electorate in who their local authority representatives are. That is something to which we all aspire.
The first question the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked was whether this was a "new" new vision or an "old" new vision. I am sure we all see local authorities performing a role as community leaders. That is something to which we all aspire. That is our vision for local authorities and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, aspires to that as well.
The noble Baroness said that this new regime must be about more than just the delivery of services. That is absolutely right. The title indicates the importance of that: Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services. That is what the people want who elect local authorities and who enjoy the services they provide. We want people to have more choice. The noble Baroness neatly side-stepped that issue by saying that that is a debate that could last five hours and, sensibly in my view, did not engage in that argument at that stage. She welcomed the reduction of the bureaucratic burden and the freedom to innovate and drive up standards, which she said must include the freedom to get things wrong—that is right in certain circumstances.
Drawing attention to the fact that 50 cases were reduced and 30 were being considered, the noble Baroness asked how many consents were still required. I do not know how many are left. I shall write to her on that specific issue.
The noble Baroness also asked me to confirm that local authorities have the power to charge for services. We shall make an order to give local authorities the power to charge for all discretionary services. If they have the power to decide whether to provide a service, they will also be able to decide whether to charge for it. That will encourage authorities to provide services that they do not currently provide.
1266
The noble Baroness then asked about a level playing field with the private sector. I invite her to look, at her leisure, at paragraphs 3.76 and 3.82 in part 1 of the White Paper. She also asked about the White Paper's proposals for the Best Value regime. It proposes the publication of the Best Value performance plan in June and its incorporation within the corporate assessment process; the publication of summarised performance information in March for the public, but with local discretion over contents and method; amendments to the Best Value review framework and guidance so that reviews become more effective and strategic; and an increase in the pressure and capacity for greater diversity in service provision and choice for local people.
The noble Baroness raised the question of whether intervention should be only through elections. We think not. If councils are performing poorly and the quality of service to people in the area is poor, local people are entitled to expect steps to be taken to ensure that the services and the leadership improve.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, with partnership, autonomy and initiative in mind, will local authorities still be able to attract footloose inward investment to their areas? Will they still be able to enhance, protect and buttress job prospects in their areas? Will there be more or less money under the new scheme that my noble friend adumbrates in the White Paper? Are there any details on that important work of local authorities?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, local authorities do important work on attracting inward investment to their areas. High-performing councils—those that provide good services and good local leadership—will attract inward investment to their areas. The White Paper does not deal with the amounts of money available. That must wait for another occasion.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the Government's proposed changes for local government will be welcomed in so far as they result in a reduction in excessive central prescription. Much of what the Minister has said about expenditure—particularly on allowing freedom of borrowing without consent, subject to satisfaction that the debt can be serviced—seems to move in that direction.
However, the Government have much less to say on the fiscal side. The Minister has mentioned charging. What consideration, if any, have the Government given to allowing greater autonomy in respect of taxation? In particular, has any thought been given to the possibility of moving towards a more responsive form of taxation, such as local income tax, which has long been considered the best way to hold local government to account?
Has the Minister noticed that, following the report of the Kerley commission, the Scottish Executive have addressed the issue of greater local accountability by agreeing to seek to introduce a new system of election to local government by proportional representation?

1267
We look forward to seeing the timetable for that before the end of the year. Have the minds of Ministers south of the Border been similarly moved in that direction?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the answer to the last question is that the White Paper contains no proposals for a change in electoral system along the lines referred to by the noble Lord. Ministers have also not been persuaded by the arguments for a local income tax and the idea plays no part in the proposals. The noble Lord was talking about making local authorities more accountable. The White Paper makes it clear that the performance of local authorities will become much more transparent and the delivery of services and the quality of local leadership will play a much more important part hereafter in the way in which they perform their duties.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I declare my interests as a leader of a local authority and as a member of the board of the Improvement and Development Agency, which is mentioned as part of the proposed system for improving local authorities. I welcome the Statement with much greater enthusiasm than it has received from other parts of the House. Local authorities should be judged on their outcomes, not by regulation from civil servants. The financial changes that my noble and learned friend outlined are welcome to many authorities. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I would like greater turbulence rather than stability. Those at the bottom of the heap need significant changes in the system of local government finance.
I agree with the noble Baroness's comments on the need for a change in attitude. If the White Paper is to be a success, a change in attitude is needed from departments, from Ministers—the noble Baroness gave an example of not all Ministers singing from the same hymn sheet, at least before the publication of the White Paper—and from civil servants. This week I received a letter from the Government Office for the North-West about a lighter touch approach to the accreditation of local strategic partnerships. The guidance says that it should not be too time-consuming or paper-based. We were then invited to give a submission on 20 pages of A4 for our local strategic partnership plan. We need to get through to civil servants that we can be judged in other ways than on the volume of paper that we produce.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble Friend for his welcome for the White Paper. I thoroughly endorse his comments about the need for a new culture involving a genuine partnership between local and central government. I also thoroughly endorse his call for a much reduced burden of bureaucracy, not just on identifiable issues such as the consents regime, but in the ongoing, day-to-day relationship between central and local government. We do not want too much paper. We want outcomes that central and local government both aspire to in public services.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, into which of the interesting new performance categories for local authorities would the Government put their own performance? Secondly, while I appreciate that it would not be a new Labour Statement if it did not claim to represent a new basis for local government, given recent history, on what does the Minister found his confidence that the White Paper will provide a lasting basis? Finally, how does the Minister justify contingent intervention as a move away from centralisation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, it would be wrong for me to say in which category I should place the Government until the Audit Commission has gone through the process that I described earlier.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked about the confidence that we have that the arrangement will deliver a new culture and vision for local authorities. One does not get anywhere without first setting out a new policy framework. The way in which one changes policy and achieves new delivery is by setting out what one thinks the function and structure should be. That is what we have done in the White Paper. There is a real and genuine commitment on the part of central government to deliver that. The feeling that one gets from local government is that it is very much "up for" this relationship with central government. It wants to make that relationship work because people—the electorate—are keen to see delivery, which will occur only with a genuine partnership between central and local government.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked how one justifies contingent intervention as being not too centralised. That is a slight re-phrasing of his question. The purpose of contingent intervention is that one in effect lays down the outcomes that one wishes. Local authorities then have the discretion to deliver them, having agreed the priorities with central government, and to decide on the way in which they are delivered. If they are not delivered, the people in the district who are covered by the local authority area are entitled to have steps taken to ensure that the services that they get are as high as those that are delivered by better-performing councils.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I want to press the Minister a little further on that point. If he is genuine about wanting to create a partnership between local authorities and central government and if he is saying that he wants proper local accountability, can he explain why he thinks that it is necessary to have intervention between elections? Such intervention is not available in relation to central government. If there are to be elections annually in any case, why are the electorate not being trusted in such cases?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, because without intervention one has not got the means of ensuring that the basic outcomes, standards or performance targets that one sets will be delivered.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, who sets the outcomes? Why should central government do so when we want the electorate to judge the matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the local government White Paper makes clear—this was strongly supported by the Local Government Association—those targets and outcomes will be set through consultation between central and local government. At the local level, they will be reflected in local PSAs. Local government has warmly welcomed such an intervention and process and it is in practice keen for that partnership to be set up.
Baroness Bellingham: My Lords, I warmly welcome the White Paper and I stress how important it will be. My involvement in local government goes back some 10 years. I now have a new role—I chair an urban regeneration company—which makes it clear that local government is one of the most important parts of local democracy. In relation to urban regeneration, I cannot stress how important it is to have a partnership with local councils that are confident, capable and vibrant. Since taking up that new role, it has deeply depressed me during the past year to find out how much of that has been lacking. Much has been lost from local government's previous performance.
A spin off from the proposals is that there will be a regeneration of local democracy—getting more people out to vote—and, if we give local councillors more responsibilities, as the White Paper suggests, we will get a better calibre of person. Such people will put themselves forward for a very demanding role. Local councillors receive little thanks but plenty of kicks, and shouts from the doorstep of, "why haven't we seen you since last year?" It is a thankless task. I want local councillors to be given credit where it is due and for the fine job that they do. I hope that the White Paper will enhance their reputation and help them to deliver services where they are most properly delivered; namely, at local level.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the welcome that she gave to the White Paper. I know that she is the chairman of an urban regeneration company in Corby and I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done over a long period in that regard. I agree enthusiastically with her that when a local authority is engaged with partners such as urban regeneration companies, which bring people together, results are delivered on the ground. I also agree with her that one of the aims of the White Paper—one of its visions for local government—is to encourage more people to become engaged in local government because of the huge importance that it plays in people's lives. Involving people of calibre in local government is vital to the nation's well-being.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, under the proposals, will rural councils—in particular, sparsely populated councils—finally receive a settlement that ensures that in education, for example, they do not receive hundreds of pounds less in relation
1270
to children than urban areas? Secondly, with this rather blunt instrument of a scorecard, how will the Audit Commission measure an organisation that is set up by a council—a development trust, for example—and which functions effectively, but which delivers all of the goods for the people in that area? How will that be judged? The point raised by my noble friend Lady Sharp would be covered in such a case. People would see something happening as a result of the body that was set up by a council and which was no longer directly owned or managed by it but which was nevertheless beneficial.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness's first point was about whether the financial settlement would ensure that rural areas were treated fairly—those are not quite her words. The answer, as I said in an earlier response, is that we have indicated that the old financial settlement system has gone and that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will share his views on what the new process should be next year—the provisions will come into effect the following year. That issue is for another day, and is riot really dealt with in the local government White Paper.
I turn to the question of how the assessments will he made by the Audit Commission. I gave a long answer earlier in which I set out what its assessment methodology will be. Plainly, it will have to take into account the sorts of issues to which the noble Baroness referred. Its methodology will be piloted and developed in consultation with local government and other relevant parts of the public sector to ensure that it is effective and insightful.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, could the Minister clarify the situation regarding capital spending? Councils are currently not allowed to borrow money to build housing, for example. Having listened to the Minister's Statement, it is not clear whether there will be a change and whether councils will be able to borrow money for that purpose. Will he clarify the matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the local government White Paper gives local authorities greater freedom to borrow. That borrowing will have to be within prudential limits, which will be set in such a way that only borrowing that they can service can be made.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the White Paper comes out, perhaps providentially, on the same day as four other reports that had been promised on last summer's race riots—if that is what they were — in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. The Minister will be well aware that some of the problems in those towns, and in many similar towns in the north of England, are due to the failure and collapse of the housing market, which means that there are very cheap properties that people are not able to modernise or deal with adequately. The White Paper refers briefly to that problem on page 92 in paragraph 5.3. However, a few pages later, on page 98, it suggests that all that the Government are going

