Sitting of 19 December 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  INTERIM REPORT ON THE ENGLISH NATIONAL STADIUM
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Interim Report made by Mr. Patrick Carter in December 2001 in respect of the English National Stadium Review.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Pre-Budget Statement
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If she will make a statement on the implications for her Department's spending plans of the pre-Budget statement. [21882]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The pre-Budget statement committed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase significantly the amount of our development aid and its share of national income. Details will be worked out as part of the spending review over the corning year. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support a substantial increase in spending, for reasons of moral decency as well as of the safety and the security of the world.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I certainly give her my support for what was contained in the pre-Budget statement. I know that the right hon. Lady will do her best to spend the money wisely.
    Another wish shared by hon. Members of all parties is that our spending on overseas development should be raised to 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. The Chancellor said that the percentage of GDP that we spend on overseas development would rise, but what is the timetable for achieving that target? Will it be achieved in this Parliament?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for increasing the aid budget. Successive British Governments have committed themselves to reaching the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. The previous Labour Government reached 0.5 per cent. The level was 0.26 per cent. when I came back and we are on our way
    272
    to 0.33 per cent. We do not have a timetable for the 0.7 per cent. target. As we go to the United Nations conference on financing for development, to be held at Monterey, many non-governmental organisations and other countries say that every country committed to that target should give a timetable. The debate is useful, but the UK has not yet set a timetable.
    Mr. John McFall: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the work that they have done at international level on this issue, and especially on the way in which they have brought to the fore in this country the need to assist developing countries around the world. However, my right hon. Friend will know that there are still more than 1.2 million people living in absolute poverty. Would not it be symbolic if the UK could say that it would achieve the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP within a certain time? Will my right hon. Friend take that message as a matter of urgency to the Cabinet table and to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, so that we can consolidate the good work done to date and ensure that the developed countries achieve by 2015 the targets laid out by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should be delighted to take the messages expressed by him and by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) to the Cabinet table and to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I shall make sure that that is done.
    We need to improve both the quantity and quality of aid. The World Bank and ex-President Zedillo of Mexico have done studies to determine the amount of resources that should be devoted to aid and how those resources should be used to invest in creating the conditions in which poor countries can grow their economies and provide better services for their people. To meet the millennium development targets, current resources must be doubled. At present, there is $55 billion worth of overseas development aid in the world system, and the estimate is that twice that amount is needed.
    The value of the amount of aid resource contained in the budgets of other countries could be increased. That is not true of the UK, but the European Union budget, for example, is not as effective as it could be because of the way funds are tied or misdirected away from where the poor people and the reformers are. To meet the targets to which the whole world has signed up, the amount of resources devoted to aid must be doubled. We in this country have our duties, but we must also mobilise the international community to be more serious.
    Norman Lamb: Sustainable development and the reduction of poverty are the key objectives of the Department and of the Secretary of State's budgetary and spending plans. What account has the right hon. Lady taken of the consequences for sustainable development in Tanzania of the determination of the Ministry of Defence to push through the sale of the BAE

    273
    Systems military air traffic control system, which costs £28 million? Does not the episode demonstrate a failure of joined-up Government?
    Clare Short: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have taken deep and full account of that matter. However, I am not in a position to make an announcement today.
    Glenda Jackson: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have done remarkable work in winning the argument about tackling real poverty in the developing world, with the result that a policy of debt relief has followed in train. However, does not my right hon. Friend think that the Government's influence at the Monterey conference may be reduced by the current confusion over the proposed sale to Tanzania of a vastly expensive and utterly unnecessary air traffic control system?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for everything that she has said. I shall make sure that her message is conveyed to the appropriate quarters.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the measures taken by her Department to encourage free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. [21883]
    Mr. Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on her Department's efforts to ensure free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. [21887]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government are working with the international community to try to ensure that free and fair elections are held in Zimbabwe. My Department has provided support for civic education programmes and the training of independent election monitors. However, recent developments have been very worrying, as the House knows. The economic and political situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate and is causing great suffering and a terrible growth in poverty.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Crucial as the freedom and fairness of Zimbabwean elections in April next year are, what are the right hon. Lady and her Government doing before then to penalise Robert Mugabe's tyranny in having declared war upon the opposition, which could lead to a Rwanda-type genocide? What, in particular, does she say to the Zimbabwean farmer who has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)? The letter says:
    "For every day that this situation here is merely a point of discussion in the corridors of world powers, more men, women and children will be deprived of their lives, their dignity, their homes and livelihoods and their basic rights as humans."
    Clare Short: I agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is a tragedy. Zimbabwe also has the highest level of HIV/AIDS in the world: 35 per cent. of adults are infected, and more than 20 years of life expectancy will be lost very quickly. On top of everything else, Zimbabwe, which should be a wealthy economy and an African reformer that helps its neighbours and helps the
    274
    continent forward, is going ever backwards and the Government, who are misbehaving in almost every conceivable way, are causing enormous suffering.
    The United Kingdom is engaged in trying to contain the situation and get a commitment to free and fair elections and reform. The European Union is fully engaged, as is the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and the surrounding neighbouring countries. However, I am sad to say that the country continues to deteriorate.
    Mr. Peter Pike: How can the Government ensure that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe do not suffer more as a result of the actions that we take to ensure that the elections next year are free and fair? We are quite rightly worried about the direction in which events are moving in Zimbabwe, but action can mean that the hard pressed whom we most want to help suffer the most.
    Clare Short: There has been some criticism of this, but we have a big HIV/AIDS programme in Zimbabwe. Some people say that we should cut off our entire aid programme completely, but I think that that is wrong. People are already suffering because of misgovernment, and we should not inflict further punishment on them. We must make sure that we do nothing to strengthen the Government's misbehaviour, which we are trying to do. We are also doing all in our power to ensure that the elections will be free and fair, but there are worrying signs that they may not be.
    Mr. Brady: If the Mugabe regime uses force to prevent free and fair elections in the spring of next year, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be entirely inappropriate and would send out the wrong signals if Zimbabwe were to be welcomed as one of the civilised nations competing in the Commonwealth games in Manchester in the summer of next year?
    Clare Short: I think that all of us who care about the people of Zimbabwe and the future of Africa must do everything in our power to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that outside observers are present, and so on. There are great worries about that, but we should not prepare for failure. [Interruption.] We should not; and it is not funny. We should do our best to succeed, because preparing for failure means that we tend not to try to succeed. The Commonwealth is actively engaged in considering not only what happens at the Commonwealth games but at Commonwealth conferences. The Commonwealth and the CMAG—the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group—are meeting to decide what the Commonwealth is going to do about the situation in Zimbabwe.
    Hugh Bayley: Although I share the concern of Members on both sides of the House about the political situation in Zimbabwe, can I impress on my right hon. Friend the importance of working through international bodies such as the Commonwealth and the SADC? If we act alone, there is a danger of letting Mugabe off the hook by allowing him to accuse us of playing the role of an ex-colonial power. It would be wrong to give him that ammunition against the opposition

    275
    in Zimbabwe, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that we will do what we can through international organisations?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. The story that President Mugabe tells his people is that he got on really well with the Conservative party when it was in government, but that the wretched Labour Government does not co-operate with him in the way the Conservative party used to. The story then goes that there should be land redistribution in Zimbabwe, which there should be, and the delay is somehow blamed on the Government. That is a piece of nonsense, of course—we strongly support land redistribution, but it must be transparent and focus on the needs of the landless or of those living in overcrowded communal lands. That is President Mugabe's story to his people. He is using land hunger to excuse what he is doing. It is very important that the whole international community be involved in pressing Zimbabwe to hold free and fair elections, and that Mugabe is not allowed to pretend that this is just an issue between Zimbabwe and a former colonial power.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the right hon. Lady understand how many of our constituents have families who are the victims of Mugabe and his thugs? All her fine words do not produce action to deter Mugabe, and many Conservative Members and our constituents have long memories. We remember how many leading spokesmen for the right hon. Lady's party encouraged Mugabe for years while he was coming to power. The party that she represents should not treat with terrorists and tyrants.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is very silly to make such a foolish argument. Mugabe was elected by the people of Zimbabwe. As a Government, we support democracy and the right of people to elect their own Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Look what we've got". The people of Zimbabwe elected President Mugabe. Members on the Conservative Front Bench are not allowed to tell the people of Zimbabwe which Government they should have—that is what caused all the bitterness in the independence struggle in Zimbabwe in the first place.
    I understand that some people in this country have relatives in Zimbabwe about whom they are worried. There are also Zimbabwean refugees in this country and they too are worried. People throughout the rural areas and in the towns of Zimbabwe are worried and I am worried on behalf of all of them—not just some of them.
    David Taylor: Is not Mr. Mugabe's planned public order and security legislation worse than anything that was seen in colonial Zimbabwe and apartheid South Africa? Will it not effectively remove freedom of movement, speech and association and is not that an appalling backdrop to free and fair elections?
    Clare Short: As I have said, the situation in Zimbabwe is extremely worrying. People are being oppressed, violence is being used, the rule of law is not being honoured, the economy is in a desperate state, poverty is growing and the country has the worst incidence of HIV/AIDS in the world. We are anticipating elections, but
    276
    there are deep worries throughout the international community that they will not be free and fair. Everything about the country is worrying. We are all doing everything in our power to ensure that the elections are free and fair, but that cannot be easily done—whatever nonsense is spoken on the Opposition Front Bench.

    Afghanistan
    Andrew Selous: If she will make a statement on her Department's work furthering the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan relating to schools and hospitals. [21884]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In Afghanistan, we are working to ensure that in the short term UN agencies re-establish themselves quickly, and that schools are reopened as rapidly as possible. The World Food Programme is planning—and ready—to reinstate its feeding programmes in schools throughout the country. In a hungry country, that brings children to school quickly. The Red Cross is increasing the provision of hospital-based health care. It already has much provision in the region ready to be moved into the country. UNICEF and the World Health Organisation have been maintaining child vaccination programmes.
    For the longer term, we are supporting work in the UN, the World Bank and the Asia Development bank to begin the reconstruction of Afghanistan. That will focus on developing Afghan Government capacity in health, education and all other sectors and it will start to rebuild the shattered economy. Details of our proposals for the recovery programme have been placed in the Library.
    Andrew Selous: I am grateful for that response from the Secretary of State, especially given that education was denied to women during the Taliban period and that the provision of health care by women was also denied. As children have only one chance for a decent education, will the right hon. Lady please tell the House what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the children in the camps receive some form of education—given that they may be there for some time?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world: one in four children die before they reach the age of five. To get children into school improves their prospects as well as those of the economy. There will be an emergency phase of reopening schools throughout the country. Teachers are already coming back to work. Women teachers were not allowed to work, so in addition to the banning of girls, many boys were thrown out of school. The provision of food in schools will help to reopen them. There are also 4 million-plus people in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, so it is important that education provision should be improved there.
    At present, the big move is in planning for the return home, as soon as possible, of the Afghan refugees who want to go back to their country. In the meantime, children in the refugee camps must be educated. We are working on that through UNHCR-the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deployment of British

    277
    forces as part of the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan should materially assist in opening up aid corridors and distributing the humanitarian aid that we so much want to deliver?
    Clare Short: There is a statement on the subject, so I must be careful what I say. The first phase of the plan for the international force is to get to Kabul so as to enable the interim Administration to go to Kabul. My hon. Friend knows that what was negotiated in Bonn was a transitional interim Administration, to be followed in six months by a Loya Jirga, which would be much more representative of all the people of Afghanistan, preparing them for elections and an elected Government. The first phase is to get the transitional authority back to Kabul so that Government institutions may be rebuilt, and forces are needed for that purpose. Beyond that, we shall see.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I recently returned from Pakistan, where local Afghan aid workers impressed on me their very real fear that they will be expected to borrow so much money from the World Bank that Afghanistan will end up in a cycle of unpayable debt. Will the right hon. Lady consider promoting a trust fund consisting of the United Nations, the World Bank, non-governmental organisations and other partners as an alternative model for funding reconstruction?
    Clare Short: No. I saw the reports of the hon. Lady's visit, and "well done" to her. The things that she called for were right. However, with great respect to her, the conditional funding from the World Bank will be available over 30 years, there will be no repayment for the first 10 years, and the loan is below commercial rates. It is lent at such a concessionary rate that it will be easily repayable, so it is one good instrument for promoting development. After all, economies grow, and we hope that the funding will be well used. However, that instrument can be used only when there are some institutions in place that can use resources reasonably well.
    Humanitarian help must come straight through the UN humanitarian agencies and we are not in favour of a trust fund for that. In Kosovo and East Timor, trust funds were used that became very slow at disbursing. We shall therefore continue to fund the World Food Programme, UNHCR and so on, as now, directly into their budgets through a UN appeal. Later there will be a trust fund. It is in the process of being set up to help the United Nations Development Programme, which will co-ordinate the initial work to get institutions up and running. Trust funds are useful, but only if they are used for the right purpose. They are not useful to replace the enormous resources that can be brought in by the World Bank to promote long-term development.
    Mrs. Spelman: The key is to use the new institution of the new Afghan Government. However, Afghan aid workers conveyed to me the importance in their eyes of a return to what they call the aid-for-work programme, which enabled them to get 200 km of road built in return for regular food supplies. Does the right hon. Lady agree that, come the spring, a return to that programme will be vital to the reconstruction of Afghanistan?
    Clare Short: It will happen before the spring, I can assure the hon. Lady. This is food for work, as we call
    278
    it—the World Food Programme's programmes. Before 11 September, the World Food Programme was the biggest provider of employment in Afghanistan. Just think of it—throughout this conflict, 6 million people were dependent daily on food trucked in by the UN. Now, as things calm down, in every community and village in the country groups will be called together—often led by women, because they tend to do things that are closest to the needs of the community—to decide what food-for-work programmes they would like, such as repairing roads or schools.
    Throughout the country, the people want to roll forward and get food-for-work programmes moving. The drought and lack of planting means that for several years Afghanistan will depend on food brought in by the UN, and if we use those programmes to promote self-help and rebuilding, that will help the country. That process is already planned and beginning to take place.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on International Development has just returned from a visit to Pakistan, where there was universal praise for the contribution that our Government have made, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, to the humanitarian aid for the refugees, both inside and outside Afghanistan. One of the things that became very clear to me, when talking to the Pakistan Minister for Refugees, was that almost all the refugees wanted to return home as soon as they possibly could. I hope that the Department for International Development will do everything possible to enable them to have a decent repatriation package and to speed their return to their country.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Government have made resources available, but as I have said before, my Department is respected throughout the world for its speed and capacity, and the country can be proud of the work that it does on behalf of the United Kingdom. I agree with her very much that the Afghan refugees, some of whom have been out of their country for a long time, desperately want to return home; they are not living in good conditions. The life of a refugee in a camp is a very miserable one—and yes, as soon as we can get conditions right in Afghanistan, assistance will be given to those people so that they can return home and rebuild their communities.

    Romania
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What plans her Department has for supporting the development of civil society and activities in the voluntary sector in Romania. [21885]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Together with our partners—in particular, the European Community and the World Bank—we are supporting the development of civil society and the voluntary sector in Romania, both of which have an important part to play in working for change that will benefit the poor. Our activity includes

    279
    helping to establish a national network of citizens advice and information services and enabling non-governmental organisations to provide child and family support.
    Mr. Marsden: In thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I say that it is particularly welcome given that Romania, of all the former east European regimes, has faced the most challenging problems in social policy since 1989? Will he and the Department in general liaise with their colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that the UK/Romania action plan, which was introduced earlier this year to prepare for enlargement, gives sufficient emphasis to social programmes, particularly those involving child care, the Roma and minorities? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order; we are still dealing with important questions.
    Hilary Benn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I very much agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes about the need to take forward the agreed plan of action. Romania is one of the poorest countries in Europe. It has experienced growing poverty, and the recent report on its progress towards accession to the European Union has identified the need for increased capacity in government, particularly in public administration, and reform in the private sector. Romania has a terrible child protection legacy on which the Government are seeking to make real progress. We are supporting that work through our programme and through the EC; there is also a big problem of discrimination against the 3 million Roma, half of whom are illiterate. We need to ensure that the programmes that are being supported in that country address all those issues, so that Romania can work towards its EU accession, which we very strongly support.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister has rightly referred to the economic plight of Romania, whose economy is now more or less at a standstill. Does he agree that the United Kingdom has a lot to offer Romania, particularly with advice on how to stimulate its economy with private enterprise, with a view to acceding to the EU? However, does he think that the situation in Romania has been helped by the cut in aid, which the Government have reduced from £6.4 million to just £3.7 million this year?
    Hilary Benn: Our programme bilaterally amounts to £6 million, but that is dwarfed by the EC programme, which is currently £390 million a year, of which our share is £76 million, so the hon. Gentleman has not quite got his figures right.

    Democratic Republic of Congo
    Paul Farrelly: If she will make a statement on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and what steps her Department is taking to reduce conflict there. [21886]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Democratic Republic of Congo—formerly Zaire—continues to suffer desperate poverty owing to decades of misrule and more recent conflict,
    280
    resulting from the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda. That has left the country divided into three parts. Peace is essential to begin to promote development.
    The United Kingdom strongly supports full implementation of the Lusaka peace accords, which were negotiated in Africa and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. It is my view that, with greater international effort, the Lusaka plan could bring peace to the DRC and the six neighbouring countries involved in the conflict. The DRC would then be able to qualify for debt relief and begin to use its rich mineral resources for the benefit of its 60 million people, currently living in desperate poverty.
    Paul Farrelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent United Nations report which identified the people profiteering from the war in the Congo? It included on its list a Mr. John Bredenkamp, a UK-based arms supplier to Zimbabwe. Will she ensure that her Department, with the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, makes every effort to halt the disgraceful activities of people such as Mr. Bredenkamp?
    Clare Short: I am aware of the UN report, but I was not aware that a UK resident had been named in it. I undertake to make inquires and to write to my hon. Friend.

    The Prime Minister was asked—
    PRIME MINISTER

      Engagements
      Jane Griffiths: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 December.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
      Jane Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will know that the Reading urban area has received an excellent local transport settlement of nearly £7 million and that it has also received £38 million for improvements to junction 11 on the M4. Does he agree that this is a wonderful Christmas present for the people of Reading and that it provides a contrast with the Scrooges in the Conservative party?
      The Prime Minister: I agree—I think it is a wonderful Christmas present. The £37 million scheme for Reading will of course make a big difference in Reading. It is part of a programme which, for 2003, will mean £1.5 billion going to local road and transport schemes, and that will improve the transport system for all the places concerned.
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: At the end of 2001, are there more people waiting to see an NHS consultant than there were in 1997?
      The Prime Minister: The waiting lists are down by 100,000. It is correct that the numbers of people waiting

      281
      in the out-patient sector are up—that is true. However, overall, if we take in-patient and out-patient lists together, they are down.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: The fact is that there are now more people waiting to see a consultant than there were five years ago, which is not what the Prime Minister promised when he got into power. No one is going to believe a word that he says about waiting lists or anything else when the National Audit Office report today shows that the Government have put systematic pressure on doctors and hospital managers to fiddle the waiting list figures. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the NAO that that represents
      "a major breach of public trust … inconsistent with the proper conduct of public business"?
      The Prime Minister: Of course it is entirely unacceptable if the waiting list figures are being manipulated in any trust. However, it is important to put this matter in perspective. Over a period of four to five years, 6,000 people were misallocated on the lists and that compares with the figure of about 25 million for the overall number of operations done. The right hon. Gentleman says that the waiting list figures overall are up since we came to office, but that is wrong—they are down.
      If we look at the out-patient lists, it is correct that, in the first two and half years of the Government, they rose, but they have subsequently been falling. What is more, if we look at those people waiting more than six months, the numbers are now down 70,000. Indeed, it is the case today that 70 per cent. of NHS patients get their operation within three months.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: No one is going to believe the right hon. Gentleman, because he referred to the NAO report only to say that there were a certain number of problems. The reality is that the NAO investigated nine hospitals and found that all nine had breached their rules. That is happening not only in the hospitals that the NAO investigated. I refer to a hospital that was not even investigated but that is already changing things. It says here:
      "We are using a new way to make your appointment … You do not need to do anything for now, we will contact you in about 93 weeks time".
      That is the reality; that is what is going on up and down the country with a lot of hospitals.
      The report says that people are being offered appointments only when they have gone on holiday and that patients are offered appointments only when the consultant has gone on holiday—twisting—with waiting lists always being manipulated. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister is to blame for everything in the report and for the waiting lists that are all going up? It is his culture of deceit that has forced the health service to manipulate these figures.
      The Prime Minister: First, on the NAO report, I should repeat the words of the original report that gave rise to the follow-up report today. It said at that point in time:
      "The main problems we identified",
      however, lead us to the idea
      "that published numbers are likely to be overstated."
      282
      In other words, it is the case that in fact the waiting list figures that we have given are not affected by the report that the NAO published today. The overall waiting lists are, as I said, down by 100,000. When the right hon. Gentleman says that all waiting list figures are up, that is wrong. It is correct that some are up. Some, however, are not, and overall waiting list figures are down since we came to office.
      However, we accept entirely that there is a very great deal more to do. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the only way we are going to treat more people in the health service is if we invest in nurses, doctors, beds and hospitals. The Labour party is committed to putting in that investment, free at the point of use. The right hon. Gentleman wants to charge people and take out that investment.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister was elected in 1997 to cut—I repeat, to cut—waiting lists and to save the NHS. That was his pledge. He cannot weasel out of that now by saying some of it is good and some of it is not. Some £10 billion a year under this Government is wasted. That is a fact. Some £700 million is unspent because the system cannot cope—fact. Waiting lists are up and in-patient figures are down. That is another fact. The reality is that the Prime Minister can weasel as much as he likes, but after five years the whole country is on a waiting list, waiting for him to deliver.
      The Prime Minister: Without going back over the waiting list figures again, I say this. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong in saying that the figures are up, because they are not; they are down by 100,000. It is correct, however, that we still have a very great deal more to do. That is precisely why we are committed to the record investment that we put into the NHS.
      Before the general election, the Conservative health spokesman set out Conservative policy when he said:
      "We are fully committed to a comprehensive National Health Service, free at the point of use and funded from taxation".
      Yet when the right hon. Gentleman was asked just a couple of days ago whether people should be charged to see their GPs, he said:
      "I think people would say 'I'm prepared to pay'".
      So we both accept that we need more capacity—more doctors, nurses and beds in the health service. We are prepared to put that money into the NHS; the right hon. Gentleman is saying that people will have to pay. I believe that the country would prefer a national health service that is free at the point of use rather than with Tory charges.
      Mr. Iain Luke: Many people warmly remember the Prime Minister's commitment on 2 October to ensure that the world order to be built on the rubble of 11 September would be a fitting memorial to those who died in New York. We are three months on, and the war in Afghanistan is close to completion. At Christmas, many families will again have to come to grips with the loss of a loved one as a result of those attacks. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking today seriously to consider a suitable

      283
      multi-faith memorial to pay tribute to the devastating loss so bravely borne by so many families throughout the United Kingdom?
      The Prime Minister: We would certainly consider an appropriate memorial, although obviously the events of 11 September have been commemorated in different ways around the world. It is right to point out that, as of tomorrow, it will be 100 days since 11 September. The war in Afghanistan has been prosecuted very successfully. The al-Qaeda terrorist network is effectively dismantled. The Taliban regime has gone. Humanitarian aid is going into Afghanistan. With the support of the international community, and with the support, I hope, of British troops in the international security force, we will be able to offer Afghanistan the security to reconstruct the country on a proper political basis, which involves all the groupings in the country, to turn Afghanistan from a failed state into a stable partner in the region. Whatever the appalling problems that arose after 11 September, we can be proud of the part that this country—especially our armed forces—has played since then. If we carry on doing that, we will bring the good that we wanted to see out of the evil.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the whole House accords with the final sentiment that the Prime Minister uttered.
      Returning to today's issue of the National Audit Office report into the waiting list scandal, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not satisfied with the position whereby a seriously ill national health service patient has their operation postponed so that the operation of someone in a less critical condition can proceed, simply to meet the institution of waiting list targets which his Government set?
      The Prime Minister: Of course, that should not happen, which is precisely why, as the NAO report made clear, when the trust concerned discovered that that had happened it took immediate action. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the campaign by the Conservative party and others to say that everything in the national health service is bad and that no one gets proper treatment. It is important that we set that in context; yes, over a four to five-year period, 6,000 patients were wrongly allocated on the waiting list. But as I pointed out a moment ago, 25 million operations took place in that period. The vast bulk of those people were dealt with correctly.
      Mr. Kennedy: In addition, most people looking at the story will consider it a scandal that some of the managers who either fiddled the figures or were downright incompetent have had big golden handshakes or, worse still, have been redeployed elsewhere in the national health service. Should they not be out on their ear? Is not the lesson that comes through all this the need for local effective management of the health service? Does the Prime Minister not need to rethink his policy of getting rid of community health councils for a start?
      The Prime Minister: I really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's latter point carries any weight at all. Of course, it is correct that those people who engaged in misallocating people to waiting lists should be disciplined, although it is important to read the detail of the report
      284
      because some procedures were misapplied at a lower management level than senior management. It is important that when we look at the NHS today we do not say that, because that happened in a certain number of cases, it has happened in every case. It has not; the vast bulk of people in the NHS get proper treatment. The vast bulk of people—70 per cent. of them—are seen for their operations within three months.
      As well as bad things happening in the NHS, there are excellent pieces of innovation, change and development. More nurses, more doctors and more hospital schemes are coming through. In time, no doubt, despite the examples of bad practice, good practice will prevail.
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend has already expressed his utter condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament last week. Will he take the opportunity to reassure India and her neighbours that the terrorists who attacked the Parliament of the world's largest democracy on 13 December will be pursued by the international community with as much vigour and determination as the terrorists who attacked the world's most powerful democracy on 11 September, and that those who give them succour or support will be treated with the same resolve shown against the Taliban?
      The Prime Minister: Many of those groups are linked to the extremists who have been operating out of Afghanistan. It is important that we take action at every level on their membership, how they acquire weapons, how they are financed and from where they operate. We express complete solidarity with the victims who were killed or wounded in that terrorist outrage.
      Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Prime Minister and I have recently been blessed with healthy baby boys. I share his concerns for our children's privacy. He will be aware of his Government's vigorous campaign to inoculate all schoolchildren with the triple measles, mumps and rubella vaccination, and their equal determination to prevent parents who want to give their children the single vaccination from doing so. In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his legitimate desire to protect the privacy of his child is very much at odds with legitimate public interest in the matter?
      We want to know whether the Prime Minister practises what he preaches, so will he take the opportunity to let us know whether little Leo has had his MMR jab. In doing so, he can reassure those parents—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is too long.
      The Prime Minister: I think I caught the general drift. I am afraid I will not enter into any public discussion about the health of my children, but the recommendations on MMR which the Government are following are supported by the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, so we fully support the present campaign.
      Mr. Colin Challen: Is it not extraordinary that 53 years after the NHS was

      285
      founded, one of its founding principles—that it is free at the point of delivery—seems to be under attack from the Leader of the Opposition, only a week before Christmas? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Prime Minister a question about Government policy, not about Opposition policy.
      Mr. Challen: Perhaps we should consider making it a constitutional right that people have that founding principle as one of their human rights—a health service free at the point of delivery, which the Opposition could never demolish.
      The Prime Minister: I understand the anxiety of the Opposition to prevent my hon. Friend from getting his question out, but the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he is prepared to make people pay for basic access to health care. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I know that a couple of days is a long time in the development of Opposition policy, but a couple of days ago he was asked specifically whether he would consider making people pay to see their GP, and he said he thought that people would be prepared to pay. The Opposition have opposed the extra investment that we are putting into the national health service. My hon. Friend is right. There is an important debate to be had. Either we have a national health service that is comprehensive and free at the point of use, or we have one that is dismantled and paid for by the patient, which is the position of the Conservative party.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Prime Minister accept that the reality in the NHS is represented by the cases of constituents of mine, such as young Lucy Westbrook and Steve Peters, who have had their operations cancelled or postponed, and not by the fantasy figures in his fiddled waiting lists?
      The Prime Minister: The figures for the hon. Gentleman's constituency and area indicate that both in-patient and out-patient waiting lists are down. Of course, there are people who still do not get the treatment that they merit and deserve, but the vast majority of people in the hon. Gentleman's health authority do get the proper treatment. We know why the Conservative party wants to raise the cases of people not getting the proper treatment: in order to tell the country that the entire national health service is failing, so we can get rid of it. In contrast to the Conservative solution of getting people to pay, our solution is to put the investment into the NHS so that we deal with cases such as those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents—but let us never forget that in his area, the vast bulk of people are treated extremely well by the NHS.
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister say whether, as reported in The Sun today, he will sack the Transport Secretary early in the new year?
      The Prime Minister: No.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Does that not say everything about the Government's attitude to the public services and
      286
      about the character of the Government? After all, the Transport Secretary said that Railtrack was bust when it was solvent; he said that he would save taxpayers' money, whereas he will cost them £6 billion more; he made passengers' lives a misery with extra delays throughout the country; and above all, he defended a spin doctor who called for bad news to be buried. Does the Prime Minister think that today, at the festive season, is a good day to bury his Transport Secretary?
      The Prime Minister: As for the right hon. Gentleman's allegation that Railtrack was a solvent company, I must admit that I have been mystified in the past few days to hear that Railtrack was apparently not in financial difficulty at all, but was roaring along, fully profitable and very solvent, and did not need any public money at all. Let me read to him what the judge said in the administration case:
      "This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate but absolutely essential".
      That was the case for a very simple reason: the company had debts of £700 million that were going to rise to £1.7 billion. [Interruption.] If the Opposition dispute that, I ask why, as Railtrack was in court at the time, it did not dispute it. It did not do so because it is indisputable. The difference between us, as I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman many times before, is that he has got himself into the position of saying that he would take £1 billion of taxpayers' money to bail out the shareholders, while we would put that money into a better railway network. If he wants to get up and tell us that Railtrack was a solvent company, perhaps he will explain why it had those debts of £1.7 billion by next March and why the judge made that order.
      Hon. Members: Come on!
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Ken Purchase.
      Mr. Ken Purchase: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the determination of the United States Administration to increase tariffs against the import of steel? First, does he think that that will have a serious effect on the European steelmaking industry? Secondly, is not this a smack in the face for the developing countries that have been faced with American investment that has not always been helpful?
      The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is important that we ensure that there is proper and fair trade in the world, and I very much hope that the United States will change its position on the issue, as it is unfair for European Union companies to be unable to get access to American markets. Of course that is one of the reasons why it is so important that we make progress not only on bilateral EU-US trade matters, but through the World Trade Organisation debates and consultations that are coming up shortly. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue. I know that it will concern many people working in the steel industry here, which is why we are making representations about it to the United States Administration.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The energy review from the Cabinet Office has been widely

      287
      leaked but has not yet been published. When will the House get to see the review, or has it been doctored in favour of nuclear energy?
      The Prime Minister: No, it has not. It may have been leaked, but I may say that it has not been leaked to me, so I cannot tell him what it contains at the present time. It is very sensible that we review our energy needs and it is important for us to do so over the coming years. I suggest that, before the hon. Gentleman castigates the report, he waits until it is published.
      Mr. David Kidney: Given that police numbers are rising, as is overall investment in police services, will my right hon. Friend help the Police Federation not to paint itself into a corner where it is seen as in favour of taking the money but not accepting the reform that should go hand in hand with the investment?
      The Prime Minister: I am sure that we will reach agreement on reform and it is important that we do so. The police do a fantastic job in this country, but I think that most people realise that we need greater flexibility in the way in which the police service works. On police numbers, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had in the past year the largest recruitment for 20 years and, after years of falling police numbers under the Conservatives, the numbers are rising again. They will rise in the next couple of years to a record level. Of course, the most important difference between this Government and the Conservative Government is that under this Government crime has fallen by about 11 or 12 per cent. but under the Conservative Government it doubled.
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: Can the Prime Minister tell us what is the maximum time for which our troops will remain in Afghanistan?
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement later. Our troops are not there on a long-term basis. We believe that they will be there for several months, but it is obviously important that they are there at the outset in order to ensure that the new provisional Government in Kabul can operate effectively. I say to Opposition Members that it would be unfortunate if they went to Kabul without the support of the whole House. I know that there has been some speculation that we would be sending thousands upon thousands of troops—we are not—or that they would be there for a very long time—they will not be. It is vital for us to be able to bolster the political agreement that has been reached with a security assistance force. Frankly, we are the country that is best placed to lead that force. There will be many other countries that will participate, however. I think that it is very much in the interests of this country that we increase the prospects of a stable future in Afghanistan.
      Mr. Wayne David: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Government's effective response to the difficulties in the aerospace industry after the events of 11 September. Will he join me in affirming that the National Assembly for Wales and
      288
      central Government are working well together to respond to the situation in GE Aircraft Engine Services in Nantgarw in south Wales?
      The Prime Minister: We are working closely with the Assembly on that. We understand the problems that the airline and the aerospace industries face. People's jobs are at risk, and that is worrying. The situation is replicated around the world, but, with the right support and partnership, we will ensure that as many jobs as possible are safeguarded.
      Derek Conway: The Prime Minister has been glib with figures this afternoon. He now has another opportunity to prove how good he is. How much has been spent on consultants since Railtrack went into administration?
      The Prime Minister: I do not know the precise figure. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question, I shall answer it. However, it is beyond doubt that the company was not capable of carrying on, with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being put into it, when it could not provide a proper service for its passengers.
      As I meant to say in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I am prepared to take criticism from almost anyone about the railway industry, but from the people who are responsible for railway privatisation, a period of silence would be the best response.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Like me, the Prime Minister would have welcomed the Hague convention on abductions. He received a letter from me some weeks ago about a constituent, Rebecca Turner, who has been forced back to Australia with her young child, Holly, aged four and a new child, five-month-old Jake, because she has been accused of kidnapping the baby. The judge in the case in this country said that he had no alternative but to send her back under the Hague convention. His comments on the convention were interesting, and I shall read them to the Prime Minister—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an important matter, but the question is far too long.
      Mr. Campbell: The judge described the Hague convention as "a highly laudable objective." However, is it right that a young family should be broken up and sent to Australia—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.
      The Prime Minister: It is correct that my hon. Friend has written to me on the subject. Of course, I am sorry about the difficulties that his constituent faces. Although I understand that it is a matter for the Australian courts, we are giving all the assistance that we can to Rebecca Turner through consular staff.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As our constituents want trains that run on time, how long will Railtrack be in administration?
      The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the administrator. However, the longer

      289
      the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered. It is important to restructure the company properly to ensure that the money that goes into the railways improves the service for the passengers. I hope that he recognises that a company that lost that amount of money and was solely dependent on increased subsidies through taxpayers' money could not go on as it was; it has to be restructured. Today's announcement by the Strategic Rail Authority is a good first step towards putting the railways back in proper shape.
      Valerie Davey: The Government gained great respect from my constituents for the lead that they took internationally to ensure debt cancellation among the poorest countries, including Tanzania. Does my right hon. Friend support a current
      290
      proposal which would increase Tanzania's debt: the sale by Britain of a military air traffic system costing £28 million?
      The Prime Minister: We must follow the proper licence conditions throughout, and we shall do so. However, we have written off some £100 million or more of debt in Tanzania and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been increasing dramatically the aid given to the poorest African countries. One of the things of which the Government are proudest is the fact that, over the past few years, after years of declining amounts going into aid and development under the Conservative party, we have substantially increased aid and development spending, and what is more increased it as a proportion of our national income.