1271
to do is to have a review of the HIP system and that nothing will change for two years. Can the Minister give any hope that not only Bradford, Burnley and Oldham but many other towns like them and many other local authorities in the same situation will be able to access greater resources during the next two years in order to help them to begin to tackle those urgent problems before the review takes place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the urgent problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred were those which he raised with me in a question about 10 days ago. That question related in particular to East Lancashire and went way beyond the towns hit by disturbances in the summer of this year.
This paper does not seek to deal with the level of resources for housing; nor am I in a position to make any comment about what will happen with regard to that level of resources in the next spending review. However, as I made plain in answer to the question raised by the noble Lord about 10 days ago, the Government are well aware of the problems of market failure and the extent to which in some parts of the country those problems have contributed to disturbances and, in every case, to significant deprivation.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
5.11 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 34 [Construction]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Racial or religious hatred offences: penalties]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 20, line 42, leave out "or religious".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the changed structure of Part 5, which now excludes religious hatred offences but retains religiously aggravated offences under Clause 38. This will involve a technical amendment to Section 37(3) of the Public Order Act 1986 and will require the attention of a parliamentary draftsmen in due course if that is acceptable to the Government.
If the new structure were to be acceptable to the Government, it would resolve the essence of the problem with which the House has been concerned. It was identified by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on 15th October. He said that in this country Islam is generally perceived as an Asian religion. Therefore, attacks on Islam are used as a cover for incitement to religious hatred against people of Asian origin. That analysis was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, at col. 371 of the Official Report for 15th October 2001.
1272
If the record of enforcement of these racial hatred offences under extant law were to be increased from the 47 cases over five years to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred, there would be no need to introduce a new Bill at all. There is a hope that the Government will accept Part 5 as it stands as a fair and reasonable resolution of the problem with which we have been grappling for days, and that they will accept Part 5 as it stands with this consequential amendment and not undo the work of this House as is threatened in the newspapers. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when the Minister comes to reply, I wonder whether he could tell us—this is germane to the amendment—first, how many sentences of more than 18 months' imprisonment have been imposed for racial hatred offences in the 15 years since the Public Order Act 1986 came into force; and, secondly, whether the judiciary has ever complained that the current two-year maximum is too low and fetters its hands. If the answer is no then it appears that the near quadrupling of the maximum sentence to seven years is a public relations gimmick—or "spin", as we are now meant to call it—designed to give the impression of the smack of firm government.
Do the Government and, indeed, the Opposition, realise what the change to Section 17 of the 1986 Act made in what is presently Clause 36 of this Bill means? It will now be an offence to stir up hatred against any national group anywhere in the world. Thus, if this Bill had been in force exactly 60 years ago—that is, on 11th December 1941, when Britain was fighting for its life against the Axis powers—it would have been an offence, punishable by seven years' imprisonment, to stir up hatred against the Germans or Japanese. Is that what the Government intend? Surely not. Does this not show the dangers of legislating in such haste?
Lord Hylton: My Lords. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. It gives me the opportunity to return to a point that I raised in Committee concerning the level of penalties. It is proposed to increase that level by a factor of three and a half. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was kind enough to say in Committee that that reflected the wish of the Government to send a strong signal to the courts pointing out the gravity of this type of offence. I accept that, and that is why I withdrew some later amendments. However, a multiple of three and a half seems to be excessive. I should have thought that a multiple of two would be perfectly adequate.
Perhaps I may make one further point. I believe that from now on there will be a need to review the working of the law, both with regard to racial hatred and also, in so far as Clause 38 becomes law, in relation to religiously aggravated offences. No doubt both types of offence convey a kind of theoretical protection. But

1273
I wonder what that is really worth in practice and whether, with the benefit of a review, something better could eventually be produced.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure that the level of maximum penalties has much of a deterrent effect when the courts seldom approach the limits which they are given under the statutes. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, will know better than I do how the law on religious hatred has been applied in Northern Ireland. He asked a question the other clay which elicited the fact that, during the currency of the religious hatred offence on the statute book in Northern Ireland since 1987, there have been four prosecutions and the maximum sentence imposed by the courts has been six months compared with the two-year maximum.
I ventured to draw attention to that the other day—perhaps it was yesterday; I lose track of the time as we discuss this Bill every day—because it seemed to me that it gave the lie to people who alleged at that time that having an offence of religious hatred on the statute book would lead to many frivolous or unfounded prosecutions. It certainly has not done so in Northern Ireland. However, in the context of the current discussion, I have doubts about whether increasing the penalties when the courts have not even nearly approached using the existing penalties would have much of a deterrent effect.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise to give general support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend and to comment in particular on the interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Of course, when one examines the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is relevant to our discussions today, I believe that one must conclude that the Bill did not contemplate a wartime situation. I suspect that in such a situation it would be difficult to apply the Act as drafted. It is also worth noting that in that Act some of the racially aggravated assaults carry penalties of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Therefore, long sentences are envisaged in that area.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I admit that until the short speeches we have just heard I was not entirely clear about the purpose of the amendment. If there is to be argument about the penalty increase from two years to seven years, frankly, that is a different ball game. I do not think that that was debated either in Committee or on Report.
If the issue is trying to strike out any reference in the Bill to religious hatred rather than seeking to argue that there should be a difference in sentencing between two elements of the same offence, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that should the provisions in what was Clause 39 (the offence of incitement to religious hatred) not be included in the Bill on Royal Assent, the reference in what is now Clause 39 (incitement penalties) will be removed as a primary change. It will be like renumbering the pages. An amendment will not be needed for that to be done. It will be taken out automatically.
1274
Other noble Lords raised the issue of the increase in maximum penalty from two years to seven years. I understand that in 1998—I do not have the details of the case; it was not in Northern Ireland but in England—the judiciary complained that two years was too low. I shall write to the noble Lord with details of the sentences in the particular issue he raised. We want to send a signal; there is no question of that. It is not for me to criticise the judiciary and the sentences passed within the range provided. Maximum sentences are not always used. Discretion is given to the courts. We believe that it is entirely sensible that, as is the case in Northern Ireland, if there is to be an offence of inciting religious or racial hatred, the penalty for the offence under either of those elements should be the same and should be set at seven years. We must accept that legislation for the crime of religious hatred already exists. I shall write to noble Lords. A fair point was raised about how much the penalty is used. I understand that there were complaints from the judiciary two or three years ago.
As regards Clause 36, I have nothing to add to what was said, if anything was said, during the passage of the Bill. I do not recall this matter ever being raised. Therefore, I understood that to have the consent of the whole House.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he realise that one good reason for not having disproportionately long maximum sentences is that they seem unfair to the man or woman in the street? Therefore, juries may be reluctant to convict in such cases.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, for obvious reasons, because of the time I spent in the other place, I have never served on a jury. All I can say is that that is up to juries and the courts. The courts are given discretion. It is up to them to use it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who assures the House, as I had hoped, that these matters will be taken into account automatically by the parliamentary draftsman if the structure of the Bill remains as it is when it comes back to us from another place. For that, I am grateful. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it was not my purpose to question the seven years' maximum sentence. If I have a purpose I table it in an amendment. In a curious way, although it is excessive, I support the seven years' maximum penalty because it is a maximum. I cannot imagine it being imposed by any sane judge or magistrates unless there is a serious situation—at times there are—which warrants it, and it serves as an effective deterrent. That is why I have not questioned it.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, Lord Avebury and Lord Monson, for their contributions. I fully understand their reservations, which no doubt will be taken into account. I also thank my noble friend