National Stadium
3.30 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the siting, purpose and funding of a national stadium.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I have today published the interim report of Patrick Carter's review of the English national stadium. His key recommendations are set out clearly in the report. They deal with the importance of the promoters presenting final proposals that represent fully committed funding, final design, cost and procurement details. Should those proposals not be delivered within a reasonable time scale, Birmingham should be considered as the alternative. No commitments should be made by any party until such time as final agreements have been reached as regards funding and procurement. Finally, the Government must be satisfied that all aspects of the stadium's procurement meet Government standards of propriety and regularity.
Patrick Carter's report also recognises that the leadership of the project must fest with the Football Association—we agree—whose final decision it will be what stadium to build and where. Its preference, on the ground of greater return, is to go ahead with a modified version of the Foster design at Wembley. However, it has accepted that should that fail, strong proposals from Birmingham should be taken forward. It also accepts, as do the Government, that it remains a possible outcome that no national stadium will be developed.
As the FA has made clear, it does not believe that the project can move forward without Government support and facilitation, but I make it clear to the House that any further financial support is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium infrastructure costs and the Government's interest in protecting the £120 million of lottery money already invested.
There is much work to be done before there can be a final decision on a national stadium. Patrick Carter's report describes the many uncertainties that need to be resolved. Any Government support for infrastructure would not be committed until they were all dealt with. I must alert the House to issues relating to the proposed procurement at Wembley that need to be fully dealt with.
The House will be aware that I had intended to make an announcement about the national stadium on Monday. I shall explain the reasons for the delay. It came to my attention at the end of November that concerns had been expressed that Wembley National Stadium Ltd. had not adhered to best procurement practices or corporate governance arrangements in relation to the new Wembley stadium. I was told that those complaints involved no suggestion of fraud, but implied a lack of transparency in part of the process and a failure to deal properly with actual or potential conflicts of interest. I was told that an investigation of the complaints, commissioned for Wembley National Stadium Ltd., was under way,
On 13 December, I requested a progress report. I was given oral assurances that there was no impropriety, but that the chairman of WNSL would contact my permanent secretary the following day. Officials discussed the report in draft on Sunday 16 December with the FA, Wembley
292
National Stadium Ltd. and its authors, and asked that it be finalised and made available to the Government for consideration before we made any decision on going forward with the national stadium project. A final version of the report was received yesterday. I have suggested to both the FA and WNSL that they should publish it. I have asked for it to be made available to the National Audit Office, and they have agreed. At present it is bound by legal privilege and confidentiality, but I can say that it confirms the existence of a number of serious concerns.
WNSL made a statement today outlining the report's principal conclusions.
It stated: "No evidence whatever had been found of any criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process, but the report was critical of the procurement process up to September 2000 and recommended specific steps to be taken by WNSL for close monitoring of the project. The review addressed issues relating to value for money, but found that there was a sustainable argument that best value today was likely to result from enabling WNSL to proceed through Multiplex to build a new national stadium. The report recommended that WNSL review aspects of corporate governance."
Patrick Carter alludes to those concerns in the covering letter accompanying the report, which I have published today.
I have told the FA and WNSL that should they wish to continue with the Multiplex contract, they must set in train an independent assessment of the value for money that it represents, and must ensure that corporate governance and procurement arrangements from now on represent best practice, before the Government will proceed with any further support for the project—financial, moral or otherwise.
Four points must now be addressed by the FA and WNSL. First, an independent value-for-money assessment of the proposed contracts with Multiplex must be commissioned, and conducted by an appropriate company with no previous or likely future involvement in the project. Secondly, at my request WNSL has ensured that papers relating to the matter are available to the Comptroller and Auditor General so that he can decide whether to look into the matter further. Thirdly, we seek confirmation that corporate governance changes will be made to produce a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures acceptable to the public sector. Fourthly, we seek confirmation that financial support is adequate and fully committed, after all relevant factors have been taken into account in a process of due diligence.
Finally, let me refer briefly to athletics. Sport England and the FA will look at that during the next stage of discussions. I hope that the House understands why that next stage is so crucial. Sport England now believes that a different platform solution can be developed more cheaply, and without the disruption associated with the original proposals. Before any further decision is made, however, I will ensure that Sport England commissions a detailed technical evaluation of the proposals to make certain that they fully meet the technical criteria of the athletics governing body. It will also prepare a proper cost-benefit analysis comparing the new proposals with those of 1999.
In short—although I am afraid that I have spoken at some length—the Government will work with the FA to resolve these issues. The end result that we want is a

293
national stadium, but those four fundamental points must be addressed first. Then we will have a national stadium of which we can be proud.
Mr. Yeo: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Government's handling of the national stadium issue has led to a series of disasters, caused directly by the dithering and blundering of successive Ministers?
Four years ago, the Government decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley, with athletics. Two years ago, they decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley, without athletics. When the Secretary of State took over six months ago, she could not decide whether there should be a national stadium at all, whether it should be at Wembley, or whether athletics should be part of it. Judging by her reply this afternoon, she is still dithering. Few who heard it will be reassured that she has any more grip on the issue than her predecessor.
How watertight does the Secretary of State expect the arrangements for the new national stadium at Wembley to be by 31 March next year? Will the contracts involving the Football Association, WNSL, International Management Group, Multiplex, Sport England and the Government be available for public inspection? Will planning permission have been granted?
As it has taken the Secretary of State more than three and a half months just to publish the Carter report on which her statement is apparently based, does she really believe that the complex negotiations under way and still to be concluded can be completed in the same time frame?
Does the right hon. Lady believe that Wembley will host athletics, as is now proposed? If not, when will the £20 million promised by her predecessor be repaid? Will she confirm that if by any chance Wembley stadium does not get built, all the money paid by Sport England will be repaid, and promptly? Will she also confirm that the plans that she has outlined require a further £20 million of public money to be spent, and will she explain precisely what that extra money will be spent on, or is it just another figure plucked out of thin air?
Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the report about the probity of the procurement process is published before a penny more of public money is spent? Will she confirm that in the past few days, her Department, without consultation, has intervened to cut out of the scheme altogether the £19 million rebuilding of Wembley Park tube station? Will she confirm that the cut-price alternative of tarting up the existing station means that the stadium could not be cleared of spectators within an hour, and disabled access would be greatly reduced?
Will the right hon. Lady explain the main features of the Wembley proposal that she considers superior to the excellent Birmingham bid? Is it the design of the stadium, accessibility to sports fans or value for money? In the House on 2 May this year, the Prime Minister gave an assurance about the Wembley project. He said:
"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.]
Does she agree that that assurance means that the Government have accepted responsibility for seeing this project through to its conclusion?
294
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, after four and a half years of Labour Government, England is still without a national stadium, football is without a flagship ground, London has lost the world athletics championships, Britain has lost the chance to host the World cup, Birmingham and Coventry have been encouraged to spend money and time on bids that Ministers had no intention of taking seriously, and Britain's reputation in international sporting circles has never been lower?
Tessa Jowell: There is all the difference in the world between the rant of opposition, which is what we have just heard, and the serious business of government, which recognises that this is an enormous, expensive and complex project. We will give Government support to the project when, and only when, the issues that I raised in my statement have been properly addressed.
As recently as the end of October, the Football Association and Sport England made it absolutely clear that if the national football stadium at Wembley was not capable of hosting athletics, the £20 million would be returned. The precise terms of the lottery agreement require an athletics-capable stadium. I require additional work to establish whether the athletics capability meets the requirements of the athletics governing body. The Football Association has clearly shown its willingness to undertake that exercise.
The hon. Gentleman can rant, but we will get on and negotiate in the public interest, safeguarding the Government's position. However, we need to establish a clear dividing line, because ultimately the funding for, and the location of, the national stadium are football's responsibility. Once the outstanding matters have been settled, we will announce how to proceed.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Of course, from a constituency point of view, I welcome the announcement today by the FA and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I wish to focus on two points. First, she was right to commission the Carter report, because it has exposed all the weaknesses of the financial arrangements into which the FA had entered. It will enable the project to be driven forward properly. Secondly, can she offer confirmation on the important issue of Wembley Park tube station and the commitment of London Underground? I trust that she will have words soon with the Metropolitan police so that she is sure that they are convinced that it will be possible to clear the stadium in a timely and effective manner, that proper crowd control will be possible and that there is no danger to the security of the public. Those are essential infrastructure elements on which the success of the stadium will ultimately rest.
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive approach today and throughout what have been difficult months for the project. He has a clear constituency interest, and I thank him for that. I take this opportunity to thank again Patrick Carter for his valuable work for the Government and the FA. The decision on infrastructure support for the project will clearly be part of the consideration in the next stage, as the project is taken forward. As of now, I must make it clear to the House that the number of matches and events that the FA would intend to hold at a new stadium would not exceed the number on the licence attaching to the planning consent, so regeneration or rebuilding to increase the

295"
capacity of the tube station is therefore not a requirement. My hon. Friend also mentioned the wider issue of regeneration of the area around the stadium, which will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to consider as the project moves forward.
Nick Harvey: Does the Secretary of State think that it is right that £120 million that was given to the project for a multi-purpose stadium should remain available to the company if the stadium will be used only for football? Will not the athletics platform be a temporary structure put in place only for a specific games, and is she not shutting the door after the horse has bolted, given that we have lost the games? Will not it be ironic if, as football figures have suggested in the past few days, the new stadium opens in time for a cup final or charity shield in May or August 2005, exactly when the world athletics championships are due to take place? Given the popularity of England playing their matches around the country, does she agree that England fans from more distant areas should be assured of improved transport connections to Wembley before any such decision is made?
Tessa Jowell: On the final point, I accept that if the FA decides to proceed, subject to the conditions that I have set out this afternoon, the infrastructure support for the project must be adequate. It is a good example of why the Government need to facilitate the project, but that is different from it being a Government project. It will be Government supported and Government facilitated precisely so as to address those issues. The terms of the lottery agreement are also clear. The lottery money—the £120 million—was provided to acquire the site for a stadium that would include an athletics capability. I have already mentioned the recognition by the FA and Sport England that if it will not include that capability, £20 million should be returned. However, there is more work to be done on that.
Finally, I respectfully suggest that in this complex set of relationships, the hon. Gentleman needs to be clear about the differing responsibilities of the Government, the Football Association and Sport England.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This matter began with the previous Government and Sport England's totally unjustified decision to hand over £120 million. May I plead with my right hon. Friend to steer clear of what has become a grubby and dodgy project? The Football Association has shown itself to be greedy in holding on to £120 million of public money to which it has no conceivable right. It has also shown itself to be neither competent nor trustworthy. In addition, Sport England has recklessly handed over public money without any safeguards, and its appropriateness as the agency to deal with these matters needs to be considered. Will she assure the House that a firm, clear time limit will be set for the project, so that either it can go ahead or the £120 million can be returned in full?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will make it clear that not a penny of taxpayers' money will go into the project unless it goes forward within a reasonable time limit? Wembley was
296
never a national stadium, and the FA should not bamboozle the Government into putting up our constituents' money to buy it a stadium.
Tessa Jowell: As usual, my right hon. Friend has expressed his views forcefully and unequivocally. I have three things to say in response.
First, I do not think that it is helpful to rake over the ashes of past decisions about Wembley, beyond the point that I made earlier about the Government's responsibility to safeguard the public investment that has been made already. Secondly, my right hon. Friend is right to say that the project cannot be let drift indefinitely and that firm and clear deadlines for agreements to be reached must be set. Finally, he is also right to say—as I made clear earlier—that Government support and the FA's decision to proceed should be conditional on the terms that I set out in my opening statement being met.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Secretary of State's statement at least left the door ajar for Birmingham's excellent bid, but does she accept that there will be huge disappointment that it has not been accepted outright? Does she appreciate that some 75 per cent. of football fans live north of Watford? Has she had a chance to study the report produced from a survey conducted by Sky, which shows that more than 70 per cent. of football fans do not want the stadium to be built at Wembley? Will she bear in mind that, to many people, this is a classic example of London-based decision makers making London-centric decisions that are not in the interests of the wider country?
Tessa Jowell: I entirely accept the disappointment felt by those who have promoted Birmingham's bid to build the national stadium there. Moreover, I take this opportunity to commend—as Patrick Carter does in his report—the quality of the bid that Birmingham submitted. However, as I hope I have made clear, the decision about where the stadium is to be built is for the Football Association to make. The Football Association has decided that its preference is to develop the site at Wembley because that is at present a better commercial proposition than Birmingham. It has made a commercial decision. I understand the disappointment that is felt and, of course, the voice of fans should be heard. I welcome the FA's confirmation that if the Wembley proposal does not proceed, Birmingham is the alternative.
Mr. Dennis Turner: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Birmingham bid would give the FA the 21st century- class stadium that it requires. Many of us in the House and many thousands outside are extremely disappointed at the FA's decision, which we think is wretched. There is overwhelming support for the Birmingham bid from football fans, football clubs, the business community and the general public. Will my right hon. Friend explain why that has been ignored?
Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate of Birmingham as the host for the national stadium. I simply reiterate that, as I told the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the decision on location is for the Football Association. It has taken that

297
decision on commercial grounds, subject to the caveat that should Wembley fail, it will look to Birmingham as the alternative.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on the role of Mr. Ken Bates in this fiasco? Will she also satisfy the House that she believes that all public funds have been properly accounted for?
Tessa Jowell: No, I do not wish to comment on the internal affairs of WNSL. I have outlined the report's conclusions and the action that will be taken in the light of that report.
Glenda Jackson: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the decision on the financing and siting of a national stadium is the business of the FA. However, if the decision is taken to site it at Wembley, surely it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the desperately needed regeneration of an area that was grossly neglected during the 18 years of Conservative Government is properly served by a truly integrated public transport system. Surely that means that Wembley Park requires more than just regeneration.
Tessa Jowell: Let me separate out two issues. First, I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier remarks on the necessary capacity of the tube to support the demand placed on it by spectators travelling to and from the stadium. Secondly, I entirely endorse her remarks about the blight in that part of London as a result of 18 years of neglect, indifference and failure to invest under the previous Government. One very important gain of a development such as this, whether it is in Birmingham or Wembley, is that the regeneration of the area means benefits for local people.
Alistair Burt: Is the right hon. Lady not embarrassed about the fact that in the years since the Taylor report, clubs the length and breadth of the country from Livingstone to Blackburn to Arlesey in my constituency have developed wonderful stadiums without any of the fuss that she has been through? Is she not embarrassed about the fact that on being given the World cup to host, the French developed a superb stadium at the Stade de France to cater for their national needs? Why on earth were those plans not simply picked up and implemented?
Is the right hon. Lady not further embarrassed that the Government of a country that can produce the perfection of Michael Owen and David Beckham can make such a Horlicks of producing a national stadium in which to display their talents?
Tessa Jowell: I am not remotely embarrassed about gripping a difficult issue on which decisions will need careful handling so that we reach a conclusion that is in the interests of sport and spectators. The Stade de France was extremely expensive. We should consider the experience of the development of stadiums throughout the world. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman do that so that he might understand more fully than his question suggested the complexity and difficulty that face us. I want to make it clear that this is football's national
298
stadium. It is the sport's project, for which it seeks help and support from the Government, and I have set out the conditions under which that will be forthcoming. Yes, there are those—members of the FA and fans—who take the view that no national stadium is necessary because England are doing better travelling around the country than they have done for many years.
Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State mentioned the lottery agreement. Is she aware that a substantial part of that dealt with the proposal that the national sports stadium should be suitable for the Olympic games? Has the FA—not the Government—consulted the British Olympic Association during the past six months about its views? Will she please take my advice, even though she may not want to do so? Having been fooled by the FA before, it is important that she ensures that the FA does not call the shots on this project.
Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend should accept that the FA also recognises the importance of transparency and public confidence in the project as it moves forward. I hope that I have also made it clear that decisions about athletics and the capability of a proposed stadium to host sporting events other than football and rugby need to be assessed with the relevant governing bodies. They would obviously include the British Olympic Association, which is meeting Sport England and UK Sport to consider the feasibility and desirability of an Olympic bid. Those discussions will have a part in any future decision about the place of athletics at Wembley.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State expect a national stadium to be built and if so, when?
Tessa Jowell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I have already said. I set out the position in some detail.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Is not the concept of a national football stadium, as envisaged at Wembley, a relic of the past in an over-centralised Britain? Should not a Government with an intelligent regional policy tell the FA that it is time to use the excellent grounds in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle and even Sunderland?
Tessa Jowell: There is extensive representation of interests outside London in the FA as a body. In the context of the broad regional and national spread of its membership, the association has reached the conclusion that it wants to proceed at Wembley. It is the FA's decision and, in that respect, a matter for the association.
David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a time in life and in politics to cut and run, and that it is time to cut and run from this national disaster associated with not only her own Government but the previous one? Why will she not consider taking ownership of the site around that other national disaster, the millennium dome, and making that the site for the national stadium? Why does she not enable Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to be given Home Office authority to raise private sector funds to finance such a national stadium and maintain it in London—the

299
capital of England? I would rather have a national stadium in the capital of England, just as I would rather have one in Belfast than in my home town of Ballymoney.
Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. I am certainly not cutting and running, so I reject that part of his proposal. In relation to the remainder of his remarks, I think that he makes his point, but it is not advice that I intend to pursue.
Derek Twigg: While the national stadium will be a very important issue in my constituency, the bigger issue is what will happen to the twin towers at Wembley. Before the last debacle, there was a prepared proposal on the table that the twin towers should come to Halton to front the new national rugby league museum in Widnes. There is no reason why that should not happen, if the decision is as we heard today. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that the twin towers come to Widnes in my constituency?
Tessa Jowell: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that matter needs to be addressed and settled between the two relevant authorities: the Rugby League and the FA.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State will understand that all members of the all-party sport and leisure group, of which I am one of the vice-chairmen, have been very concerned about the saga of disasters connected with this matter. She will also recognise that just about every commentator outside this place has ridiculed all the disasters since she and her team took over from a previous Secretary of State who was sacked after agreeing to mishandle £20 million of public money on a handshake in a private house—a scandal that was successfully exposed by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Will the Secretary of State not recognise that, to paraphrase the words of a former Prime Minister, this has been a fiasco, wrapped in a shambles, surrounded by disaster, and that it is her fault?
Tessa Jowell: We have an Opposition in full rant this afternoon. I am not sure what that adds—it adds nothing to the necessary decisions and serious work in hand to deliver a national stadium.
Ms Gisela Stuart: While I appreciate that the Secretary of State has the difficult task on her hands of bringing this matter to a successful conclusion, may I tell her that although those in Birmingham will appreciate the positive remarks in her opening statement, they will find it extremely difficult to understand what more they have to do to be given a chance to confirm their extremely good track record? We have built an international convention centre and an international exhibition centre. We have been able to deliver where other people have simply made empty promises, and to us what is happening seems like asphyxiation by procrastination.
Tessa Jowell: I give some advice to all my hon. Friends who have deployed their advocacy for Birmingham, and that is to lobby the FA because, as I have made absolutely clear, the Government hold a neutral position on the location of the stadium. The decision on the location of the stadium—[Laughter.]
300
Again, we see the pointlessness of the Opposition, as they behave pathetically. The point is that the decision about the location of the national stadium is a matter for the Football Association.
Richard Ottaway: Does the proposal have the required agreement of the Mayor of London, who may well have a final veto in the matter?
Tessa Jowell: The Mayor of London has certainly been engaged in preliminary discussion about the development of the stadium, but that is a matter for the Football Association. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies the fine detail of the Carter report, the London development agency has offered up to £20 million in the event that the stadium proceeds in London.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Given the number of qualifications in my right hon. Friend's statement, does she realise that, not just in Birmingham but throughout the country, people will be mystified as to how she and the faceless wonders at the FA can have any confidence in these proposals?
May I put two simple questions to my right hon. Friend? First, can she say categorically that this is an FA project and that the Government are not partners in it, as certain people in the FA are claiming? Secondly, what will she do if the investigations reported in Australia into the activities of Multiplex reveal further damning condemnations of the activities of that company?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, but there are two Birmingham clubs in the FA—Birmingham City and Aston Villa—and they should be taking part in the debate in the FA, because it is a decision for the FA. I do not propose to comment on the newspaper reports to which he referred. I have set out very clearly the action that the FA proposes to take, and I would not add to that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's answers, and I appreciate the great problems that she has inherited and what she is trying to do to sort them out, but does she agree that this is a national stadium and, therefore, that the Government should have more say than they have apparently had to date? I strongly support locating the stadium in Birmingham because of that city's location and infrastructure, particularly its transport infrastructure, but will she not accept that a lot more people should be involved than just the FA, given that it is a national stadium? Will she consider suggesting that the FA and others should consult Manchester city council and the others who have been involved in producing some wonderful facilities for the Commonwealth games in Manchester next year?
Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I am glad that, unlike his colleagues, he recognises the complexity of this issue. I reiterate the points that I have made about the representations to be made to the FA about the stadium's location. He asks whether a national stadium is a decision for the Government, and the answer is no. In a democracy, not every decision that affects our nation is taken by the Government, and this decision on a national stadium is being taken by the FA, assisted and facilitated by the Government. He is right to draw attention

301
to the preparations in Manchester for next year's Commonwealth games, which, I hope, will make people throughout the country feel proud and do an enormous amount for sporting morale here.
Andy Burnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the Wembley project was the pressure created by false deadlines for events that had not been secured? Anyone would think that the Conservative party was blameless, but does she also agree that the commitments to stage the World cup, the Olympics and the world athletics championships were first given by the Conservative party when it chose Wembley as the site for the national stadium?
In endorsing the cautious approach that my right hon. Friend has announced today, I urge her to consider the wider issues raised by the Wembley saga. The truth is that the project has taken off in a way that it should never have gone—it was too extravagant, it was based on an experimental design and there was far too much commercial development. Will she consider the arm's length principle in the handling of sports funding? Will she also consider reviewing the outdated decision-making functions of some of our major governing bodies of sport?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his remarks. He is right that false deadlines can create more problems than they solve. I have made it very clear this afternoon that this project should proceed, but, as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), it is important to establish a time frame to create discipline. I also agree very strongly with his point about the importance of protecting the public interest. I do not for a moment underestimate or undervalue the significance of the fact that £120 million of lottery funding has already gone into the putative Wembley project. That money was raised by the public for the causes that they hold dear, and we have a special responsibility to ensure that that money is properly safeguarded, which is the whole driving purpose of the approach that I have outlined to the House this afternoon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only a few hon. Members remain to be called. If they each ask one brief question, I shall be able to call every one of them.
Lynne Jones: When I and my constituents have had the chance to study Patrick Carter's report, are we likely to be convinced that my right hon. Friend's announcement is the logical outcome?
Tessa Jowell: Yes.
Mr. Andy Reed: Does not the business case for Wembley revolve around the fact that the FA already has £120 million of lottery money? Will the report into the feasibility of the stadium hosting athletics be carried out independently? It is obviously in the FA's interests to ensure that there is a favourable report that suggests that the stadium can host athletics, because that would mean that the FA could hold on to £20 million.
Tessa Jowell: First, the business case is certainly influenced by the fact that £120 million has already been
302
spent on acquiring the Wembley site. Secondly, I hope that I have made it clear that the further work that needs to be done on the practical feasibility of holding athletics at Wembley involves a further investigation that will take time, but that needs to be carried out with the governing bodies of athletics. They will be the real judges of whether a potentially athletics-capable stadium can host athletics events.
Richard Burden: For people not just in Birmingham but throughout the regions, today's decision by the FA will send out an appalling signal. They will regard the FA's decision as having—I must say this—sweet FA logic.
Given that Birmingham put forward a bid that was costed, that was ready to go and that had the support of the fans and the clubs, just how long will Wembley have to come up with something that is viable? It has not come up with anything viable so far. Although I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about deadlines, if she is saying that there is a time frame, what will it be? In Birmingham, we are ready to go and want to get on with the job.
Tessa Jowell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to maintain the case for Birmingham, but he must refer his remarks to the FA. In due course, the time scales for the decisions at the next stage and for the completion of the work that I have outlined will be published. However, the important point is that the project moves ahead with public confidence and with the confidence of those whose support is essential to securing it.
Mr. Peter Pike: I am a Burnley supporter who has always supported the Wembley option, but will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will now see an end to the talking and that the stadium will be built? Can we be assured that the transport links will be brought up to the standard that we need and that there will not be too many seats for the snobs and executives—and more for the fans who support the game throughout the length and breadth of this country?
Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just insisted that I remind the House that the national stadium will not go to Burnley. I can inform my hon. Friend that the lottery agreement sets out terms and conditions in relation to the balance of seats that he describes, and the material fact that led the FA to conclude that Wembley was more commercially viable related to the level of premium seat income. However, such matters will be judged more closely over the next few months as final decisions are reached.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that this is known as the national embarrassment stadium. She has inherited these problems and we all want them to be resolved, but I believe that Birmingham has a strong case and we should not rule it out or string along the people involved.
Rugby league has not been mentioned, but is my right hon. Friend aware that Wembley is the national home of rugby league as well as of football? As a Bolton Wanderers fan, I recall the white horse final when Bolton beat West Ham.
Tessa Jowell: I remind my hon. Friend that the project is complex, as I am sure he recognises. It has taken a very

303
long time to get to this stage. The first decisions were taken in 1995 and 1996. My job, and that of the Government, is to ensure that the final decisions represent the public interest and public value for money.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: May I tease my right hon. Friend about athletics? It is unlikely that we will bid for the world athletics championships until at least 2011, and the next Olympics that we could bid for will be in 2016. The technology for an athletics system might be outdated by then. If we are serious about going for 2011 or even 2016, we have to put the necessary infrastructure in place now. There is no point in having a system for athletics unless we are serious about 2011 and 2016.
Tessa Jowell: That is precisely why the technical matters to which my hon. Friend refers need to be considered by those who know about the standards that athletics bodies require to host an athletics championship. That is part of the business to be completed, which I mentioned earlier.
Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to get in just before the final whistle. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the stadium is not needed and, as far as I can see from surveys of England fans, not wanted? Would it not be better to pledge no further public money to the project, which would have the merit of ensuring that England football fans get what they want and that the FA cup final finds a permanent home in the finest stadium in the United Kingdom, Cardiff's millennium stadium?
Tessa Jowell: Nice try. My hon. Friend's arguments should be referred not to the Government, but to the Football Association, which will decide whether there is a national stadium and where it should be located.

International Force (Kabul)
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The recent Bonn agreement on the future governance of Afghanistan called for the deployment of an international force to Afghanistan to assist the new Afghan Interim Authority, which formally takes office on Saturday 22 December, with the provision of security and stability for Kabul.
Two days ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the United Kingdom was willing, in principle, to lead such a force. I can now confirm that the United Kingdom is formally prepared to take on the leadership of an international security assistance force for a limited period of three months. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today written to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to inform him of our decision. That decision follows further discussions with the United States, the other nations that have indicated that they may be willing to contribute troops to the force, the United Nations and the designated leaders of the Interim Authority in Afghanistan.
A number of issues are still to be finalised. We have not yet settled every detail about the force, but it is right that I should inform the House about progress so far, in particular about the letter to the UN Secretary-General, and today is the last opportunity for me to bring this before the House before the Christmas recess.
As the Prime Minister emphasised, the situation in Afghanistan remains fragile. The international security assistance force is a vital part of the international community's efforts to assist the Afghan people in this early and difficult period of the reconstruction of their country. A deployment of this kind—involving troops, equipment and logistical support from several nations—is undoubtedly a complex undertaking. We have no illusions about Afghanistan. Deploying forces there inevitably involves an element of risk. It is a challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous environment.
The force will be charged with assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding area. The ultimate responsibility for security will remain with the Interim Authority. Tasks could, however, include liaison with, and providing advice and support to, the Interim Authority as well as the UN on security issues, together with scoping future requirements for help in establishing and training the new Afghan security forces.
The United Kingdom will provide the force commander and his headquarters. The force commander will be Major General John McColl, who is currently serving as the General Officer Commanding, 3(UK) Division, which is based at Bulford. General McColl, as the House will be aware, led last weekend's reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul. The force headquarters will also be drawn from 3 Division, as will some of its main force and many of its essential support troops. Other elements will be drawn from the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade, and key enablers and units that are maintained at very high readiness, including elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines and the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
Indicative planning to date suggests that the United Kingdom's contribution will be in the region of 1,500 troops, although the actual figure will depend on the

305
contributions made by other nations. The force will be an international force. It is too soon to say exactly how many troops it will include, or the nations from which they will come, but it will number 3,000 to 5,000 and will include contributions from the armed forces of several nations.
Sixteen nations were represented at last Friday's conference for potential troop contributors, and 21 nations are represented at today's follow-on conference at the permanent joint headquarters in Northwood. We expect to establish the detailed force composition over the next few days. The United States has indicated that it fully supports the deployment of the force and will provide essential enabling support to deploy and sustain it, which is a vital and considerable task.
The House will wish to know the arrangements for command and control. The force will have a particular mission, distinct from Operation Enduring Freedom. If the United Kingdom's offer to be lead nation is accepted, the United Kingdom will exercise command. As I have said, General McColl will be the force commander. The force will work very closely with the United States, as set out in the letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the United Nations Secretary-General, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
I should like to place on record our gratitude to the United States, which has led the global coalition's offensive operations against international terrorism with great success. Its generosity in finding the capacity to support the international security assistance force by providing enabling capabilities that no other country can match should be recognised and applauded. I should also like to take the opportunity to record our appreciation to all the nations who have indicated that they are willing to provide troops. The international security assistance force is a reflection of the strong international support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and will go to Kabul with the backing of the wider international community. Work is under way in New York to draw up a United Nations Security Council resolution to authorise the deployment under chapter VII of the UN Charter. We anticipate that it will be agreed within the next few days.
The House will have a number of proper questions about issues that have yet to be resolved. We have not yet finalised all the details of the force; there are still major questions, both about its exact size and precise composition, including which nations will contribute. We expect to refine the answers to those questions over the coming days. We need to agree with the Afghan authorities the precise tasks that the force will undertake and the modalities of its deployment. Let me be clear: the international community is sending the force to assist the Afghans, not to interfere in their affairs. Discussions with designated members of the Interim Authority, including its Chairman, Defence, Interior and Foreign Ministers, indicate that they welcome our intention to lead the ISAF.
General McColl's reconnaissance and liaison team met leading designated members of the Interim Authority to discuss how the force could best assist the Afghans and how it should relate to the Interim Authority. Further discussions are required and General McColl will be returning to Kabul later this week. Those tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed military technical agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established. Once
306
that agreement and the authorising UN Security Council resolution are in place, the international security assistance force will be able to deploy in full.
Needless to say, British forces deploying to Afghanistan will be properly equipped for the tasks that they will undertake and they will be provided with robust rules of engagement. The United Kingdom has been invited to take on lead nation status because we and others believe that our forces have the capability and experience required to undertake that operation. We have the ability to get a force in and up and running very quickly. It is therefore right that we take on that responsibility when so much depends on the early success of the political process that the force will support.
I am absolutely satisfied that the operation is within our capacity. Our commitment is limited in numbers—up to 1,500 troops—and duration, which will be up to three months. After three months, we will hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. There have already been indications that others may be willing to take this on. General McColl and his immediate team will return to Kabul later this week to continue detailed negotiations with the Afghan authorities on the terms of a detailed military technical agreement. They will also be present for the inauguration of the Interim Authority on 22 December. Troops from 40 Commando Royal Marines will be available to support General McColl and, if required, the Interim Authority. A company of Marines is being sent this week to bolster the existing presence at Bagram.
The deployment of the main elements of the ISAF will be dependent on the outcome of discussions on the military technical agreement and the complexity of the task. Given the circumstances, the main body will not begin to deploy before 28 December at the earliest. It will then be some weeks before a substantial force can be deployed into Afghanistan.
I am very conscious that our decision to lead this force will mean that some of our troops will not be able to spend Christmas with their families. Some of our troops have been at Bagram for some time. Separation from family and friends is never easy, least of all at this time of year. Our troops will, however, deploy to Afghanistan knowing that they will be carrying out a vital and a worthwhile task, contributing to restoring peace and stability to a country that has been torn apart by strife and international terrorism.
In offering to be the lead nation for the ISAF and to deploy British troops to Afghanistan, we are aware that we have taken on significant responsibilities. The war there is being won; we must now secure the peace. The United Kingdom is proud to be able to play an important role in this. I am confident that we will.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for delivering the statement on the last day of term. I am grateful to him for receiving a copy of it well in advance of his making it.
We applaud the conclusions of the Bonn agreement to establish a broadly based administration in Kabul with international backing. We support the principle that an international security assistance force should be made available to help the new Government settle down. We have previously expressed our concerns about the British

307
element of this deployment. These are concerns that the Prime Minister has acknowledged are perfectly legitimate. However, we fully respect the decision that the Government have now taken, and we will give our troops every support for the job ahead.
I understand that there are many fundamental aspects of the deployment that have yet to be agreed. That underlines the need for clarity on these issues before the Secretary of State can finally agree to go ahead with the deployment. These aspects concern the nature of Afghan consent for the deployment of British troops, the level of US practical support for the British troops on this operation, the objectives of the British deployment, the funding of the deployment and the problems of overstretch.
On consent, British forces have been pursuing a fighting role in Afghanistan. That has made us many enemies as well as friends there. A former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Bramall, warned on Monday that
"as the realities of non-Muslim forces getting involved in internal domestic power struggles and squabbles sink in, their safety could become increasingly precarious."
The new Afghan Defence Minister continues to issue conflicting statements, so what comfort has the Secretary of State been given to reassure him that the British will be welcome guests of all the main factions in Afghanistan?
The rules of engagement must of course remain secret, but will they be agreed with the Afghans before deployment? The Prime Minister indicated that the stabilisation force will be deployed under a chapter VII UN mandate, as the Secretary of State has confirmed. Has that principle been accepted by the Afghans? Do we have armoured vehicles and munitions support to sustain a credible fighting force to carry out a chapter VII deployment?
Secondly, on US support, the Americans have made it clear that they do not feel that they are suited to this role. Is the Secretary of State confident that the US is fully committed to supporting and sustaining, and if necessary to protecting, multinational forces in Afghanistan? Another former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Inge, warned the Government on Monday:
"My biggest concern is that unless they have troops on the ground they will not concentrate or focus their minds in quite the same say."
Who else but the Americans can provide the heavy lift, mobility, air cover, surveillance and the necessary logistical support for any sustained military engagements, and the means of extraction in case of an emergency?
Will the United States have no command role at all? That is a surprise. Is the entire operation to be run from UK permanent joint headquarters? What experience does the PJHQ have in such a large multinational planning role?
Thirdly, on the objectives, Lord Inge remarked:
"The operational commitment has … 'mission creep' written all over it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 46–50.]
The present Chief of the Defence Staff has described how we could
"trap our hands in the mangle of Afghanistan".
I am grateful for the assurance given by the Secretary of State that the deployment is not intended to extend beyond three months. However, Bosnia was meant to be a short-term deployment, and years later we still have
308
thousands of troops there. Sierra Leone was meant to be "over in a month", according to the then Foreign Secretary. Yesterday we learned in a written answer that British troops will be there beyond two years.
Fourthly, on the funding for the deployment, the most recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, said:
"The defence programme was underfunded before 11th September. There is now a new commitment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 44.]
Last week, the Chief of the Defence Staff commented starkly:
"Something will have to give … we simply do not have the resources"—
a point unanimously reinforced by the Select Committee report that came out this week.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £100 million allocated for the cost of Operation Veritas is less than his Department's underspend at the end of last year, which he was forced to surrender to the Treasury? When will he and the Prime Minister succeed in addressing the question of defence spending, which is running at £1 billion a year in real terms below the levels that they inherited five years ago, alongside considerably more deployed and more operational armed forces than they inherited?
On the wider campaign, the Government will continue to have our fullest support for their conduct of the campaign against international terrorism. To that end, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm that the UK Government remain ready and willing, as he previously indicated, to support the United States in further military action in other countries where terrorism is tolerated or sustained, if that proves necessary and where justified by the evidence. Will the Government continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States for the long haul?
We will give British forces our fullest support in the operation. Our soldiers are the finest in the world and they enjoy our absolute confidence. Knowing the Parachute Regiment, which is based in my constituency, I believe that its members will be itching to get on with the job. We wish them and the Royal Marines every success. We wish a happy Christmas to them and their families, who will be particularly in our thoughts at this time.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general support, although sometimes he does "but" a little too much in the way he appears to qualify his support. It is a charitable season, so I shall assume the most charitable interpretation of his reservations and try to deal with his observations.
First, on the nature of Afghan consent, that will be dealt with in the military technical agreement. The hon. Gentleman will have read the terms of the Bonn agreement, under which the designated members of the Interim Authority signed up for precisely such a force, so they have already given consent. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in turn, if he will contain his impatience for a few seconds.
On the level of US support, that is set out clearly in the letter to which I referred, which has been placed in the Library for all right hon. and hon. Members to see. I am sure that a detailed study of that letter will repay his concern.

309
With regard to overstretch, I made it clear in my statement that the deployment is limited in numbers and time as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Obviously, any increase in our commitment has an impact on the level of activity of all our armed forces, whether they are deployed or remain in base. Nevertheless, I am confident that we can contain for this limited period the degree of impact on the armed forces to satisfactory levels.
On rules of engagement, the Interim Authority will certainly be consulted, but I want to repeat to the House that the rules will be robust. The situation in Afghanistan is not easy and I shall take personal responsibility for ensuring that the rules of engagement are sufficient to allow our forces to protect themselves as they properly should. The chapter VII United Nations Security Council resolution is agreed by the designated Interim Authority. Equipment is a matter that is being considered today and tomorrow in the force generation conference. Obviously, that is the job of those who are responsible for putting together the package of armed forces and equipment that is necessary for this sort of operation. There has been close consultation with the United States on its command role. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter that has been placed in the Library.
In terms of objectives, the hon. Gentleman referred to a long list of possibilities. The one thing that I have learned as a Minister in a number of Departments is that there are always reasons for not doing something. It is always possible to find a long list of risks and problems, but the responsibility of Governments and Ministers is to take decisions to do things. I am confident that it is right that we should take on this particular responsibility.
On funding, I undertake to give the hon. Gentleman a brief about the way in which departmental funding works. I only wish that the Ministry of Defence had a real underspend on its budget. That would certainly make my life and those of my fellow Ministers a great deal easier. I promise that I shall explain to him precisely how the budget of the Ministry of Defence works.
As for the United States, we are certainly willing to support it and to stand shoulder to shoulder with it in its leadership of the international coalition. I have no hesitation in saying that.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance notice of his statement.
The Liberal Democrats have sympathy for yet another commitment that will separate even more British service men and women from their families while the rest of this country enjoys the Christmas and new year holiday, but we understand the importance of post-conflict rebuilding of a civil society in Afghanistan. The promotion of the rule of law is key to that process, as we know from the Balkans experience. The fact that UK forces are especially experienced to undertake this sort of operation makes us proud of them. Indeed, the whole House should be proud of them.
May I ask the Secretary of State a few questions? He gave a time limit of three months. Can he tell the House whether any UK forces are being prepared in advance to replace the forces that are leaving in that three-month period, or can he give an absolute assurance that those
310
forces will be replaced by forces of other nations? What about the many thousands of service men and women in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy who have now been out in the Arabian sea for some months, including for Operation Saif Sareea? Will they be rolled over or relieved before Christmas?
On force protection, the right hon. Gentleman said that a letter concerning United States air cover had been placed in the Library, but are there any contingency plans for the UK to provide air cover RAF units to go out to Afghanistan to support the force on the ground? Finally, does he agree that the need for the UK to be in the lead again underlines the importance of establishing a proper EU military process and the need to get that up and running so that the burden can be shared. [Laughter.] The Conservatives laugh, but once again they criticise the Government for deploying forces and criticise a means by which they are trying, with support from the Liberal Democrats, to provide a solution.
Rebuilding Afghanistan is a key part of the campaign against terrorism and the debt that the west owes to the much-abused people of that sad country. The Liberal Democrats wish the Government and our forces well in that task.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Let me deal as well as I can with his specific questions. I cannot give him an absolute guarantee about the precise three-month time limit. Such operations do not work in that way. For example, in Macedonia, the majority of forces deployed by the United Kingdom were withdrawn after the 30-day time limit. Several remained on the operation, essentially to hand over their knowledge and expertise about circumstances on the ground. I anticipate a similar handover process for the lead elements in the operation that we are considering.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about forces at sea is similar. Those matters are properly tackled in the chain of command. I assure hon. Members that when commanding officers make their decisions, they take full account of the length of time that our armed forces spend on specific operations.
I specifically referred not to US air cover but to US support. However, the hon. Gentleman will find detailed reference to the support in the letter that was placed in the Library.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the United Kingdom being the lead nation. I do not agree with him about the development of a European Union military capability in the case that we are considering. The United Kingdom has received the request to be the lead nation because it is acknowledged that we have tremendous capability to do the job. We can get people into an operation quickly and organise an operation, especially one that is difficult and involves several elements from several different countries. Expertise, not simply the pursuit of dogma, is important.
Mr. Bruce George: I can give my right hon. Friend some clues about how the defence budget works: he should look over the road and talk to people at the Treasury.