1275
Lord Dixon-Smith for the trouble he has taken to make such a well informed contribution to this small debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Prohibition of disclosures in relation to nuclear security]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved]
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
"(2A) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that the public interest in disclosure of the information relating to the transportation of nuclear material outweighs the public interest in not prejudicing the security of that material."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 was not moved in an attempt to show the Minister that we are approaching this matter with, to use his favourite word, proportionality. In looking after the nuclear industry, it is important to recognise the threat posed by international terrorism, either by direct attack on nuclear installations or by attempts from terrorists to gain access to nuclear material.
The dilemma is that there is a continuing national debate about the role of nuclear power and its peaceful use in our energy mix. It seems to many that the Bill as drafted could restrict genuine debate about the nuclear industry. It could also restrict the public from having legitimate information about the nuclear industry. Amendment No. 8 attempts to get right the balance in terms of public interest. It also attempts to recognise that there may be times when the public interest in being aware of various developments outweighs the security powers given in the Bill. This is simply a public interest defence written into the Bill. In terms of joined-up government, the amendment also raises the question of how much the Bill restricts and prevents the public having access to information to which they will have a right when the Freedom of Information Act comes into force in January 2005.
On consideration, we felt that Amendment No. 7, which we have not moved, tilted the balance between security and the right to know in the wrong direction. However, we remain convinced that Amendment No. 8 is one which the Government could accept in the genuine public interest of having an informed debate about the future of the nuclear industry.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, this is a reasonable amendment. It is certainly in line with the atmosphere of freedom of information. These Benches support it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I declare an interest since I live within about 100 yards of a route regularly used by a train carrying nuclear matter. This is an exceptionally well-drafted amendment. Indeed, it is one of the best drafted amendments in the Bill. It raises a difficult test, but that is because it is the real test. It is the test of what we actually need to know before we disclose information about the transport of nuclear material.
1276
I share my noble friend's concern about access to nuclear material and his concern about the risk. But there is also the concern, sometimes misplaced—I have been assured by expert opinion that in my own case it was largely misplaced—about the safety of people living near a line where nuclear material is transported. But those matters should be balanced against each other. It is a necessity. If we do not try to balance them against each other, sooner or later, there will be a situation where public protests will force us to do so. So why not do it voluntarily before we have to?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, there have been two cases in the Russian Federation, one of which I mentioned the other day—that of Grigory Pasko—and the other one is that of Alexsandr Nikitin, in which this very issue has been brought before the courts. Chronologically, the first of the cases, Alexsandr Nikitin, a former captain in the Soviet Navy published a report through Bellona in Norway concerning nuclear materials which were stored in the Kola Peninsula in the North West of Russia.
Mr Nikitin showed from his researches that vast quantities of surplus reactors and redundant nuclear material were stored in the Kola Peninsula without proper safeguards as to the dissemination of radioactivity and radioactive material which might arise from the lack of care devoted to its retention. Mr Nikitin was charged with very serious offences in the Russian courts.
Now there is another case which has arisen in relation to the Soviet Pacific Fleet of a similar nature. Both Captain Nikitin and Mr Pasko pleaded in their defence that the public interest of disclosure was an important factor in releasing the information, although they denied that they had breached any security rules.
It is impossible to underestimate the importance of the first case—that of the Kola Peninsula—because if this material was released into the ocean or the atmosphere it could have immense consequences, not only for the whole of Europe but for the world as a whole. Most people thought that Captain Nikitin had performed an important and invaluable public service in making sure that this information got into the public domain.
I am horrified to think that a prosecution could now take place in the United Kingdom of someone who genuinely wanted to blow the whistle on some practice that was unsafe and was harmful, not just to the people of the United Kingdom but perhaps far wider than that. The Irish are an obvious example because they at present are in dispute with us over the release of radioactive material into the Irish Sea. People who genuinely believe that what they are doing in releasing information is for the benefit not just of Britain but of the whole of mankind could be prosecuted. I hope that the Minister accepts my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is a balanced and well drafted amendment. For what it is worth, I wholeheartedly support it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, stumped me again by not moving Amendment No. 7. Yesterday, these were Amendments Nos. 103A and 103B. I had a nice combined speaking note for both. I decided that because I had marked them up that I did not want to be given fresh copies because I would have to do all that work again. Therefore, I have yesterday's notes. I have gone through them. The clause numbers have changed as well. That does not help matters. But that is my responsibility. I shall not get sucked into dealing with Amendment No. 7 but will concentrate on Amendment No. 8. If I need to refer back to the other issues I shall.
This issue should not be a problem for noble Lords. The amendment is well drafted. I am not arguing about that. It simply says that,
"it is a defence for the accused to show that the public interest in disclosure of the information relating to the transportation of nuclear material outweighs the public interest in not prejudicing the security or that material".
It is essential to protect detailed information about routes and time schedules and the nature of the material being transported until the movement begins. Currently, it is an offence that applies only to companies. The reason that these clauses are worded in this way is to relate them to individuals. It is important that we ensure security. If there is disclosure of information in advance of the movements, I do not see how that can be in defence of the public interest. Therefore, it goes against the objectives of the clause.
I invite noble Lords to continue reading because Clause 80 provides that a prosecution can be instituted only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is able to weigh up the public interest in considering whether any prosecution should be brought.
I want to make another point. I refer to Clause 78 of the Bill. That states that an offence would be committed only if there is deliberate or reckless disclosure of information that prejudices security. Whether an offence has been committed will depend on the facts of the case. That is for the courts to assess.
I point out that there is a great deal of information on nuclear transport that has no security implications. This is not in any way intended to be an attack on monitoring by environmental groups on where nuclear matter is moved around the country. People standing and observing on bridges and railway lines can hardly be prejudicing security because they are collecting public information. The same applies to the disclosure of information already in the public domain. The dissemination of that information is very unlikely to fall within the offence here.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful. Does the Minister therefore agree that the offence in Clause 78(1) would have to be read narrowly to conform to the right of free expression under Article 10 of the European human rights convention read with Section 3 of the Human Rights Act? Therefore, if there is a compelling public interest in disclosure that would have to be taken into account by way of defence.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I assume that that would be the case. Clause 78(1) states that the disclosure is,

"(a) with the intention of prejudicing that security; or

(b) being reckless as to whether the disclosure might prejudice that security".

That is powerful language, in which a defence can be mounted, as I have explained.
We are talking about protecting advance information on the transport of nuclear materials and the details of the security measures which apply to specific shipments. That disclosure would be prejudicial to security. There is no question about that. So it is disclosure, not monitoring of that type of information, that is of concern. Sometimes nuclear material, even waste material, must be moved around the country. It cannot always be left where it is. There are different levels of waste and nuclear material. A correspondent often said to one of my right honourable friends as he defended the industry, "You should have it all in your backyard". Drigg, where all the hospital nuclear waste goes, is in the Copeland constituency of my right honourable friend. It is in his backyard.
The X-ray departments of hospitals in this country could not function if the disposal of low level waste could not be accommodated. That is not the central issue here.
As far as I know, over the past 30 years within the UK our transport arrangements have been in conformity with the International Atomic Energy Agency's standards. There have not been any incidents here involving serious injury or death or significant harm to the environment. The fact is that we are not after environmental monitoring. We are after advance notification of movements and shipments, where security could be put at risk.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister appreciates the force of my question. Perhaps I may I explain it and see whether he agrees with me. The prohibition on disclosure relates to nuclear security. It is therefore a restriction on free expression. Under the European convention it must be no more than is necessary in a democratic society—it must be proportionate. Does he agree that, in any event, Clause 78 must be read subject to the Human Rights Act 1998, so the principle of proportionality must apply to the offence?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that may be so. As noble Lords know, I cannot understand all this because I am not a lawyer, only a humble engineer who, once upon a time, made things that people find useful rather than destroying their reputations.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, at the risk of pulling the Minister's leg, is being an engineer better than a lawyer in his present situation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, we make things; lawyers destroy people's reputations. I am not winding noble Lords up. I have taken an agnostic view in the past, but the fact is that this country's engineering skills are incredibly good, and we lead internationally in many such fields. We take an active part in discussions to improve the level of nuclear safety in areas of the world where improvements are needed.
The clause does not prevent disclosure of other information relevant to the nuclear industry—whether relating to safety, health or other such matters where people may feel it important to whistle-blow. We are committed to being as open as possible on nuclear policy. Inherent, sometimes unnecessary secrecy has caused difficulties in the past. If we are open and mature, we can take people with us.
I hope that I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. By definition, the provision is subject to human rights requirements. Obviously, there must be a balance of recklessness. Someone must decide in the first place whether the action is sufficiently reckless to prejudice security. I reiterate that it will not cover environmental monitoring or whistle-blowing on health and safety matters. It is about giving advance notice of transport movements that leaves them open to attack.
I reiterate that prosecutions will occur only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. That is an important safeguard.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has been on this Bill for a long time, but he has just missed a great opportunity. The person who made the jibe about his being an engineer was the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in The Times. He is a journalist. There was a marvellous opportunity to unite the lawyers and the engineers in a joint condemnation of the journalists—a real missed opportunity.
Our motivation in moving the amendment was to ensure that the clause would not be used to stifle genuine debate on the future of the nuclear industry or to stop genuine monitoring of the kind of issues that the Minister referred to in his closing remarks. I hope that there will be enough in his clarification to reassure interested groups. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 80 [Part 8: supplementary]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 42, line 3, at end insert—

"(d) any person illegally resident in the United Kingdom. Or

"(e) any person resident in the United Kingdom and seeking United Kingdom citizenship."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises from a debate during the third day of debate in Committee, at col. 682, when the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, was answering our questions. My noble friend Lord Elton questioned the term "a United Kingdom person", asking who or what was such a person. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, subsequently wrote, as he had undertaken to do, to define who or what is a United Kingdom person and what is the Government's policy. As a result of that letter, I conclude that we need to consider a gap.
Clause 79 gives the Secretary of State power by regulation to create an offence of trading or giving away information abroad about either fissile material or nuclear information for UK persons. In other words, if any of us get hold of nuclear information and trade it abroad, we can properly be charged with an offence.
So the question of who is a United Kingdom person is relevant. The description is carefully provided by the Government in Clause 80. It states:
"'United Kingdom person' means a United Kingdom national. a Scottish partnership or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom … For this purpose a United Kingdom national is an individual who is … a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen"—
and so on
"a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 … is a British subject; or … a British protected person within the meaning of that Act".
Our little amendment goes slightly further. Within our country we have people who may hope to become United Kingdom citizens. The last thing that they would want to do is to acknowledge as their place of residence the country that they came from. We also know that we have a large number of illegal immigrants. I say that we know; we do not know, but everyone makes the pretty good guess that we have.
I mention that the Bill is an anti-terrorism Bill. That is in its title—until we have amended it, perhaps. We must consider possibilities. It is an unfortunate and frightening fact that the events of September 11th were described in a good book in fiction about a decade ago. There is the awful possibility that it was read by both the security services in the United States and by Osama bin Laden or his minions. The inspiration for that dreadful crime could well have come from what was supposedly an innocent work of fiction.
We must then consider the two groups of people in this country that I mentioned, who are either living illegally under cover as United Kingdom citizens or are seeking to become United Kingdom citizens. It is not inconceivable that they could go abroad to trade in nuclear information or in fissile material and then return here. They would then be in a privileged

1281
position, because even if we subsequently traced that criminal action, under British law, because they were not United Kingdom citizens, they could not be charged with the offence.
That is an unsatisfactory situation. While I am prepared to accept that the wording of the amendment may not be wholly satisfactory, I invite the Government to take on board that serious issue and see if they cannot find some way to resolve it before the Bill's proceedings are completed. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the amendment seeks to extend the category of people who can commit these offences. I want to make it clear that anyone who commits an offence within the UK under the provisions of this part will be caught by it whether or not he or she is a UK citizen. Therefore, the first paragraph of the amendment is not necessary. I realise that when one looks at the drafting that might not appear to be the case and I am seeking more advice—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am not concerned with anyone who commits the offences within the United Kingdom. That is not the difficulty. The problem is with the person who travels abroad and commits the offences, but on return to this country is not so chargeable.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; I have mislaid my copy of the amendment. Someone illegally resident in the UK will be caught by this part.
Clause 80 provides that the offences in Clauses 78 and 79 can be committed outside the UK but only when they are committed by "a United Kingdom person" as defined in the Bill. We fully admit that that is a limitation provision. It reflects the policy of exercising extra-territorial jurisdiction very sparingly indeed. We assert such jurisdiction only in respect of "UK nationals", or a similar definition, in justified cases; for example, where we are required to do so under international obligations or where the crime committed is considered to be particularly serious, as in this case.
Any further extension of jurisdiction to those other than UK nationals has been limited to the few areas where there is international consensus and where there are treaties on the matter; for example, international rules and conditions exist in respect of hijacking and piracy. We do not believe that the right conditions are in place for taking the approach proposed in respect of offences under Clauses 78 and 79. For the reasons I have given, we do not intend to seek a further extension of jurisdiction.
The situation is hypothetical and I take the noble Lord's point about the planning taking years. However, I humbly point out that I have made that point more than once from this Dispatch Box as the Bill has been going through the House. I have tried to persuade noble Lords not to make some of the technical adjustments to the Bill which they have then made.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I should say, "Touché", but we submit that we have not changed the
1282
substance of the Bill. We have sought to remove the extraneous matter from it and by and large that is what we have done.
The Minister does not surprise me with his answer. However, I am bound to say that he does disappoint me. It strikes me as somewhat paradoxical that a genuine UK resident could be at a disadvantage compared with someone who might be living here illegally. I agree that we are dealing entirely with hypothetical situations and we must all hope that they remain hypothetical. Perhaps none of us will know the answer to that.
I should have preferred to hear the Minister say that he could consider this little local difficulty. He has not chosen to do so but I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 [Codes and agreements about the retention of communications data]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 62, line 27, leave out subsections (3) to (5)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 10 and to speak to the other amendments grouped with it. I shall be brief because we debated the matter last Thursday when I promised to bring forward an amendment to introduce parliamentary approval of the voluntary data retention codes of practice. It will provide a further safeguard to ensure that data protection and human rights legislation is complied with. Together with the duty to consult the Information Commissioner and the industry, it will, I hope, ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between security and civil liberties.
The practical effect of the amendment is to split the process of drawing up the code of practice into two stages. First, there will be a consultation with the parties directly involved: the service providers, the law enforcement agencies and the Information Commissioner. That will lead to the publication of a draft code. The next stage is a period of public consultation when comments will be welcomed from any quarter, irrespective of whether people were consulted in the first place. Following that consultation, the code will be laid before Parliament for approval by the affirmative resolution procedure.
The same process will apply to any subsequent revisions, including any necessary transitional arrangements for moving from the initial code to later versions. For clarity of drafting, the first clause of this part of the Bill, covering the voluntary scheme, has been split into two. The proposed amendment sets out the principles of the voluntary provisions in one clause and the mechanism for setting it up in a second. I believe that that goes a considerable way to meeting the points which were raised during our debate a week ago and I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I support the amendments, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as frequently in the recent past,