311
Why is the United States not prepared to do more at this stage than provide general support for the ground forces in Kabul? Will the large military presence of between 3,000 and 5,000 people, working alongside Afghan forces, operate only in Kabul or in any other cities?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept my right hon. Friend's comments about the United States. For example, the Americans have stated their willingness to organise the airstrip at Bagram for the considerable deployment and resupply of the force. That is an enormous task. The airstrip is not only relatively dangerous because of the unexploded ordnance, but primitive and basic. The Americans' willingness to take on the responsibility of ensuring that a significant number of flights can get on and off the airstrip and that appropriate air traffic control exists, and of supporting people as they get in and out of Afghanistan, is an enormous contribution. When my right hon. Friend gives the matter a few moments thought, I am sure he will realise that.
It is important that my right hon. Friend does not underestimate the significance of United States involvement not only in Afghanistan but in other theatres. It has deployed many troops to tackle what continues to be the international community's primary concern: hunting down the remaining elements of al-Qaeda and ensuring that Afghanistan is never used again as a base for international terrorism. That is a great responsibility, of which the United States bears the lion's share.
Sir John Stanley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be considerable concern that his statement contained no explicit reference to the way air protection cover will be provided for the international force? In his response to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, he appeared to dismiss the possibility. Will he clarify that fundamental point? Will the force be deployed with a clear agreement with the United States that it will provide air protection? Or will the international force be deployed without a formal agreement on air protection? If the latter is the case, the Government are proceeding with doubtful responsibility.
Mr. Hoon: I am a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on air protection, because although the ISAF is going into a dangerous environment on the ground—I am the first to concede that—there is no particular threat from the air in Afghanistan of which I am aware. On air protection, the right hon. Gentleman may be referring to a range of different ideas, but the truth is that extraction is the only issue that is particularly relevant. I am confident that we shall be able to secure the force's extraction when and if that becomes necessary. Again, we would not contemplate deploying a force if we were not confident that it could be deployed successfully to Afghanistan and sustain itself there for the time necessary.
Tony Worthington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. If Conservative Members did not know that this day would come, they are very foolish indeed. We are in the most difficult phase of the Afghanistan situation—the reconstruction—and security is everything. Without it, the other good things cannot occur.
312
My right hon. Friend referred to training. Does he anticipate that, as in Sierra Leone, a major role for the international force will be equipping Afghanistan with its own army, which it does not have, and a police force, which is vital to the future and which it also does not have?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. The annexe to the Bonn agreement refers to the creation of an international security force and the importance of developing Afghanistan's security and armed forces. I anticipate that, in due course, the ISAF could begin to provide the necessary training and development of Afghanistan's armed forces, obviously so that they can protect themselves against further threats.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: This will clearly be a difficult mission. The Secretary of State says that he intends the force to be properly equipped—he used those words—and that discussions as to exactly how that will be achieved are still going on. It is essential that the force is properly equipped, so will he say whether other units of 16 Air Assault Brigade, in particular 7 Regiment Royal Horse Artillery based in Aldershot and 9 Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers, will be deployed? That would be helpful.
On resources, the Secretary of State significantly failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the £147 million underspend last year. The recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff has said in the other place that the armed services were underfunded before 11 September, but we have committed to a raft of new engagements. Where will the money come from? The Secretary of State cannot keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, and I understand that there is no money left for training. Where will the new money come from to fund all these expeditions?
Mr. Hoon: On the equipment, I repeat what I said earlier: there is a force generation conference under way whose purpose is to assess the various offers from other countries in terms of the capabilities required and to put together a force package to do the job. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in the light of my statement—I would have much preferred to make it once the process is complete—but it is difficult to give precise answers to his detailed questions. However, having developed a concept, the forces offered will be applied to it, and I anticipate sufficient offers from sufficient countries to deal with any scenario required.
Equally, depending on those offers, we may need to look elsewhere for other forces that might be deployed to Afghanistan, but that is not in my mind at present. I have been told that there are more than enough offers of people and equipment to satisfy the likely requirements in Afghanistan.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied by my answer on spending. He should know that, under this Government, the money available to defence has increased significantly. The real defence spending cuts were conducted by Governments supported consistently by him. He consistently entered the Lobby to support a Government who cut defence spending by more than

313
20 per cent. and he must say why he did that, as he now comes to the House to complain when the defence budget is increasing.
Donald Anderson: Progress, both military and political, has been remarkable, and we should not allow it to lose momentum or to stall at this stage. My right hon. Friend said that we in the United Kingdom would lose our lead nation status in three months or so. Can he say what will happen then in terms of the commitment of UK forces? He said, for example, that there would be a role for those who would train a local police and military security force. Will we be involved in that from the start? If so, how many UK personnel are likely to be involved in a continuing commitment in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend asked a fair question about what would happen at the end of the three months. I said in my statement that I anticipated a handover to another lead nation. There have been a number of indications of interest from our international partners, and I hope that following such a handover the process will continue in a still more benign environment. We envisage developments such as that mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the training and organisation of a future Afghan security force. I trust that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, however, if I say that it is a little early to anticipate those developments, although I would welcome them.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State now answer the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee—about resourcing? If it is really true, as the Secretary of State claims, that there was no underspend last year, at a time when our forces are so pitifully undermanned, the financial constraints must be even worse than the House thought. Can the right hon. Gentleman not understand why many Conservative Members, while strongly supporting our forces who are undertaking this dangerous and risky operation, are deeply concerned about the rapid worsening of overstretch?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, too, consistently supported a Government who consistently cut the defence budget. I do not recall his standing up at that time and whining in the way he is today—about a Government who have consistently increased defence expenditure. Unless he can sort out that dilemma, his comments cannot be taken seriously.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Is it not true that consolidating military success in Afghanistan by helping to stabilise the country will improve international security, while engaging in reckless military adventures elsewhere, as advocated by some extreme right wingers on both sides of the Atlantic, could make the world much less safe?
Mr. Hoon: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), there are always reasons for
314
not making decisions and there are always reasons for making bad decisions. The exercise of judgment in Government is vital. I accept that different people would put their judgment in different places, but I am confident that the Government get it right.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party fully support the international peacekeeping force.
The Secretary of State said that the rules of engagement would be robust. Can he confirm that the force will undertake Petersberg tasks? Will he also confirm that if an extension of military action beyond the boundaries of Afghanistan were likely, the approval of the international community would be sought before such action was taken?
Mr. Hoon: I do not want to be drawn down either of those routes, because the hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate issues. The tasks for the force will be set out both in chapter VII of the United Nations Security Council resolution and, in a more detailed way, in the military technical agreement reached with the Afghans—based, obviously, on the terms of the Bonn agreement. I do not think either of the hon. Gentleman's points is relevant to what will be essentially a security assistance task in Afghanistan, as defined in that fashion.
Mr. Doug Henderson: I know that my right hon. Friend will have had advice from previous military chiefs of staff on the dangers of a peacekeeping force getting caught up in offensive action. I very much welcome the fact that the British lead of the peacekeeping force will be for three months. I realise that few nations could provide that lead at this stage.
Is there anything in the military technical agreement between the different factions that will constitute the Afghan Government about how they will build their own security forces—their military forces or their law and order capacity through a police force?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend asks a good question about the security forces that will determine the safety and security of Afghanistan. In all honesty, I cannot give him a proper answer at this stage. The military technical agreement will be signed by the Interim Authority, so it will be signed on behalf of all the various factions that agreed the Bonn agreement.
I recognise that a key question for the future of Afghanistan is whether the various factions are prepared to work together to rebuild their country. Crucially, the future of any Afghan army, security forces or police force must be central to that. That is what the international community and the Afghans must work towards. I am given confidence by the Afghans' willingness to move so quickly towards an agreement at Bonn, and their apparent determination to see that agreement fulfilled in full. That is why I believe that it is right for the United Kingdom and the international community to play their part in this process.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Chief of the Defence Staff has said publicly that something will have to give to allow this operation to take place. From which budget will this operation be funded: the Defence budget,

315
the Foreign Office budget or the Government's contingency reserve? If something has to give to allow this operation to take place, what will that be?
Mr. Hoon: The funding for such operations comes from a number of different budgets. That is always the case. The Ministry of Defence will, as always, provide the salaries of those who are deployed, and it recognises that it is funded for that purpose. Other budgets, especially the contingency reserve, are routinely called on to support such operations. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact answer to his question that he desires, but it leads me to believe that Conservative Members need to spend some time studying how budgets for Departments operate.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the international force will interface with a community in which the majority of women are deeply traumatised. Is he aware of the advice that the United Nations has given to Governments regarding special gender training of soldiers, which should be given to those who are entering into such post-conflict situations? Can he assure me that such training is being given? The Afghan women with whom I have contact, both in this country and in Afghanistan, welcome the international force and Britain's leadership of it.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, and I shall ensure that her suggestion is acted on.
Mr. Gregory Barker: Further to the question from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, could the Secretary of State enlighten us as to the thinking of our American allies? They have declined to put ground troops into the peacekeeping force. Were they led to the inescapable truth that, in a theatre as complex and dangerous as Afghanistan, they can be either peacemaker or protagonist, but not both?
Mr. Hoon: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. There will be United States forces on the ground. It is self-evident that there will need to be a US presence to operate an airstrip, as there is already in a number of operations inside Afghanistan. He is wrong to make that assertion. Given the tremendous contribution that the United States is already making with its offensive operations in and around Afghanistan, which require significant logistic support, he should not suggest that the US is not capable of involvement in the peacekeeping operation as well.
Mr. George Howarth: At the risk of being accused of advocating mission creep, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on whether it might be appropriate, in view of the training role that he envisages, to provide UK police and Customs and Excise resources to Afghanistan, so that the interim authority and any new security forces will be properly trained to deal with the drug situation, especially the heroin trade, which originates mostly in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: Again, consistent with an answer I gave earlier, I anticipate that a range of requirements across Government functions will be needed by the interim
316
Administration in Afghanistan. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's suggestions are passed on to the appropriate quarter.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I believe that Lord Guthrie said that the Ministry of Defence was underfunded before 11 September. Was he wrong?
Mr. Hoon: I have worked closely with the noble Lord and we have had regular exchanges on the nature of the defence budget. I do not speak for the noble Lord, but I do speak for the Government. In assessing the budget of all Departments it is necessary to take some very difficult decisions sometimes, but this Government have consistently increased the amount spent on defence. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a relatively recent arrival, so I cannot blame him for supporting previous Conservative Governments who cut the defence budget, but I assure him that they did.
Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of an agreed United Nations international security and assistance force going to assist Afghanistan is a remarkable achievement, and one that not so long ago many of us would never have thought possible? Does he also agree that there are no armed forces better able or better trusted to lead it in its first, crucial stages than those of the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that it is contradictory of the official Opposition spokesman to express concerns about overstretch of our armed forces, but also to say that our armed forces should be willing and prepared to follow the US wherever it wants them to go?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes several good points, on which I am sure Opposition Members will carefully and maturely reflect. I hope that both sides of the House agree that in the immediate aftermath of the first launch of the military operations, no one would have thought that before Christmas we would be talking about a peace support operation, given the considerable dangers and difficulties involved in the offensive operations. That is a remarkable tribute to the leadership of the US and the support that several nations, including the UK and its armed forces, have been able to give.
Mr. George Osborne: Could the Secretary of State clear up the confusion between his statement, in which he mentioned a three-month deployment, and the letter from the Foreign Secretary to the UN Secretary-General, which has just been placed in the Library, which says that the deployment will end
"no later than 30 April 2002."?
That is four months. Is it three months or four months, and why did he not mention the 30 April date?
Mr. Hoon: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has had time for a close textual analysis of the letter and I am equally delighted that that is the only problem that he has been able to identify. The answer is straightforward and if he had listened carefully to what I said—perhaps he was too busy reading the letter—he would have noticed that I mentioned the difficulty of getting the force into Afghanistan and that the three months will run from the point at which the force is ready and doing its job.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Anything done to ameliorate the Afghan tragedy is to be welcomed

317
and, in that context, the Secretary of State's statement is welcome today. Given the comments made by Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, to the Royal United Services Institute and given the intention of the US Administration to extend the present campaign to other countries in the mid-east and the horn of Africa, does he envisage British forces being further involved in similar situations in countries attacked by the US in pursuance of its anti-terrorist strategy, or does he rule that out?
Mr. Hoon: The US and British Governments have worked together extremely closely during these offensive operations. We have had detailed consultations at every level of Government and of the military, and I anticipate that that will continue. I am sure, therefore, that, in appropriate circumstances, the UK will want to support the US in its continuing operations against international terrorism.
Hugh Robertson: I welcome the deployment, but I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). Air cover is an important element of these operations, and when I was with the UN operation in Bosnia, the UN—and the IFOR and SFOR follow-up forces—all used it. In his reply, the Secretary of State said that air cover would not be available and that it was merely used for insertion and extraction purposes. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that point?
Mr. Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) that I did not suggest that air cover was not available or that it was not required. I said that I did not see any immediate threat from the air. There may be a need for air cover, but that will certainly depend on judgments made by the military. The force generation conference will obviously make a military judgment about the requirement for air cover. If air cover is judged to be necessary, the relevant assets will be made available.
Roger Casale: I add my appreciation of the work of our armed services and intelligence services. They have performed remarkable work throughout the conflict. They have shown that they well deserve the confidence not just of the British people but of the whole international community.
Is it not the case, as many hon. Members have seen at first hand in Kosovo and the Balkans, that troops may need to be deployed for some time if urgent humanitarian relief is now to be delivered by the non-governmental organisations, the UN, the EU and many other national
318
Governments and international organisations? That relief is needed urgently if Afghanistan is to be set on the road to sustainable development in the longer term.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to urge caution about what is a highly dangerous mission. Does he agree that there is no doubt that Britain is well qualified to lead its initial stages? Does he agree that, without such a mission, there is no chance of a better future for the men, women and children of Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, especially for those in connection with the armed forces, which will be deeply appreciated.
As for humanitarian relief, it is vital that there is a greater degree of security in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. I know that NGOs are working around the clock to deliver aid, especially given the onset of some pretty brutal weather in Afghanistan. We have had a considerable number of offers from other nations in the international community regarding the deployment of troops. They are willing to play their part, but not all will do so in the early stages of the process. I look forward to being able to tell the House in future of the contributions that other nations will be able to make.
Patrick Mercer: I am full of admiration for the troops who are about to deploy, but will the Secretary of State say whether 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and 40 Commando Royal Marines will be deploying at peace establishment or war establishment? In either event, which units have been stripped of manpower to make them deployable?
Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows better than I, those are matters for the military command chain. That is why such questions are left to the military leadership. Those officers provide advice to Ministers, who are ultimately responsible and accountable to this House.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State said that the mission for this force does not include the pursuit of al-Qaeda. However, it is possible that the pursuit elsewhere in Afghanistan might switch suddenly to the Kabul area. What preparations has the Secretary of State made to deal with that contingency?
Mr. Hoon: That is a fair question, and one that has been the subject of detailed discussions. It has been agreed with the US that there must be clear co-ordination on any deconfliction of operations involving American forces engaged in pursuing al-Qaeda and the peace support operation. I assure the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that absolute priority will be given to the pursuit of the remaining elements of al-Qaeda.

Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath
5.15 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic church are able to succeed to the Crown; to amend the law relating to the parliamentary oath; and for connected purposes.
As The Guardian said this morning, this is a modest measure. In July 2000, my noble Friend Lord Parekh presented a sadly neglected report from the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. He concluded that we are at a turning point in our history and can become inward looking or develop as
"a community of citizens and communities".
He called for politicians to show the courage of leadership.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has also called for leadership. He said that what Northern Ireland needs from its politicians, perhaps now more than ever before, is a common vision of a new inclusive society. A good starting point, he continued, would be a determination to tackle sectarianism. He described sectarianism as
"a virus at the heart of Northern Ireland".
Sectarianism taints every aspect of life that it touches.
The Bill would strike at discrimination and intolerance in our society. I am looking to assist the process of inclusion—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's big tent. Some of the laws that I seek to amend are very old but that does not mean that they cease to have effect.
The Bill is about putting our own House in order and recognising where tradition may directly or indirectly exclude a section of the community. It is about recognising those aspects of our traditions that may inadvertently cause offence and those that are in conflict with our commitment to a multi-ethnic future.
Agreement to proceed with the Bill will have a dramatic effect. It will demonstrate the will of the House to modernise the constitution and all its workings. It will bring the foundations of our democracy into line with our obligations to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was a proud moment when this Parliament put into legislation the European convention on human rights.
The first part of my Bill concerns the Treason Felony Act 1848. At the end of the last millennium, The Guardian wished to publish a series of articles advocating a republican Government in the United Kingdom. It was, however, prevented from doing so because section 3 of the 1848 Act makes it a felony not only—in this case very properly—to levy war against Her Majesty but to
"compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose"
her. Persons found guilty of such imaginings or of expressing their intention to abolish the monarchy, even by exclusively democratic and peaceful means, would be committing an offence punishable by life imprisonment.
320
Anyone who is familiar with article 10 of the European convention on human rights knows that under the terms of the convention:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities".
So the publishers and proprietors of The Guardian wrote to the then Attorney-General seeking permission to publish such articles. Failing that, they would seek a declaration in the High Court that section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 should be interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and, consequently, that existing law would not criminalise the author of a newspaper article advocating peaceful change to a republic.
On 8 December 2000, the then Attorney-General wrote:
"It is not for any Attorney-General to disapply an Act of Parliament; that is a matter for Parliament itself."
With this Bill, I intend to address the shortcomings of the 1848 Act; to make clear that it is no longer an offence to seek a change in the nature of government by democratic and peaceful means; and to give the House the opportunity to start disapplying.
The second part of the Bill would amend those aspects of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701 dealing with succession to the throne, in order to remove discrimination against Roman Catholics. The Act is extremely offensive in that regard. It stipulates that
"those who profess the Popish religion"
can neither be monarchs nor marry into the royal family.
In December 1999, Members of the Scottish Parliament unanimously adopted the following motion:
"That the Parliament believes that the discrimination contained in the Act of Settlement has no place in our modern society, expresses its wish that those discriminatory aspects of the Act be repealed".—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 December 1999; Vol. 3, c. 1636–37.]
However, the repeal of such legislation is a matter reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament, so we should address it.
I am not persuaded by those who say that to enshrine sectarianism in legislation is unimportant or by those who argue that such a move would require legislation in all the 15 Commonwealth countries that recognise the Queen as their head of state. It is important, and we can act without reference to those other kingdoms.
Article 9.2 of the European convention on human rights provides:
"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Our European partners in Luxembourg, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands all maintain a constitutional monarchy. None requires the restriction of access to the throne on the ground of religious belief.
The Prime Minister is on record on this issue. He shares my belief that the anti-Catholic aspects of the Act of Settlement are plainly discriminatory. I was happy to note that he promised to re-examine the issue during his second term. This is his second term and my Bill would permit the House to offer him the opportunity to conduct that re-examination.

321
The final aspect of my Bill relates to amendment of the Oaths Act 1978. Such amendment would address from a different angle matters raised in the Chamber yesterday. It would remove the requirement that an elected Member of Parliament take the present Oath of loyalty to the monarch and would provide an alternative—a modern oath of affirmation. The Oath could take the form suggested by my right hon. Friend, the former Member for Chesterfield, Tony Benn:
"I do solemnly Declare and Affirm that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here."—[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 379.]
Such an alternative—it would not be mandatory—would cover the point and would get rid of many of our current problems.
Since I last argued this matter, I have had the benefit of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Buscarini and Others v. San Marino. In that case, three individuals elected to the Parliament of the Republic of San Marino challenged the requirement that they take the oath as prescribed by law. They submitted that the exercise of a fundamental political right such as holding parliamentary office should not be subject to publicly professing a particular faith—in breach of article 9 of the European convention.
The Government of San Marino maintained that the wording of the oath was not religious but
"historical and social in significance and based on tradition"
and that the form of words at issue had
"lost its original religious character".
The European judges stated that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in article 9 constitutes one of the foundations of a "democratic society" within the meaning of the convention. The Court's comments regarding article 9 are important for us. It explained that
"it would be contradictory to make the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to prior commitment to a particular set of beliefs"—
to the taking of a particular oath.
I believe that we can get rid of the indignity and absurdity that have characterised the taking of the Oath. We can return to a situation where the occasion is treated with solemnity, because people will return to a position where they are doing something voluntarily, not because it is insisted on or directed, and they can do it with a free conscience.
These three measures—the right to argue, without fear of punishment, for a republic or to replace the monarchy; the right to marry a Catholic or be a Catholic and still be able to be the head of state, and the right of the Oath—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Time is up.
5.25 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I oppose the motion. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is seeking to undermine the constitution, all through the dominion of what we call a ten-minute rule Bill. He has raised matters of deep constitutional meaning, which have
322
a meaning for us all. Surely if we are going to review—and change—the constitution of this United Kingdom, that deserves more than a ten-minute Bill, because such a Bill has neither the time nor the capacity to deal with such issues.
I want to take up some immediate questions. The hon. Gentleman laid great emphasis on Europe, and on how Europe feels, and said that those in Europe look upon our constitution as bigoted and discriminatory. However, article 16 of the constitution of Spain underscores the special relationship of Spain with the Roman Catholic Church, and says that the only successors who may enter into the monarchic relationship in Spain must be successors of His Majesty Don Carlos. That house is of course a strictly Roman Catholic house, and those successors are strictly Roman Catholic.
In Belgium, which is also a Roman Catholic country, the king himself—not the law but the king—can decide who his successor should marry, and if the successor marries without the king's consent he cannot be king. The written constitution says that the rightful succession is through the descent of the Roman Catholic Saxe-Coburg dynasty.
In Sweden, which is also a member of the European Union, the king must always profess the pure Evangelical Lutheran faith as adopted and explained in the unaltered Constitution of Augsburg. According to the resolution of the Uppsala meeting in the year 1593, princes and princesses of the royal house must be brought up in the same faith and within the realm. Any member of the royal family not professing that faith will be excluded from all rights of succession.
Let us look at Denmark, which is also a member of the European Union. Part 2 of its constitution states that the king shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and according to section 4 of the constitution, the Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the established Church of Denmark.
If one looks to the Netherlands, one finds in article 24 of the constitution that the succession to the throne is hereditary and limited to the legitimate descendants of King William I—not King William III, but King William I, Prince of Orange: a Protestant succession indeed.
So two Roman Catholic countries in the European Union say that they should have a Roman Catholic monarch, and the other countries that I have mentioned say that they should have a Protestant monarch.
The emphasis of the Bill of Rights of 1688 was not on religion, but on the security of this nation, and the Act is based on that security. Under the reigns of Bloody Mary and King James, this nation learned that it was not safe. That was the basis on which that Bill was drafted, and the Williamite revolution settlement is the basis for our constitutional position.
The Williamite revolution settlement has served this nation well in the past, and to say now that our hands should be put to the job of dismantling that settlement is strange, for we do not know what people want to put in its place. What will be put in the place of the Williamite revolution settlement?
I do not hear any agitation among nonconformists about the fact that the Queen is the supreme governor, or head,

323
of the Church of England. They do not say that that is a terrible thing and that they are slighted because the monarch cannot be a nonconformist. I do not hear that at all, and I tell the House that we should not put our hands to destroying something that has served this country well, and replace it with something that is the subject of debate in a courthouse in Europe.
Those in Europe seem to be saying, "Don't do as we do, do what we say you should do." Let them deal with those matters before they lecture the House and the United Kingdom and tell us that we are discriminatory and bigoted. That is a matter that they have to face up to, and they should do so realistically. The House would be well advised to say, "No. We cannot put our hands to such a proposal at the present time." However, if the Government are interested in this matter, as they have stated, it is their responsibility to propose such a Bill and to give proper time for its debate, argument and consideration.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —
The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 32.

Division No. 122]

[5.32 pm

AYES

Alexander, Douglas

Cousins, Jim

Allan, Richard

Cox, Tom

Allen, Graham

Cranston, Ross

Austin, John

Crausby, David

Bailey, Adrian

Cruddas, Jon

Baird, Vera

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Baker, Norman

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Banks, Tony

Daisley, Paul

Barrett, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Battle, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bayley, Hugh

David, Wayne

Begg, Miss Anne

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bennett, Andrew

Dismore, Andrew

Benton, Joe

Dobbin, Jim

Berry, Roger

Donohoe, Brian H

Best, Harold

Doughty, Sue

Brake, Tom

Dowd, Jim

Breed, Colin

Drew, David

Brennan, Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Ewing, Annabelle

Bruce, Malcolm

Flynn, Paul

Bryant, Chris

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burden, Richard

Galloway, George

Bumham, Andy

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burstow, Paul

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

(NE Fife)

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Carmichael, Alistair

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Casale, Roger

Harvey, Nick

Caton, Martin

Heath, David

Challen, Colin

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Chaytor, David

Hendrick, Mark

Clapham, Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Holmes, Paul

Clelland, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clwyd, Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Coleman, Iain

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Colman, Tony

Iddon, Dr Brian

Connarty, Michael

Illsley, Eric

Corston, Jean

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Cotter, Brian

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

324

Jenkins, Brian

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Purchase, Ken

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Purnell, James

Keetch, Paul

Rapson, Syd

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Rendel, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Salmond, Alex

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Salter, Martin

Lazarowicz, Mark

Sanders, Adrian

Lepper, David

Sawford, Phil

Lloyd, Tony

Sheridan, Jim

Llwyd, Elfyn

Simon, Siôn

Lyons, John

Skinner, Dennis

McCabe, Stephen

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

MacDougall, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

McNamara, Kevin

Soley, Clive

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stevenson, George

McWalter, Tony

Stunell, Andrew

McWilliam, John

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mann, John

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thurso, John

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Martlew, Eric

Tyler, Paul

Meale, Alan

Vaz, Keith

Mole, Chris

Vis, Dr Rudi

Moore, Michael

Weir, Michael

Morgan, Julie

White, Brian

Mullin, Chris

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Munn, Ms Meg

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

O'Hara, Edward

Winnick, David

ÖOpik, Lembit

Wishart, Pete

Organ, Diana

Wood, Mike

Owen, Albert

Woodward, Shaun

Perham, Linda

Worthington, Tony

Picking, Anne

Wright, David (Telford)

Pike, Peter

Wyatt, Derek

Plaskitt, James

Younger-Ross, Richard

Pollard, Kerry

Pound, Stephen

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jeremy Corbyn and Mr. Malcolm Savidge.

Price, Adam

NOES

Baron, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Browning, Mrs Angela

Selous, Andrew

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Simmonds, Mark

(Chipping Barnet)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Chidgey, David

Spink, Bob

Conway, Derek

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fallon, Michael

Syms, Robert

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Francois, Mark

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Gale, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Hoban, Mark

Watkinson, Angela

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Mercer, Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Robathan, Andrew

Rev. Ian Paisley and Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kevin McNamara, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Paul Flynn, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Andrew Mackinlay, Kevin Brennan and John Austin.

TREASON FELONY, ACT OF SETTLEMENT AND PARLIAMENTARY OATH
Mr. Kevin McNamara accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic church are able to succeed to the Crown; to amend the law relating to the parliamentary oath; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January, and to be printed [Bill 77].

DEREGULATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
DWELLING-HOUSES
That the draft Deregulation (Disposals of Dwelling-houses by Local Authorities) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Question agreed to.
Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we come to the next item of business, could you inquire whether it is possible to make available copies of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, under which the extradition regulations are to be made? As you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Act received Royal Assent in the early hours of Friday morning. We all understand the haste with which the last stages proceeded, but when inquiries were last made in the Vote Office, copies of the Act were not available. Is it possible and proper for Parliament to debate regulations when it is not possible to obtain copies of the Act under which they are to be made?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is in fact a point for debate. Ministers who are present will have heard his comments.
Simon Hughes: With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that cannot be a point for debate. The regulation is to be made under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. The conditions of the relevant section of that Act were controversial; they have been debated and changed by Government amendment and by negotiation in the past couple of days. It is therefore very important that my colleagues have the final wording of what is permitted under that section, as opposed to what was in the original drafting. As a matter of principle, I think that we should have the Act. But if we cannot have it, it is proper that we should have its final section, which received Royal Assent last Friday.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman: there is nothing to stop the debate proceeding. That is the intention of the motion on the Order Paper.

Extradition
5.47 pm
The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): I beg to move,
That the draft European Union Extradition Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
In moving the 2001 regulations, I shall start by responding to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Obviously, it would be preferable for the hon. Gentleman to have a copy of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As he knows, it includes an enabling provision, which we approved, to allow debate on the regulations. I know that he does not have the precise words of that provision, but is only an enabling measure and does not affect our ability to debate the regulations, of which I hope he has the full text.
Simon Hughes: I have the full text. Will the Minister explain why he is introducing what he called the 2001 regulations, whereas the published regulations include the words "Regulations 2002"?
Mr. Bradley: I apologise for the error. I am sure that Hansard will correct it and make sure that the right regulations are in the text of our debate. Clearly the season of good will has not yet hit Liberal Democrat Members.
I am pleased to be able to introduce the regulations, both because they are intrinsically worth while, as I hope I shall be able to demonstrate, and because, as I have just pointed out, they are the first such regulations to be made under the provisions of section 111 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which received Royal Assent last week.
The regulations demonstrate the value of the enabling power that that section created. The changes that they make are desirable, but essentially quite minor. It would simply not be worth devoting the parliamentary time that would be required to enact primary legislation to give effect to their content; the previous Government were evidently of the same view, because they did not introduce primary legislation to make the required changes when they were in office.
Now, however, we have the opportunity to give effect to the 1995 and 1996 European Union conventions on extradition, which will bring our extradition arrangements more closely into line with those of most of our European partners.
Before describing in detail what the regulations do, I shall say a little about what they do not do. They do not give effect to the European arrest warrant, which is a subject that has attracted some comment in recent weeks. I therefore do not propose to deal with that. The necessary legislation to give effect to that instrument will be contained in an extradition Bill, which will be introduced early in the new year. There will be adequate opportunity

327
to debate that Bill, which will go much wider than Europe, and cover our extradition relations with the rest of the world.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does that mean that the Home Secretary cannot be extradited from the United Kingdom for xenophobia?
Mr. Bradley: I shall continue with the serious elements of the debate.
As I have said, the regulations are designed to give effect to two European conventions. These are formally known as the convention on simplified extradition procedures between member states of the European Union of 1995, and the convention relating to extradition between member states of the EU of 1996. The first was signed on 10 March 1995 and the second on 27 September 1996. The two conventions make a number of changes to speed up and simplify extradition between EU member states, and require amendments to the Extradition Act 1989.
Assuming that the regulations are agreed to, they will come into force 90 days after the date of the United Kingdom's notification of our ratification to the Secretary General of the Council of the EU under the provisions of the conventions, which we intend will happen immediately.
Currently, extradition between member states of the EU takes place on the basis of the European convention on extradition of 1957—the ECE. The two conventions amend the provisions of the ECE between EU states. Their provisions do not affect our extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland, as those are regulated not by the ECE but by reciprocal legislation.
We are bringing the regulations forward in advance of the extradition Bill, which will be introduced in the new year to meet the deadline for the ratification of the two conventions by all member states set by the special Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September as part of its response to the terrible events in the United States on 11 September.
The conventions are nothing new. Indeed, they were the impetus for the review of extradition law that began in 1997. That was ultimately to lead to the consultation paper published earlier this year entitled "The Law on Extradition: a Review", which contained nine specific recommendations regarding the two conventions, as well as a wide range of other proposed amendments. A summary of the responses received was placed in the Library, as well as on the Home Office website, on 24 October. In addition, the conventions were subject to, and cleared, the parliamentary scrutiny process while they were being negotiated.
The amendments to the Extradition Act 1989 are set out in schedule 9 to the draft regulations. They are limited to countries in respect of which the conventions are in force between them and the UK. The provisions of the conventions, and hence the amendments to the Extradition Act, apply only to requests made after the regulations come into force.
Jeremy Corbyn: I have been reading the regulations and schedule 9. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the proposed regulations, anyone
328
indicted under the recently passed terrorist legislation could be extradited without having appeared in open court in the United Kingdom, or am I wrong about that?
Mr. Bradley: My understanding is that my hon. Friend is wrong on that point. However, I shall check. I hope that I shall be able to respond later. I do not want to mislead him. If he cannot remain in his place throughout the debate, I shall certainly write to him. It is important that we get these things right.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend. If the regulations applied to someone indicted under the legislation that we have so recently passed, could he or she be extradited without having gone through a legal process either here or in the extraditing country?
Mr. Bradley: The arrangements must come into force through the regulations. The process of extradition would go through the process of request. The issues that relate to the amendments would apply if they applied to that situation. They would not apply retrospectively. There would need to be a request from the requesting state, and a response from us as the requested state.
Simon Hughes: Perhaps it is appropriate to ask the Minister now if at some stage he will set out which other countries are involved. In theory, that could mean all the EU countries—but I gather that they are not yet all parties to the conventions. It would be helpful to have the current lists of the two sets of countries.
Mr. Bradley: I will provide that information during the debate. As I have said, the provisions of the 1989 Act will continue to apply, so extradition will be able to take place only after there has been a hearing in open court. These provisions do not affect that process.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way again?
Mr. Bradley: I would like to make progress. I shall give way just once more.
Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend has been patient. He will understand, however, that there are genuine concerns.
If someone were arrested in this country as a deemed international terrorist, under an order made by the Home Secretary, is it right to say that they could not be extradited under the Act, but only after going through a process governed by earlier legislation, which would mean an open court rather than the closed sessions envisaged in the Act that the House has just passed?
Mr. Bradley: That is my understanding. If further clarification is needed, I shall write to my hon. Friend.
As I have said, the amendments to the Extradition Act are set out in schedule 9 to the draft regulations. They are limited to countries in respect of which the conventions are in force between them and the UK. The provisions of the conventions, and hence the amendments to the Extradition Act, apply only to requests made after the regulations come into force. I shall mention the countries later.

329
It may be helpful if I set out in more detail the provisions of the two conventions and the amendments to the Extradition Act that the regulations will make. The 1995 convention sets out streamlined procedures for cases in which the fugitive and the requested state consent to extradition. When a person is arrested pursuant to an extradition request, they are to be informed of the possibility of consenting to their surrender under the simplified procedure. The convention sets out the conditions under which consent can be given. It must be expressed voluntarily and in full awareness of the consequences.
The convention sets out various deadlines on the stages of the case, the most notable of which is that the individual must be surrendered within 20 days of the requested state making its decision. Consent may not be revoked, and in consenting to extradition the fugitive is also renouncing specialty and re-extradition protection. The regulations make changes to sections 6, 9, 14 and 18 of the 1989 Act to implement those provisions.
The 1996 convention makes a number of amendments to the provisions of the ECE. Its main provisions are as follows: to reduce the extradition crime threshold from 12 months in both the requested and the requesting state, to 12 months in the requesting state and six months in the requested state; the abolition of the political offence exception; and a provision that a person who has been extradited may be proceeded against for an offence committed before surrender other than that upon which the request for extradition was based, without obtaining the consent of the requested member state where the offence is not punishable by imprisonment or any other form of detention or where the person will not be detained in connection with his trial, sentence or appeal. Finally, there is relaxation of authentication requirements, which is particularly important for us as it is widely recognised that the UK's authentication requirements are among the most onerous in Europe.
I promised that I would respond to the question about the countries that had not yet ratified the conventions. In the case of the 1995 convention, those are France, Belgium and Italy; in the case of the 1996 convention, France and Italy. They have all undertaken to ratify by 1 January 2002, and all other EU member states have ratified both conventions. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
The regulations make amendments to sections 2, 6, 18 and 26 of the Extradition Act 1989 to achieve the changes that I outlined. In addition, there are some provisions in the 1996 convention that we can implement without the need to amend the 1989 Act. The main ones include article 3, which relaxes the principle of dual criminality for the offence of conspiracy or criminal association to commit certain serious crimes, including terrorist offences. The regulations do not make any legislative changes in respect of this article, as the UK can already extradite in all the circumstances covered by the article.
Similarly, article 6 provides that extradition is not to be refused for offences related to taxes, duties, customs and exchange which correspond under the law of the requested member state to a similar offence. Extradition may not be refused on the grounds that the law of the
330
requested member state does not impose the same type of taxes or duties or does not have the same type of provisions in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange. No changes to the Extradition Act 1989 are required to implement article 6.
Article 7 states that extradition shall not be refused on the ground that the person concerned is a national of the requested state. There are no legislative implications for the UK, as we do not currently refuse extradition on those grounds. However, it is an important provision for those of our European partners that have traditionally been reluctant to extradite their own nationals, such as Germany and Greece.
Simon Hughes: I accept the Minister's assurance that the regulations do not change the law in respect of the offences to which he referred, but it would be helpful if he could provide, in his winding-up speech or later, a definition of the categories of offences under article3—terrorism, drug trafficking and other organised crime. Otherwise, where do people look for such a definition?
Mr. Bradley: I shall endeavour to provide a definition in the course of the debate, but if that is not possible, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give as much detail as I can.
I hope that I have not been too technical. The Government believe that the changes are desirable. Although the changes proposed are hardly earth-shattering, they should help to simplify and speed up extradition between EU member states. The regulations will also enable the UK to honour an important international obligation and will contribute in yet another way to the fight against terrorism. I trust that they will be supported by the official Opposition—after all, the two conventions were agreed in 1995 and 1996 and signed by the UK in those years—and I hope that they will also be supported in all other parts of the House.
I remind the House that very recently, during the debates on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which received Royal Assent last week, it was accepted in both Houses that it was right for the conventions to be given effect under the enabling powers in that Act. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the House.
6.4 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins: It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly on the motion to approve the European Union Extradition Regulations 2002. I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he introduced them. The official Opposition do not find them controversial and will not oppose them.
Crime is increasingly an international phenomenon. Criminals have no respect for territorial boundaries, and the freedom of movement that the single market gives to Europe's peoples and businesses unfortunately creates new opportunities for criminals to expand their illegal activities. That creates a serious challenge for our law enforcement agencies and our different criminal systems. Measures and actions taken by our Government and other EU Governments to increase co-operation between member states in speeding up the bringing of criminals to justice are to be welcomed by us all.
It is important to recognise that the EU is made up of a diverse group of nations with different legal traditions. Criminal law is, rightly, a matter for each member state

331
to decide for itself. Let us recognise that each member state may protect human rights in a different way. Let us also recognise in a debate such as this some practical difficulties, including language difficulties.
Liberty is, of course, the most important freedom. Any steps taken by any Government must be in accordance with that freedom. Each state must protect the rights of its citizens and of those resident within its borders. With that background, I shall say a little about each of the conventions with which are dealing—first, the convention on simplified extradition procedure, the 1995 convention.
Extradition law is complicated. My friends the district judges at Bow street magistrates court have mastered the subject, but few others have ever been able to do so. We know of the complex stages in extradition and of the potentially lengthy time scale involved, so it is refreshing to see the word "simplified" in the title. Under the measure, member states undertake to surrender to each other, under simplified procedures, persons sought for the purposes of extradition, subject to the consent of such persons and the agreement of the returning or the requested state.
May I raise one or two queries with the Minister? If he cannot deal with them during the debate, perhaps he could write to me. First, can he confirm that the person's consent will not be given only orally, but that it will be required to be confirmed by the person in writing?
Next, in article 5 of the 1995 convention, there is reference to the "competent authority" of the requested state. In article 7, there is reference to the "competent judicial authority" of the requested state. "Competent authority" for the UK is defined in schedule 2 of that convention as
"the Home Office, the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Executive Justice Department, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) and a sheriff of Lothian and Borders."
However, I do not see anywhere a definition of a competent judicial authority, which seems to be a different authority from a competent authority. I assume, and perhaps the Minister will confirm, that the competent judicial authority will be the senior district judge or another district judge, magistrates courts. Will the Minister also confirm that the person for whom extradition is sought will have a right not only to choose his or her counsel—I assume that there will be a free choice in that regard— but to claim legal aid, subject to the normal means test?
I should like to turn briefly to the 1996 convention. Like the 1995 convention, it allows the Government to retain their role in the extradition process and protects the concept of dual criminality, which is dealt with in article 2, and speciality, which is dealt with in article 10. It is worth pointing out that the 1996 convention has nothing to do with the proposed EU arrest warrant, about which we will have a great deal to say in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that we can take the festive mood of the House— at least, it seems festive at the moment—into the new year, but we will, of course, be considering the EU arrest warrant, and I suspect that the atmosphere may change a little—if not a lot—when we do.
I should like to raise with the Minister a couple of queries in relation to the 1996 convention and especially article 10. I referred to the protection of the concept of dual criminality and to the issue of speciality. I think that
332
article 10 relates to a person who is to be dealt with by a court in the requesting country, perhaps for an offence that is separate and was not included, so to speak, in the initial proceedings. It states:
"A person who has been extradited may … be prosecuted or tried"
for that sort of offence when it is
"not punishable by deprivation of liberty."
We all understand that. It goes on to state that such a person may be prosecuted if the proceedings
"do not give rise to the application of a measure restricting his personal liberty".
We understand that also, but it seems possible that the person could be dealt with if the offence, which was not known about earlier, is met with a financial penalty, which is another method of punishment. Certainly, in this country—I believe that this also applies in other countries—if one is given a financial punishment, but cannot manage the payment, which could be very large, one suffers a custodial sentence in lieu. I hope that we are not facing the prospect of a sleight of hand in terms of the absence of protection for such a person. On the face of the regulations, that protection appears strong, but I hope that that strength is actual and that the Minister can comment on that point.
That is as much as I need to say about the regulations. I have not exactly given them a thundering welcome, but as the Minister said, the conventions are from 1995 and 1996, and the EU arrest warrant is not an issue for debate now. It is proper, therefore, that the Opposition should act responsibly and take no steps that would result in a vote against these sensible measures.
I see that I have been on my feet for nine minutes. An hon. Friend sitting not more than six feet away from me suggested earlier today that three minutes might be a suitable period in which to advance my arguments. He did not recognise, however, that I am a lawyer by background, and very few lawyers ever manage such brevity.
6.14 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: May I declare an interest, as I am not a lawyer—probably the only non-lawyer to speak in the debate?
Mr. Keith Bradley: I am not a lawyer.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am in good company.
I shall be brief. I rise because I was slightly concerned by the fact that when the Minister introduced the regulations, he set them in the context of the current issues of terrorism and the legislation that the House enacted last week—in my view, regrettably—to bring into effect new anti-terrorist measures. It seems that there is a danger of confusing several issues. If I understood correctly what he said later and what the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said in his speech, the regulations have their basis in the 1995 and 1996 conventions. While some terrorist offences may be covered in that regard, I would like it to be confirmed that the new legislation does not apply to the regulations.
It is important that we set the record straight on that, because in the legislation that we passed last week, we not only sought a derogation from the European convention on human rights in respect of part of its

333
operation, but passed into law the ability of the Home Secretary to try somebody on the basis of private information and put them in prison. The measure ensured that such a person could appeal only to a private committee in which they would not see the evidence against them. The only right of appeal will be based on a point of law and dealt with through a judicial review process, where, again, the evidence would not be tested in court. I would find it horrific if legislation of such a standard was then used as a basis for extradition, so I would be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that I am wrong about that.
Will the Minister also confirm another point made by the hon. Member for Woking and give an assurance that legal aid will be available, providing that the defendant fulfils the normal criteria? It is important to ensure openness and justice, so legal aid is very important.
I make my final point having sat through days of hearings on the application of the Spanish courts to the English courts to extradite General Pinochet to Spain so that he could face charges there. It was a fascinating experience and the standard of legal argument was very high. A number of landmark judgments were made, not the least of which was the House of Lords ruling on the right to try people for offences committed elsewhere in the world. At the end of the day, however, the extradition hearings and debate did not add up to very much, because the Home Secretary has the final say in these matters and considerable discretion. In the case of General Pinochet, he used that discretion in respect of the rather curious wording "humanitarian grounds", under which it was decided that General Pinochet was not fit to stand trial. He was then allowed to return to Chile, where further legal action against him was contemplated and indeed attempted.
Will the Minister explain exactly what discretion the Home Secretary has? In relation to all the other contracting parties to the extradition arrangement, will the equivalent Home Secretary or Minister of the Interior again have the final say, or will the extradition proceedings with which we are dealing take away such discretion and allow compulsory removal of the accused person from this country, providing that the legal arguments stand up in court? In the whole Pinochet experience, it seemed to me that justice was not done in the end because of the powers of discretion that were available to the Home Secretary and to the equivalent Ministers of the Interior elsewhere. If extradition is to mean anything, it must be decided on legal grounds rather than on the basis of political discretion, which is what is available under current extradition arrangements.
6.18 pm
Simon Hughes: This is a bit of a challenge for all of us. The Minister, who took interventions, was good enough to keep his speech to 17 minutes, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) took 10 minutes, and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) five. I am, therefore, conscious that there is a challenge and that we nearly stand between this place and its holiday. We also face a challenge because the regulations are a serious matter and the final Adjournment debate is on spina bifida, which is also a serious matter. Only between the debates is the more
334
festive element to which the hon. Member for Woking referred, in respect of why we should or should not go on holiday—something that we all hope to do when we break up at the end of this evening. In case I am accused of misrepresentation, I know that the House of Lords is sitting tomorrow and does not break up until then.
We are considering the last Home Office business of this calendar year and of this term. It is no coincidence that Question Time on the first day after the recess was followed by a statement from the Home Secretary about the consequences for this country of the events of 11 September. Several of us who are present are responsible for Home Office business in our parties, and I am conscious that a lot of legislative water has flowed under the bridge since our return. The motion is only a trailer for the next torrent. We hope that there will be a gap of a few weeks before it.
We are considering the first and least controversial of at least three substantial extradition matters. We shall subsequently discuss the European arrest warrant, which is controversial, and an extradition Bill, which is both technical and controversial.
The Government clearly stated to Opposition parties and Labour Members that the United Kingdom had an obligation to implement the two conventions by the end of the calendar year. Under an agreement with European Union member states, we said that we would enshrine them in law. As hon. Members have said, we signed them six and five years ago respectively, but we cannot ratify them until we have legislated. The Government therefore approached both main Opposition parties and asked whether we would be content to legislate by the method that we are considering.
The usual method is primary legislation. Like the hon. Member for Woking and Conservative Members, Liberal Democrat Members decided that it was important to honour our international obligations. We therefore accepted that the conventions could and should be two of only four matters that are implemented under the European third pillar arrangements, which cover justice and home affairs, through secondary legislation. We accepted that process to honour Britain's obligations to our partners, and because while the conventions are technical and complex, their substance is relatively uncontroversial.
The Liberal Democrats are happy for extradition to be made simpler and for the process to be improved without eating into individuals' rights. The record of the hon. Member for Islington, North on such matters is good and reliable. It is right to flag up the big issues on extradition procedure. We will debate them in the new year when the Bill is introduced.
It is reasonable to have speedier processes when people consent to extradition. That is the core of the 1995 convention. It is also reasonable to try to deal with some of the more complicated issues in the 1996 convention. I was grateful for the Minister's answer that the three other countries that have not yet ratified are, like us, obliged to do that by the end of the year. The conventions will therefore apply to France, Italy and Belgium, provided that they get their house in order, as well as to us and other EU countries by 31 December.

335
Let us consider the controversial issues. Under the conventions, individuals who are extradited for substantive, major matters can be tried for subsidiary, less important matters. That is valid, provided that they are genuinely minor and not other major offences.
Jeremy Corbyn: Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding that, under the proposed regulations, people who have been extradited from this country to another EU country cannot subsequently be charged with an offence other than that for which they were extradited?
Simon Hughes: That is not correct. I think that the arrangements provide that, for example, someone who was extradited for trafficking people or drugs could be charged with a subsidiary offence of cheque fraud or a crime for which the penalty falls short of imprisonment. Another example is a driving licence offence for which the penalty would be a fine. The technical answer is therefore no, but the offence must be subsidiary. We must protect the guarantee that people will be tried only for subsidiary matters. The hon. Member for Woking is more knowledgeable than me about such matters, but I believe that a subsidiary offence is defined as "non-imprisonable".
The conventions reduce the severity of the punishment for the offence for which one can be extradited. The Minister mentioned a six-month term of imprisonment. They also prevent people from arguing before British or EU authorities that their extradition is sought for a political offence. That is important. If we sign up to the conventions, we accept that there is no such thing as a political offence in the EU. That appears proper to me. I would not accept it in the case of other countries.
The conventions allow for a wider definition of terrorism and related offences than we would perhaps ordinarily wish. We have already permitted such a gateway through legislation. To be fair, the Opposition parties agreed to it, but the Government will use it for only seven months, until the end of next June. After that, they cannot try to implement other such measures without primary legislation, for obvious reasons. We wanted only immediate and specific anti-terrorist legislation to be made through secondary legislation. That is why I asked in an intervention whether at least definitions could be provided of the three broad heads: terrorism, trafficking and drug-related offences.
The conventions also technically allow dual criminality. They allow extradition for something that is not deemed to be a specific offence in the same terms in another country. However, that is subject to twin protections. First, the provision lasts for only seven months; the orders can be passed only in the seven-month period. Secondly, it is limited to the three general heads that I mentioned.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) mentioned controversial subjects such as xenophobia, environmental crime or crime that is related to information technology, which have nothing to do with terrorism. Their definition can be wider than that for specific offences. There will properly be much debate about whether dual criminality should apply to them and whether people could be extradited for such controversial matters that do not constitute crimes in the country from which they are being taken. We will revert to such matters.
336
We would normally wish to discuss the arrangements at greater length in Committee and deal with them through primary legislation. The House's acceptance, and especially that of Liberal Democrat Members, of the foreshortened process is the exception rather than the rule. We have accepted it because of two pressures. First, the previous Government contracted the obligation to implement the conventions by the end of the year, and it is important to honour our international obligations. Secondly, the events of 11 September mean that there is a desire to get maximum agreement throughout the EU about non-controversial matters.
This month, the press has reported on people's treatment and rights to, for example, legal aid, legal representation, translators, and on periods for which people can be held. Let us be honest: I am a pro-European, but I accept that different standards exist in countries throughout the EU, and I must stress that Greece is not always the worst offender. Delay occurs in other countries. It is proper to raise such matters in relation to extradition.
When we reconsider the law, we need to be satisfied that there are minimum European standards. If we are willing to sign up to conventions under which a properly constituted court in, for example, Italy, Portugal, Sweden or Denmark goes through the process to extradite a UK citizen, all EU countries need to be satisfied that no one will be detained for long without being brought to court, and that people have proper access to, for example, legal representation.
Those are the issues, but I have one last question for the Minister. I would be grateful if he would tell us now for the record, if that is possible, or later if it is not, whether the convention options that we have chosen, which appear in a complicated table, are in every case those chosen by the other countries. Derogation is possible under the convention—we can derogate from this or sign up to that—and various choices can be made, so it would be helpful to know how the EU countries are implementing the convention and which options they have chosen. I am happy for that information not to be conveyed across the Floor of the House; indeed, it may be safer and more accurate to provide it in other ways.
Twelve minutes—I am not doing too badly, and I am just about to sit down. This is important business and we on these Benches support it. We shall not divide the House and we are willing to co-operate, but we reserve the right to renew our questioning and challenging on the more substantive issues when they are debated in the new year. That is not the most festive note to end on, but I hope that, in difficult waters and on delicate matters, we have managed to do a good job and that we all believe that the processes that we are adopting are fair, just and respectful of people's rights, wherever they come from in the EU.
I further hope that, as far as extradition can ever be coupled with a festive greeting, those who exercise these powers do so fairly, if not festively, on all occasions. After completing our business, we should all wish each other a relatively festive time, even if it is not festive business in itself.
6.31 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I do not want unnecessarily to disturb the tranquillity of the House on the eve of the Christmas recess and I certainly approach

337
the matter from the perspective of a non-specialist—indeed, a non-lawyer. That makes two of us, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) claims to be a non-lawyer, and I believe him.
My interest has been aroused in recent weeks partly by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Government, certainly initially, were far too dismissive of the opinion of those whom I respect, so a degree of vigilance is required when the criminal justice system and the liberties of our constituents are being discussed.
I am afraid that the Department's record on complying with the scrutiny needs of the House is poor and the matter of the European arrest warrant is little short of a disgrace. In the first debate on it, the Minister did not have the right documents; in the second, in a European Standing Committee, he was, to put it charitably, a little under-briefed. We have since received a clarifying letter on one matter, which was not accurately described.
For all those reasons, we are wise to pause, even though I understand that there have been discussions between the usual channels about how the matter should be dealt with. The normal position should be that criminal justice matters are considered during debates on primary legislation. I thought that we had established that during debates on the 2001 Act and that, following pressure from the Opposition and in another place, use of secondary legislation would be restricted to matters more directly related to the events of 11 September. Of course, the regulations considerably predate them and, as usual, deal with matters that go considerably beyond any imminent terrorist risk.
As the heart of the regulations appears to be the voluntary principle that the accused must assent to extradition, they are unlikely to apply to many suspects whom we hope will be apprehended following the air attacks in New York. I am therefore a little surprised that the matter is proceeding in this way, particularly as an extradition Bill is to come before the House next month. I understand that we have made at least a moral commitment to pass those matters into law by the end of the year, but, having waited so long and given that the appropriate vehicle is on the horizon, I should have preferred the matter to be argued out during consideration of primary legislation.
If we are concerned about the imminence of further terrorist activity, we ought to act more urgently on the complete mess that is the extradition system. I am still worried about the Soering case, which I understand represents a total block on our ability to extradite to a number of countries outside the European Union. I remind the House of the facts: a German national admitted to committing a murder in the United States, but could not be extradited from this country as the Strasbourg Court ruled that the state of Virginia would subject that individual to degrading or cruel treatment as the death penalty was on its statute book.
During debates on the 2001 Act, the Home Secretary was forced to introduce a wholly illiberal measure of indefinite detention without trial to bolt on to this terrible system a way out, so that we can at least detain some of the more dangerous suspects. The problem lies there
338
rather than with passing in short order conventions dealing with extradition from one member state to another.
Jeremy Corbyn: Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned that UK law and the European convention on the death penalty will be undermined if extradition is allowed to American states that practise the death penalty? Indeed, the death penalty would be reintroduced by subterfuge.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I do not accept that interpretation. The Strasbourg Court is attempting to externalise our policies on the death penalty. That is a moral imperialism of which I disapprove. It is up to the United States to decide how it deals with criminals convicted under its legal system. I happen not to be in favour of the death penalty—that is my position for this country—but it is not right to use the European convention on human rights to impose a system outside the EU. That is a clumsy way to proceed, and it has led to the Home Secretary resorting to detention or internment as a way to deal with the problem. The suspects would be in this country, although they should be tried in other countries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying wide of what is a technical motion.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seduced along that path by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who raised a valid point.
We are going for the wrong target and doing so rapidly when more urgent matters should be attended to. I have a number of specific questions about the regulations to put to the Minister. Will he say more about the apparent fact that individuals could be extradited for offences that are not crimes here? He may respond that the crimes in question must be connected with the suppression of terrorism,
"drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime or other acts of violence against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a person".
That is a quotation from the convention. The definition is fairly wide, however. I can imagine crimes in other member states coming under that general heading, and the possibility of extradition for offences that we do not recognise here.
Here is another question for the Minister. Could a person be extradited from this country for a crime committed here? Usually, we understand extradition to mean returning an individual to the state where that individual is alleged to have committed an offence—returning the individual to the jurisdiction of the state concerned. It seems to me, however, that in some cases the crime could have been committed here and the individual could be extradited for it. That certainly obtained according to the terms of the European arrest warrant, as first drafted, and it led to considerable questioning and concern in another place. I realise that we are not discussing the European arrest warrant now, but I would like the Minister to comment.
My third question is this: could someone be extradited for an offence for which they had already been tried in absentia in the requesting state? That too was raised in connection with the European arrest warrant, but again I would like the Minister to comment.

339
I understand that, by definition, the individual concerned must consent to the extradition, but may I ask the Minister a final question? Having given up the entitlement to specialty, could that person be put on trial on the receiving state for virtually any other crime? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) understands that those other crimes would have to be subsidiary to the offence for which the person had been extradited, but that is a rather imprecise phrase, and I would like the Minister to say a little more.
I can imagine circumstances in which someone who had been extradited was put on trial for an almost entirely unrelated offence that, nevertheless, came under the general heading of drug trafficking, alleged terrorism or whatever. Will the Minister tell us whether there are any practical or even theoretical limits to the number of other crimes with which such people could be charged?
6.43 pm
The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): As a non-lawyer, I listened with great interest to the speeches of lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Although few Members spoke, quality made up for the lack of quantity. I shall answer as many questions as I can, and write to those whose questions I cannot answer: I shall ensure that they are given full details as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised a number of points. I confirm that consent for a person who has voluntarily agreed to extradition will be given in writing. As for the question of the competent judicial authority, the United Kingdom will make a reservation to the effect that consent under article 7 can be given to any of the competent authorities in accordance with article 15, and is not limited to a judicial authority. The competent authorities are therefore those listed by the hon. Gentleman. The question of legal aid was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) as well as the Opposition. Fugitives will be allowed legal aid in the normal way, and the normal rules of legal aid will apply.
Article 10 of the 1996 convention, which was mentioned in connection with fines, protects a person who has been extradited from being dealt with in regard to an offence committed prior to his surrender. Obviously, however, an offence committed after his surrender will be a matter for the requesting state.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North asked about ministerial discretion. There will be no change to those arrangements. We are not talking here about the Terrorism Act 2000; we are talking about the Extradition Act 1989, and amendments to that Act. The 1989 Act will apply in the normal way. When we produce a new extradition Bill, my hon. Friend may have further thoughts.
Mr. Malins: Could the Minister at some stage drop me a note, if he cannot reply now, about a little concern I have about penalties in lieu of fines? In this country we say, "Pay a fine or go to prison." That may be the case in
340
other countries. It would be helpful to know whether the phrase I used, "sleight of hand", could be brought into operation somehow.
Mr. Bradley: I will reflect further, and give the hon. Gentleman further advice in writing.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful for what the Minister said about the right of discretion. Will he confirm that, under both the existing legislation and the regulations, the Home Secretary—through the Attorney—General-has the right to decide whether a case can proceed against someone in regard to an extradition request? Could the Home Office block the request in the initial stages?
Mr. Bradley: I can confirm that the arrangements under the 1989 Act will continue to apply until we make any changes in a Bill to be presented early in the new year.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked which options the United Kingdom had taken, and how the UK compared with other countries in that respect. The answer can be found in schedules 4 and 8 of the regulations, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman if he wants some more information.
I was slightly surprised when the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) protested about the fact that the regulations were not incorporated in primary legislation. It was his party—indeed, I think he was a member of the Government then—that signed up to the conventions. I do not know what representations he made then about primary legislation, but we, as the official Opposition, would have been happy to debate such legislation.
I feel that we are making progress—the provisions in the new Act allow us to do so—but the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to learn that the new Bill will provide an opportunity for a full debate on extradition. I am sure that he will participate with his usual assiduity.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not want to make a meal of this, but the Minister seemed to suggest that the last Conservative Government might have intended to introduce these measures by means of statutory instrument rather than primary legislation. As I am sure he knows, until the passing of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill last week it would have been impossible to do that.
Mr. Bradley: Either the hon. Gentleman misunderstood, or I did not make myself clear. I was trying to say that the last Government had an opportunity to produce primary legislation, but for whatever reason—obviously, I was not privy to discussions on business management at the time—chose not to do so. We now have the opportunity to do so through secondary legislation and the new provision in the 2001 Act. We have taken that opportunity, because of the link with terrorism. It is right to do so, but I stress that there will be a debate on the primary legislation when a new Bill is introduced in the new year.
Simon Hughes: We all signed up to this provision coming in by this route, given the time constraints to

341
which we were subject. However, that does not mean that the Government should not have introduced it in the period since they came to office in 1997. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The Conservative Government had a maximum of only two years left in office, whereas Labour has had four years in which to introduce primary legislation. I am not being over-critical, but it is always better to introduce such measures in primary legislation, and never better to do so in this way.
Mr. Bradley: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He always manages to find a way of criticising while protesting that he is not doing so. I shall not pursue the point. We are old adversaries on these matters.
The right hon. Member for Wells referred to the reform of the extradition process and the Soering judgment. The Government will be reforming extradition, and we shall introduce primary legislation in due course. These regulations are being debated today because of our commitment to ratify them by 1 January. I think that I have explained our position.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of crimes committed in the United Kingdom. The position of extraterritorial jurisdiction is not affected by the regulations. The Extradition Act 1989 remains the same, subject to the alterations to the sentencing threshold in section 2.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there is a limit to what a person can be tried for once extradited. If a person consents to extradition and waives specialty protection, he could be tried for any offence once returned. However, if the person contests extradition, he will benefit from specialty protection, subject to the provisions of these conventions, which will allow other minor charges to be brought.
I hope that, in the time available, I have covered most of the questions that have been put by right hon. and hon. Members. If I have not picked up all the points or have not been able to answer them, I shall ensure that hon. Members receive the information that they have requested. That will be important in guiding us into the further debates on these matters in the new year.
From the comments that hon. Members have made, it is clear that I should enjoy my Christmas because 2002 may be a challenging time on these matters. I wish everyone a merry Christmas, and I hope that they return in 2002 with a spirit of good will as we continue to debate what are important matters, as hon. Members have recognised. I hope that we approve these regulations today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft European Union Extradition Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Adjournment (Christmas)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 19th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 8th January—[Mrs. McGuire.]
6.54 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I want to talk about Cyprus. I am the chairperson of the Commonwealth parliamentary all-party Cyprus group. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of whom are present in the Chamber, belong to that all-party group.
The United Kingdom has a long association with Cyprus. We are one of the guarantor powers for the Republic of Cyprus, which is a member of the Commonwealth. Since the invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the island has been divided. More than 30 per cent. of northern Cyprus is occupied by the Turkish army, which led that invasion. Since 1974, there have been many debates and many questions in the House on the policy of the Government of the day towards working for an honourable settlement of the tragedy in Cyprus. We have always been told that the Government support an honourable settlement, and work on the basis of the resolutions on Cyprus that have been passed by the United Nations. Those statements are to be welcomed, but sadly they have achieved nothing over those many years. The division and occupation of Cyprus remain. Over that period, there have been many opportunities to work for a settlement, but regrettably none of them have succeeded.
I had a debate in the House some years ago on the future of Famagusta. It is now a deserted town, but prior to the invasion it was one of the most popular towns in the whole of the Cyprus. We were led to believe by Mr. Denktash, who speaks for the Turkish Cypriots of northern Cyprus, that Famagusta would be returned. Greek and Turkish Cypriots could have lived together, worked together and started to build a future that would have insured their rights and security. Sadly, as so often happens, Mr. Denktash refused to honour the commitment that he made.
Years and years have passed, and the occupation of a sizeable percentage of a Commonwealth country continues. We have had countless meetings and discussions with senior diplomats. Politicians have been to Cyprus and have met the President of the Republic and Mr. Denktash. Sadly, nothing has happened, despite many attempts to achieve a breakthrough.
Two major developments have now taken place in Cyprus that offer hope for a future for both communities on that island. First, there is a clear indication that the Republic of Cyprus will become a member of the European Union, possibly in 2004. Secondly, Mr. Denktash is now aware that he and his closest ally, Turkey, have achieved nothing since 1974. All the evidence shows that the economy in northern Cyprus is in a terrible condition, and that vast numbers of true Turkish Cypriots want a settlement and the whole of Cyprus to become a member of the European Union. I warmly welcome that.
The great strength of the all-party Cyprus group is that we have always clearly said that the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots are as important to us as the rights and security of Greek Cypriots. That has always been the cornerstone of the speeches that many hon. Members have made over many years.

343
Turning to the present, I believe that there is now an excellent opportunity for a progressive future to be developed on the island of Cyprus. I welcome the discussions that are now taking place between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash. Those talks will not be easy, but that will be a test of what both men are able to achieve. I am in no doubt as to the commitment of President Clerides to work with all his might and power for an honourable settlement.
If one considers, for example, the application of the Republic of Cyprus to become a member of the European Union, Mr. Denktash has had countless opportunities presented to him by President Clerides to join him in a joint Denktash-Clerides presentation for the whole of the island of Cyprus to be involved in the discussions of its application. However, as we know, Mr. Denktash has only one reply to those invitations: "Recognise northern Cyprus as an independent state or I am not interested in taking part in any discussions." The United Nations does not recognise an independent state of northern Cyprus, the EU most certainly does not, and neither does the Council of Europe. The only country that recognises that so-called state, in being only because of the Turkish army, is Turkey.
We have recently heard statements by the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that if the Republic of Cyprus is allowed membership of the European Union, Turkey will consider annexing the whole of northern Cyprus. I tabled a written question on the issue earlier this year and I received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, which said:
"The suggestion that Turkey might 'annex' north Cyprus, in the event of Cyprus joining the EU before a settlement, is not new. While it is difficult to predict what Turkey might do if a divided island were to join the EU, we believe that the 'annexation' of northern Cyprus would severely compromise Turkey's relations with the EU, and contravene her obligations under the Treaty of Guarantee. However, our aim continues to be a settlement before Cyprus joins the EU, though we stand by the Helsinki Council Conclusions that it is not a precondition for enlargement."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 401W.]
I hope that that statement is made clearly and often to Turkey. It should be told, "Annex northern Cyprus and you have no European future."
President Clerides made a speech at the United Nations in New York on 11 November, in which he said:
"I urge the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, to join me in sharing the vision of a Cyprus too small to be divided but huge for the common prosperity of all its inhabitants. I urge him to look to the future and not to the past, listen to the increasingly desperate voices of our Turkish Cypriot compatriots and stop placing obstacles, at each turn, to the good offices of the Secretary-General for a solution to the Cyprus problem. It is noteworthy that the economic prospects for a post-settlement Cyprus are truly impressive. And this growth will be even greater for our Turkish Cypriot compatriots, who are currently suffering due to the dire political and economic situation in the occupied areas."
What clearer commitment could there be on the part of the President of the Republic of Cyprus that he wishes to work with Mr. Denktash for the benefit of all the people who live on the island of Cyprus? The next round of discussion that takes place between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash will be in mid-January, and I hope that the talks will succeed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the fact that those talks will be based on the resolutions that have been passed by the United Nations, because they will be the cornerstone to any settlement of the long-running tragedy of Cyprus.
344
I want those talks to succeed, but we expect Cyprus to become a member of the EU in 2004. I hope that Mr. Denktash will not attempt to say, "We are now in talks. Let us put off membership of the EU until the talks between Mr. Clerides and me have been concluded." Any attempt to make such an argument should be totally opposed, and I reiterate the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe that a settlement is not a precondition for entry to the EU by the Republic of Cyprus. The coming months will be vital to Cyprus. The opportunity is there for a settlement and I and many others want to see Cypriots, be they Greek or Turkish, living and working together and building a stable and prosperous future for their country that they and their families can all enjoy.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to point out that if all hon. Members took eight minutes for their contributions, everyone would have a chance to speak.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): How long Members speak for is entirely a matter for them, not for the Chair.
7.7 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: Although the House has debated the events that followed 11 September, and in Afghanistan, on many occasions, including this afternoon, it should not rise before considering how to eliminate the causes of international terrorism, and how to deal with those responsible for it. The events of 11 September have put terrorism under greater scrutiny than ever before. Of course, it remains a regular experience on the streets of Israel and other countries including our own. Its most recent and greatest victim, the United States, is rightly determined to bring the perpetrators to justice. It also regards this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to eliminate all such threats and sources of international terrorism for as long as it takes. But that will not be enough.
We also need to address those causes that inspire such a capacity for hatred to commit such acts, including suicide attacks. Those who were immediately responsible for planning and carrying out the hijacking over the United States came from mixed backgrounds. Some came from privileged and prosperous families, as has bin Laden himself who, according to Peter Bergen's book, "Holy War Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama Bin Laden", is primarily motivated by American policies in the middle east, above all its presence in Saudi Arabia. Many of bin Laden's supporters are merely interested in provoking a clash between the west and Islam, or are seeking an end to what they see as Israel's hegemony, supported by the United States, in the middle east.
Al-Qaeda recruits come from many countries, some of them impoverished, nearly all of them undemocratic. In response to the first problem, impoverishment—if one has nothing, one has nothing to lose—we must, of course, respond positively to Kofi Annan' s appeal, repeated on receiving the Nobel peace prize a few weeks ago, for the UN to eliminate world poverty. We are regularly informed by the Chancellor of Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development about the poverty reduction strategy, which was recently discussed at the World Bank

345
and International Monetary Fund meeting in Ottawa, which the United Kingdom supports and which aims to halve world poverty by the year 2015.
One of the reasons most frequently cited as justifying terrorism—although, of course, there can be no justification—is the denial of human and minority rights, which we rightly seek to address in insisting on good governance in our aid and development programmes. But there is more that can be done to promote human rights and democratic institutions, as President Clinton urged in his brilliant Dimbleby lecture at the weekend, to reduce the causes of terrorism.
A number of colleagues from the Assembly of the Council of Europe are present this evening. The House will know that the Council of Europe was established after the last war as the forum within which our continent's disputes could be resolved by peaceful means, instead of causing countries to go to war every generation. For more than 50 years, it has accumulated a wealth of experience among its 43 member states in democratic practices, the protection of rights and recognition of cultural diversity.
The Council's Political Affairs Committee is ably led by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who wishes to be associated with my remarks. Next year, that Committee will come forward with a report on best practice on autonomies and confederations short of outright independence. We hope that this will contribute to resolving the remaining disputes in Europe such as Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia, Transdneistre, Chechnya, and perhaps even Kosovo and Cyprus.
This work could also be usefully applied elsewhere, such as Sri Lanka and Kashmir and other areas that are the sources of terrorism. In addition, we are promoting our democratic standards, which are the highest in the world, to our Arab neighbours in north Africa and to the five central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union through co-operation agreements, and by offering them observer status to our Assembly.
We are considering how we can assist the new African Union, which recently replaced the Organisation for African Unity as the pan-continental institution. It proposes to establish its own court of justice, monitoring procedures and an inter-parliamentary assembly. In 1998, we endorsed well researched and realistic proposals as to how the principal breeding grounds for terrorism in the middle east—the 49 Palestinian refugee camps—could be closed down after 53 years, in favour of permanent settlements. Those camps were the subject of my Adjournment debate on 29 April 1998, and I believe that they are just as relevant today.
I mention these initiatives for the record, because not all of them have been referred to in the House with regard to what is being done by Europe's pre-eminent institution, the Council of Europe, not least to combat the roots of international terrorism. Of course, to be fully effective, the initiatives require the acknowledgement and support of our Committee of Ministers—effectively, our Governments. They also require the resources that will be necessary. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is listening, because the Council of Europe continues to experience zero real growth in its funding.
346
In conclusion, I want to refer to one particular aspect of the recommendations that the Council of Europe endorsed two weeks after 11 September. The recommendations concerned the threat to democracy posed by international terrorism, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was the rapporteur.
We regard the new International Criminal Court as the appropriate institution to consider terrorist acts. We have called on member states and the Committee of Ministers to give urgent consideration to amending and widening the Rome statute to allow the remit of the court to include acts of international terrorism.
Of course, we hope that the United States, following the events of 11 September, will now support, and not oppose, the establishment of the court. Unfortunately, next year, whereas the whole world will hear the evidence against Slobodan Milosevic at the UN war crimes tribunal at The Hague, the United States proposes to try the 11 September terrorists behind closed doors in a military court, in which not even the defendants will hear all the evidence against them before being sentenced to death.
I believe that the entire world will expect justice to be done—and to be seen to be done—towards those who were responsible for the events of 11 September. Just as it was right to try the Nazi leaders for their war crimes at an international court at Nuremberg, so should any future Osama bin Laden be tried for crimes against humanity in an international court, as we propose.
I am encouraged that the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers is studying this proposal, which I hope our Government will now actively pursue.
7.14 pm
John Cryer: These pre-recess debates normally involve hon. Members raising constituency issues. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) once said that the day of the pre-Christmas Adjournment debates should be rechristened "Whingeing Gits Day". The fact that I happened to glance at the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) when I said that is purely coincidental.
I want to raise a number of constituency cases. The first involves the home energy efficiency scheme. My constituent Mrs. Goodchild is entitled to a hot water and heating boiler under the scheme. The catch is that she has been entitled to it for seven months but it has still not been fitted.
The boiler should have been fitted by Eaga Partnerships, a Government agency. I am worried that Eaga is completely unresponsive to the needs of my constituents. It is probably unresponsive to the needs of constituents of many other hon. Members. Eaga has refused to return Mrs. Goodchild's calls. It even refused to return the calls that I made in the first day or two after I took up the case. That is extraordinary.
I have been trying to get a pledge from Eaga that my constituent will have the boiler that she needs fitted by Christmas, but even that is not guaranteed. That is simply not good enough. The Government must monitor agencies and partnerships such as Eaga, and ensure that they do the work that they are commissioned to do. If they are not doing that work, some reorganisation might be required—or even the curtailment of contracts.
The second issue that I want to raise is the mis-selling of electricity and gas supplies by energy companies. To illustrate the problem, I shall read an extract from a letter