1283
legislation is being enacted which will not work as noble Lords believe that it will if all that they read are the words in the Bill. That is because the words in Clause 102 and in the proposed code must be read in accordance with the Human Rights Act. I am beginning to feel a little guilty about continually mentioning the Human Rights Act—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Hear, hear!
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is being entirely consistent in his opposition to anything which smacks of Europe, even when it concerns the fundamental rights and freedoms of British citizens and others in this country. I want to make the point because it is important. I remember making it in connection with the data protection legislation and a series of other measures.
I shall begin at the beginning. On 4th December (at col. 791 of the Official Report) the Minister properly made it clear that the code of practice and the agreement would not be drafted in a way that was incompatible with data protection or human rights legislation. Quite properly, he repeated that statement today.
Let us look at Clause 102, in the context of which the code and the proposed code are to be made. Clause 102(6) states:
"A code of practice or agreement … may contain any such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary … for the purpose of safeguarding national security; or … for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime",
and so forth. Clause 102(8) states that a code of practice and so forth,
"would be likely to prejudice national security",
and so forth. Clause 103(1) gives the power to the Minister to give directions about the retention of communications data consequential on what is in the codes and so forth.
The problem is that none of that language is the same as Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the exception clause to the fundamental right to respect for personal privacy; nor is it the same as what appears in the data protection principles. The difference is that it does not use the test of necessity/proportionality—which is the key test, the fair balance test—to decide whether keeping communication data in the way that is empowered under this part of the Bill is necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, it will be left to judges, administrators and Ministers, under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, to give effect to Clauses 102 and 103 and to the draft code so far as possible in a way compatible with the right to personal privacy and the test of necessity. Similarly, Ministers and any other public authority will be required under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to act in a way compatible with Article 8 of the convention—the right to personal privacy.
1284
In the end, if there is a dispute about any of this by anyone who is made subject to requirements—the communication providers, for example—the judges will have to take this language, both in the draft code which becomes the code and in Sections 102 and 103, and read them in a way which is compatible with the right to personal privacy.
I very much regret that governments keep on, in spite of the Human Rights Act, using wide language as in, for example, Clauses 102 and 103. I am sure that they will do the same in the code, in a way that will lead to incompatibility with the European human rights convention and with data protection principles. It would be much better if the test that was used in legislation was the test of necessity/proportionality without this much looser language.
Although I agree with the amendment, which is designed to enhance consultation and accords with undertakings already given, I am sorry to have to say that, unless the code itself is drafted in a way which is compatible with data protection principles and the Human Rights Act, judges will have to fit it all together in due course. Lawyers will have to be paid almost as much as engineers might receive in similar circumstances, and the lawyers will have to come to the rescue of the engineers of this Bill because the engineers will have failed in their design project and its execution. I have great respect for engineers—as much respect as I know the noble Lord has for lawyers.
6.00 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, in spite of what I said earlier I have great respect for engineers, as the son of an architect, and also for lawyers. However, I am neither a lawyer nor an engineer but a simple soul.
I ask a genuine question, which is whether the deletion of Sections 3 to 5 amounts to going back on concessions made earlier.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for honouring the commitment he gave the House at Report stage. It will come as no surprise, I am sure, that we on these Benches support the amendments.
Of course I bow to the superior expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but it may be that subjecting the code of practice on data retention to affirmative resolution will offer a form of safeguard that it will operate within existing human rights and data protection legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for having so readily taken on board the anxiety of many on this point in Committee.
In this context it is worth repeating that the amendments address specific concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I take this opportunity to seek clarification of one or two points.

1285
First, the tail end of subsection (1) of the new clause states:
"the Secretary of State may incorporate in the code finally issued any modifications made by him to the draft after its publication."
In effect, there is a distinction to be drawn between the draft code and its final version, as possibly modified by the Secretary of State. My difficulty here is that with this provision it is possible that the draft code would become toothless. As I read it, the Secretary of State could modify a published code at will and without consultation. I hope the Minister can offer me some comfort on that point.
It may be carping, but I also note that in the case of a revised code the Secretary of State's requirement to consult is watered down to exclude any CSPs who would be unaffected. I can understand the motivation behind this, particularly from the perspectives of flexibility and speed, but the initial code implies consultation with all CSPs whether or not they would be affected. Why this discrepancy?
I move to a more general point which I should perhaps have emphasised more forcefully before now. What is the Government's best estimate of the gestation period of the code of practice? I may have this wrong but my understanding is that the Information Commissioner has been working for over a year now on the code of practice arising out of the Lawful Business Practice Regulations that deal with e-mail monitoring in the workplace. Is it to be expected that the data retention code will experience a similar timescale in terms of preparation?
I am bound to make the point that if this is indeed the case the sense of urgency that the Minister insists should be attached to Part II is somewhat undermined. I look forward to the Minister's replies on these points. In the mean time, we on these Benches welcome these amendments.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. for this, but I do not recognise words that he quoted, either from the Bill as reprinted overnight or, indeed, Amendment No. 4. I will take advice on that, but he used words that I cannot locate. I accept that he understands that we have gone a considerable distance.
The right reverend Prelate asks me right at the end of our proceedings whether there is anything hidden in this government concession. That is a word I have tried to avoid throughout the past eight days because it is used in a pejorative way and suggests that I am covering something up and trying to slip something through. The answer is no, we are not. This is wholly positive. The Home Secretary has willingly embraced the discussions in this House by noble Lords, lawyers and all, and we have listened. In this case what we have done is to re-write Clause 102. We have taken a chunk out of Clause 102(3), (4) and (5), and we have set up a different procedure. That is why we have entitled it "Procedures for the code of practice". Where those are revised and re-issued they will go through the same process.
1286
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that towards the end of his short speech he used words to suggest that if the code were written to conform to data protection principles and human rights legislation then judges would have some precision. That is exactly what we propose to do. I take his point about the annoyance that government Bills do not reflect the language of the human rights legislation, but we have said that we will draw up the code of practice so that it conforms to data protection principles and human rights legislation. If we did not do that, under a voluntary arrangement someone would be for the high jump because there would be complaints, I am absolutely certain.
I repeat that we want to work voluntarily with industry and the Information Commissioner and everybody involved. We do not want to breach privacy. We are not looking to intrude on people's conversations; we do not want records kept of what they say on the telephone. That is not what we are about. We are not asking data providers to collect new information beyond that which they already collect, so there is no new burden. What we are asking them to do is to save it for longer. The code of practice will deal with that and make it accessible.
If there are points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which I have misunderstood I will happily drop him a note, but I am the good guy here on this amendment, and that is the way I should like to leave it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, not only is the Minister the good guy on this amendment, but he has just demonstrated that in all respects he is also a first-class engineer. My understanding of what he has just said means that he is giving effect to the recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights; that is, that as far as is practicable, on its face the code will give effect to the standards set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to the data protection principles. That is good news because it will cut down litigation and overloading of the courts. It will also ensure that Parliament does its job properly when it considers the measure using the affirmative procedure. We shall be able to bless it. The Minister's remarks have clinched it.
We all believe that Ministers will do what they say, but the fact that the affirmative resolution procedure is in place at the end of the process will—to use the words of Archbishop William Temple, spoken in another context—"just clinch it".
Lord McNally: My Lords, while the Minister takes a moment to bask in the approval of my noble friend Lord Lester, could I ask him to clarify a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, concerning the period of consultation? The period of consultation for a number of codes of conduct has been extremely long. A conflict could arise between the sense of urgency attached to the legislation before noble Lords and the need to consult. Will any guillotine procedures be introduced to the consultation process?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, first I should apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for addressing him incorrectly. This point was raised in Committee and I remember saying that the Home Office has, in a sense, moved up a gear. We do not want lengthy delays on this. It is expected—the process will be really rapid—that it will take around six months to consult and agree the code.
It is always best to drive matters forward from the Dispatch Box. Over the past four years I have discovered that people take account of statements made from this position. I would expect to be able to bring before the House the code for consideration under the affirmative procedure before the Summer Recess next year. I should add that we do not plan for the Recess to take place during the first six months of 2002, but I am seeking to add a little finesse to the phrase "about six months". When I see a term such as "about six months", that period could stretch to seven or eight months. I shall stand at this Dispatch Box and move that the code be taken through the affirmative resolution procedure for approval before the Summer Recess. For my part and acknowledging my responsibilities in this matter, I shall try to drive the issue forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 13:
Page 63, line 2, after "section" insert "which is for the time being in force"
Page 63, line 4, after "section" insert "which is for the time being in force"
Insert the following new Clause—
"PROCEDURE FOR CODES OF PRACTICE

(1) Before issuing the code of practice under section 102 the Secretary of State shall—

(a) prepare and publish a draft of the code; and

(b) consider any representations made to him about the draft; and the Secretary of State may incorporate in the code finally issued any modifications made by him to the draft after its publication.

(2) Before publishing a draft of the code the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) the Information Commissioner; and

(b) the communications providers to whom the code will apply.

(3) The Secretary of State may discharge his duty under subsection (2) to consult with any communications providers by consulting with a person who appears to him to represent those providers.

(4) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft code of practice under section 102 that is prepared and published by him under this section.

(5) The code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 102 shall not be brought into force except in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.

(6) An order under subsection (5) may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the coming into force of the code to which the order relates.

1288

(7) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.

(8) The Secretary of State may from time to time—

(a) revise the whole or any part of the code issued under section 102; and

(b) issue the revised code.

(9) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply (with appropriate modifications) in relation to the issue of any revised code under section 102 as they apply in relation to the first issuing of the code.