347
that I sent to Energy Watch on 20 March this year. The letter dealt with Powergen and one other company. I wrote that my constituent
"has never received anything in writing as far as he is concerned. He has never entered into any contract, verbal or otherwise, agreeing to transfer his supplies to Powergen. He was previously with British Gas and Eastern Electricity. Despite this, Powergen have taken over his supplies, and to cap it all it appears that Powergen now wish to take over his telephone supply as well."
My constituent had never signed anything or agreed to anything. He merely had a brief telephone call with Powergen and later discovered that his supplies had been switched. That seems to be happening on a widespread basis. Other hon. Members have told me that they have encountered similar cases.
I secured an apology from Powergen, which has since entered into a voluntary agreement across the industry. The agreement supposedly guarantees that people who are the victims of the practice will be switched back to their original suppliers. However, I do not think that this incident is a one-off, as Powergen tried to claim. Although the evidence is only sporadic, I think that this is happening on a widespread basis.
I am not a nationalist about the utilities any more than I am a nationalist about anything else, but Eastern Electricity, which supplies power to people in my constituency and the surrounding areas, was bought out some time ago by the Texas Corporation. Decisions are made thousands of miles away in that massive company's corporate boardroom. It is therefore hardly surprising that the corporation is not responsive to people in Hornchurch, Rainham or elsewhere.
When the utilities were publicly owned, we at least could put pressure on them. Ministers were responsible for the functioning of the utilities, and we could hold them to account. If it were up to me, I would take the utilities back into public ownership in a moment. Sadly, I am not the Chancellor—not yet, anyway.
Finally, many hon. Members have been concerned about the campaign being run by Mencap, and many of us will have received postcards from that organisation. The campaign deals with sexual offences against vulnerable adults with learning difficulties. I have corresponded extensively with the Havering branch of Mencap, and with the large number of constituents who have sent the postcards to me and to other hon. Members.
The law dealing with sexual offences against people with learning difficulties is way out of date. The Sexual Offences Act 1956 covers only those who are unable to give consent. In other words, it deals only with people who have very severe learning difficulties, not with those who have moderate or mild learning difficulties. It carries a maximum sentence of only two years, which is roughly the same as people get for burglary and robbery. That tariff should be raised considerably. The offence should carry a life sentence, like rape.
Mencap argues that the offence under the 1956 Act should be replaced with the offence of
"having sexual relations with a person with a severe learning disability who is unable to consent to that sexual activity".
That clearly applies to people with severe learning difficulties.
There should also be a test of capacity, and a definition of that capacity, of a person's ability to consent. That
348
would cover people with moderate learning disabilities. The Law Commission recommended the following as a definition of lack of capacity, saying that the victim
"is unable by reason of mental disability to make a decision for himself or herself on the matter in question; or he or she is unable to communicate his or her decision on that matter because he or she is unconscious or for any other reason."
That would create a modern, concise and rational basis on which the law could be moved forward.
I know that the Government are consulting on these issues. They produced a document called "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences" in July last year. As far as I know, the consultation is still continuing. However, may I make a plea that it should be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible so that we can introduce legislation? At present, many people with learning difficulties are in an extremely vulnerable position and do not have the full protection of the law.
7.22 pm
Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate being able to address the House before we adjourn for Christmas, because my constituents feel most strongly about a number of issues.
I live in a part of the country that will increasingly have to face private affluence amid public squalor. Since the Government have been in power, they have consistently made spending announcements and then demand—indeed, dictate—unrealistic outcomes from ever constrained resources. One example is the police. The recent settlement for the police meant that although formally they had an increase of 2.3 per cent., it was a 2.6 per cent. fall in real terms. The costs of police pay are going up by 3 per cent. and pensions by 18 per cent. To achieve that, they are given a 2.3 per cent. increase.
The costs in areas such as mine are high, and the police do not benefit from London weighting, so the Metropolitan police force acts as competition. In Surrey, the benefits of London weighting are not reflected in police pay packets, but the costs are still enormous. Constituencies such as mine, which contain rural areas as well as market towns, face additional burdens. For that reason, I co-chair the town and country finance issues group, an association of about 80 constituency Members of Parliament who try to advance their case.
The House will be surprised and shocked to learn that one of the steps that the Surrey police force has taken to attract and retain constables is to provide health care for them. Do any other police forces take the view that the NHS is in such an appalling state that the only way to retain and attract police officers is to provide private health cover?
I have repeatedly addressed the House about what has happened since the Government came to power to create far greater inequalities in health services than ever they inherited. At present, in my area, one person in nine waits for more than a year for in-patient treatment. In the Prime Minister's constituency, that figure is less than one in 100. Year on year, the Government have squeezed the funding in the south-east, quite inappropriately in the light of the appalling cost of living and the difficulty of attracting and retaining public service workers. The Government's response to public service workers is to name and shame.
Today has seen the publication of the National Audit Office report on hospital waiting lists. I know, perhaps as well as anybody in the House, that NHS managers are

349
dedicated public servants who believe in the ethos and values of the NHS. People rarely thank them. I took note of the references that the Prime Minister made to NHS managers in the 18 months before 1997, and in the year following his election. He only ever referred to them as bureaucrats, and in an insulting manner, until, as a result of a number of parliamentary questions, I am pleased to say that he modified his language.
The question that arises from today's report is why so many NHS managers feel so alienated from the leadership of the NHS and driven to such lengths that they will compromise the values that I know they hold. It is because of the political overload and the political imperatives forced on the health service, as in many other public services. Too little value is put on the people who work in the service, and there is too much spin, too many trivial initiatives and constant soundbites.
I would like the Government to take one practical step and admit that they were wrong, and that there should be an independent chief executive of the NHS. They should restore the role of the permanent secretary, who is accountable to Ministers, takes forward the Whitehall battles, sorts out visiting incoming Health Ministers and special advisers who abuse the conventions, and takes responsibility for honours. The permanent secretary could deal with all manner of Whitehall and Westminster matters and allow the chief executive to have the independence and credibility with NHS staff to take forward devolution of the service, instead of centralisation.
It would be hard to exaggerate the despair felt in the health service in my part of the world. The waiting times are appalling; the accident and emergency departments are groaning. Week by week, I receive letters to which the only reply I feel I can give is, "Can you go privately?" When I learned that Surrey police force had taken the decision to provide private health cover for its staff, that made me think that it knew what was happening. It cannot attract and retain staff otherwise; it does not have the confidence in the NHS that I would want it to have.
Before finishing, I shall provide two pieces of positive information. First and foremost, I am delighted that work on Farnham's community hospital has begun. Farnham, Milford and Haslemere were all under threat. A vigorous local campaign has seen them safeguarded. I pay particular tribute to Sir Ray Tindle, the proprietor of the Farnham Herald and other local newspapers for a constructive, energetic and determined contribution to the campaign. Again, the squeeze on social service and health funding in Surrey, along with the cost of living, has meant that nursing and residential homes have been closing, under huge pressure.
The Government must listen to Cheshire Homes, the biggest providers of independent care in the country, the Meath residential homes—another charitable foundation—and Methodist Homes for the Aged. They organise institutions and care for the frail and vulnerable and cannot cope with the insoluble formula with which they are presented. There are ever greater demands and requirements with regard to the standard of care, the criteria and the outcomes, with ever reduced means available. Nevertheless, I shall go round all those
350
community hospitals within the next couple of days and speak with delight about their future, and about the real dedication and commitment of the staff.
I also appreciate the real commitment on the A3 at Hindhead. That is the only single carriageway on the A3 between London and Portsmouth, and contains the first traffic lights that a Scottish Minister would meet on the road between Scotland and Portsmouth, one of our busiest ports. That commitment will unlock the economic development of the south-east, the Portsmouth area and the Isle of Wight, and above all, it will safeguard an especially valuable and important piece of countryside.
In my area, there is real concern that unless the Government think again about our needs and are fairer to a part of the country where a massive amount of tax is raised for the Chancellor, there will be greater disillusion, and the all-party commitment to our welfare state and our welfare services will be jeopardised. The local government settlement, while promising an increase of 2.3 per cent. to all, in fact came through as a real cut for my area. I am pleased that, after the outcry that resulted, the Secretary of State announced that he would maintain his commitment to a 2.3 per cent. increase, but I regret that the increase in local government spending next year will be 7.4 per cent.—not 2.3 per cent. The recycling requirements, the homelessness requirements and the many other burdens on, and expectations from, local government mean that once again, the ends are being demanded but the means are not being delivered.
The situation in south-west Surrey is extremely serious and I ask the Government, please, to listen to our concerns and ensure that—every so often—a Minister visits our area. I spent nine years of my life visiting Leeds, Sheffield, Darlington, Birmingham, Manchester, Halifax and Plymouth. Before I became a Minister I did not know the United Kingdom, but in nine years I spent lots of time visiting every part of the country—whether or not it was represented by a Member of Parliament of my persuasion.
The fact that the Government are highly partisan concerns me deeply. They do not take their responsibilities to the entire country as seriously as they should. When the outcomes—especially in health care—are as appalling as they are in Surrey, the Secretary of State should visit. It is now four and a half years since the Government came to power, but during that time, no senior Minister has visited south-west Surrey.
7.32 pm
Shona McIsaac: As we approach the festive season, with twinkling lights on the Christmas tree, Christmas cards and present wrapping, I shall raise the seasonal issue of fireworks—specifically, their irresponsible and prolonged misuse.
At the end of October and the beginning of November, my local paper was inundated with hundreds of letters of complaint about the misuse of fireworks—as was I. As a result of those complaints, the Grimsby Telegraph launched a campaign for tougher laws on the sale of fireworks. The response was astonishing: more than 1,100 people backed the campaign, while only one person supported the status quo.
I have given the campaign my full backing because people endure months of misery caused by fireworks. I do not know what happens in the constituencies of other hon. Members, but it seems that in north-east Lincolnshire

351
the firework season starts at the beginning of August. That is when the noise begins. As soon as the back-to-school posters go up in Woolworths and other stores, the fireworks are set off.
That shows that the voluntary code of practice on the restriction of sales to three weeks before and one week after 5 November is not working. There is an increasing use of fireworks. Christmas is coming up, so we shall see lots of fireworks. We have them at birthdays, weddings, parties and the celebrations of many of our ethnic communities, such as Diwali and other festivals. Many more fireworks are being used, thus causing more disturbance to many people.
Although the voluntary code restricts the sale of fireworks to the period around 5 November, few people realise that fireworks can also go on sale at this time of year—from the beginning of December and into January. People in my constituency and elsewhere are dreading another outbreak of explosive mayhem at Christmas and the new year.
Many elderly people have been writing to me and to the local paper to complain about fireworks. A war veteran told me that the war was quieter than the months of October and November in Lincolnshire. I am not of a sensitive nature, but, boy, the noise is atrocious. I have received complaints from people who run care homes and residential homes for the elderly, and from mums with young children and babies. Every time there is an explosion the babies start crying again, so the mothers get more and more fractious as the children get more upset.
The noise affects people who are seriously ill or recovering from illness; it affects shift workers and people with pets. Some of the people who got in touch with me have guide dogs. We forget that guide dogs are particularly sensitive to noise, so fireworks can actually disrupt the way in which they work. That is a danger for people who are blind.
The problem is not only one of noise. Increased criminal damage is associated with the misuse of fireworks. Every year there are reports of phone boxes being damaged by fireworks. People play tricks by putting fireworks into car exhausts and letter boxes. Fireworks are thrown at pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. They are thrown at people's windows and doors. There is also cruelty to animals, including tying fireworks to family pets that happen to get in the way of the louts who misuse fireworks—as happens in my constituency. There is a culture of fear and we must tackle it.
I love organised displays and I certainly want them to continue, but it is time to toughen up the voluntary code. A few years ago, I was burgled in early November, and noise was a factor. The dogs next door normally bark when someone they do not know walks down the street, but because of the noise of the fireworks they were barking anyway. The police told me that there is an increase in burglary at that time of year because deterrents such as barking dogs are not as effective as usual. Incidentally, the cats climbed up my new drapes and shredded them, but that is not as important as the fact that people are burgled at a time of year when criminals can use noise to disguise their activities.
The firework safety regulations of 1997 state that sales should be restricted to people "apparently" over 18, but there is no requirement to show proof of age. Certain categories of firework can be sold to people as young as
352
16. Average 16-year-olds have many restrictions on their lives. They are not allowed to vote, to buy drinks in pubs—although we all know that plenty of them do—or to drive cars, and in England, they cannot get married without parental consent. Yet we allow them access to explosives. That is unacceptable.
Yes, there are penalties for selling fireworks to people under 18. There are also penalties for discharging and throwing fireworks in the street, but how many prosecutions are there for such offences every year? They are few and far between. The code is not working. We must toughen it up because loutish elements misuse fireworks, causing much disturbance and a culture of fear—especially among the groups that I mentioned.
Early in the new year, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is to bring in a ten-minute Bill on the subject, so I am flagging up the matter now to give the Government ample time, before the Bill is introduced, to tighten up the regulations so that, I hope, 5 November in 2002 and subsequent years will not be as noisy as before, and people can enjoy a bit of peace and quiet.
7.40 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I would not be content for the House to rise for the Christmas recess without my taking the opportunity to raise again, very briefly, the future of the well known Royal Hospital Haslar. It is a local hospital in my constituency, but it is much more: it is the only military hospital in the United Kingdom. It is well known because I have raised this issue many times.
When defence medical services were in some difficulty, in 1998, a study group set up by the present Government reached the amazing conclusion that the way ahead for defence medical services was to close the only military hospital. The result, of course, has been catastrophic. The decision has turned the situation into a crisis and in four key faculties—anaesthetics, surgery, orthopaedic surgery and general medicine—defence medical services are now some 75 per cent. short of establishment. That is a grievous situation, both for defence medical services, because I believe that the armed forces are now restricted in their ability to deploy because of lack of defence medical services, and for the local community, which has lost its accident and emergency unit.
However, it is not all bad news, because we have had a vigorous campaign, widely supported in the area and by those in the armed forces. The good news is that we now have an accident treatment centre, which does not exactly replace the accident and emergency unit but is a helpful local facility. Moreover, reality has broken in: the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust and the health authority both now recognise that Haslar is a crucial and necessary part of the local health scene, and the latest strategic document produced by the national health service, jointly with the Ministry of Defence, called "A Strategic Vision", says that Haslar should continue until at least 2007, and that it should continue to provide a range of services to the armed forces and the civilian population.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) expressed surprise that the police force in Surrey was now using private medical facilities. She and others might be surprised to hear that the armed forces, which have their own military hospital at Haslar, are now required to use civilian medical

353
facilities as well, and a number of individuals have been treated by BUPA and other private medical systems. The problem is that although the immediate operation can be arranged through a private medical facility, if there are any complications, or if aftercare is required, the service man or woman must return to the service hospital at Haslar. In several cases, operations have been carried out in the private sector and the subsequent problems and complications have been handled in the public sector, back in the military hospital.
However, the situation is moving on. We are satisfied with "A Strategic Vision", and if only the words "until at least 2007" could be deleted and the word "indefinitely" substituted we would, I believe, be there.
First, a study group, composed of members of the Royal College of Physicians and others, is leaning towards the view that there needs to be more use of local hospitals. It believes that there is more scope for district diagnostic centres. There is a growing feeling in the medical profession that it is wrong to send all accident and emergency patients first to a district general hospital, from which it is quite often difficult to discharge them, and that it would be a better idea to admit patients first to a local hospital, after which, following proper stabilisation and diagnosis, they might be transferred to the district general hospital if necessary. If that study, which is due to be published before the end of the year, does indeed reveal that local district diagnostic centres should be used more extensively, attention will be drawn to the fact that precisely such facilities can be offered at Haslar, and throughout the rest of the country.
Secondly, there is growing awareness in the royal colleges that it is possible to have joint-centre working—that it is a good idea for trainee doctors at all levels to work partly within a district general hospital and partly within the local hospital community, linked with telemedicine, and that that provides a good range of experience for trainee doctors. Such joint-centre working would allow the Royal Hospital Haslar to work in conjunction with the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham.
Thirdly, I have written to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Health and urged them to get their act together and have genuinely joined-up government. It is no good for the Ministry of Defence to announce the closure of Haslar without the Department of Health's taking a firm view on the future configuration of hospital services in the area. We now want a plan, jointly worked out by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health. We want that joint plan to give a future to the whole of the Haslar land area and the Haslar hospital within it, and to additional facilities that could be located in the Haslar complex.
That is the right way ahead. I firmly believe that we are winning. We are working to a plan that, in due course, will prove to be a better way ahead than the Centre for Defence Medicine, which has been located in Birmingham, and is causing some disappointment among those who work there. I believe that we are working our way forward and that the future will be good for Haslar and for the local community.
7.46pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I want to speak about the Government's treatment of strokes, but first I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, to the Front Bench and take the opportunity to place on the record my thanks to him and his team for what they have done in connection with the modernisation of the House. It is one of the most important things that the Government have done in the past year or so—although I would ask my hon. Friend, despite the self-discipline of hon. Members tonight, to consider a mandatory speech limit, to enable Members to plan with some certainty. Unfortunately, the other evening seven Labour Members fell off the end of the Speaker's list in the European debate. It is perfectly within our compass in the House to impose such a limit, to help hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Government's treatment of strokes is obviously an extremely important issue, and I have several questions that I hope that my hon. Friend will put to the Secretary of State for Health on my behalf as a result of the debate. Every year, 100,000 people suffer their first stroke. It is the third biggest killer in the United Kingdom and the single largest cause of severe disability.
Stroke is a devastating condition, and most hon. Members will know a family member or friend who has experienced it. The effects of a stroke can vary enormously, and depend on which part of the brain is damaged and the extent of the damage. It is the commonest cause of neurological disability, the commonest cause of epilepsy in older people, the second most common cause of dementia and, not surprisingly, the commonest cause of depression. Those affected by strokes, whether patients, their families or their carers, know what it is like to experience the life-changing effects that strokes bring.
Expenditure on strokes is already considerable. The costs in national health service and social services expenditure in 1995–96 were calculated to be £2.3 billion. The incidence of strokes is projected to rise considerably as a result of demographic change. It therefore makes sense to ensure that resources are used in the most effective way to ensure the best possible outcomes for families and their carers. There could be huge savings to the health service, social care budgets and the national economy.
My first question to my hon. Friend would be: will he ensure that the Department of Health conducts a thorough review of the way in which funding for strokes is allocated and accounted for? Let us not allow this great wagon of public spending to roll on without conducting a proper review and adjusting to circumstances as they change.
The Government are to be congratulated on recognising the need for improvement in the care offered to stroke patients. Standards for stroke care were included in the national service framework for older people, which covers England and was published in March this year. It is commendable that by April 2004, all people who are thought to have had a stroke, regardless of their age, can expect to be treated appropriately by a specialist stroke service.
Of the 100,000 people who suffer new strokes each year, 10,000 will be under the age of 55. Although in the past, many older patients have been denied specialist

355
treatment because of their age, the same has been true of younger stroke patients. Their needs have often gone unmet because many have been unable to access stroke services, which are often designed for older patients. Much has still to be achieved to ensure that all those who have strokes receive the rehabilitation essential to give them the best chance of independent living by the Government's target date of April 2004. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Secretary of State for Health to let me know what progress has been made to date to meet the milestones laid out in the national service framework for older people?
The Stroke Association has recently undertaken a survey of NHS trusts to establish the current position. It also asked about plans to set up stroke units in general hospitals that treat stroke patients, but which currently have no such provision. Of those acute trusts in England reporting no stroke unit in one or more of their general hospitals, just over half have plans in place to develop a unit by 2004. Even hospitals with a stroke unit do not always have the capacity to treat all their stroke patients. Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to let me know what assessment his Department has made of the current provision of stroke units?
The national service framework sets out service models for managing stroke patients in hospital. The specialist stroke team, led by a clinician with expertise in strokes, brings together nurses, therapists, clinical psychologists and other staff able to respond to individual needs. Members of those multi-disciplinary teams will have experience and knowledge of caring for stroke patients. It is vital for patients to have access to knowledgeable staff who can provide expert care and advice.
Clinical psychology is another area of unmet need, and the numbers of trained staff are insufficient to ensure that all those who need this service receive it. Recovery from stroke can continue for many years, which is recognised in the national service framework. It is therefore essential that those who have had a stroke have continuing access to rehabilitation services in the community. Will my hon. Friend therefore ask the Secretary of State to indicate what action is planned to train adequate numbers of therapy staff in each of the required specialties?
The national service framework for older people commits the Government to take action to prevent strokes. Action to reduce the risk of a person having a stroke in the first instance is urgently needed. It is a startling reality that the health gap that exists in our society results in some minority ethnic and social groups experiencing a much higher risk of stroke. I could give the details, but I shall simply ask my hon. Friend to let me know how the Government will tackle the differentials between social classes and ethnic backgrounds.
Blood pressure is another factor, as is smoking, yet although those factors are taken into account with heart disease and cancer, with strokes they are often not taken into account. Will my hon. Friend therefore discover whether the Secretary of State has a national campaign to make people aware that they are at risk if they smoke or have high blood pressure?
My final concern is that stroke research is very much underfunded; it lags way behind the amount spent on cancer and heart disease research. The Stroke Association funds what research it can, and committed about £2 million in the past financial year, but that sum is only
356
5 per cent. of what is available from the largest heart disease charity, and less than 2 per cent. of what is available from the two largest cancer charities. Recent research has confirmed the need for research into areas such as physical therapy for those affected by stroke. My final question is: will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to list the stroke research currently undertaken by the Department of Health, and to re-examine the priority given to stroke research in recognition of the projected rising trend in the incidence of stroke?
My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I do not expect him to answer all those questions this evening, but his general comments—and an undertaking that the Secretary of State for Health will drop me a line—will be well received not only by myself, but by the millions of our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom whose lives are often unnecessarily blighted by strokes.
7.54 pm
Mr. John Horam: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I well remember that wonderful actress, Thora Hird, making a marvellous speech to the Stroke Association in the Members' Dining Room some years ago. Indeed, the House will be sad to learn that my predecessor, Ivor Stanbrook, whom some hon. Members will recall, has suffered a stroke that has left him speechless and paralysed down one side.
As the hon. Gentleman also said, hon. Members have exercised remarkable self-discipline this evening, which is unusual given that this is normally a season for a lack of restraint, but that self-discipline reflects well on all hon. Members. I shall continue that discipline and confine myself, despite many temptations, to one subject: policing in the outer London suburbs. Of course, the issue applies more generally, but I want to focus on Bromley, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) will want to be associated with my remarks.
The fact is that the residents of Bromley feel that they are suffering not a double whammy, but a triple whammy, because crime and antisocial behaviour are increasing and police resources are being cut, yet they are paying more in council tax and general taxation. Like many other boroughs, Bromley has a community safety partnership, which recently went through the audit procedure for the previous three years, culminating in July 2001. The audit is, therefore, up to date and shows that crime and disorder and the fear of crime are soaring, even in a leafy outer-London suburb such as Bromley.
Overall crime has increased by 9 per cent. on the previous three years. Vehicle crime has increased by 34 per cent., despite a target to cut it by 5 per cent. Robbery has risen by 35 per cent., despite another 5 per cent. target cut. The Parliamentary Secretary is looking for positive points this evening, so I gladly make one. Only residential burglary has decreased—by 5 per cent., but even in Bromley, the detection rate is only two thirds of the average. Some 52 per cent. of people felt under a medium threat of crime, and 10 per cent. felt highly threatened. Worst of all in many respects, the detection rate has fallen from 20 to 13 per cent. during those three years. So 87 per cent. of crimes go undetected, and a dire proportion of criminals are punished.

357
Moreover, although I am anxious not to be excessively negative, I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that things have got worse since 11 September. For reasons that people understand, lots of police have been taken from areas such as Bromley to the centre of London. I entirely understand those reasons, but the result is that street crime in Bromley increased by 131 per cent. in October, and the residents are extremely concerned about the situation.
I have a high regard, as do most hon. Members, for the efforts of the local police. The chief superintendent in charge, Chief Superintendent Howlett, has been promoted and is undertaking a six-month strategic command course, and he obviously hopes to be promoted to assistant chief constable in another area. We are losing a good man, who has done a good job in Bromley, especially in putting more of the policemen at his command on the beat. The fact is that he cannot go on for ever getting a quart out of a pint pot, and I am concerned about the resources that he receives to do his job.
There are two aspects to the problem: first, the money given by the Government to London as a whole, which is the Government's responsibility; and, secondly, the allocations within London. In the previous Parliament, I was a critic of the previous Home Secretary, whom I never felt got a satisfactory deal out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for policing, crime and law and order. As the House can confirm, the resources to fight crime decreased in real terms during the previous Parliament.
The current Home Secretary—I am trying to make another positive point—is, however, doing rather better than his predecessor in getting resources for the police, but even so the Parliamentary Secretary will be interested to know that the £22 million that the Home Secretary has recently said is being allocated for the extra costs of policing in London, following the events of 11 September and all that flows from them, is really a spit in the bucket. It has been consumed in the costs of extra policing that have already been incurred, so there is no extra element for what must be faced until the end of the financial year. In effect, we have had no increment.
Although I fully accept that this is not the responsibility of the Government, another problem is the allocation of the money within London. However, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers aware of what is happening in London as a result of the powers that are now in the hands of the Metropolitan police authority, which is responsible for the allocation of resources within the metropolitan area. The authority is chaired by Lord Harris of Haringey and, for the whole of this financial year, it has been reviewing the formula that settles what each individual borough receives. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will be interested to learn that the chair of the review board is Lord Tope, a distinguished Liberal Democrat. I imagine that he has been the force behind the board's decisions.
In 1997, there were 464 police officers in Bromley, but the target figure or aspiration under Labour has been reduced to 458. The present figure is 437, but Lord Tope's review board has reduced it to 425, the lowest figure ever. The board has reduced the figure to 425 because that is how many police officers there were in the six months
358
before the slight surge in recruitment—I make another positive point—that the Government have been able to announce in the last few days.
By comparison, Haringey—which is the biggest gainer—has gained 110 policemen. There is no rhyme or reason why Bromley should lose police officers while Haringey gains 110. Bromley has 63.5 crimes per police officer while Haringey has 63.2 crimes per officer. There is hardly any difference between the resources per crime in each of the two boroughs, but one borough will lose 12 officers from its already inadequate number while another borough will gain 110.
This package was voted through the Metropolitan police authority by the combined votes of the Liberal Democrats and Labour. It was, of course, opposed by the Conservatives led by Councillor Bob Neill, the Member for Bexley and Bromley in the Greater London Assembly and my representative. He is also leader of the Conservatives on the GLA and he is doing an excellent job in opposing such nonsense.
Needless to say, the precept set by the Metropolitan police authority for all Londoners will rise. It has risen twice in the past two years and it will, no doubt, rise again next year. We will face higher bills for fewer police and more crime and antisocial behaviour.
The Government must accept responsibility for the net effect on my constituency. The changes that they have made—the reorganisation of the police structure in London—have led, first, to a more complicated system with a Metropolitan police authority and a commissioner deciding how to allocate resources. Secondly, the system costs a lot more and, thirdly, we have fewer police and less police support to deal with crime. The incidence of crime and antisocial behaviour is therefore rising. That is wholly unsatisfactory. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey my strong feelings to the Home Office.
8.3 pm
Ross Cranston: I want to hang my brief remarks on three pegs. The first is marked work in progress; the second lost opportunities; and the third institutional failure.
On work in progress, I wish to refer to the example of the public services and improving their delivery. It is part of a mantra that the price of additional money for public services is reform in service delivery. That is perfectly justifiable. The lesson from, at least, the 1960s is that just throwing money at social problems will not necessarily go any way to resolving them. Therefore, the Government are engaged in a set of necessary restructurings.
I want to spend a couple of minutes considering the restructuring of the police service, a matter that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) has just raised. Effective policing—in particular, the effective policing of antisocial behaviour—is also high on my constituents' wish list. I have presented several petitions to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the matter, and the first from Councillor Wilson in the Coseley area contained 3,000 signatures. Another 3,000 signatures appeared on other petitions collected by councillors in Gornal and Sedgley.
The first point to make about effective policing is the truism that it depends on community support. Indeed, we as a society bear much of the blame for the wider problem

359
of antisocial behaviour. There is a thin line between the promotion of laddish culture in the media, including the BBC, and yobbish behaviour. There is also the unscrupulous marketing of alcohol to young people by the drinks industry and the laxness in the sale of fireworks that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) mentioned.
Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force, local support for policing has been institutionalised in local partnerships. Dudley council has been able to obtain nine antisocial behaviour orders, and that is a considerable achievement. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg and that number could be squared.
The second point about effective policing is that we need more human resources. In other words, we need more police. The Government should be congratulated because police numbers are now at a six-year high, but there is a great deal more to be done. In the West Midlands force, the number has gone up but the increase is relatively low compared with that in other forces. Moreover, I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the problem of the high attrition rate in the West Midlands force. Along with other hon. Members, I have pushed the barrow of more special constables. Indeed, I see no objection to others, such as neighbourhood and street wardens, contributing to the policing effort.
That leads me to a third point, which relates to my first theme on the reform of public services. Police forces cannot be exempted from the need to modernise. Those who take a contrary view have their heads in the sand. I cannot see my constituents continuing to tolerate a situation in which average sick leave for each officer in the West Midlands force is 13 days compared with eight days in other forces, such as Humberside and Northumbria. I cannot see my constituents continuing to tolerate a situation in which the average police officer spends only 17 per cent. of his or her time out on patrol. I cannot see my constituents continuing to tolerate a situation in which financial rewards are based on a series of archaic, historically won concessions rather than flowing to those shouldering the most difficult and demanding policing tasks.
I support the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at police reform. The police need and deserve our support and I have great admiration for my local chief superintendent, Dennis Hodson, and his officers. However, I hope that the Police Federation will embrace the changes set out in the White Paper and so do service to those that it represents and to my constituents.
My second theme is lost opportunities. This Parliament had the opportunity to adopt an offence of inciting religious hatred, but that opportunity was lost because the Government were defeated in another place by an unholy alliance of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. I shall return to their respective roles shortly, but let me first rehearse the arguments for the creation of such an offence.
An offence of inciting religious hatred is overdue and the need has become particularly acute since 11 September when those of us with substantial minority ethnic communities in our constituencies have seen the British National party become more active and an increase in religious harassment, especially against Muslims. The legal problem arises because of the special application of the law of blasphemy to Christianity. It was accentuated
360
by a decision of the House of Lords in 1983—the Mandla case—which held that Sikhs, and by analogy Jews, are protected as a racial group. They therefore fall under legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1976, but Muslims are not covered because they do not have a clear geographic origin or common descent. The upshot is that Muslims do not have the same level of protection as others in our community.
An offence of inciting religious hatred, parallel to the existing offence of inciting racial hatred, would have created a more level playing field in the legal sense. As we recognise religious freedom in the common law, and in light of the European convention on human rights, the corollary is that we have to take steps to protect those who exercise that freedom.
The Conservative opposition to the offence was based on the ground of free speech. It was the Conservatives' view that the offence would be too broad and its application uncertain. As such, they believed that it would catch robust criticism and satire, or even the declaration of one's own faith. I do not accept those arguments given that experience has demonstrated that the parallel offence of inciting racial hatred as set out in the Public Order Act 1986 is relatively rarely invoked. The threshold for prosecution is quite high. The offence is to produce threatening, abusive or insulting material with the intention of stirring up hatred, or such hatred being likely, not just reasonably foreseeable.
Moreover, there is a narrow construction, which the courts always adopt with criminal offences, and the additional hurdle of the Attorney-General's consent. Theoretically, restrictions on free speech are justified in the light of serious secondary effects. In the case of religious hate speech, those are fear, insecurity, psychological distress and, in some cases, physical danger and injury.
Be that as it may, the Conservatives took a principled stance against the offence, but not so the Liberal Democrats. They said that they were in favour of some sort of religious hatred offence, but not in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and not yet. They know the realities of parliamentary time. They know that the Home Office, with all its Bills, has no chance of getting time for a Bill that covers all religious matters in the foreseeable future. Typically, instead of settling for second best, the upshot is that we have no offence of inciting religious hatred. Over the next couple of years, I shall remind my faith communities that they have the Liberal Democrats to thank for that lost opportunity.
On institutional failings, I shall focus on the House. The difficulty with parliamentary standards is that rational public discussion is almost impossible given the perception fostered in some parts of the media that we all somehow have our snouts in public and private troughs. In some ways, we do not help ourselves. Trivial complaints are still being raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and I am looking directly at the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for supposed party political advantage. If only hon. Members realised how corrosive that is to the standing of Parliament.

361
As Peter Riddell, that wise and immensely knowledgeable commentator on our affairs wrote—
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Ross Cranston: The hon. Lady will be able to respond later, but I shall give way.
Mrs. Browning: I am really not clear about the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to me.
Ross Cranston: The hon. Lady has raised several matters with the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Mrs. Browning: I have not made public anything that I have raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner. My understanding is that anything that one raises with her is confidential until she has examined it and made her views public.
Ross Cranston: I do not know about that. My comments relate to Labour Members too. There is a corrosive effect on the standing of Parliament if hon. Members raise trivial matters.
Peter Riddell wrote in The Times this morning:
"The dirty secret of British politics is that there is no dirty secret … The repeated rows over 'sleaze' are generally about failures to disclose defensible interests or donations."
There is no case for complacency; nor is there an argument for the status quo. I believe that we have the right machinery, but we need to reorientate it. Failure to declare or register an interest that is both negligent and trivial does not require the Parliamentary Commissioner to inquire. There is a need for judgment and proportionate action.
In my view, more attention needs to be given to behaviour. Declaration and registration of interests are only one aspect of that. Indeed, an MP's interests are irrelevant unless they influence or appear to influence behaviour. We need to revisit the code of behaviour and explore whether that should be fleshed out to give greater guidance to individual MPs. We also need to ensure that ethical behaviour is part of our culture.
The final aspect of institutional failure relates to our role in raising matters of public concern and in scrutinising the Executive. I welcome the changes that are proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office and the Leader of the House. I know that the Modernisation Committee will return to Select Committees in the new year. The Joint Committee on Human Rights played a valuable role, especially in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
On scrutiny, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House have proposed that all Bills be published and scrutinised in draft form. I support that. However, at some stage, we will have to tackle the Standing Committee system. The Committees may enable outside interests to canvass arguments, but they do not provide adequate scrutiny.
I am mindful of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen); I am especially mindful of his height. In light of that, I shall resume my seat.
8.16 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I want to raise the important matter of the future of Droitwich Spa, one of the two major towns in my constituency. That town could have a happy Christmas and a prosperous 2002 if a number of things were to happen. They are at various stages of development—some worrying, some encouraging.
We need to ensure that the two historic canals that run through the town are reopened and that the town centre is revitalised in the light of the major town centre development by Waitrose. We also need to ensure the refurbishment of the historic lido and the reaffirmation of the town's brine heritage, through district council actions and, in particular, the English Heritage ancient monument status for Droitwich Spa, which is being discussed. Other matters are also relevant to the town centre, but those four impinge on national policy making.
Droitwich Spa has a proud heritage of salt production, dating back to Roman times. In the 19th century, it saw a massive expansion, with new hotels, a railway station and, of course, the famous brine spa baths themselves. Sadly, in more recent times, the town has drifted and the centre is looking especially fragile. I have worked with one of the leading councillors in the area, Councillor Pam Davey, to bring the traders together, with some success, but more needs to be done if the town is to re-establish its vibrancy, as I believe it can.
There has been a steady gain in population as a result of planning policies. Droitwich Spa has taken people from Birmingham and elsewhere in the west midlands, but sadly many of them are commuting to jobs elsewhere. A vision is needed to revitalise the town. That vision is on offer from Wychavon district council and the town council, and it has generated a possible £20 million of investment. That investment is at risk, however, if we do not get the support of Government agencies—especially some of those that report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—of the local community and of the private sector. My worry is that some local pressure groups are working with commercial vested interests to undermine local democracy in Droitwich Spa and the interests of the wider community.
Let me deal with the issues briefly and one by one. The reopening of the canals is the good news part of the story. I declare an unremunerated interest as vice-president of the Droitwich Spa canals trust. The local partners are working well together to achieve that important ambition. The project is identified by the Waterways Trust as one of the most viable canal reopenings in the country. The Droitwich Spa canals trust, British Waterways and the local authorities are working together effectively with other local partners.
There are encouraging signs. The heritage lottery fund and Advantage West Midlands may play their part in bringing about the necessary funding to secure the reopening of the canals. That will bring great benefits, not just to Droitwich Spa but to Worcestershire as a whole and, I believe, to Worcester city. I make one new year prediction: in 2002, we will see agreement on exactly how those canals should be reopened.
There are, however, contentious matters that affect the town, in particular the Waitrose town centre development. That does not sound like something to raise in the House of Commons, but I believe that it should be. The district council retail study by Chase and Partners identified the

363
need for a major boost to the town centre. The Waitrose development provides precisely that opportunity. Plans have been submitted. The very fine planning officer, Jack Hegarty, of Wychavon district council is considering those plans now.
The decision by the planning committee is due early in the new year. However, special interest groups in the town, apparently encouraged by Tesco, are mounting a vociferous and often unpleasant campaign against the proposal. The most dramatic step was to conduct a parish poll this August; that was forced on the town council, even though the planning matter was outside its competence. The poll proposed a specific site for a superstore in Kidderminster road in which Tesco has a commercial interest, having a charge on the land which is actually in administration.
That interest went undeclared in the parish poll. The people of Droitwich Spa were misled; they thought that they were participating in a poll on the merits of an issue, but in fact they were participating in a poll to further the commercial interests of a specific supermarket chain. Interests should be declared in parish polls, just as we in the House of Commons have to declare our interests in the Register of Members' Interests, which was published yesterday. The parish poll cost £4,685.25, which might not sound very much in the great scheme of things, but it is a lot of money to a town council like that of Droitwich Spa. It achieved a wonderful turnout of 11 per cent.
An expensive poll attracting an 11 per cent. turnout was pursued simply to further the commercial interests of one supermarket chain. No wonder that the leader of the district council wrote to Tesco suggesting that it write a cheque for the sum in question; he is right to do so. The poll raises three important policy concerns which, I know, are shared by Members for other constituencies. The Local Government Act 1972 needs to be amended, first, to require a declaration of interests in parish polls and, secondly, to increase the threshold of voters to trigger a poll; in Droitwich Spa just 10 voters are needed to trigger a poll of 23,000 electors which, clearly, is much too low. There is talk of another poll and another poll beyond that, which could bankrupt the town council. Thirdly, there is a need to limit questions to matters within the competence of the parish or town council administering the poll.
Tesco is getting over-mighty and is conspiring by accident or design to undermine democratically elected town and district councillors; it is going too far. Another site at Baxendale chemical works is available: it would be a good idea to develop that for retail use, possibly food retail use. Tesco should look at that—for all that I know, it may be—not at the Kidderminster road site, which is earmarked for housing, through a proper, democratic process and the local plan.
I shall be brief on the question of the lido. A huge public subsidy is needed to maintain a 1930s building which reflects the brine heritage of Droitwich Spa. Again, a group of protesters, for understandable emotional reasons, opposes the involvement of the private sector in a massive redevelopment of the facility which will bring a genuine tourism advantage to the whole town. The protesters' latest technique is to require spot-listing of the lido. That is a device to frustrate the development and may well scare off private sector investors. I plead with
364
them to drop their spot-listing proposal and I urge the Government to resist any such application that comes before them.
Finally—this is what prompted me to speak in our debate—I turn to English Heritage's suggestion that the town centre should be listed as an ancient monument in its entirety, branded by English Heritage as "Droitwich Salt". That came as a bit of surprise to many of us, who did not know that it was making such a proposal. Apparently, it has been talking about it for some years; some people knew that, some did not. It could be a good idea as it might put Droitwich Spa back on the map, but English Heritage is not pursuing it as pragmatically as I would have hoped. It proposes to define the town centre with a bizarre line which seems to lack any historical or archaeological credibility and could threaten the Waitrose development, to which I have already referred.
I understand that English Heritage met the district council yesterday; there were constructive and encouraging signs that it engaged in a proper dialogue with the council. However, I plead with English Heritage and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to whom this matter will come in due course, to be very flexible indeed. There are huge gains for Droitwich Spa if the listing is tackled sympathetically, but huge damage could be done to the town's viability if inflexibility is practised instead. Heritage must be a living matter, a notion that I believe the chairman of English Heritage fully endorses. I hope that that will be reflected in any recommendation from English Heritage in due course.
The four issues that I have raised are part of a complex matrix of issues that could revitalise Droitwich Spa. They could transform the town and put it back on the map. If we lose too many of those opportunities, the decline of the town is inevitable. The protesters should quietly withdraw their objections in the interests of the wider community; local government should stick to its guns and pursue its vision; and the Government and their agencies should support that vision—they have it in their power to do so.
8.24 pm
Vernon Coaker: In the short time available, I wish to draw the attention of the House to three issues; two have national implications and one relates to my own constituency.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) about fireworks. In the past few weeks, we will all have been contacted by numerous constituents about the problems that they have experienced with fireworks. Indeed, in common with my hon. Friend's local newspaper, our local newspaper—the Nottingham Evening Post—launched a campaign calling on the Government to review legislation on fireworks. Many of us in the House have had much correspondence and pressure from our constituents, and it is incumbent on the Government to examine how well the current legislation and regulations are working, reviewing them to ensure that in future some of the misery that many of our constituents have experienced is avoided as far as possible.
The issue is extremely serious. At some point, the Government will have to examine it to see what can be done. I appreciate that we can have as many regulations and reviews as we want, but at the end of the day we

365
need regulations that can be enforced on the streets in an effective and practical way. Certainly, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which people feel terrorised for months on end—indeed, almost all year round. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take up the issue.
Secondly, Nottingham City Transport has recently reviewed its bus services, and new services were introduced on 30 September. For many of my constituents, the review was a disaster because the buses have disappeared: services have been withdrawn or cut. The bus is often forgotten. We talk about grandiose schemes—huge motorways and railways and billions of pounds spent here and there—but in many of our communities, the bus and its effectiveness, which involves the question of whether it runs or not, are crucial.
Nottingham City Transport has reorganised its bus services to cut some of its losses: effectively, it is concentrating on what it calls profitable routes. I accept its argument that the service on those routes is fantastic, with new and frequent buses. However, for people on extreme edges of estates and in rural areas, it is difficult to reach those super-duper buses. Nottingham City Transport's changes mean that many of my constituents who are socially excluded have become even more socially excluded.
Many of these people have families, many are elderly and many find it difficult to make their voice heard. I suspect that the company will say that because the level of complaints has reduced, because the number of letters to the local newspaper has declined, because the number of letters sent to me about the matter has gone down and because the number of complaints that the company receives has declined, that means that the service has settled in, that the changes are working and that the initial furore was part of the process of change.
As I have said, many people find it difficult to make their voice heard and to make an impact on the system. As a result, they give up. They think that they have lost. They think that despite all their efforts, nothing further can be done. Far from being satisfied with changes, there is a sense of resignation.
It is important for Members to have a say in their Parliament on behalf of people who feel hard done by by a bus company that has put increase in profit and the dividend to shareholders above the needs of those who live in the communities that it used to serve. I take this opportunity to call on Nottingham City Transport to review the changes that have been made and to consider whether it is possible to reinstate some of the services that have been taken from some of my constituents. The company should undertake such a review because the outcome will be important to many of my constituents who live in the suburbs of Nottingham.
Thirdly, there is the enormous problem of antisocial behaviour. I believe that police resources are rising and that the numbers of police on our streets are increasing. However, there is a need for more officers, and I think that that is generally accepted. Those who talk to me are not necessarily afraid of some of the huge crimes that we tend to think about when talking about the police. They come to me because they are fed up with people throwing stones at their windows, with their cars being scratched,
366
with people running down the street screaming late at night and with milk being stolen. There is intimidation on the street. There is loutish behaviour all the time.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to examine how effectively some of the legislation on antisocial behaviour that we have introduced is working and to examine how we can ensure that antisocial behaviour orders work. We must ensure that the legislation that bears on antisocial tenants is enforced. We must ascertain whether the parenting orders that we have introduced can be broadened so that they can be used before someone offends. At present, they can be used only when someone has offended, or when a parent is taken to court because a child is not attending school.
Far from there being only law and order problems or policing problems, there are social issues that bear on parental responsibilities for some young people. As a society, we should encourage the taking up of those responsibilities.
Many of the antisocial problems that we talk about involve young people. However, we should recognise them as people who demand services just as others do. Some of the facilities that are available to young people in many areas are not good enough, and we should do something about that. Young people should have a voice in the provision of services, and we should provide more services. Many of them simply want a place to go sometimes where they can feel safe and hang around with their friends.
8.34 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I always find this pot-pourri of a debate interesting. There is such a variety of topics. My little rose petal of a contribution to this pot-pourri will relate solely to the disposal of refrigerators. The Government have got themselves into a considerable bind, and that involves the taxpayer. It was known that the problem would arise for about four to five months.
The reason for this situation became apparent only last Tuesday when the Minister for the Environment, in a reply to me during a debate on waste, admitted that we are in this bind because the Government did not understand the implications of an EU directive to which they had signed up. They did not realise that in disposing of refrigerators they had to deal with the chlorofluorocarbons in the gas and with the problems of the insulation material within refrigerators. There is no plant in the United Kingdom that can deal with that insulation.
In accordance with the Montreal protocol, the new EU directive on ozone-depleting substances requires the removal of all chlorofluorocarbons from refrigerators, and the directive will take effect in 12 days' time.
The Local Government Association has estimated that if there is one fridge per household and 21 million households in England, on the assumption that each fridge will be replaced every 10 years, 2.1 million fridges will be scrapped this year alone. The retailers think that the figure is higher—3 million fridges a year. Those figures ignore commercial and industrial refrigerators and air conditioning units.
It is expected that apart from those fly-tipped on verges and lay-bys, most fridges that cannot be collected by retailers will pass through the hands of local authorities.

367
The Government have explained that they want local authorities to dispose of those 2.1 million fridges in purpose-built plants, but there are no such plants in Britain. I am told that no sites have been approved or given planning permission, so how will the Government assist local authorities in disposing of that mass of waste? I believe that the regulations that will affect the plants are still in draft form. Clearly, no company will invest in such plants until they know what the final regulations are, so there is no possibility of moving forward to investment decisions or planning permission.
The Government have belatedly understood the implications of the EU directive to which they signed up. They have said that the insulating foam inside fridges must not be allowed to escape into the environment, and old fridges must be dealt with in one of three ways. First, the entire fridge may be disposed of in an incinerator, but that is expensive and it means that the metal element is unlikely to be recycled.
Secondly, it has been suggested that the fridges could be disposed of abroad, but that will not work. Because refrigerators contain CFCs, they are classified as hazardous waste, so the insurance premium and the shipping premium go up. It is therefore not economical to export them. The only practical way of exporting them is to get rid of the chlorofluorocarbons by de-gassing the fridges, but if they are to be exported to third-world countries, where they are very useful, there are no facilities there to re-gas them.
The third option is the Government's preferred one. They want to dispose of fridges in purpose-built reclamation facilities in the UK. It is undoubtedly the best option available, yet the Government have made no provision for this means of disposal. Although the Government say that we need three plants in the entire UK, manufacturers have told me that 10 plants will be needed, each with a throughput of 300,000 fridges a year.
In the meantime, because we have no plants the Government have given local authorities some £6 million to store fridges. However, that does not mean that the recycling problem will be dealt with. The fridges will just be taken to a dump and stored there. If people are elderly, poor or have no car, how can they get the fridge to a dump? The answer is that they have to pay someone to take the fridge, and that could cost £50.
The Government have produced a system that does not work. It also means that the fridges cannot be refurbished. Currently, one third of old fridges are refurbished and go to the poor or to third-world countries, so they are still valuable. That will not happen if they go to dumps. They cannot be re-used once they have been out in the open for a long time. We will simply have fridge mountains around the country, because we have no way of dealing with them.
The Government must explain what happens when the £6 million promised to local authorities runs out. Will it or subsequent sums be allocated to the environmental protective and cultural services block on which the local authorities depend? Will the £6 million and any further moneys be in addition to that money?
Clarification is also required about a statement made by the Minister for the Environment, who said:
"There is no need for householders to worry about disposing of their old fridge. If a retailer cannot be found who will take an old fridge away, local authorities will accept the fridge at the civil amenity site, free of charge."
368
Who will get it there?
I realise that I have only a minute left, so I shall be extremely brief. The fact is that the Government have got it wrong, and we are going to see throughout the country what are colloquially known as fridge mountains. In the next two months, about 800,000 fridges will be sold, so the same number will be dumped in one way or another. In the next year, in which there will be no recycling or disposal plant, some 3 million units will be dumped or stored. The Government say that they believe in the producer paying; frankly, they have produced the mess and I wish that they would pay to sort it out.
8.40 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: Last Sunday, I went to the Edith Cavell statue, just outside the church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and just north of Trafalgar square. I joined a couple of hundred other people. For an hour, we took turns to read out the names of people—there were 1,100 in total—who have died in the past year in the conflict in Israel and Palestine. The poignant and moving thing about the names was the differences in the surnames and first names, and the huge range of ages of the people who died. In some ways, it was like reading from war memorials for the first world war, on which one sees the names of brother after brother who died on the western front. Many people joined in the rota. There were people from Palestine and Israel and from the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, as well as people of no religion at all. They were united in calling for peace and hoping that, somehow, as we move into a time that is important for all religions—we have just come to the end of Ramadan, Hanukkah is around and Christmas is next week—we will see some genuine hope of peace coming to the middle east in the next year.
I must say, however, that the portents are not good. The demonstration was organised by Just Peace UK, which also has supporters and members in Israel, and members of Gush Shalom also attended. The petition that we passed around—I shall not read it all, but I want to refer to what it said—called on the British Government to call a halt to the Israeli Government's over-excessive violence and assassinations and the brutal siege of the Palestinian people that is breeding the horrific counter-horror of suicide bombings, which are universally condemned. It went on to describe the situation in the region.
Anyone who has visited Israel and Palestine will be aware that, as the Prime Minister has said, travelling from Israel into Gaza is like going from the first world to the third world. One sees the poverty, misery, distress and downright anger of ordinary Palestinian people about the way in which they have to live and in which they are treated. When an atrocity occurs in Israel, the Israeli authorities often make very little attempt to do anything about it judicially. There seems to be a policy of launching an immediate rocket attack on a supposed source of Hamas terrorists or on somebody else. The result is that villages, homes and lives are destroyed, and many people die. That breeds anger and hatred, and more support for the people who then carry out attacks in Israel.
When the Prime Minister of Israel or the President of the United States says that it is up to Chairman Arafat to capture such people, bring them to justice and have control over them, they forget that the Palestinian National Authority is not especially wealthy. Indeed, one

369
could argue that it is often bankrupt. If Israeli armed forces systematically bomb its police posts and any form of transport that Chairman Arafat has, it is hard to understand how he or anyone else can exercise authority over what is happening in Palestine and Israel.
The wider question is how one brings about a peaceful solution. It is not wanting for lack of resolutions at the United Nations or of international recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people to exist in a twin-state strategy alongside Israel. There is no lack of political declarations around the world. However, they are not implemented and matters are not brought to a fruitful conclusion.
The British Government are an important part of the process, and I hope that they will do all that they can to put pressure on the United States to cease the apparently unending stream of military support for Israel and its blanket support for anything that Israel does. I hope that they will apply a great deal of pressure to ensure that the negotiations take place round the negotiating table, that a ceasefire occurs, and that, if both sides agree and wish it, some sort of United Nations policing operation is established. In 2002, I hope that we can look forward to the declaration of an independent Palestinian state, which will form the basis for long-term peace.
What is happening in the middle east is horrific and the implications are wide. No one of whom I know supports what al-Qaeda and bin Laden did on 11 September; no rational person could condone that organisation's activities. However, people are desperate for peace, recognition and self-determination. If the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority cannot provide that, people seek recognition and justification elsewhere. That is how organisations such as Hamas get their support.
I hope that after the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, there will be peace, some self-determination and genuine support for the clean-up operation in the wake of the use of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, daisy-cutters and all the other horrific accoutrements of modern warfare. I hope that there will be an examination of human rights abuses by the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, especially the killing of so many prisoners at Mazar-e-Sharif in the early part of the allied campaign against the Taliban.
I want a recognition that the fundamental injustice of the treatment of the Palestinian people and the need for an active peace process lie at the heart of much of the world's problems, especially in the context of the war on terrorism. There is a need to end the blanket support and approval of Israel's action and to promote an active peace process.
The continuation of the United States campaign against terrorism without legal justification, declarations of war, support for an international criminal court and judicial process will lead to a break-down of any international agreement or treaty. A bombing campaign in Somalia will probably succeed as nothing else in uniting many Somali people against the United States and the west. I hope that there will be a halt, a pause and a recognition of the need for the primacy of international law.
I am about to finish because I am getting strange signals from the Whips. I have received such signals for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. On 30 January, the United Nations mandate for the MINURSO force
370
expires. It currently helps to ensure that there is a ceasefire in the western Sahara. There was a war, but now there is a ceasefire and a thirst for peace and for self-determination. The United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council have ratified the principle of a referendum to facilitate that peace process, but if there is no referendum for the people of Sahrawi, so wrongly expelled after the Moroccan invasion in 1974, there will be no peace, the Moroccan occupation will continue and a guerrilla war and all the wider implications of that will be on the agenda.
The Government are seized of that fact, but I hope that they encourage the French Government to stop allowing the Elf Aquitane oil company to sign oil exploration certificates in the occupied territories in Morocco, which is totally illegal, totally wrong and very dangerous, and ensure that there is sufficient financial and practical support for the UN operation to enable the referendum to take place early next year. Those hundreds of thousands of people living in dusty, dry, inhospitable refugee camps in Algeria will be able to return home to the country from which they were so brutally expelled in the 1970s.
8.51 pm
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I must briefly raise several points. First, I entirely agree with the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on fireworks. I cannot recall receiving so many letters about fireworks and on firework night I thought that our house was under siege, as bombs seemed to be exploding everywhere.
Fireworks no longer produce pretty little stars and the noises that they make seem to have grown louder and louder—local residents were complaining about animals being frightened. I much prefer organised displays. We should not ban fireworks, but a ten-minute Bill on the subject is to be introduced next year and I ask the Government to consider how such products are manufactured and whether we can definitively control the period for which they can be displayed. I hope that a successful gunpowder plot does not result next year owing to the crazy decision we took last night.
My second point is about the wonderful Southend airport. Unfortunately, it has encountered a number of difficulties, so much so that an article about the airport appeared recently in The Daily Telegraph. To comply with new Civil Aviation Authority regulations, St. Laurence church, which is nearly 1,000 years old, must be shifted 150 yd. That is being seriously considered, but quite how an ancient church can be picked up and moved I do not know. Obviously, worshippers are extremely upset and those whose loved ones are buried by the church are outraged. Although I hope that the Minister recognises that the airport is worth supporting, will he pass that message to his colleagues so that this crazy scheme for an ancient church might be avoided?
My third point concerns cocklers in Leigh-on-Sea, who are in difficulty. Every year, there are problems in the Thames estuary with an algae called DSP. The cocklers advise me that a huge number of cockles would have to be eaten before a person became ill, but there seems to be no clarity and the cocklers of Leigh would be grateful if tests were carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) had responsibility for such matters when she was a Minister.

371
My fourth point involves the huge difficulty in attracting and retaining teachers. Going round the schools recently, I encountered a number of mature teachers and one wrote to me recently:
"I needed the full student loan every year for four years totalling £6000. On completing the course I found that teachers salaries did not take into account my ten years previous experience in outside industry. The salary I received was not enough … I had to take out graduate loans in order to live and remain in the profession for which I had trained … hoping things would improve."
As a result of all that, following the pay increase the gross income of that teacher will be £7.75 over the limit allowed for deferment of student loan repayments. I wish I could go into more detail, but I can tell the Minister that this will apply to many other Members.
My fifth point concerns a reorganisation of benefits called the ONES. I recently visited a home for people with learning difficulties. I simply cannot believe that someone has come up with such a crackpot scheme. People in such homes are experiencing extreme mental-health problems, and it was always the case that the professionals would represent them in terms of benefits. That has all changed. The home that I visited was told "You now have to ring a help line". When that was done, nothing seemed to satisfy the gentleman at the other end of the line. It appears that these people now have to be interviewed individually. That is crazy, and I hope the Minister will look into it.
Finally, let me say that the best Christmas present for Southend would be the according of city status. I bet that when Her Majesty the Queen visited the town in 1998, she thought it extraordinary that it had not been declared a city. We have no cities in our wonderful county of Essex, although it is a huge area. I am sure that any Member visiting Southend would be given a warm welcome, and would support my entreaties to the Minister.
8.57 pm
Dr. Rudi Vis: Because of the five-minute limit, I will read my speech quite fast. I do not require a response from the Minister; I want to save time.
I merely wish to praise an innovative undertaking in my constituency—a foyer scheme, known as the safe start foyer. Recently Maria Mulloy, development manager of the scheme, invited me to a six-months review lunch at the foyer. The scheme is managed at Handley grove, off Claremont road in Cricklewood. It was set up for the benefit of young vulnerable people who are homeless, unemployed or both, and was officially opened in May 2001 by the Minister for Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and the then Irish ambassador, Mr. Edward Barrington.
I had already visited the foyer some months earlier, when I was able to discuss at length with young people what the scheme meant to them. They told me that their lives had changed entirely for the better once they came into contact with it. The foyer contains 24 flats with on-site support staff, providing key opportunities for disadvantaged young people who want to built a better future for themselves. Those whom I had the chance to meet were enormously positive.
The foyer is currently fully let, containing 24 young adults aged between 16 and 25 of whom 11 are working and 13 are in full-time education. They told me of their
372
past, which was at times gruesome. They seemed eloquent, intelligent and worldly-wise. and I enjoyed our discussions. They told me about their skills assessments, the training, and the job-seeking support available on site for residents. They also showed me their flats, the training and meeting rooms, information-technology access and the cafe and offices.
The chief executive of the safe start foundation, Mahesh Singadia, and Tom Beisty, who chairs the foundation, told me how the scheme had come about. Councillor Alan Williams, leader of the London borough of Barnet, had discussed the building of the foyer with the Network housing association, which was building 113 affordable rented homes in the area. The safe start people were brought in to manage it, and Barnet college's principal, John Skitt, was enlisted to discuss learning opportunities. All four partners put money and effort into the scheme, and the Housing Corporation came up with the capital costs. The Bank of Ireland also played a positive role.
The scheme is quite expensive, and the high standard of accommodation and services suggest as much. Safe start will see hundreds of formerly vulnerable young adults leave its premises with a good future to look forward to, and that is worth every penny. I am sure that those young people will, for once, have a decent Christmas this year.
I shall end with season's greetings to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all colleagues in the House.
9 pm
Mr. John Baron: I shall keep my comments brief, as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. I want to raise two issues that are concerning my constituents. The first relates to toxic ash that has been dumped in one corner of my constituency, and the second to the concern about the shortage in police numbers across the constituency.
Following reports on "Newsnight" and in the local press that toxic ash had been dumped at Pitsea tip, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 6 July asking for how long and when that dumping was allowed to happen; why proper controls were not in place to ensure that it did not happen; who was responsible for ensuring that public safety was adhered to; whether there was any risk to human health; and what measures were being taken to ensure that that did not happen again.
Despite further letters on 18 October, numerous phone calls and written parliamentary questions dated 6 November, I have not received a substantive response. Would the Minister, as a gesture of festive co-operation if nothing else, please raise this matter with the Secretary of State and generate a response? It is a matter of great concern to a large number of my constituents.
The second issue relates to a real concern across the constituency about the shortage of beat and response officers. A number of recent cases strongly suggest that the police are overstretched. In Essex, crime has risen in recent years, whereas the number of police constables has fallen. As part of an overall strategy to get much tougher with the criminal, we should instigate a step change in policing levels across the country, and get as many as an extra 25,000 to 30,000 police officers on the beat over the medium term.

373
The strength of feeling in Billericay and district is such that recently, in only two weeks, 5,500 constituents signed a petition calling for more police officers to be committed to the constituency. I presented that petition to the House of Commons on 10 December. I am aware that hardly any time has passed since then, but as I was previously unable to generate a response from another Department on the toxic ash incident, I ask the Minister to remind the Home Secretary that that petition sits on his desk, and I look forward to receiving his response early in the new year.
I shall leave the matter there. I should like to extend greetings and wish all hon. Members a good Christmas. 1 look forward to those two responses.
9.3 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: There is a growing gap, as my constituents perceive it, between the Government's rhetoric and their experience of public services in Fareham. I shall kick off with the topic of health. I shall contrast two newspaper articles that appeared in successive weeks in one of my local papers.
The first was a Government press release trumpeting the allocation of £75,000 to the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham, which was to cut waiting lists overnight and reduce the delays that people face in the accident and emergency department. That £75,000 will produce three and a bit nurses to cope with the growing number of people going to A&E units.
The following week there was an announcement that the hospital trust that looks after the Queen Alexandra hospital had a deficit of £5.5 million, and had to lose 150 staff, including front-line medical staff. It is not surprising, therefore, that my constituents see a growing gap between what the Government talk about in this Chamber and the reality on the ground.
One of the problems that hospitals everywhere face is the crisis in accident and emergency units. Admissions to those units are growing, many of them elderly people who have been forced to remain at home because the nursing home beds to cope with them are not available. Those beds are not available because the standards imposed by the Government on nursing homes have led to the closure of many in my constituency. The Government have not compensated nursing home owners for the additional costs that that they have incurred. Not only are more elderly people staying at home, but when they reach hospital, more and more have to stay there because there are no homes for them to go to for a convalescence period. A crisis is building up in the health service in south-east Hampshire, as a consequence of the underfunding of the health service and the loss of front-line medical staff, as well as the lack of adequate care places for elderly people.
I wish to place on record my thanks to the teachers and head teachers in my constituency for their hard work and dedication over the past year. That hard work and dedication has masked a growing crisis in recruitment and retention of teachers in my constituency. I raised that topic twice earlier this month. One of the manifestations of the crisis in Fareham is that a local head teacher, David Wilmot, set up a stall in Sainsbury's to recruit more teachers from among passing customers. I thought that that was a tribute to his innovation and initiative, but it was also a sad indictment of the state of the teaching
374
profession and the problems imposed on teachers by the Government through increased work load and more directives.
We cannot talk about the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention in isolation, because it has an effect on pupils. We have already heard Mike Tomlinson, the chief inspector of schools, explain this month that the stalling in the rate of improvement in literacy and numeracy at the age of 11 was partly caused by the turnover of teachers. My concern is that the improvement in exam standards over recent years will grind to a halt if teacher turnover increases and it is harder and harder to fill existing vacancies. The Government need to act promptly to avoid a crisis in education arising from the shortage of teachers.
The third issue I wish to raise is transport. The Government office for the south-east sent a letter to the chief executive of Hampshire county council. Its opening sentence reads:
"The Government's vision for transport is for a modern, high-quality network that meets people's needs and offers more choice to individuals, families, communities and businesses."
I regret to say that the choice available to my constituents is which traffic jam to sit in. There are two major M27 junctions in my constituency—junction 9 to the west and junction 11, which takes traffic from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). Both junctions are at maximum capacity at peak times because of the housing development that has taken place in my constituency in recent years. The Government plan more housing developments in the two boroughs. They have responded to the problem in part by providing funds for the south Hampshire rapid transit system. That will provide some relief, but only for people travelling from Fareham and Gosport to Portsmouth and back. It will do nothing for people travelling to Winchester, Southampton or Basingstoke, or for people who live in the west of the constituency who use junction 9. Further public transport investment is not the sole answer to the problem. We need more investment in roads, and soon.
At the moment, three surveys cover the M27—the south coast multi-modal survey, the M27 integrated transport survey and the Fareham and Gosport access study. We have had three studies, but what we need is action, not studies. The Government must provide additional funds to improve the M27, or to stop housing developments taking place in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies.
In this brief canter through the issues in my constituency, I must point out that I am concerned that the Government have not been open about the difficulties that they face in trying to solve the problems. They would gain much more respect if they were honest about their problems with hospitals, schools and roads. We need a proper debate to decide how best to solve those problems. If the Government are not open but continue to recite their litany of statistics, people will become more and more cynical about them. This is a Government who promise much but deliver little.
9.10 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I believe that I am the last Back Bencher to speak before Christmas. Brevity is a virtue, and I shall endeavour to be brief.

375
Christmas Adjournment debates are meant to be an opportunity to raise pressing constituency issues. The Government delivered a pretty rotten Christmas present to west Wiltshire last week. Two long-awaited road building and improvement schemes have been delayed, pending decisions on funding, as part of a cull of road projects across the south-west region.
I am pleased to be able to use this debate to highlight the disappointment felt by many of my west Wiltshire constituents with the Government's failure to commit funds to the construction of a bypass for Westbury and to urgent improvements on the A36 from Codford to Heytesbury. Westbury has awaited its bypass since the 1930s. Since then, through traffic has increased hugely—to the extent that air quality in the centre of an otherwise delightful market town is unacceptably poor by all recognised standards.
The A36 is notorious. It is known locally as "death valley", and rightly so. Indeed, one prominent local journalist turned to me in despair at the weekend and said, "I am just fed up with attending fatal traffic accidents along the A36." I myself recently attended a tragic accident on that road, in which a family of four was killed. Such an event certainly focuses the attention.
I regret to say that the Government's record on road building—indeed, on transport as a whole—is characterised by indecision. I suppose that in retrospect, my long-suffering constituents might have expected this outcome.
If the Government had a real alternative to road transport, we might not need our road improvements and I might not be standing here delivering this speech this evening, but they do not have an alternative. The Government's integrated transport policy seems to me to revolve around squeezing folk off the roads by making it sheer hell to drive. It simply is not working, particularly in rural areas where a car is no luxury.
The A3 Hindhead bypass is a textbook case of dither and delay, and one that will not give my constituents much cheer. The answer to a parliamentary question in May revealed that the Government did not intend to begin construction of the road—one of the most pressing schemes in the country—until at least 2008. The bypass was part of the roads programme of the previous Conservative Government, but Labour dithered for four years before enforcing another delaying order.
In addition, there is a hidden cost for those who live in the line of proposed roads. That cost is planning blight, and it causes huge misery. However, the dither and delay are not uniform. The Deputy Prime Minister's constituents got their improvements on the A1033 and the neighbouring A63. That was good news for those with Jaguars.
The self-styled party of constructive opposition, the Liberal Democratic party, is duplicitous. Across the country, road construction is certainly welcomed by many Liberal Democrats locally, usually with an eye to electoral advantage. However, before the election, the party's national message was very different indeed.
Thanks to the Government's house-building targets, we have seen concrete countryside all right, but not the transport infrastructure to support it. Given that this week's planning Green Paper is called, ominously, "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change", we can expect things to get worse. May I press the Government
376
to make up their mind about how they are going to resolve the urgent congestion and safety issues faced by motorists, pedestrians and residents in west Wiltshire, and in the south-west region as a whole? On a happier note, I also wish them a very happy Christmas.
9.14 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I confess to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) that I drove through Westbury on Saturday to see my mother, and was surprised to find that there was no relief road or bypass, so I am afraid that I contributed to the congestion. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had been in the House longer, he would know that dither and delay is not something that this Government can lay unique claim to. We in Cornwall suffered for many years because the previous Conservative Government dithered and delayed over essential improvements to the A30. Although I extend to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all Members of the House a warm invitation to come to the warmest part of the United Kingdom—Cornwall—for Christmas, I ask you not to use the A30 during daylight hours, to avoid getting stuck in a traffic jam.
It probably says in "Erskine May" that Adjournment debates must always be opened by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I have attended many of these debates, but never have I attended one in which the hon. Gentleman has not made a very serious point, and I admire his consistency. All too often, we deny and ignore the serious problems of Cyprus, a Commonwealth country. I was a Member of the House when the invasion took place in 1974, and it was a horrendous experience for a number of my constituents who were there.
A number of important threads have run through this evening's contributions, and I hope to refer briefly to some of them. I was struck by the way in which Members on both sides of the House dealt with international as well as local issues. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) talk about the causes of terrorism, while later the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred, very properly, to the serious situation in the middle east. It is important at this time of year, when we approach a Christian festival, to remind ourselves that there are common roots for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Far more unites us than divides us. It may be important for us to remind our constituents of that when we go back for our Christmas celebrations.
Most of this evening's contributions have been concerned with matters closer to home. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) is not in her place at the moment, but it is striking how the delivery of public services, to which she referred, has become the big issue of 2001. Although many thought that the general election would be fought on the euro, that was not the issue for the electorate. I find it interesting that Conservative Members who were Ministers just a few years ago seem now to have adopted a completely different attitude to the necessary level of investment in public services—so long as their constituency is at the front of the queue.
The right hon. Lady's references to public services were echoed by the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and the hon.

377
and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), particularly in relation to the police. I was a member of a police authority for many years before I came here—when I had a real job, in fact. I found that the police service was often ignored by London because it was thought that it could manage on its own and would always attract the support and resources that it required. We have learned the hard way over the past 20 years that that is not the case. The recruitment and retention of police officers is extremely important and requires greater attention. We are only just now pulling out of the funding trough of the 1980s and 1990s.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey has touching faith in the value of ministerial visits. Frankly, I could do without them—so long as they just send the cheque.
Shona McIsaac: They clog up the A30.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has a great deal of support across the House for the concern that she has expressed on a number of occasions about the way in which fireworks are sold and used. We all know from constituency experience that the manufacture of fireworks has reached such pyrotechnic heights that putting them in the hands of amateurs, let alone children, is dangerous. I hope that her message, which was backed up by the hon. Members for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), and is now backed up by me, too, will be heard by Ministers. Something must be done—things cannot continue as they are.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is not in his place at the moment, is also a regular. One day he will get up and tell us that the Royal Hospital Haslar is okay, and sit down again. We should all be so amazed that we would think that something had gone wrong with the normal conventions of the House.
There has been concern about the police in several constituencies for very many months—indeed, for many years. However, we should all appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington about the degree to which there is fear of crime. Perception is as important as reality in politics. Fear of crime is extremely important.
Although I cannot comment on the particular circumstances in the borough of Bromley to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I can assure him that we all recognise our responsibility to ensure that in addressing crime prevention, detection and clear-up, we also pay attention to the effect of crime on public perception all over the country. Fear of crime is a real problem among all age groups.
The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North uncharacteristically attacked Members of the other House. He referred to the loss of an opportunity to deal with the blasphemy laws. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, until a few months ago, a Minister. As far as I am aware, he made no proposals then to deal with the unfortunate situation as regards blasphemy, but now he blames his colleagues. The victories in the House of Lords on that issue were achieved not merely by Cross-Benchers, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but with the support of Labour peers, because it was felt that not
378
enough preparation had gone into the clauses on blasphemy. They were inserted at the last minute and had nothing to do with the emergency situation dealt with by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Those provisions were rejected because they were not good enough. That is what this whole place is about—scrutiny of legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an experienced Member, does not recognise that the value of the other place is—and, under the proposals that he will no doubt support, will continue to be—that it acts as a revising Chamber, providing proper scrutiny of the law and preventing Ministers from bludgeoning their way through this building with Bills that are not properly prepared, he has lost his opportunity, and I am sad for him. I agree, however, with his concerns about partisan tit-for-tat and the parliamentary commissioner. That is a serious issue.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raised some interesting issues that have more than local significance. Parish pump politics concern all of us. They are important; they are the basic building blocks of our whole democracy. For example, if the circumstances of the parish poll that he described were replicated all over the country, we should all feel that democracy was suffering—not only from the apparent distortion of that result by commercial interests but also by the fact that an issue could be triggered by a small but perhaps fanatical group. As a result, democratic representatives at every level of government, all the way up to this place, might be undermined. That is not merely a Droitwich Spa problem—it is genuinely national, as the House will realise.
I was especially struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Gedling, because so many of our communities are dependent on diminishing bus services. Again I shall refer to my experience before I was elected to this place. I was an adviser to the then Bus and Coach Council when the Conservative Government were threatening the deregulation and privatisation of the whole control system for bus services. This country lost something during that process.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was a colleague at that time, and will recall that we published a booklet called, "The country will miss the bus". The drawing on the front echoed Shell's advertisements about the loss of some of our natural species. The slogan was "Spot the dwindling—
Mr. Luff: "Spot the endangered species."
Mr. Tyler: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he is an hon. Friend in this context. However, the animals, birds and bees depicted on our booklet are likely to have survived—indeed, they have survived—but the little bus in the picture has gone. Country buses have disappeared. In my constituency there are hardly any regular bus services to the outlying areas. Regular users of buses—or those who would like to be—are not the most articulate members of our communities. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling for acting as the voice of bus users in his area. It may be a long way from Nottingham to North Cornwall, but I believe that we have a community of interests in that respect.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned a very urgent issue. The so-called fridge mountain will affect every local authority in the country.