(10) Subsection (9) shall not, in the case of a draft of a revised code, require the Secretary of State to consult under subsection (2) with any communications providers who would not be affected by the proposed revisions."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110 [Implementation of the third pillar]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 66, line 25, leave out "31" and insert "K/"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. These are genuine drafting amendments. We are not trying to change the Bill. I can assure the House that we are not trying to pull a fast one. The amendments are purely technical to ensure that the references to the 1995 and 1996 Conventions on Extradition are legally correct.
The conventions were established under Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union. Clause 110(2) should refer to that article rather than to one of the renumbered articles in Title VI of the treaty, which replaced the K-numbered articles. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the House agrees the amendments, I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister about the scope of what are now Clauses 110 and 111 of the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, they will import into legislation what is now Article 31, or what was Article K.3 before the Amsterdam treaty, together with the 1995 and 1996 Conventions on Extradition.
The first question arises because Article 31 is to be amended by the Treaty of Nice—assuming that that treaty is ratified—to give greater substance to Eurojust, to the European judicial network, and to Europol. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government see what I think we would all agree is the pan-European police force developing? In particular, do the Government envisage that members of Europol will be able to arrest people in this country without a British policeman in attendance?
Secondly, and perhaps far more important, is there any truth in the suggestion that the officers of Europol will have immunity from negligence? If that is so, why?
Finally, I shall put a more generic question concerning the clauses as amended by the Government. It is clear that we are witnessing a three-pronged attack on some of our most fundamental civil liberties, all inspired far more by Brussels' quest for power than by any reasonable attempt to control terrorism. The first prong consists of these clauses in the Bill, which noble Lords have now substantially

1289
improved. The second prong comprises the proposed European arrest warrant, which we debated most recently in the course of Starred Questions earlier today, and the outcome of which we must await with trepidation.
My question concerns the third prong of this very worrying assault; that is, the Treaty of Nice itself. In his amendments, I believe that the noble Lord has assumed that the treaty will be ratified. Do the Government agree that the measures originally proposed in these clauses, along with any that may emerge in the arrest warrant, could be brought into force under the existing treaties, but especially if the Treaty of Nice is ratified? In other words, if the Nice Treaty is ratified, or even if it is not, surely all these matters could be dealt with without any need for the Bill or for the arrest warrant? Perhaps they would have taken longer, but I think that it is important to know where we stand in the development of the competencies of the European Union. I should be most grateful for the Minister's response.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is kind of the noble Lord to give me an opportunity to revisit the third pillar. However, I shall decline the invitation. I have just moved two amendments, exactly the same as each other, which seek to change references to "31" from "K/" mentioned in two separate lines in a clause over which a major debate was held yesterday in this House. I would remind the noble Lord of that. The Government made a major modification to the Bill by time limiting to 1st July 2002 implementation of the third pillar.
I have been assured by my noble friend to my left that Europol is a good thing. The Nice Treaty has not been ratified and therefore the noble Lord's question is hypothetical. We shall have to wait until ratification has taken place. I do not know anything about immunity from negligence, except to say that such immunity would not strike me as a good thing in any walk of life. I should add that that comment should not be construed as a change in government policy. As regards the issue of UK citizens living in this country being arrested without the need for the presence of UK policemen, I find it extremely difficult to believe that such a move could be contemplated.
I almost regret to have to say to the noble Lord that there will be bags of opportunities to debate these issues when we deal with the legislation which has already been forecast for next year. I want to take the comments of the noble Lord seriously because I realise that these are important issues. I am told continually that matters are dealt with differently in this House; we are more measured and precise. We have achieved a far better scrutiny of the Bill than would normally be the case on the Floor of the other House, even when it has more time to deal with business. However, I have to say to the noble Lord that when dealing with an amendment that seeks to change a reference to "31" from "K/", I am limited in what I am prepared to respond to in the debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I accept that we shall not cover all the points that 11 have put to the noble Lord, but he has been warned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 66, line 28, leave out "31" and insert "K/"
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I believe that this amendment is to be moved formally and that the right reverend Prelate will not accuse the Minister of any mischief.
The Lord Bishop of PortsmouthMy Lords, the Minister is true to his word and this amendment has the total and 100 per cent support of the right reverend Prelates concerned about the implementation of the third pillar.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127 [Short Title]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 16:
16 Page 75, line 23, leave out "Anti-"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to debate particle physics but I cannot help but wonder whether we are not entering the realm of Bills and anti-Bills. Only a year ago, we passed a Terrorism Bill and now we are passing an Anti-terrorism Bill. The four-letter word at the beginning of the Bill's Title is a little out of place and for the sake of consistency—and all those who may refer to these matters in future—it would be better if the measure were named the Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Lord Elton: My Lords, presumably this is an anti-crime Bill as well. If it is not necessary to state "anti-crime", why is it necessary to state "Anti-terrorism"?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I have discovered at three departments in the past four years, there are lots of rules on the titles that one can and cannot give to a Bill. I first became aware of that long before I entered the other place, in respect of the Fair Rent Bill of the now noble Lord, Lord Walker. We thought that was a very political title and there was much debate about it.
We need to differentiate this measure from the Terrorism Act 2000. I am not aware of anyone referring in the press or on the wireless to anything other than the Anti-terrorism Bill—its Short Title. We should keep it as that. That title might annoy people when they look for the measure in an alphabetical index but it is important to avoid confusion with the 2000 Act. At this late stage, we cannot justify such a substantial change to the legislation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister's response does not surprise me. I take the opportunity to thank him and his colleagues in respect of a period of arduous and solid work on the Floor of the House. We have not always agreed, inevitably, but I hope that relationships have remained amicable. I am grateful to

1291
the Government for the generosity of their approach, in letting us see the Bill before it was published. They have been generous with their time subsequently.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in eight days of very hard work and also the Government Chief Whip, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats and my own Chief Whip. They have between them worked hard to keep the show on the road for eight days. It is not usual to acknowledge them but the usual channels seem to have worked very well in respect of this Bill. I want to thank some real trojans, who have had a difficult time—the staff in the Public Bill Office. They are not usually thanked—and nor are the staff in the Whips' Office, who have the daily grind of trying to make sense of our demands for groupings. I am happy to place those thanks on record.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, although I would have been pleased to associate myself with all his remarks, I will save my plaudits until and if the Bill do now pass. I suspect that we have a little more time yet before we find whether it do pass.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Financial Statement and Budget Report
6.24 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That this House takes note of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2001 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, each year the Government are required to send information to the European Commission setting out our main economic policy measures. The procedure is described in Articles 99 and 104 of the EC Treaty, which relate to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure.
The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2001. That report will form the basis of the information that we send to the European Commission setting out our main economic policy measures. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, usually known as the Maastricht Act, requires Parliament to approve the government report sent to the Commission for that purpose.
The function of the reports is to help ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty. Those goals are non-inflationary economic growth respecting the environment; a high level of employment and social
1292
protection; and raising the standard of living and quality of life. They are consistent with the Government's own approach to economic policy.
The key elements of the Government's economic strategy, as set out in the PBR, are to maintain macroeconomic stability to provide a platform for long-term sustainable growth and employment; meet the productivity challenge through promoting competition, enterprise and innovation, skills, investment and public sector productivity; increase employment opportunity for all, to ensure fairness for families and communities; deliver high-quality public services; and ensure a better quality of life for everyone—now and for generations to come—by protecting the environment.
The Pre-Budget Report describes the Government's strategy to rise to the global economic challenge facing our country and to set out how—on a foundation of stability and growth—we can and will build a stronger, fairer Britain even in an uncertain world. For the first time in three decades, each region of the world has slowed at the same time and more sharply than before. In addition, no one can yet judge the full and final impact of the traumatic and tragic events of September 11th.
In the period ahead, there are of course real risks for both Britain and the world. Because of the decisive action taken on monetary and fiscal policy, we remain cautiously optimistic about the prospects for the British economy. Interest rates have been cut seven times in nine months. Britain's interest rates are now the lowest for nearly 40 years. With public spending and public investment rising this year, our fiscal policy is complementing and reinforcing monetary policy and thus stability and growth.
The Government's first economic priority on coming to office in 1997 was to deliver stability for the long term, recognising that economic stability is a precondition for achieving our objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. We introduced the new macroeconomic policy framework, which is promoting economic stability by delivering low inflation and sound public finances. We are already seeing the rewards of the new structure.
Throughout 2001, the British economy has continued to grow. Over the past two years, Britain has had the lowest annual inflation since 1963. Our average inflation has been lower than that of any other comparable country in Europe. Employment has risen by more than 1.2 million since 1997 and unemployment has been at its lowest levels since the 1970s. The new fiscal framework has brought public finances to a healthy and sustainable position. The Government inherited public finances that were in poor shape, yet since 1997 they have been transformed. Since coming to power, we have repaid £51 billion of the national debt. This year, debt has been brought down to 31 per cent of British national income. Britain's debt is now the lowest share of national income in the G7 and the lowest of all our major European partners.