379
It has come like an express train out of a tunnel at us in a matter of days. Local authority members all over the country simply do not know what has hit them, and the Government stand indicted for having failed to recognise the significance of something that they signed up to, which they certainly are not resourcing sufficiently. In those circumstances, the Local Government Association is right to warn local authorities of what will happen, and we in turn have a responsibility to our constituents.
I have mentioned the hon. Member for Islington, North. He was right to remind us what the situation in the middle east could be over the next few days, rather than weeks.
Like a Christmas tree, the hon. Member for Southend, West always manages to have a number of baubles to show off to us in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and tonight was no exception. I was particularly struck by an issue that he took up about the retention and recruitment back into the profession of teachers. If the crisis that our schools are facing is to be relieved in any way, it will be by bringing back into the profession people who have left, perhaps to have a family. I hope that Ministers will listen carefully on that issue; I believe that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) also mentioned it.
I have a foyer project in my constituency, as does the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis); indeed I have several, in small market towns. It is interesting to reflect that in those two contrasting constituencies there will be a great opportunity to provide a support system to help young people with accommodation, training and employment.
The hon. Member for Fareham referred back to the public services issue, and I shall wait with interest over the next few weeks, if not months, to see how the Conservative party funds the various local constituency pleas for more resources and builds them into a national programme.
As I have a minute or two in hand, I shall do what every other contributor to the debate has done—jump on my own hobby-horse. I have in many previous such debates referred to a serious problem that affects anyone who flies. I do not mean deep-vein thrombosis, although I have, in the past two or three years, mentioned that. I refer to a problem concerning the way in which organophosphate lubricants are used in some jet engines, and in certain conditions can be, as it were, inhaled into the aircraft cabin.
There now exists a very effective group that is providing information on the subject. It is called the Aviation Organophosphate Information Site, and was set up by flight crews. We already know the harm that acute exposure to organophosphates can cause. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has had ministerial experience of the way in which OPs are used, or have been used over the years, in the sheep industry, where they have had a devastating effect. Acute exposure to OPs, which are very dangerous chemicals, can be devastating. However, in the aviation industry, where these lubricants can leach into the cabin through ineffective seals and cause toxic fumes, there can be chronic exposure over a matter of years.
If any hon. Members are not coming to Cornwall this Christmas but are thinking of travelling abroad, I suggest that they look very carefully at the aircraft in which they are flying. It is usually short-haul aircraft that are affected,
380
so hon. Members who are flying long-haul will be all right, but short-haul aircraft, particularly those used in Australia, have been shown to have a particular problem.
The BAe 146, for example, has caused immense problems and very dangerous and risky circumstances for flight crews and passengers alike. I have drawn attention to a number of incidents that have taken place all over the world over the past two years. If I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the BAe 146 is used by the Queen's Flight, you will appreciate how serious the problems could be if those chemicals are not properly controlled.
I recently tabled questions to Ministers to try to obtain some information about the international investigation of those incidents. In a parliamentary answer last week, the Government said that they
"are monitoring these developments closely and are prepared to commission specific work on organophosphates if this proves necessary."—[Official Report, 11 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 801W.]
My final words before I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a very happy Christmas, are that I hope that there will not be an incident that will force the Government to consider the problem at great speed; I hope that we can deal with it before a dangerous incident occurs.
9.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am pleased to take part in responding to the Christmas Adjournment debate. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Parliamentary Secretary, who will reply to the debate for the Government, are aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has some critical family matters to deal with this evening, so I am grateful to you for allowing me to fill the slot. I suppose that it is traditional at this time of year that we elderly aunties get trotted out and allowed to join in the family fun.
Having responded to such a debate before in a previous incarnation, I rather hoped that the Christmas Adjournment debate, of all end-of-term debates, would have a cheerful, seasonal feel to it, but there has not really been any "God rest ye merry gentlemen" about tonight's debate. We have heard from many hon. Members that crime is up, that the loutish behaviour on our streets is increasing, that those louts bomb this country's streets with incendiaries, that dogs are barking, that babies are yelling, that cats are racing up curtains and that there will now be horrible mountains of unwanted refrigerators covered in toxic ash. That is what we face in the coming year—not a very cheerful picture. None the less, we have had a variety of contributions, with some common themes.
I should like to tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that, if there is such a terrible problem on the A30 in Cornwall, I urge all hon. Members who are travelling to the west country for their Christmas vacations to stop in God's own county of Devon before they get to Cornwall; they will be made most welcome there.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) is a regular contributor to these debates, as has been said. Yet again, using his vast experience from the chairmanship of all-party Cyprus group, he referred, in a very conciliatory tone, to the need to bring together the Turkish and Greek

381
sides in Cyprus. He looked to the future, which set us off with a constructive and topical theme for this evening's debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) touched on international terrorism, which, despite the festive season, is always on our minds. He considered the role of the Council of Europe and the case for an international criminal court, which was mentioned by other hon. Members. No doubt, we shall return to that subject, because international terrorism will clearly present the global community with many challenges, especially when the people involved are caught and brought to justice. He will use his membership of the Council of Europe to ensure that that debate stays at the forefront of our minds.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) is another regular contributor to our end-of-term debates, and I thoroughly share his concern about Eaga. I have referred some terrible constituency cases from very elderly people to its chief executive. Regrettably, when warm homes week was recently celebrated at constituency level, taking part in a photo opportunity had been in my diary, but I felt so concerned about the experience of some of my constituents that I have said publicly that I will not take part in any photo opportunity until I am absolutely convinced that those elderly people are not still waiting for basic electrical work and plumbing to be properly completed to a proficient standard.
When we are satisfied that that work has been done, I will warmly welcome that initiative, as will the hon. Gentleman. That work has to be done to the right standard because those people will have great difficulty if the job is not done properly, and they will have to keep contacting Members of Parliament just to get their central heating systems to work. Clearly, that is his experience, and it is mine as well. Many Members appear to be nodding, and it is worrying to think that they share a common experience on this issue. The matter needs to be sorted out, because it is unacceptable that even Members of Parliament cannot obtain proper replies in good time.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on the issue of sexual offences against people with learning difficulties, which Mencap has placed at the forefront of our minds. I fully agree with him, but I am sorry that he was not at the Conservative party conference. He would probably have found that a strange experience, but the only fringe meeting at which I spoke was the one organised by Mencap on this subject. I share his concern.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) used her great experience as a former Secretary of State for Health to flag up regional disparities and the impact that they have on public services, such as health and the police force in her area. She provided great detail on how the people who work for such services or are recipients of them in areas such as Surrey are disadvantaged. She rightly said that the Government must be fair and that they have a responsibility to the whole country. Many of us think that it is an important issue and she used her great experience to make her points concisely. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take them on board.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) referred to the problems caused by fireworks. We have all received letters about them, but it is difficult to achieve a
382
balance between people wanting to have genuine fun and people misusing fireworks so that they cause problems to the elderly, pet owners and others. I hope that we can have practical advice from the Government on the changes that they intend to introduce, because something needs to be done. The hon. Lady nods, and I hope that she accepts that I share her concern about the problem. We need to ensure that any proposals that the Government introduce are safe and fairly predictable. It is an offence to create disturbance at night whether through the use of fireworks or other means. Therefore, when people break the law and local authorities have sufficient evidence of that—that is part of the problem—they should be brought to account. Otherwise the word will get round and people will continue to break the law.
I have never seen the Royal Hospital Haslar or known anyone who has been in it. However, I know all about it, because of the work over many years of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I remember seeing people outside the House with placards saying "Save the Royal Hospital Haslar" and my hon. Friend has raised the issue many times on the Floor of the House. Because of his efforts, he deserves to keep the hospital. I am not sure what will follow from the debate in the memorandum that the Parliamentary Secretary sends to his colleagues. I hope that it is not just a generalised round robin. In fact, I urge him to make clear in bold, large type the point about the deadline of 2007 for the Haslar hospital. As my hon. Friend has said, it justly deserves to have the word "indefinitely"—and not 2007—applied to it.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) touched briefly on modernisation, a subject on which he has gained quite a reputation in the House. He recommended that people speak for eight minutes and I timed his speech. He spoke for exactly eight minutes, which was first class. He takes the prize tonight for doing just that. I must say sorry to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), because I want him to think that he would win the prize.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North spoke with great knowledge and in great detail about the plight of people who suffer from strokes, the prevention that might be put in place to minimise their incidence and, in particular, about the need for specialist services. It has been promised that, by 2004, people who suffer a stroke will automatically be guaranteed specialist referrals and specialist treatment. We all know how much a difference the right follow-up treatment to help with mobility or speech problems can make to those who have had strokes. Such treatment is essential. He said that the two main risks were smoking and blood pressure. I do not smoke, but since the Government came to office in 1997 my blood pressure has been up. I hope that I am not at too much risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) spoke about policing, as many hon. Members did. In particular, he flagged up the fact that crime was soaring in what he described as the leafy suburbs of Bromley. We often rightly focus on crime in inner cities, but leafy suburbs and rural areas have their share of crime, and that needs to be taken seriously. He said that as taxpayers we have higher bills, fewer police and more crime. The Government have to address that.

383
The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) talked about the reform of public services, antisocial behaviour, community policing and antisocial behaviour orders, which we would all like to see applied in greater numbers. Not even the statutory agencies are aware of the opportunity to use them. If they are to be successful, we must use them. It will be interesting to discover whether there is a wider take-up of that vehicle if we talk about it more.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned parliamentary standards. I have just realised why he referred to me in that context. I repeat to him—this is private between us—I have not made that information public.
Ross Cranston: I have no idea of the nature of the complaints that the hon. Lady raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner. Of course, they will not necessarily remain confidential because there might be a report. I was simply appealing to her as a leading member of the Conservative Front Bench. I make the same appeal to Labour Members. However, if I gave offence, I unreservedly withdraw my comments and apologise.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very gracious. I accept his apology and shall move quickly on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned parish polls in his constituency. It was rich of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to talk about distorting polls. If any party is the past master of distorting polls, it has got to be the Liberal Democrats. We could all learn a few tricks about distorted polls from them. My hon. Friend made a good point, however. We all appreciate that the consequences could be enormous if it takes just 10 voters to trigger a parish poll.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned fireworks, the problem with buses in the Nottingham city area and antisocial behaviour, which has been a common theme of our debate.
I do not know whether you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) as "petal", which is how he described himself. That is not how I have seen him in the past, but I think that he makes a rather nice petal.
My hon. Friend filled us with horror. I had not realised the scale of the imminent problem of second-hand and used fridges, both domestic and commercial. Apparently, there will not be a solution to that unless huge sums of money are spent, either by the Government or local authorities, or by the people who purchase the refrigeration units. Some 2.1 million fridges are replaced. I assume that is every year. There is nowhere for those fridges to go because the Government signed up to something and were not aware what it meant.
The problem is on such a scale that Ministers should stay behind during Christmas and sort it out. I represent a rural area and I am worried that every spare lay-by and ditch will, over the coming year, be filled with horrible old fridges, because people will dump them if there is nowhere to put them.
Jeremy Corbyn: They will be on the streets as well.
Mrs. Browning: Yes, and it will be awful for the environment.
384
I was coming to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). I did not agree with everything he said, which will not surprise him.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am relieved, actually.
Mrs. Browning: Now I shall really disappoint the hon. Gentleman for Christmas. He said that peace should be at the forefront of the situation involving the Israelis and the Palestinians. He stressed the importance of the negotiating table and the need for the United Kingdom and the Americans to use their influence to get people round it.
Back in 1993, I visited Tunis with an all-party delegation, and we had a meeting with Yasser Arafat. His headquarters were then in Tunis and we met just before he moved out. Clearly, he has to take the initiative in dealing with many of the problems with Hamas. However, I do not underestimate the difficulty that he faces in doing that. Like all extremist terrorist groups, Hamas is pretty out of control; that does not let Arafat off the hook but, having met and talked to him, I can see the difficulty of the task that he still faces. There has to be a coming together in a season when we focus on what is going on in the middle east. I was at a carol service on Saturday night and we all sang "O little town of Bethlehem". It was poignant to think of Jerusalem now; the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter and express his views in the way that he did.
I shall be quick now because I am a minute over my allotted time. To my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, I say, "Stick with it, my friend." If I am ever in this position on the Front Bench again, I hope to give him a prize for raising many issues, for which the people of Southend, West will be grateful. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said that he did not want a response, but he did Finchley and Golders Green proud this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) raised the serious problem of toxic ash. He is waiting for a response from the Home Secretary on a petition that he has lodged; I hope that the Minister will ensure that he gets one. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) spoke about his local Queen Alexandra hospital and, again, problems with public services and care places for the elderly. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) spoke about the roads and problems including Government cutbacks in the road-building programme and the disarray of the integrated transport policy.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to join everyone again for this momentous occasion. I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a peaceful 2002.
9.47 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I shall attempt to match my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), who represents a neighbouring constituency for speed. I shall try to reply to the 20 contributions to our debate in the 12 minutes or so that remain before 10 o'clock.
First, I praise all Members for their self-discipline in keeping to a time limit on speeches. In three hours today, we have managed to hear 21 speeches, whereas in five hours in July we heard 22 speeches. I therefore

385
congratulate Members on both sides of the House who participated in our debate. I welcome the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) back to a Front-Bench position. I believe that this is the first time that she has led for the Opposition since our exchanges in July.
Mrs. Browning: Since we said goodbye.
Mr. Twigg: Well, it was not goodbye—[Interruption.] It was au revoir, and I welcome her back. Our thoughts tonight will be with her colleague, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). We look forward to seeing him back in the House in the new year.
Our debate has been wide ranging, extending from Droitwich Spa to the Western Sahara. There have been contributions on national and international issues, as well as important local issues. I shall do my best to respond to the points that were made, but apologise if I do not cover everything. I shall ensure that Members to whom I do not reply get responses in due course.
I join the warm praise for the opening, and customary, speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). My constituency has more people hailing from the island of Cyprus than any other parliamentary constituency; I represent both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. I particularly welcome the fact that my hon. Friend's speech enables me to say something about Cyprus. Like him, I welcome the progress on the European Union accession talks. I, too, would prefer the whole of Cyprus to join the EU. However, it is vital that we reaffirm, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has done, the decision of the European Council at Helsinki that there should be no preconditions to the Republic of Cyprus joining the EU. I look forward to a day when we can once again see a united Cyprus with Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots living together side by side in peace, in the way they do in my constituency and in other parts of north London. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the new discussions between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash, which I hope will bear fruit in the new year.
There were some thoughtful contributions on international issues. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who I believe celebrates his 25th anniversary in the House next year, referred—I agree with him—to the brilliant Dimbleby lecture by former President Clinton of the United States. He raised several extremely important issues about Africa, the middle east and other parts of the world and the powers of the International Criminal Court, which I am pleased to undertake to draw to the attention of my colleagues, especially those in the Foreign Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) said that the debate had been described by one of our hon. Friends as whingeing gits' day. Perhaps that is not the case today. As I have said, we have had some thoughtful contributions. Like my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, I have experience of some of the difficulties of the Eaga Partnerships scheme. I have had a number of constituency cases, and clearly it is something that the Government should address.
As for the mis-selling by energy companies, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy in the Department of Trade and Industry has
386
recently written to all gas and electricity suppliers to express concern about the distress caused by instances of sales malpractice, and to demand that suppliers improve their performances. That is an important step, and I think that all Members will want to see progress made.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) contrasted private affluence with public squalor. She rightly talked about the situation in her constituency. All of us want what is best for our constituency. However, in addressing the issue of inequalities in health, Labour Members at least might have a different view about the scale and nature of the challenge that we are facing from that of the right hon. Lady.
I note the recent budget allocations for the right hon. Lady's health authority, the West Surrey health authority. The figures before me show that in the last two years of the Conservative Government the real-terms increases were 0.5 per cent. and 1.4 per cent., whereas this year and next year those increases will be 6.3 per cent. and 6.9 per cent. I do not deny that there are many issues and challenges in the health service across the country, but we are seeing a real and sustained effort to get extra investment into the service.
A number of Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), mentioned fireworks. I think that all of us receive correspondence from constituents setting out the sort of concerns that have been expressed this evening. I shall ensure that these concerns are drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs. Enforcement of fireworks regulations is the responsibility of local authority trading standards departments. However, my hon. Friend has recently sought feedback from those departments on levels of compliance and enforcement issues following this year's fireworks season.
I know that my neighbour and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) raised the issue in a debate in Westminster Hall this year. I look forward to the ten-minute Bill that will be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) in January.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the case of the Royal hospital, Haslar, as he has done on a number of occasions. I congratulate him on his consistency in raising the issue and I pay tribute to his work. I understand—he said this—that the integration process between Haslar and the Portsmouth hospital trust is going well. I am sure that he will keep us informed of progress in the months and years ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has now been out of purdah for six months and able to address the Chamber, has apologised for not being able to remain in his place for the closing speeches. I thank him for the tribute he paid to the progress that is being made on modernisation. I shall be very careful in responding to his suggestion that mandatory time limits be introduced for speeches. I know that that is a matter for Mr. Speaker and his deputies, but the debate tonight demonstrated that with self-discipline, we can enable all hon. Members who wish to take part in a debate to do so.
My hon. Friend made a number of important points relating to stroke care. I pay tribute to him and to the work of the Stroke Association. By coincidence, the Minister of

387
State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has responsibility in that sphere, is in the Chamber. I will ensure that Health Ministers are fully informed of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and that he gets the replies that he sought.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), like me, represents an outer-London suburban constituency. I recognised some of the topics and challenges that he described in his contribution. I will pass on his kind words about my right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary, who I am sure will appreciate them, and I will ensure that the various matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are passed on.
Several hon. Members acknowledged the fact that police numbers are rising. We are witnessing a change nationwide, but there is still an enormous amount to do. All hon. Members are acutely aware of crime and the fear of crime. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) raised important issues relating to the police, antisocial behaviour and the Government's proposals for reform of the police service. I endorse his remarks about the lost opportunity to take action to deal with incitement to religious hatred. It is sad that that opportunity was lost. That has caused hurt in many parts of our country, particularly to Muslim communities. The House will have to return to the matter.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) focused on important issues concerning his constituency. The Government attach great importance to the country's built heritage. Today a new document entitled "The Historic Environment: a Force for our Future" was launched. It sets out how we intend to move forward. I am not aware of the detail of all the hon. Gentleman's specific suggestions, but I will draw his remarks on behalf of his constituency to the attention of appropriate colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) spoke about various topics, most importantly the future of buses. There has been an increase in bus services nationwide, but a huge amount needs to be done. I endorse my hon. Friend's observation that improving the bus network is a vital way of providing for greater social inclusion.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) spoke about the alleged fridge mountain. He will be aware that the Government have secured money through the new opportunities fund for a recycling programme. Constructive discussions are taking place between Government, retailers, other companies and contractors responsible for disposal to agree a revised timetable so that the directive can be implemented properly. As a result, I hope that we will not see the fridge mountains to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), my former Member of Parliament when I lived in his constituency, highlighted the future of the
388
middle east peace process. It is vital that we get the peace process back on track. We will achieve that only if there is a recognition of the right of Israel to live in true security, and a recognition that the Palestinians have the right to a viable state.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is, in his inimitable way, a regular at pre-recess Adjournment debates. He raised a series of concerns, many relating to his constituency, including a bid for city status. I will do my best to ensure that he gets appropriate responses from the relevant Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green said that he did not require a reply. As I have only a minute left, he will not get one.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) spoke about the Pitsea tip and about correspondence and parliamentary questions. I hope that he will not be disappointed if I say that I cannot explain why his letters regarding the Pitsea tip have not yet been answered, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and encourage him to write fully to the hon. Gentleman.
I am about to run out of time, so I end by wishing right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House a merry Christmas, a happy new year and a restful recess.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I would like from the Chair to reciprocate the many good wishes that have been expressed in the course of the debate and to wish a happy Christmas to all hon. Members and the staff who serve us.

PETITION

  Young Drivers
  10 pm
  Mr. David Amess: In the early hours of the morning of 26 August this year, a fatal car accident happened on the Al27 just outside Southend in which three young boys were killed. Mark Baker, aged 18, Glen Dineen, aged 18, and Gary Dineen, aged 16, were all killed. One of the parents feels very strongly that there should be a change in the law for those who have recently passed their driving test.
  The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to introduce legislative proposals to prohibit drivers aged between 17 and 21 from carrying passengers aged under 21 until a period of six months has elapsed from the date of passing their driving tests; and to institute a review of driver licensing with a view to introducing a graduated licensing system.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Spina Bifida
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.1 pm
  Mrs. Helen Clark: I am very glad to have obtained this opportunity to speak on this long-running and important issue. I have to tell the House that it is not a festive topic. I must also say that the reason why I have sought this debate is that I am very unhappy about the long delay and Government inaction that I shall be forced to detail.
  The headquarters of the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus—ASBAH—is situated in my constituency. Since I was elected in 1997, I have sought to advance the case for the fortification of flour with folic acid, on which the association had already been campaigning for several years. In its view, the Government's delay is "inordinate" and the failures by the Department of Health even to reply to correspondence are "unprecedented".
  Spina bifida is one of the most common congenital malformations. It occurs very early in pregnancy, at about four weeks, when the spine and brain are being formed. It is a fault in the development of the spine, which fails to close properly, and it often results in paralysis below the fault. A major secondary complication is hydrocephalus—excess fluid in the brain—which, if it is not treated properly, can cause brain damage. Neural tube defects, or NTD, affect about 1,000 pregnancies a year, and the numbers of births of severely handicapped children have mainly decreased because of terminations of pregnancy. At present, NTD affects about 0.13 live births out of every thousand. It is only abortion that prevents the number from being 10 times higher.
  There is a direct relation to the intake by mothers of folates, of which I understand that folic acid is the most easily ingested. Poor diet certainly increases the risk and probably accounts for the higher incidence of NTD among poorer women—perhaps those who are socially excluded. Even with a good diet, however, it is virtually impossible to obtain sufficient quantities of naturally occurring folate. The average daily intake is 200 micrograms.
  In 1991, an international study led by our own Medical Research Council found that if all pregnant women who had had a previous spina bifida pregnancy took four milligrams of folic acid a day from three months before conception to the end of the third week of pregnancy, the incidence of NTD could be reduced by 75 per cent. That finding was accepted by many authorities, including the then Government. A subsequent health campaign in 1996 increased knowledge among women about folic acid, with the result that 91 per cent. said that they had heard about it, compared with 9 per cent. before that. However, as we know, 35 to 50 per cent. of pregnancies are unplanned. A survey carried out in 1996 found that only one in 10 mothers took a supplement before conception, so that is not the answer either.
  In 1996, the United States centre for disease control recognised that health education and tablets would never lead to a significant reduction in NTDs. The United States legislated to make fortification of flour and some other staple foods compulsory. Of course, the United Kingdom must make its own decisions, but our rates of NTD
  390
  pregnancies are among the highest in the world. We also have precedents for additives such as calcium in flour and iodine in salt. They are accepted as a means of protecting health.
  Representatives of ASBAH met Ministers from the previous Administration more than once. They were told that increased intake of folic acid should be a matter for the individual, not public action. The new Labour Government immediately and rightly put public health at the top of their agenda, and appointed a public health Minister. We have made great strides in recognising the link between social and geographical circumstances and health conditions, and in taking measures to tackle that.
  In 1996, ASBAH met the Labour Opposition health spokesperson, who gave an undertaking that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition—COMA—would investigate the fortification of flour with folic acid, should a Labour Government be elected. In September 1997, as the newly elected Member for Peterborough, I met Andrew Russell, executive director of ASBAH, Professor Nicholas Wald and a member of COMA for a briefing on the matter. I was impressed by the strength of the case in general, including the claim that no other single public health measure could prevent as many serious birth defects, and especially by arguments against concerns about the health of the rest of the population if fortification were introduced.
  There were two such anxieties. First, folic acid might interfere with the diagnosis of vitamin B12 deficiency. Secondly, people with epilepsy would risk their condition becoming uncontrolled. The evidence showed that folic acid might improve the anaemia associated with B12 deficiency and thus mask its symptoms. However, it does not cause the deficiency, which can be diagnosed by means other than anaemia. Even higher amounts of folic acid than the target 0.4 milligrams would not affect existing epileptics.
  Once a fortification policy had been implemented, newly diagnosed epileptics would be controlled on already supplemented flour. I accept that a more cautious position was subsequently adopted on the latter. However, in 1998, a study of 60 epileptic women who were given 0.8 milligrams in multivitamin supplements, found no side effects. That remains the case. When COMA reported in January 2000, it reached the same conclusion. However, I shall revert to that point shortly.
  After my meeting with ASBAH, I sought and later obtained a meeting with the then public health Minister. That happened in November 1997, although the Minister was unavoidably absent and was represented by her parliamentary private secretary. Again, it was attended by Professor Wald, Andrew Russell, Professor Wiseman of the Department of Health and officials.
  In the meantime, I had tabled the first of three cross-party early-day motions on the topic and, with Lord Ashley of Stoke, organised a reception in the House of Lords in December to publicise the issues. At the meeting, we were told that COMA was considering the subject and that
  "in principle, there was no opposition to the fortification of flour, but the Government would be guided by medical and scientific evidence."
  That is fair enough. ASBAH and I were encouraged that that was a change compared with the position of the Conservative Administration.

  391
  Professor Wald said that he would favour an amount of 0.4 milligrams a day but that less would be acceptable. Professor Wiseman mentioned some other possible benefits of folic acid supplements such as a possible protection against cardiovascular disease. He said that although the research was inconclusive, that should not be a barrier to fortification on the ground of preventing neural tube defects.
  The reception in December gained an unexpected boost. In the weeks that immediately preceded it, Bianca, a central character in the popular soap "EastEnders", played by Patsy Palmer, discovered that she was expecting a spina bifida baby. With her partner, Ricky, she agonised about whether to have an abortion. In the end, she did. Patsy Palmer attended our reception.
  At that point, we were very optimistic that a favourable Government decision would be taken, and taken soon. We were led to believe that COMA would report within a year or so and expected a subsequent Government decision. We had to wait another year. ASBAH was extremely disappointed, as it expected the Government to take "a more socially inclusive"—we always talk about that—"and responsible view" than their predecessors. ASBAH and I wrote separately to inquire about progress. We waited several months for a response. COMA reported in January 2000:
  "On scientific, medical and public health grounds, the Committee concluded that universal folic acid fortification of flour at 240 micrograms per 100 grams in food products as consumed would have a significant effect in preventing NTD-affected conceptions and births without resulting in unacceptably high intakes in any group of the population."
  It said later:
  "The Committee has identified a level of fortification that would provide significant benefit in reducing the incidence of pregnancies affected by NTD without exposing any section of the population to risks."
  That was good news. I tabled a second early-day motion that welcomed it, but it also called for the forthcoming consultation to be as brief as possible, given the long delays. A few weeks later, I asked a parliamentary question on how the consultation on the report's practical and legal implications would be conducted. I was told:
  "A public consultation will be undertaken shortly inviting comments on the report's conclusions."—[Official Report, 27 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 338W.]
  Several weeks later, ASBAH received another letter stating the Government's intention to issue a consultation document shortly, which would inform future policy. Twelve weeks were to be allowed for responses.
  On 24 May, I tabled a parliamentary question asking when the consultation document would be published. Again, I was told "shortly". On 25 July, in response to yet another parliamentary question, I learned that the document had been published and that the consultation was to run until 31 October 2000. I am sorry if this is becoming tedious, but it is essential to understand the frustration experienced by those of us who have been involved in the issue for a long time. I am afraid that I have not finished.
  For the past year, ASBAH and I have been trying to obtain a response from the Department of Health to the results of the consultation. I shall not list all the dates and I certainly shall not identify the Ministers concerned, but I will say that three ASBAH letters went unanswered and that it was erroneously claimed in a letter to me that a
  392
  reply had been sent. I wrote to the Secretary of State at the end of August, saying how disturbed and concerned I was by such delay and discourtesy and that I had to agree with chief executive Andrew Russell that the delay looked rather like a "substitute for decisiveness". Those are his words, not mine.
  I also said that I was, as I remain, concerned about the monetary and human costs of the delay, including those of the many avoidable pregnancy terminations that occur each year due to neural tube defects. It is traumatic for a woman to have a termination. The Department of Health letter to ASBAH dated 19 November said that the majority of responses were in favour of fortification, but again raised the issue of B12 deficiency. The good news was that apparently crucial research on the prevalence of that condition had just been completed. Another issue related to the technical aspects of fortification and, apparently, the Food Standards Agency will engage in detailed discussions with industry representatives to see what might be feasible.
  In my first meeting with ASBAH in June 1997, I was assured that there were no technical obstacles, but that the industry had naturally said that it required a directive from the Government before implementing fortification. I tabled a third early-day motion on 9 November to draw attention to some of the facts, noting that the Department's deadline for consultation responses had passed more than a year ago and urging an early announcement of its intentions.
  I agreed with ASBAH that, if we had heard nothing by spring, we would go ahead with yet another function in the Commons, but that, hopefully, we would not need to do so. I still hope that that may be the case, or that the function will go ahead, but that we shall be celebrating and not endlessly calling for action. I was horrified, therefore, when very shortly afterwards an article appeared in the British Medical Journal calling for further delays on the ground of the masking effects of folic acid on B12 deficiency and yet more research.
  As will be apparent from what I said earlier, the article is based on no new evidence. The reservations expressed by its authors, Professors Wharton and Booth, were dismissed by COMA two years ago. Worst of all, the call for field trials—a rather peculiar phrase in itself—is, I understand, a non-starter, as it would involve millions of participants. In any case, the experience of fortification in the United States already provides the necessary evidence. As I have said, flour fortification has been established there since 1998, with full public acceptance. It has involved minimal cost, and no hazards have emerged. We are talking about a population of a quarter of a billion, which strikes me as quite a large field sample on which to base any conclusions.
  Surely enough is enough. We have the evidence; the precedents are there; the practical barriers can be surmounted. Please, please, at Christmas time, may I have an assurance that the Government will follow the recommendations of their own Committee—as they promised they would five years ago—and recommend the fortification of flour with the suggested and agreed amount very, very soon?
  10.16 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on raising this issue. I assure

  393
  her that the Government take it very seriously, especially given that—as she pointed out—about 100 births are affected by neural tube defects each year, and spina bifida is the most common of those defects.
  We have not been resting on our laurels since the consultation exercise; a significant amount of work has been done. I realise that my hon. Friend and others who have campaigned in favour of fortification would like to see faster progress—particularly organisations such as the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus.
  Let me record the Department's apology to ASBAH for the delays in answers to correspondence. Although those oversights are regrettable, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that they were purely administrative, and not due to an unwillingness to communicate. No doubt it will be appreciated that the issue is complex, and that the universal fortification of any food—mainly bread, in this case—is a major public health issue that requires the fullest consultation and consideration.
  As my hon. Friend said, during the 1960s it was suggested that the risk of a woman's bearing a child with a neural tube defect might be affected by her intake of the vitamin folate. In 1991, definitive evidence was established in a trial by the Medical Research Council which showed that supplementation with folic acid—the artificial form of the naturally occurring vitamin folate—significantly reduced the risk of NTDs in women who had already been through a pregnancy affected by NTD.
  Following that, the then Government initially issued guidance about supplementation with 5 mg of folic acid to prevent the recurrence of NTDs. The guidance was then expanded to cover the prevention of first-time NTDs, with the recommendation that all women planning pregnancies should take 400 mg as a daily dietary supplement from the time when they began trying to conceive until the 12th week of pregnancy. They were also advised to consume folate-rich foods.
  In 1995, the Health Education Authority began a nationally integrated campaign aimed at increasing the average daily intake of folate and folic acid. The key objectives were to increase awareness of the importance of additional folic acid before conception and 12 weeks into pregnancy in the general female population and in health professionals, to encourage fortification to increase the availability of fortified breads and breakfast cereals, and to make fortified products easily identifiable by promoting the use of a logo—the folic-acid flash—to highlight foods rich in folic acid.
  As my hon. Friend suggested, the campaign achieved some success. Spontaneous, unprompted awareness among women increased from 9 per cent. in 1995 to 49 per cent. in 1998, and prompted awareness rose from 51 per cent. to 89 per cent. The percentage of women claiming to take folic acid when trying for a baby had also risen from 24 to 38 per cent.
  As my hon. Friend said, although the campaign was generally successful, it had its limitations, as about half of all pregnancies in the United Kingdom are unplanned. Moreover, by the time that a woman knows that she is pregnant it may be too late for folic acid to be effective. Reaching those women remains a challenge. That is why there have been calls for food fortification.
  394
  The Department asked its advisory committee—the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy—to consider the dietary intakes and nutritional status of the population with regard to folic acid, with particular reference to its contribution to preventing disease, and to make recommendations.
  The Government decided to consult on the recommendations in the report, as a number of other options were also outlined. Consultation took place between July and October 2000. Views were sought on whether universal fortification of bread or flour was desirable, whether any such fortification should be mandatory or voluntary, and the practicalities of fortification. That consultation also sought views on wider issues, such as the impact of the recommendations on consumers and consumer choice, food labelling and technical issues for the industry.
  A summary of responses to the fortification consultation was posted on the Department of Health website in July 2001. There were 167 respondents to the consultation, including people from academia, consumer and expert groups, trade organisations and individual companies, health authorities, local government and individuals.
  The consultation was complex, and the responses raised a number of issues. Although the majority of respondents—59 per cent.—were in favour of fortification, that was not overwhelming. The most common concerns expressed were about the potential risks of fortification, especially the risk of vitamin B12 deficiency among older adults. A significant number felt that sufficient information was still not available about the possible adverse effects.
  Other concerns were about the possible restriction of consumer choice. Almost 80 per cent. of respondents felt that it was important to maintain an element of consumer choice. Another issue was how fortification would be managed, and 85 per cent. felt that there should be restrictions on the level of fortification or the types of foods fortified. Respondents from industry also stated that technical problems may be associated with any mandatory policy.
  All those concerns demanded further exploration, and the Department and the Food Standards Agency commissioned relevant research and undertook further work to formulate firm policy options.
  As with any public health policy, we need to balance benefits against risks. Although the benefits for women of child-bearing age are well established, it is clear that in the opinion of many the potential risks, particularly the risk of B12 deficiency in older people, are not. Therefore, the Government did not feel that it was right to make a decision without further work on this and other issues. I shall explain what we have done in the intervening period and the stage we are at now.
  It is known that high levels of folic acid can make it difficult to diagnose vitamin B12 deficiency. Severe deficiency of vitamin B12 has two main effects: it can cause anaemia identical to that of folate deficiency; and, with prolonged deficiency, it can cause damage to the nerves and the spinal cord, leading to severe disability. The anaemia usually appears first, and thus allows early detection of vitamin B12 deficiency before any nerve damage occurs. Older adults are at greatest risk of B12 deficiency as they are less able to absorb the vitamin from foods. There is, therefore, concern that increased

  395
  fortification of foods with folic acid could increase the number of older people at risk of undetected B12 deficiency.
  The level of fortification suggested by COMA, at 240 micrograms per 100 g, was designed to minimise the number of older people at risk of having high intakes of folic acid. COMA estimated that approximately 0.6 to 1 per cent. of older people could have intakes of folate high enough to mask B12 deficiency if all flour was fortified. However, information on the true prevalence of B12 deficiency was unknown at the time of the consultation, and it is only with that information that we can estimate how many individuals could be at risk of B12 deficiency. I am pleased to say that research on the prevalence of B12 deficiency and its diagnosis among adults over 65 years of age was commissioned by the Department and has now been completed. The work addressed the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency in older people, the most appropriate methods to diagnose it, and the feasibility of its routine identification in older people.
  That research is awaiting publication and, as a result, I am unable to release exact details of the findings. However, the results are in line with COMA in as much as that fortification would increase the risk of B12 deficiency among a significant number of older adults. To make full sense of the findings on the prevalence of B12 deficiency, a cost-benefit analysis has been carried out by the Department of Health.
  Preserving consumer choice was a significant issue for many people—almost 80 per cent. of respondents. Many responses suggested various options for certain types of bread which could remain unfortified. The Food Standards Agency therefore undertook some statistical modelling to look at consumption patterns and what effect those various options might have on folate intakes. The agency has also been addressing other issues of particular concern to consumers, such as the labelling of fortified foods.
  Issues have also been raised on the technical aspects of fortification which need consideration. Many responses from industry pointed to the complexity of the technical processes. Folate added to flour is lost to some extent during processing. The amount lost is known to vary substantially between products and, as a result, it could be difficult to achieve a specified target amount in foods
  396
  as consumed. Respondents from industry also highlighted problems around the fortification of wholemeal flour, to which no vitamins or minerals are generally added at present. To address those concerns, the Food Standards Agency has conducted detailed discussions with industry so as to ensure that any action proposed would be feasible.
  In addition, the Food Standards Agency has assessed various legal aspects of fortification. Those include the public health justification under article 30 of the EC treaty; the terms of the notification under the treaty to the European Commission and member states; the use of powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 to control fortification levels; and issues under the Human Rights Act 1998, relating in particular to consumer choice.
  The information gathered from that extra work has now been collated and is being considered. As my hon. Friend may know, that has been a UK-wide exercise carried out jointly between the Health Departments and the Food Standards Agency. Ministers from all the UK Health Departments will therefore need to consider the issue. As part of that, there will also be a formal recommendation from the Food Standards Agency board to Health Ministers. My hon. Friend may be reassured to learn that I understand that the Food Standards Agency board will discuss its possible recommendation at a meeting in the new year.
  I hope that I have reassured Members, especially my hon. Friend, that we have been taking the issue seriously and have considered the issues in great depth. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the issue is complex and it is important to make the right decision on a fortification that could have wide-ranging implications, both beneficial ones and ones that should provoke further consideration.
  I remind Members that we continue to encourage women planning to become pregnant to increase their folate intake, including the use of supplements. We also support the folic acid flash scheme which helps consumers to identify foods that have been fortified with folic acid. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity this evening to address the issues, to allow the Government to lay out the action that has been taken and to reassure my hon. Friend that we take the issue very seriously.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Shipbuilding
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
John Robertson: Given that this country is an island, it may not be surprising to learn that shipbuilding has been one of our main industries for many centuries. This country built its standing through its naval strength and its merchant trade throughout the world. Although times have changed, ships are still a necessity in Britain and the world. Someone once said, "If you wish to see the future, then look at the past." If anyone does not understand that saying, it means that history has a way of repeating itself. In this case, I certainly hope that it is true. In today's debate, I want to consider the need for shipbuilding in general, why we in Britain need to build ships, the impact of current Government policy and the direction in which it should go.
Some hon. Members will consider shipbuilding from the perspective of their own part of the country, and with that in mind I shall use the Clyde as my main point of reference. At its peak, shipbuilding on the Clyde employed more than 100,000 men. During the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century, the yard constructed some of the world's largest ships. In 1879, it showed its skill in building transatlantic liners such as the Arizona. Two years later, it built the Alaska, followed by a host of other ocean-going vessels of the same brand. By 1914, it was fully integrated into the war effort, and was to build 50 warships, 24 destroyers and 9 submarines. Even during the inter-war years and the great depression, the yard remained an important part of Britain's economy. In the 1930s, it built 24 destroyers and a string of other vessels, and was to make a huge contribution to the war effort.
In modern times, the picture is rather different. As recently as 1960, nearly 200,000 workers were employed in British shipyards, but by 2000 that figure had declined to some 30,000. Before the first world war, the UK merchant fleet was the biggest in the world, accounting for 42 per cent. of the world's tonnage. By 1938, it accounted for 26 per cent., and rapid decline led to the building of only 1 million tonnes of commercial shipping in 1965. By 2000, that figure was down to 104,000 tonnes. The history of shipbuilding in Britain in the past century is therefore one of sad decline.
If one compares those statistics with worldwide figures, a rather disturbing picture begins to emerge. In 1995, Spain built 47 ships, but in 2000 it built 91. In 1995, the United States produced 26,000 gross tonnes of shipping, but in 1999 it produced a staggering 185,000 gross tonnes. Although it is true that countries other than the UK have also experienced decline, overall worldwide figures show a steady rise from more than 22.5 million gross tonnes in 1995, to 31.5 million gross tonnes in 2000.
70WH
Although, as everyone in the industry knows, those figures do not take into account the problem of excess supply, we must recognise the fact that the industry is growing worldwide. A White Paper written by the shipbuilding forum in 1998 describes the UK industry as a
"small industrial sector consisting of 11 companies concentrating on niche markets for specialist and high value added ships, such as offshore oil exploration vessels, local ferries, dredgers and tugs."
In today's market, there is not much requirement for such work in Britain, but there are reasons for it. Various problems have led to a decline in the industry. In 1983, the then holding company British Shipbuilders was privatised under the British Shipbuilders Act 1983. Subsequent events in the industry saw the piecemeal sale of British Shipbuilders' individual assets. The privatisation of Scott Lithgow in 1984 was followed swiftly by the sale of other yards to the private sector. In July 1984, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced his decision that British Shipbuilders should dispose of those parts of the corporation engaged wholly or mainly in warship building. They included Vickers, Yarrows, Vosper Thornycroft, Hall Russell, Brooke Marine and the composite yards, Cammell Laird and Swan Hunter.
A big problem facing the warship yards in the early 1990s was a significant reduction in Ministry of Defence orders as part of the peace dividend and the collapse of the Soviet threat that had once been perceived. Companies sought to survive the new era. Cammell Laird, for example, responded by changing its status to a mixed yard to allow it to tender for non-naval work. It could therefore apply for European Union grants for aid to shipping. Two years later, however, its owner, VSEL, announced that it would not be seeking orders once the current ones had expired.
Who can tell, in an uncertain world, especially in the light of recent events, when we might need to use our naval forces? The problem is that we privatised but did not modernise. Our yards are in poor condition, which does not help them to seek new contracts. Let us look at the situation in Germany. Its yards are of good quality and, under EU regulations, it has applied for subsidy. That is to subsidise not the industry, but the yards, which has been crucial. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the UK to follow that example?
Because the yards in Germany are in better shape, it costs less per person to produce each tonne, and the process is quicker. Fewer people are needed, and Germany can undercut the UK in its bid for contracts. Arguably, the strength of the pound has also played a part in that. Joining the euro, and stabilising the comparative costs, would also help.
In October last year, the MOD ordered six vessels, worth £240 million in total. Two went to the Belfast shipyard Harland and Wolff but the other four went to Germany. I understand that the two ferries that went to Harland and Wolff are the only orders that it has on its books—a further example of the industry's sad decline. The Govan and Scotstoun shipyards missed out on the bid, and although they won an order to build two MOD ferries worth £150 million there were doubts about the Clyde's future.
At the time, concerns were expressed that, although Govan and Scotstoun had been handed something of a lifeline, the old problems remained about when the work