1293
We also set tough long-term fiscal rules that demand fiscal discipline by a tighter approach in the best of times and which allow automatic stabilisers to work fully at a time such as this—in both cases, fiscal policy supporting monetary policy. Because of our prudence, debt is lower and debt interest payments are lower. Even in these testing times it has been possible to maintain our three-year spending plans for hospitals, schools and public services and to respond to emergencies that have arisen, all the while still meeting the fiscal rules that we have set over the economic cycle, even on cautious assumptions.
This platform of stability provides the basis for raising productivity. Meeting the productivity challenge offers the prospect of higher growth and increased employment opportunities, with low inflation and low interest rates, and is a key route to raising living standards in society as a whole.
The Government are working to deliver employment opportunity for all—the modern definition of full employment—and to build a fairer and more inclusive society by tackling child poverty, helping pensioners, rewarding saving, investing in public services and ensuring a fair tax system.
The Government are building a stronger economic future for Britain. We are meeting our objectives of high and stable levels of growth and employment, and a fairer society for all. These are the right economic policies for Britain. They are also in line with the objectives of the European Union.
Approving the Motion will enable the United Kingdom to meet our treaty obligations, to provide information and to participate fully in the important process of multilateral surveillance and economic co-operation, as provided for in Articles 99 and 104 of the treaty. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2001 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
6.31 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we have heard a glowing account of the economy from the noble Lord. He will be relieved to know that I certainly do not intend to call a Division on the Motion, but there is another view about the state of the economy.
The Pre-Budget Report has some extra words in its title. It states:
"Building a stronger, fairer Britain in an uncertain world".
Some might say that that is an almost impossible task, a contradiction in terms, because Britain cannot be isolated economically from that uncertain world which began to surround us before 11th September. Noble Lords will agree that the events of 11th September have exacerbated the situation.
The precarious state of the major world economies and their failing growth are well known to us, and it is hard to believe that Britain will not be similarly affected. But, as the noble Lord said, the Chancellor is
1294
cautiously optimistic. He is forecasting growth at 2¼ per cent this year, 2 to 2½ per cent next year and 2¾ to 3¼ per cent in 2003. He was careful to add that this progress will be "as global growth recovers".
However, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the pace of global recovery. In spite of the successive falls in American interest rates—if they are reduced again today it will be the eleventh reduction—there are no signs of recovery in the United States as yet. It may be that the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than cautious optimists believe. Lower interest rates may indeed have lost their traction, as one American put it. Japan's decade of troubles—low growth despite minimal interest rates—should be a lesson to us all.
These are certainly not the circumstances in which to talk about increasing taxes, which will be inevitable if the Government's revenue declines—as it has done—as a result of disappointing growth and falling company profits. Yet the Pre-Budget Report is quite specific about the Government's increased expenditure plans, amounting to £50 billion more in 2003–04 compared with the current year. There are to be real terms increases of 5.6 per cent each year on education, 5.7 per cent on health and 14 per cent on transport.
I am not questioning whether such increases are necessary or desirable, but I do ask how they can be afforded. How are these increases in spending to be met? Such growth in spending, if it is to be sustained, must be accompanied by substantial) growth in the economy, for which we all wish, but I am far from certain that that will be the case. The Government are overly optimistic. Of course the Government can take a bigger slice of GDP—as Labour governments have done in the past—but that is a very dangerous path to follow because the slice taken tends to get bigger every year. It will, of course, weaken the private sector at a time when it needs all the effort and resources it can muster to recover from this global recession.
I find it very difficult indeed to judge the effect of the different possible economic scenarios on convergence. I can only sympathise with the Government, who cannot find it easy either. What worries me—this is my final point—is that the Government seem to be blinkered and can take only this cautiously optimistic view when they should remember that other, more difficult, scenarios may lie ahead.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak in a debate on the economy opened by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because he always sets out the Government's stall with such obvious enthusiasm, even though the statement he has made is a précis of the speech he made a fortnight ago.
I, too, echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in respect of the forecast. The forecast of 2 to 2½ per cent growth next year is, by virtually all estimates, on the high side. Over the past month, after talking to people in the real world, whether in the service or manufacturing sectors, I

1295
cannot find many who seem to think that over the next 12 months—or the 12 months starting from next April, because that is the year we are talking about—we will see such a rosy picture.
We have to remember that the Government are pinning their hopes in large measure for the financial year 2002 and subsequent financial years on the increase in public expenditure. If, as I suspect, growth in the private sector is significantly diminished, at least in the Pre-Budget Report the Government are expecting and planning for substantial increases in health, education and transport. Again, I have severe doubts as to whether these plans and projections will prove to be the reality.
In the previous financial year, the Government underspent on relatively modest projections of growth by about £700 million, which, fortunately for poor mathematicians like myself, for last year at least worked out at about 0.7 per cent of GDP. For the next financial year, 2002–03, education and health expenditure are expected and planned to grow by about 5½ per cent in real terms, and transport expenditure is set to grow by between 14 and 15 per cent in real terms. It is on these figures that the Government's expectation of growth in the economy overall is, in part, based. Having failed to meet their expenditure targets by underspending in the previous financial year, the Government will find it extremely difficult to meet their expenditure targets in the coming years, given that those targets are much more optimistic.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I welcome the fact that there are very significant increases in expenditure and believe that they can be paid for. I am completely unconvinced that the Government have the ability to spend the money. When one looks at the current chaotic situation in Railtrack where there is now an impossibility of making a decision, far less in committing the hundreds of millions of pounds that are needed and expected for the forthcoming financial years, I have very severe doubts whether that target will be met.
As regards health and education, the key questions are whether there will be enough doctors and nurses prepared to work in terms of salary and other working conditions relating to both professions. Evidence to date suggests that the Government will have their work cut out to meet their own targets.
Therefore, I have very significant questions about whether the projections for 2002 and subsequent years will be met. But as our purpose this evening is simply to note them, we do so from these Benches.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for accommodating this debate this evening. I am aware that he has another engagement so I shall try to keep him no longer than necessary to provide your Lordships with what my noble friend Lord Roberts legitimately called "another view". I am sure that the Minister will not mind me reminding him that
1296
this amendment to the Maastricht treaty was the inspiration of his noble friend Lord Robertson, who was then Shadow Foreign Secretary.
In accepting this Motion on behalf of the Opposition, I make it clear to the House that we are not approving the contents of the assessment. I shall be grateful to the Minister if he would confirm, perhaps in his remarks at the end, that the wording used in the Motion does not imply approval of the content, it merely implies approval of the selection of documents which will be used for the purposes of Section 5.
A great event took place in Downing Street last week. The Chancellor held a book launch. I was one of the low obliged to press my face to the windowpane for want of an invitation. It was a party to celebrate the first book ever produced by the Treasury, complete with a foreword by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.
One former Monetary Policy Committee member said, I thought rather cruelly, "It won't fill many stockings this Christmas". But I am not so sure. This is a very useful and important book for all students of British economics and politics.
It describes the structure of monetary and fiscal rules and practice—what the Minister called "the fiscal framework"—which has been developed by this Government since 1997 and which led to the documents which are before your Lordships' House this evening.
The book says that the pre-1997 Treasury was a failure. That is its stark conclusion. It says that because,
"monetary and fiscal policy for a long time failed to make an adequate contribution to higher and stable levels of growth and employment. Indeed monetary and fiscal policy were sometimes a source of instability".
The book makes it clear that in the opinion of the radical reformers of the current Treasury team a happy resolution of the age-old problems of the British economy did not occur until the present Government arrived on the scene in 1997. I believe that the Minister said as much in his statement.
In this book the Chancellor fairly takes credit for his great innovation in monetary policy granting operational independence to the Bank of England. But he then proceeds from that premise to the conclusion that the entire monetary and fiscal framework that he has created is a modern miracle, banishing recession in the way that we banished whooping cough.
For example, a key point he makes in the book is that although inflation came down to current rates well before 1997, it was only after the introduction of the MPC that inflationary expectations fell into line with the actual inflation rate. In that context the Treasury team is especially proud of the symmetry of the inflation target. I quote them:
"If the target was two per cent or less"
they say,
"policy makers could have an incentive to drive inflation as low as possible … even if this had detrimental consequences for output and employment".

1297
I hope that these extracts give your Lordships a flavour of the mood at the Chancellor's party. It was described by one guest as "Panglossian" and by another as "self-congratulatory". They really thought that they had found the best in this best of all possible worlds. For a moment those of us looking on these champagne revellers from the outside thought we saw a Harry Potter world where our Prime Minister and Chancellor only have to wish for something for it to come true.
That dream world is reflected in these documents. I give one example. In them one finds great emphasis laid on the need to improve Britain's public services, which is described as the "end benefit" of the prudence and skill of the framework which has been devised by this team. That is a painfully familiar refrain to your Lordships. The Government's intention is to achieve that aim by increasing public expenditure, something which my noble friend Lord Roberts thought might be unlikely because of world events. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, thought that even if it could be achieved it would only result in the Government's failure to spend properly the money they raised.
But here for the record was the Government's dream and we can consider where it stands now. Before the 1997 election the Prime Minister told us that that there were 24 hours to save the NHS. In 1998 he told us,
"We are delivering on our promises".
In 1999 the Chancellor told us that that year would be,
"New Labour's year of delivery".
The Chancellor's advisers claimed that the year 2000 would be,
"When things really started to happen".
What is the reality? In the NHS,
"Things are in such a mess, much worse than I would have imagined possible".
So said this week the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Sir Peter Morris. As regards transport,
"A complete and utter mess … we are in a much worse and potentially more dangerous situation".
That observation on the railways was from the chairman of the Rail Passengers' Council, Stewart Francis. He described a situation in which delays were up 45 per cent and morale of those who work in the railways had collapsed because their savings and pensions had been "stolen" by the Government as a result of the liquidation of Railtrack.
But there is one ultimate contrast between the Government's dream in this book, the documents and the reality. The Minister spoke tonight of sound public finances. I believe that he shared in the self-congratulatory mood about the Government's prudence. In fact, I am sure that the Minister will agree in a moment or two that this Government are presiding over a 100 per cent turnaround in the public finances of the country.
According to the Pre-Budget Report and the Minister's statement this evening, the Government are proud of the repayment of £51 billion of debt in the past four years. What he did not mention in the statement is that that repayment is going to be
1298
followed in the next four years by borrowing of £55 billion. It is not very prudent, is it, to repay £51 billion one day and borrow £55 billion the next?
That is not to down play in any way the work of those who have toiled long and hard to compile these documents. On the contrary, they are to he congratulated on their diligence and professionalism. Our complaint is addressed to Ministers for failing to see the enormous need for much greater openness and clarity of presentation.
These documents clearly show how the Government have fallen in love with their own publicity. For example, they attempted to reduce public spending levels by £5 billion a year in these documents by treating the working families tax credit as part of the income tax system and not social security expenditure. The system which the working families tax credit replaced, family credit, was classified as DSS expenditure.
But the reader only discovers that on the last page of the notes to the accounts in the Budget documents—the hiding place of creative accountants through the ages. The change in treatment of this one item alone accounts for a miraculous reduction in the tax burden of one half per cent in both 2001 and 2002. I hope that the Minister will shortly tell us by how much the tax credit Bill, which we shall soon have in your Lordships' House, will increase the amount of wrongly allocated sums in the public accounts.
I believe that this is the problem. The book launch, and the party attending it, reveal a group of people in government who have made the elementary but wry human error of believing their own publicity. These documents, the book and the party, all reveal a Government determinedly out of touch with rail passengers, patients and all those who look to their government for the provision of first-class pubic services. Did not the editor of the Financial Times sum up the public mood at the moment when he wrote:
"The enthusiasm of 1997 has congealed into sullen acquiescence. The vast reservoir of trust has been all but drained"?
6.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by responding to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about the wording of the Motion before the House. He is quite right in saying that on this occasion the Motion is:
"That this House takes note of the Government's assessment".
There have been occasions in the past couple of years when the Motion has said,
"takes note with approval of the Government's assessment".
I have never understood why it is sometimes "with approval" and sometimes without, but I can assure the House that it is not because sometimes we do not approve of our own assessment, but rather because there is some arcane working in the bureaucracy which leads to these changes. They have no significance.

1299
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, described the title of the Pre-Budget Report as a contradiction in terms:
"Building a stronger, fairer Britain in an uncertain world".
The noble Lord is right to say that no country can insulate itself from the impact of world economic developments. No one doubts that. I spent some time in my short opening speech referring to the fact that countries in all regions of the world are experiencing a downturn at the same time—which fortunately does not happen very often.
However, I also spent some time emphasising that we in this country are better placed than we have been on previous occasions to cope with this instability and, as a result, our forecasts—whose assumptions have been audited as always by the National Audit Office—do indicate that we are able to cushion the impact on the United Kingdom this year and have a good prospect of doing so in future years. Despite the weaker external environment the United Kingdom economy is forecast to grow by 2¼ per cent. We are no longer saying that it will grow in the range of 2 to 2½ per cent quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—largely because, given that we know the figures for the first three-quarters of the year, there was not very much scope for variation in the last quarter of the year. But we are, of course, giving a range for 2002 of 2 to 2½ per cent.
The noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Newby, are dubious about our ability in fiscal policy in the public finances. Over the past four and a half years our forecasts have never been over-optimistic. Indeed, if they have erred at all—unlike the forecasts of previous Chancellors—they have erred on the cautious side. We are on track to meet the tough fiscal rules that we set ourselves for the cycle, including in the cautious case.
The current budget remains in surplus every year, even using cautious assumptions, ensuring that the Government meet the golden rule. Public sector net debt is stable at 31 per cent of GDP—comfortably meeting the sustainable investment rule. That is my response to what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said about the contrast between debt repayment in the past four years and the forecast of borrowing.
The noble Lord was present for our brief debate on the Pre-Budget Report a couple of weeks ago. He will have heard his noble friend Lord Marlesford saying, "Borrow, borrow, borrow". Indeed, there are economists who say that this is the time in the economic cycle when it is right to borrow. We may be Keynsians but we do not borrow simply for the sake of borrowing. What we do is to ensure that we protect public spending programmes and that those public spending programmes—in particular in health,
1300
education and transport, but also in many other areas—are not only good in themselves, in that they produce good results for the British people, but they are the right thing to do in counter-cyclical policy at this time. Those who argue for an immediate increase in taxes—although I do not hear the Liberal Democrats making that point loudly at the moment—might take some pause at the effect that that would have in terms of macro-economic policy.
There have been queries in this small debate about public spending and about our long-term goal to deliver world-class public services. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, made the point about the inadequacy of our public services in comparison with those in other countries. Let us take the National Health Service. It is true that we have been severely criticised by the president of the Royal College of Surgeons. As I read his criticism, it sounds as if he does not deny that substantial extra resources have been put into the National Health Service, but the drying out of investment and expenditure on public health over a period—I shall not make a political point about it and say over 18 years, but probably over 20 or 30 years—has been such that all of the extra money that has gone into the National Health Service has been soaked up to deal with under-investment in the past. It is rather like the way in which you water a plant. If it has been left dry for many, many years, it is some time before you start to see an acceptable level of nourishment for the plant to prosper. I am afraid that that is the condition not only of our National Health Service but most evidently of our transport services and many other public services.
I recognise the difficulty. I even, with wry amusement, recognise the contradiction in terms suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. But we are in a strong position to say that in an uncertain world, as we describe it, we are well placed, because of the policies that we have adopted in the past few years, to survive and to prosper.
Perhaps I may say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about the Treasury book. I was not invited to the launch party either. I have complained about that. I missed all the champagne, just as he did. I did not even know about it until after it had happened; and I received my copy of the book only this afternoon.
If the noble Lord is right in saying that the book is complacent:
"If it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it".
However, I hope that the message that I have sought to give has not been complacent but has been realistic. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

  British Council Exhibitions: Indemnity Undertakings
  British Council Exhibitions: Indemnity Undertakings
  Immigration Statistics
  Immigration Statistics
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Ministerial Briefings: Acoustics
  Ministerial Briefings: Acoustics
  Turkey: Copenhagen Criteria
  Turkey: Copenhagen Criteria
  EU/Israel Association Agreement
  EU/Israel Association Agreement
  European Union Law-making
  European Union Law-making
  European Union Treaties
  European Union Treaties
  Renewables Obligation Order
  Renewables Obligation Order
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Northumberland: Foot and Mouth Status.
  Northumberland: Foot and Mouth Status.
  Hound Trailing
  Hound Trailing
  Defra: Strike Action
  Defra: Strike Action
  Defra: Staffing
  Defra: Staffing
  Rent Restructuring: Local Authorities
  Rent Restructuring: Local Authorities
  Safeway: Plough Lane Application
  Safeway: Plough Lane Application
  English Speakers of Other Languages Teachers
  English Speakers of Other Languages Teachers
  EU Applicant Countries: Jean Monnet Programme
  EU Applicant Countries: Jean Monnet Programme
  Individual Learning Accounts: Animal Rights Organisations
  Individual Learning Accounts: Animal Rights Organisations
  Schools: Food Skills Teaching
  Schools: Food Skills Teaching
  Early Literacy Support
  Early Literacy Support
  Leisure Pursuits
  Leisure Pursuits
  Public Entertainment Licences
  Public Entertainment Licences
  Diabetes National Service Framework
  Diabetes National Service Framework
  Autism
  Autism
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Electronic Conveyancing
  Electronic Conveyancing
  Crown Leaseholders
  Crown Leaseholders
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Written Question HL753
  Written Question HL753