71WH
would commence, and whether there was already sufficient work on the books to bridge the period until it did. As a result, last summer, 1,000 redundancies were announced just as the orders were awarded for the type 45 destroyers.
Another competitor, South Korea, is the world's largest shipbuilder with some 40 per cent. of the world market, compared with 29 per cent. in 1997. It has been suggested that South Korea has won orders at prices below production costs, by using funds from the International Monetary Fund. Although those allegations have been strongly denied, the EU has agreed that member states need to collect evidence of any anti-competitive behaviour. Can the Minister tell me what those investigations have achieved so far, or whether, as has been suggested, they have been swept under the table so as not to cause offence?
The UK must be in a position to compete on a level playing field, which, at the moment, is not the case. In March 2001, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions, then the Minister for Competitiveness said
"We are working closely with the shipbuilding industry to help it to improve its competitiveness"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 28 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 321WH.]
In his reply, I would appreciate an update on that point so that I can ascertain the progress that has been made.
European shipbuilding regulations are important. In 1997, the Commission proposed refocusing aid for shipyards to improve competitiveness by moving away from operating aid towards other types of support. The measures include restructuring aid for structural adjustment, closure aid including aid to mitigate the social effects of shipyard closure, regional investment for upgrading existing yards—I suggest that the Minister looks at that—and investment aid for innovation and environmental protection.
Our shipbuilding industry, especially on the Clyde, is dependent on military orders. The Clyde was once the name in world shipbuilding, but after the latest job losses there are fewer than 3,000 workers in two yards. The loss of the roll on/roll off ships to the German yards was a body blow to shipbuilding, as they were for military use, but under EU rules they were classed as non-military vessels and were put out to tender both inside and outside Britain. We cannot compete with German yards because they are more efficient and competitive than ours. Would those orders have been lost if 1980s Governments had invested in yards instead of closing them? Although the Government have helped by placing orders for type 45 frigates and alternative landing ships logistics, the size of the industry is shrinking year by year on the Clyde.
My questions are open to all, but the Minister and the Government must answer them. Has the time come to subsidise our industry and break EU rules? Should we consider ring-fencing our shipbuilding? Should we copy the Germans and upgrade our yards? Should we accept the ultimate demise of the industry and buy from the cheapest market? What do other countries do? We must examine other European countries, America and Japan, which have all grasped the obvious advantages of subsidy and investment. Our failure to do so has left UK yards at a competitive disadvantage.
72WH
How can we compete? Do we want to be at the mercy of market forces or shall we dictate what happens? Is it time to consider the industry as a whole and put together a policy for the 21st century? Skilled labour cannot be replaced because training takes years. If we lose shipbuilding's skilled workers the industry will not be resurrected. A decision must be made now, not later, on whether we want a shipbuilding industry. If we do, we must take control and support it by working in partnership with companies and the work force. We shall be able to compete only when we have modern equipment and the best-trained work force in situ as that would allow us to see how or whether shipbuilding works.
The alternative is to have no shipbuilding in Britain, which would mean the loss of an industry that once had tradition and pride. What price can be placed on the loss of our greatest heritage? We must look at the overall picture to ensure sustainability in the long term.
Mr. John Lyons: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In terms of sustainability of the industry, does he agree that diversification is important? For example, sustainable energy and the wind farms will be important issues in the next 10 years. We currently import all wind farming equipment from Scandinavia. That could be an important consideration in terms of diversification.
John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for making a good point. He is right that we must examine diversification, but how can we provide financial support for that under European rules? I agree with my hon. Friend, but at the end of the day we still have to concentrate on shipbuilding.
We need to look at an overall picture to ensure sustainability in the long term. We also need to ensure that there is sufficient work available so that lifelines do not need to be thrown. We need to examine all the issues that lead to decline, as well as subsidy and financial support, training and productivity, the quality of our yards and future sustainability.
Shipbuilding has a proud history, but that does not mean that we do not need to apply modern practices to ensure its survival. In fact, not doing so could mean that there is no future for the industry at all. The costs to this country of losing the industry are manifold. The first, and perhaps most obvious relates to job losses, which I have already discussed. There is also the issue of national security if our naval vessels are built abroad. We do have a proud shipbuilding heritage and we need to keep it alive.
The Government are taking the issue seriously. The Ministry of Defence has said that the forward shipbuilding programme for the Royal Navy is going to be the largest for many years, reversing the decades of decline. There is a plan to bring 30 new ships into service over the next 15 to 20 years. These will include two large carriers, up to 12 type 45 destroyers and three new Astute class nuclear-powered submarines. The procurement programme also involves major enhancements to our naval support. In 2003 there will be two new multi-role survey vessels in service, and two new landing platform docks. What pleases me most is that the Ministry of Defence has said that these vessels will be built in the UK yards.

73WH
Britain was once the master of the waves; we were the seafarers others aspired to be and the yardsticks by which others measured themselves. We have given up that leadership. Do we want to be just another buyer, or do we still have aspirations to lead by example? If we can resurrect the industry, and make it once again the envy of the world, then let us do it. If we cannot or will not, then it is time for the Government to say so.
9.47 am
Mr. Michael Weir: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this debate. It might surprise him that I agree with much of what he said.
It may seem strange to hon. Members that someone from a predominantly rural constituency is speaking in this debate. The biggest ship that was ever built in my constituency was a fishing boat, and it has been years since many of those were built. I would say in my defence that my grandfather worked in the shipyards in Dundee, when they existed. Nowadays, however, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, most of Scotland's shipbuilding is concentrated on the Clyde in the two yards in Govan and Scotstoun.
One of the problems affecting shipbuilding nowadays is an undeserved image problem. Many people seem to think that shipbuilding is what used to be referred to as a smokestack industry, something old-fashioned and out of time, a throwback to a lost industrial age. Indeed, in the not too distant past one Minister referred to it as a metal bashing industry.
I came across a good example of this recently. Members from the west of Scotland will know that there is a plan to develop the former John Brown yard in Clydebank for retail use. A newspaper report stated:
"The area has suffered in recent hard times as shipbuilding followed other manufacturing industries and gave in to recession, with several famous companies folding and giving way to acres of derelict space."
That speaks of shipbuilding almost in the past tense, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, nothing could be further from the truth. Shipbuilding is and should be very much a part of a modern high-tech industrial landscape. Indeed, it should have a bright future. The shipbuilding industry on the Clyde has problems with the modernisation of its yards, but it is a modern industry employing very highly skilled and flexible workers. Some 4,000 people are employed directly in Clyde shipbuilding and many more are dependent on it.
When we think of shipbuilding, we seem to see grainy old films of John Brown's and launching the Queens. However, in recent years the yards in Govan have built a prototype command ship for launching communications satellites into space and an oil drill test well vessel for drilling and processing oil on board. That is very much at the forefront of Scotland's high-tech economy, and shows that shipbuilding can move into the 21st century and be viable. However, it needs help from the Government, which is where Government policy comes in.
The shipbuilding industry, like many of Scotland's high-tech industries, is under threat. The recent announcement of the orders for type 45 destroyers and ALSLs was welcome, and it would be churlish not to say so. However, there are still to be redundancies at the
74WH
yards at Govan and Scotstoun, the exact scale of which is not yet clear. It is also not entirely clear how much work is guaranteed to those yards. At the time of the announcement of the type 45 contract, it was stated that it would guarantee work for the next decade, but more recent estimates have given a shorter time scale. How do the Government envisage that current work on the Clyde will provide employment in the future?
We must ask ourselves why an efficient, high-tech industry with a skilled, flexible and dedicated work force is facing such difficulties. There are many reasons, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said. Some are under the control of the Government but, to be scrupulously fair, some are not. It is noteworthy that when Kvaerner announced its withdrawal from shipbuilding back in April, a spokesman stated that the strength of the pound had had
"a negative impact on our ability to be competitive".
That problem may become more widespread with the introduction of the euro into much of mainland Europe next month, and it will go far beyond shipbuilding. The Government must give serious consideration to the impact of the euro on our manufacturing industry.
When the Secretary of State for Defence announced the contract for type 45 destroyers earlier this year, he said
"The key point for our shipbuilding industry is that our shipbuilding companies should be given a platform from which they can properly invest and that—crucially for them—allows them to compete for the many orders that exist throughout the world."—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 678.]
In other words, our shipbuilding industry cannot rely on Government orders alone. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Government can favour UK yards only if the order is predominantly military. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said, that creates problems where there is a mixed use for the ships that are being ordered—for example, ro-ro ferries.
Many shipbuilders in Scotland and other parts of the UK complain about the fact that they do not compete on a level playing field. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the global competition faced by other shipbuilders is often seen as unfair. For example, it has long been alleged that South Korea is illegally subsidising its shipbuilding industry using IMF loans and allowing yards to run at a loss. However, it seems to be difficult to substantiate that, so can the Minister tell us what progress has been made by the European Union in investigating the matter? It is of great concern for Govan, because it is part of a consortium bidding for an extremely valuable contract for ro-ro ferries and one of the other bidders proposes to build the ships in Korea.
Shipyards in Scotland do not have the ability to get such help. The shipbuilding intervention fund expired at the end of last year, and there is now, officially at least, no Government funding for shipyards available anywhere in the EU. Scottish shipyards are still at a disadvantage, as Germany was able to invest in shipyards in the former East Germany following reunification. That gave their shipyards a much more modern infrastructure by which to compete with Scottish and other UK yards. We are often told that the industry is held back, so it is essential that the European Union takes up the matter of Korea if Scottish and other European shipyards are not to be put in jeopardy.

75WH
Like many other hon. Members, I have met representatives from Govan and Scotstoun during the past months and have been impressed that the shipbuilding workers have bent over backwards to ensure that yards remain viable and efficient. Clyde ships are renowned throughout the world, and have been for nearly two centuries, for being superbly built. There is still a future for that industry provided there is a level playing field, which is not asking too much for shipyard workers. If Government policy is anything it should be to work with the European Union to get rid of the perceived unfair practices operating in other nations so that everyone is on a level playing field. If that happens, the Clyde and other UK yards will get the orders and be able to survive as a high-tech industry into this century and beyond.
9.55 am
Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on winning time to talk about shipbuilding. He presented the subject so comprehensively that many of our speeches will be shorter than they would have been. However, that allows me to concentrate on the absence of shipbuilding in my constituency. If my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) contributes to the debate, I know that she, too, will want to comment on its absence in her constituency.
The background to the closure of shipbuilding on the Mersey is as follows. Cammell Laird went into receivership and there is no dispute over whether the Royal Bank of Scotland should have sent it into receivership. However, I want to discuss the bank's role in the closing down of shipbuilding in Merseyside and in the destruction of highly skilled jobs in my constituency from that point onwards.
Before I acquaint hon. Members with this sorry and horrid tale, I have two comments. First, the Cammell Laird yard and its businesses were sold to A&P shipbuilders, which is responsible for a number of jobs around the country. I do not want to harm the well-being or future of that company, because it is totally separate from the charge that I want to make against the Royal Bank of Scotland. Secondly, I want to highlight the role that the trade unions played in our yards when they were told that closure was inevitable. They were led by the chairman of stewards, Dave Hulse, and a small team of fellow stewards. I think that I can say, without contradiction, that had our trade union movement been led by people of that quality in the 1970s and 1980s, we would not have needed the Thatcher reforms and this country would have been even richer than it is today. Those people are the silver lining to the black cloud that I am about to describe.
Once the receivers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, were appointed by the Royal Bank of Scotland, they were called in and began their work. Hon. Members should also know that the Royal Bank of Scotland not only sent in the receivers, which it had the right to do, but that, through its equity arm, it owns 85 per cent. of A&P. The receivers then asked for a series of bids. Towards the end of that process, one of the groups bidding for Cammell
76WH
Laird's Birkenhead yard was told by the receivers that they were mindful to go for a bid that embraced not only the Birkenhead yard but the yards in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. That bidder, who was backed by the Mersey docks and harbour board, then asked whether the receiver would allow it to go into the Redcar yard and it agreed to do that within days of learning that the receiver wanted to sell the yards on both sides of the country to a single bidder. I believe that that was arranged on the Wednesday or the Thursday. The following day, despite the receiver having agreed that the Mersey docks and harbour board would go over the other yard on Sunday evening so as to begin its work, to value it on Monday and then, on Monday evening or first thing Tuesday morning, to submit a new bid, the receiver decided to sell to A&P on the Friday, a day or so after agreeing that timetable. I remind hon. Members that 85 per cent. of A&P is owned by the equity arm of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
I therefore asked two questions: one of the receiver and one of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I asked the receiver whether he was satisfied that he had accepted the most generous bid for the assets he was selling. The receiver declined to give an answer. I also asked the Royal Bank of Scotland a simple question: did it directly or indirectly try to influence the receiver in the decision to which he came on the sale of the yard and, particularly, did it influence him to sell to A&P knowing that the bank had not only appointed the receiver but owned 85 per cent. of A&P through its equity arm? The Royal Bank of Scotland also refused to answer the question. I suggest that it did not answer it because it did not wish the answer to be made public. My charge against the Royal Bank of Scotland is that behind the scenes in a squalid, dirty little move it decided that it was in its best interests to sell the Cammell Laird yards to A&P, although that may not have been in the best interests of my constituents or the shareholders of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
I am raising the matter now not because companies do not behave in that way, but because the Royal Bank of Scotland dines out on a particular image. It sells itself as the bank that cares about its customers, the bank that cares about the industries that it supports and the bank that cares about the people who work in the industries for which it holds the purse strings. As the Member for Birkenhead, I find that image high cant and I give notice that this is merely the first occasion on which I shall raise the matter in the House of Commons. Henceforth, I shall seek every opportunity on the Floor of the House and in this Chamber to raise the conduct of the Royal Bank of Scotland and its squalid little moves that destroyed jobs in my constituency.
If anyone believes that this is merely a one-off performance, I beg them to look at my track record. Most of the campaigns with which I have been involved have lasted 10 years or more. If necessary, I will continue this campaign for 10 years or more and to see out the present occupants of the board of the Royal Bank of Scotland. As the campaign gets under way, I shall seek every opportunity to raise questions about their conduct and every opportunity open to a Member of Parliament of Member to highlight the difference between the image on which they dine out—on which they attempt to win extra business—and the reality behind that image and how it has operated in my constituency. The board may

77WH
decide that it would be easier to get off the treadmill and allow those who wish to buy the Cammell Laird yard—and the yard in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar—to do so. There are bidders who want, almost immediately, to allow our constituents to return to work. The board will realise that that would be the more sensible decision and the House of Commons is quite good at providing a face-saving formula to enable it to do that.
I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. It is not the first time that I have participated—in my 22 years in the House—in a shipbuilding debate when there has been no shipbuilding in Birkenhead. There will be shipbuilding in Birkenhead again, but we have to prise the dirty little fingers of the Royal Bank of Scotland off the assets of Cammell Laird. I will pursue—for as long as it takes—the Royal Bank of Scotland's wretched, squalid deal, that it thought it had got away with, and which destroyed jobs in my constituency. My aim is not to damage the Royal Bank of Scotland or its employees, but for the bank to behave properly, sensibly and nobly in its own interests and those of my constituents.
10.6 am
Vera Baird: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate. His excellent exposition will shorten my speech considerably. However, I urge him to be more optimistic. Twenty-four thousand people are directly engaged in shipbuilding, ship repair and conversion in the United Kingdom. A further 50,000 are employed in the subcontract, supplier and support industries. The UK shipbuilding and repair industry generates between £1.6 billion and £2 billion per annum for the economy. United Kingdom yards compete strongly for orders, and build between 25 and 30 merchant vessels a year. I have been informed by Mr. Brian Slade of the Association of European Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers that there are, in total, more than 100,000 seagoing merchant ships. The association has assessed that, for the remainder of the decade, there will be a need for some 2,000 vessels to be delivered annually and that 80 per cent. of those will replace vessels that are no longer seaworthy or capable of economic operation. Ship maintenance, repair and conversion on a global basis is thus worth about £6 billion per annum and continues to be big business. It is important that the United Kingdom has an appropriate share of that.
The British shipbuilding industry, along with other traditional heavy industry sectors, has changed enormously over the past 30 years. It has declined, and is no longer the world market leader. However, I agree with what the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said earlier. Decline is far too frequently uppermost in people's minds when considering the industry. That is an unhelpful approach. There is a perpetual danger that the fact that we are no longer the world leader will prejudice those who could support and encourage the industry into thinking that it is a sunset industry. It is not.
In the face of overwhelming market forces, primarily that of Korea—which has already been adequately alluded to—the industry in Europe has retrenched into more sustainable market sectors, and has moved away
78WH
from that competition. Leaving aside warship production, in which the UK is a world leader, the industry in Europe covers the highest technological segment of world ship production. There are many examples, such as sophisticated passenger ships, advanced container vessels, ferries, ro-ro ships, multipurpose and shuttle tankers, offshore platforms and floating production, storage and offloading units, chemical and gas carriers, high standard fishing vessels and the manufacture of small and specialised ships.
The United Kingdom has a worldwide reputation for repair and conversion work. Europe is a world leader with about 40 per cent. of the global market and the UK is now one of the top three converters in Europe. Conversion is often a viable alternative to new build, especially in some specialist market sectors. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom can continue to be strong in shipbuilding and that shipbuilding can continue to make a positive contribution to our economy. That is particularly so in regions such as my constituency, where such work has been traditional and skills and expertise continue to subsist. While building 25 to 30 ships a year, British yards have the overall capacity to build as much as that again. If the Association of European Shipbuilders estimates that about 2,000 new ships per annum will be required over the decade, it is reasonable to aim to increase the UK's share of that to more than 50 ships a year.
My primary interest is the South Bank shipyard in my constituency. That working shipyard was closed last April when Cammell Laird fell foul of the Costa Classica fiasco and went into receivership. That had nothing to do with such a viable yard. A short time after Cammell Laird went into closure, a local business man who had managed the shipyard successfully for many years before it became Cammell Laird had offered to purchase it and restart it immediately. It was not a thriving yard at the time of its closure, but he had clear views about the reason for that. The business man had a management team and a pool of skilled labour that he was sure would attract business back to the yard quickly and said that, with some recapitalisation, the South Bank yard could strongly succeed. Smith's dock, as the yard was known formerly, is a byword in the north-east for shipbuilding skills of the highest order. An apprenticeship at Smith's dock was much sought after. The local business man, Mr. Welsh, was a former apprentice from Smith's dock.
Mr. Welsh's bid was not successful. All of a sudden—it seemed to us in Redcar as it clearly did to those in Birkenhead—the yard and other former Cammell Laird assets were sold to A&P. As hon. Members know, A&P is an 85 per cent. subsidiary of the principal Cammell Laird creditor, the Royal Bank of Scotland. The role of the bank in such events has been fully canvassed as an opener by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has said clearly that action will not stop. For the Mersey docks and harbour board standing ready and willing to purchase on the Mersey, read Mr. Welsh standing ready and willing to purchase on the Tees when something strange suddenly happened and the opportunity was lost.
There is a clear division between the Mr. Welsh's optimistic view of the yard's immediate potential and that of its current owner, A&P, which has wider company interests and no doubt wider shareholder

79WH
interests. It has a yard on the Tyne and insists that it will be faithful to its employees. It says that it will not put them at risk for the sake of assisting the Tees. It is sometimes accepted and sometimes denied by A&P that it has removed from the South Bank yard all that can be moved, such as welding equipment and the contents of the stores and buildings, including the cutlery from the canteen. I have been told that that was not in order to sterilise the premises, so that no one else can commence a business there and compete with other interests and, still less, that that was asset-stripping.
A&P's management has explained that it makes common sense to use equipment from the South Bank yard in Redcar, instead of buying new equipment for its other premises. Taking that at face value, we hope that the employees of A&P in Falmouth and Southampton, who were clearly unable to eat their food satisfactorily hitherto, are now feeling much better with the assistance of the cutlery that was taken from the South Bank yard in Redcar. They must be glad that Cammell Laird went down just in time so that our cutlery could be trucked down the motorway to them, while they still had the strength to lift their food to their mouths.
Mr. James Wray: Does my hon. Friend understand our anxiety? One of the reasons for securing today's Adjournment debate was that 1,000 people have lost their jobs in Scotland. There has been no scheme for shipbuilding or repairing since 1997. That makes folly of new deals. It costs maybe £1.2 million to keep those 1,000 people on the dole. Surely we should be investing. She says that the shipbuilding industry is growing in the United Kingdom; it is certainly not growing in Scotland.
Vera Baird: That was a helpful intervention for which I am grateful. I must consider the position in Redcar, although there is not a word that my hon. Friend has said with which I do not agree.
A&P says that it will open a shipcare project at the Redcar yard next year. It intends to turn the yard into a depot from which skilled workers will go out to repair and maintain ships while at sea or during their charter, in order to minimise the time that ships spend being expensively maintained and repaired in dry dock. That will employ a few people. I am told that, if the market grows, A&P hopes to work the yard fully again in due course, which does not seem to mean soon.
According to A&P, excessive competition in the European market is holding it back. As hon. Members will appreciate, despite the reservations and caveats that have been expressed about the Royal Bank of Scotland and my scepticism about A&P, the function of a Member of Parliament in such circumstances is to support whoever will generate new business and create jobs. A&P says that the market for ship work in northern Europe is highly competitive and that Governments elsewhere seem far more prepared than the United Kingdom Government to find ways of providing systems in one form or another to help yards win work.
In addition, in Redcar and, I believe, elsewhere, there is a legacy of contamination around dock areas, because earlier generations paid less heed to environmental
80WH
protection than we do today. The clean-up burden can be onerous. A&P makes a case for Government help in both sectors that seems to have a strong and sensible foundation.
We on the south Tees seem to have locally the entrepreneurialism, capital, management, labour and skills to operate a profitable shipyard, yet we do not. The factors that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead explained suggest that we are not allowed to have ownership. Those who do have ownership have an overview of the industry that suggests that if help can be provided soon, the picture for the Redcar shipyard is not pessimistic. I add from my small, local point of view my support for the notion that the Government should reconsider the support that they give the shipbuilding industry.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): We have just 42 minutes left. Christmas is approaching, and I should like to call all hon. Members who are trying to catch my eye. I should be grateful if in making contributions they would bear that in mind.
10.18 am
Jim Sheridan: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on having secured the debate. His campaigning work in the field is well recognised by his constituents and mine, and they are deeply appreciative of it.
I may be unique in the Chamber in that I have spent a significant period of my working life in shipyards. I have family and many comrades still working in the industry. Shipbuilding is an industry in which skills have been developed over years. Apprenticeships have been formed, and training has been at the forefront. The people who work in shipbuilding, both men and women—several women work in shipyards now, and make a valuable contribution—have faced up to many challenges. There is little, if any, demarcation in the shipbuilding industry now. That is why it is at the leading edge of competition.
Shipbuilding is a craft of which our country should be proud, and we should support it. For an example of naval work that we depend on, we need look no further than at what our naval personnel are doing in Afghanistan. They are playing a valuable role using ships that were built by British workers.
I should like to focus on defence diversification in the shipbuilding industry. I strongly believe that our industry is too dependent on naval orders. I have argued long and hard for a Government procurement strategy. When the Government are placing defence orders, they should also place a responsibility on the companies to consider defence diversification. Our industry cannot continually depend on defence work. We need to encourage companies to break into and exploit the commercial market, as some of our competitors are doing.
Shipbuilding includes ship repair. Last week, in this Chamber, my colleagues and I met with the trade unions involved in naval bases throughout the United Kingdom. They are extremely concerned about the proposed privatisation of some of the work done on naval bases. Regardless of whether the trade unions are

81WH
luddite in their approach to privatisation—there are arguments for some privatisation—they have a pragmatic view of the issue and they want a level playing field.
The trade unions are happy to meet Ministers and have produced a document that states that they would like to discuss privatisation with the Minister. They strongly believe that their work and that of the naval bases can continue, but privatisation is not a panacea. Will the Minister consider the document produced by the trade unions? Will he meet with trade unions involved in ship repair so that they may put forward their case?
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trouble in the shipyards started in the early 1980s with privatisation?
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend is right. Privatisation started the decline in the shipbuilding industry. We need look no further for an example than companies such as Kvaerner, an asset-stripping company that was on the verge of closing shipyards in Glasgow. It was only the Government's help that saved those yards from closing. My hon. Friend is right to say that privatisation is not a panacea in the shipbuilding industry; indeed, it caused the industry's decline.
Those involved with naval bases would appreciate it if the Minister would meet the appropriate trade unions to talk through their concerns and listen to their offers about what they can do to keep the yard open.
10.23 am
Mr. Bill Tynan: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate, and on the way in which he has presented his case on the shipyards. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) have worked tirelessly on behalf of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland, and I pay them tribute.
The previous excellent contribution contained many serious questions and, I believe, solutions to the problems facing the shipbuilding industry. I declare an interest; I am a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. I was involved in the shipbuilding industry in Glasgow. It had to reinvent itself to ensure that it is relevant today. The old demarcation lines have been put aside, and the workers have joined together to ensure that they can compete in a world market.
We are talking about history, and the history of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. We had a tremendous campaign to save the UCS; it was absolutely vital. I am concerned that we are in the same position today. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said that some of his campaigns had lasted for 10 years. I am here to tell hon. Members that the shipbuilding industry campaign has lasted for 30 years. I wish him well in his campaign in the future. The shop stewards have been here on many occasions to discuss with Members of Parliament the questions and problems that the industry faces. It is right to recognise how important shipbuilding is to the
82WH
people of Scotland and the United Kingdom. Although the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union is campaigning in Scotland, it recognises that a viable shipbuilding industry in the UK is essential to the economy of this country—24,000 people are directly involved in the industry, and 50,000 are involved in subcontract work.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my hon. Friend, like me, the proud possessor of a Bank of Scotland card, rather than a Royal Bank of Scotland card, and therefore unlikely to be attacked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead's fatwa? Would he agree that the problem with shipbuilding is not only a British one but is partly a failure of the European Union to take the case of British shipbuilding and European shipbuilding to the World Trade Organisation? That failure is preventing us from competing with South Korea, which currently sells ships for 40 per cent. less than it costs to make them.
Mr. Tynan: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was going to come on to that in my speech, but I am conscious of time. The South Korean yards have been producing ships on the basis of cost price. We must embrace the argument that the EU should take the matter to the World Trade Organisation. However, I am concerned that we will not do that quickly enough to save the shipbuilding industry. We must consider other methods. The EU does not ensure recognition of a level playing field, and we must convince the EU and the UK Government that there is a need to create such a level playing field when unfair competition has taken place. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not have a Bank of Scotland card; I have a Royal Bank of Scotland card. Therefore, I may be subject to the campaign, and I shall consider changing it.
Serious concerns exist about the shipbuilding industry, which is a lifeblood for people in Scotland and the UK. We can make progress if the Minister will accept the reality that South Korean yards and other yards in the far east are creating unfair competition for the shipbuilding industry in this country.
10.27 am
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing such an important debate and on raising key issues affecting industry on the Clyde and across the UK.
I have a great interest in shipbuilding. Govan is home to Britain's biggest merchant shipbuilder, and has a proud heritage and a reputation for Clyde-built quality. It is the major employer at the heart of my constituency. This year, the rollercoaster ride has continued for the skilled work force in Govan. After a long campaign across Scotland last year, involving Members of Parliament and shop stewards led by yard convener Jamie Webster, we secured its future by winning a major order for landing ships from the Ministry of Defence. Delays in design meant that the gap in the order book was not filled as quickly as planned. Despite being awarded the lion's share of the type 45 orders in July, BAE Systems announced its plan to cut 1,000 jobs on the Clyde at Govan and Scotstoun. Since then, after a

83WH
great deal of effort by Ministers, unions and management, that number has been brought down to 450, and no redundancies will be finalised until next year. None of us wants to see redundancies in shipbuilding. However, two years ago, Govan shipyard did not have an owner. There were no orders in Govan shipyard's order book. There was no future for Govan shipyard. However, because of the Government's help, we managed to secure the future of Govan shipyard, and of jobs on the river Clyde. Steel work began this week on the two ALSLs, providing continuity in employment until July, when work will begin on the six type 45 destroyers on the Clyde. I pay tribute to the skilled and dedicated work force at Govan and Scotstoun, and to their families, for the resolve and strength that they have shown again this year. They worked tirelessly to demonstrate that shipbuilding is not out of date, but that it is a competitive high-tech industry.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, and the Government, for showing active commitment to shipbuilding in Britain. Shipyards across the United Kingdom have benefited: major orders have been made, and a secure foundation has been laid for the coming decade as a result of the Ministry of Defence's procurement plan, which has led to the type 45 orders, and the refit work at Rosyth on HMS Illustrious and HMS Invincible. However, although that provides a strong foundation for the healthy future of our yards, they cannot thrive on British defence contracts alone. They must compete effectively in overseas markets. Last year, there was an increase of 56 per cent. in global orders for new ships, compared with the previous year. There are real opportunities, if we can win more work from the growing number of contracts. If we are successful in that regard, our shipbuilding capacity could more than double by 2006.
Our shipbuilders are adapting to meet that challenge. Vosper Thornycroft recently announced an increase of almost a third in sales of support services, such as training and fitting. Swan Hunter has brought shipbuilding back to Tyneside. Govan's partner for the ALSL order has 250 apprentices, and does not see any sign of orders slowing down.
On the Clyde, we also take great pride in the fact that apprentices are being taken on for the first time in many years to learn their skilled trade, but there is a real threat to the future of all of our yards. We do not have a level playing field with our competitors. The row over subsidies to Korean shipyards has rumbled on for too long. I recognise that we have been involved in tough negotiations, alongside our European partners, on this issue for the past three years, but unfair trading practices have caused severe difficulties for our shipbuilders. The European Commission has found mounting evidence that state owned and state controlled banks in South Korea have been instrumental in financing unviable shipyard operations, with average losses on orders of 14 per cent.
Last year, Europe won 16 per cent. of orders, compared with Korea's 38 per cent. We do not always bid for construction of the same vessels, but without fair trade our yard will never be able to compete. I urge the Minister to work closely with colleagues across Europe,
84WH
and to continue to exert pressure on Korea to stop unfair subsidies and to encourage real competition in the industry.
Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the case that the industry has presented to the European Commission clearly establishes that the Koreans are cheating in this market, and does he agree with me that it is a failure in European Union policy that the Commission has so far refused to submit the case to the World Trade Organisation?
I also suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers changing his bank to the Bank of Scotland, because I suspect that the transfer of his business will have more impact than the transfer of mine.
Mr. Sarwar: My hon. Friend has made a good point. It is important for the shipbuilding industry that there is a level playing field. The European Commission has done very little.
With regard to the question about banks, my hon. Friend has a card from the Bank of Scotland, but I am glad to tell him that I do not have a card from that bank, or from the Royal Bank of Scotland. Only rich people can afford to have them.
In the past year, concerns have also been expressed by our shipbuilding unions over the differences in support across Europe itself, particularly when Britain is compared with Germany and Italy. I know that the Government will continue to examine measures to address the issue without hindering the competitive edge needed for our yards to flourish in the future. We have a shipbuilding industry with a proud past. We also have a Government that will ensure that our yards have a bright future.
10.34 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to those given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). I have a sense of the depth of feeling and knowledge that he and his Clydeside colleagues share. About 30 years ago, I represented a part of Glasgow on the city council that contained workers from Scotstoun and other yards. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) reminded us, that was a time of hope because it was a period when Upper Clyde Shipbuilders was occupied and then saved. Alas, that was a false dawn, and the industry has continued to decline. We are all prisoners of our history; I still carry a Bank of Scotland card that was taken out from the Maryhill branch.
An irony of the debate is that I suspect that my constituency in suburban London has more shipbuilding workers than many yards on the rivers Tyne, Mersey and Clyde. That is because we make virtual ships, not real ships. The high value added end of the industry is about computers, simulation and software. Much of that work comes to companies such as British Maritime Technology, which is in my constituency and employs hundreds of workers. My constituency, like the Clydeside yards, hinges on successful British industry.
I turn to the wider context and the underlying competitiveness of the United Kingdom industry. Is the problem that of competition with Europe, or of

85WH
European competitiveness with Korea? The answer is more the former. The brutal truth is that the pound appreciated against all other currencies by roughly 30 per cent. at the end of 1996. It has remained at that level and is, frankly, hopelessly uncompetitive for manufacturing industries that produce price-sensitive products such as bulk ships. There is no way in which British yards can win contracts against other European countries, let alone the far east.
When considering Korea, there is a misunderstanding about the IMF. The IMF does not lend money for shipbuilding but for countries' balance of payments support. During the 1998 crisis, the Koreans got an IMF loan that led to a large devaluation of their currency, which has made Korea competitive. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) may be correct that cheating and, effectively, dumping is going on. If that is occurring, the case should be brought to the World Trade Organisation.
Mr. Davidson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the industry has produced a case that European Commission experts accept demonstrates that the Koreans are selling ships at 40 per cent. less than it costs to make them. The money that comes from the IMF allows the Korean banks to write off loans to the Korean shipyards. That allows them to start with a clean sheet of paper. It is a hidden subsidy.
Dr. Cable: If the hon. Gentleman is correct that there is blatant dumping, it is the Commission's job to bring a case to the World Trade Organisation, which exists for that purpose and is a court of law. No doubt the Minister will explain why that action has not been taken.
The constituents of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) sent me a bundle of papers about Cammell Laird, and they were extremely complimentary about his role in the matter. There are conflicts of interest that probably require further information. I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Royal Bank of Scotland's role is right, but the issue goes further than that. I understand that the matter has been referred to the Office of Fair Trading on the rather narrow issue of whether a threat to competition was created in the shipbuilding industry because A&P has interests in Southampton as well as Birkenhead.
Is there a wider conflict of interest? I was especially worried about the role of the receivers, PricewaterhouseCoopers. It had a serious conflict of interest because it acted on behalf of the Royal Bank of Scotland as receivers and, additionally, it is the auditor for A&P—it was working for the poacher and the gamekeeper.
I asked about the conflicts of interest with the directors of PricewaterhouseCoopers a week ago. I asked about a wider issue, because the matter does not apply only to Cammell Laird. We have probably two or three leading international accounting companies. Ernst and Young has the same problem in relation to Equitable Life and the Financial Services Authority. It is monopolising all the big contracts for audit and receivership, and in many cases it is acting for opposing sides of the same argument. That gives rise to the serious issue of competition policy. I am sure that it is entirely
86WH
honest and professional in the way that it goes about its business, and it has its chinese walls. None the less, the enormous temptation exists to behave improperly, and I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will look carefully at this issue, not simply in relation to Cammel Laird but in terms of the wider conflicts of interest.
My final point also relates to competition policy, and to a key issue in shipbuilding that has yet to be raised: potential conflicts of interest in the type 45 contract, for which BAE Systems has won the bulk of the business. When we debated the shipbuilding industry in March of last year, the major concern was expressed that, as the prime contractor, BAE Systems could squeeze out Vosper Thornycroft and other smaller companies. The DTI and the Ministry of Defence have subsequently worked on that issue. The Rand Corporation was called in to devise a new strategy, and it has found a role for Vosper Thornycroft. However, those who have read the correspondence on this subject will know that serious concerns remain. Vosper Thornycroft is asking basic questions such as whether it will be given a minimum amount of business, whether it will have a stake in derivative boats, and what will happen to unpredictable cost elements.
The underlying problem, which I hope the Minister will address, is whether the Government have a proper strategy for handling the relationship between BAE Systems—a world-class company that is increasingly taking the bulk of defence contracts—and its many British subcontractors. Exactly the same debate arose in relation to the A300X airbus. The suspicion is beginning to grow that the Government formulate contracts in such a way as to protect the interests of the prime contractor, rather than those of the many other companies down the supply chain. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government have dealt with the enduring concerns of companies such as Vosper Thornycroft.
10.42 am
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this debate. It is important to have an opportunity to air such issues. For more than a year, my party has requested a debate on shipbuilding on the Floor of the House, but the request was rejected on the ground that there is too much parliamentary business. Such an opportunity would have enabled the many Members of Parliament who represent shipbuilding interests, but who are not here today, to have participated in the debate.
I have a nomadic interest in shipbuilding. I was born in Devonport in 1945, which built quite a lot of ships at that time, and moved to Salisbury in 1947, where ships are not built even though the town is at the confluence of five rivers. However, Dunlop Hiflex and Woven Electronics, which are in my constituency, respectively make the hydraulic piping with which most Royal Navy ships are fitted, and much of the electronic cabling that is used in submarines in particular.
My real knowledge of shipbuilding began in 1967. On leaving university, I was appointed to found an economics department at Loretto school, in Musselburgh. The chairman of governors, Sir lain

87WH
Stewart, who was also chairman of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, charged me with the job of ensuring that sixth formers were taught by people who really knew about all aspects of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. The first guest whom I invited was Jimmy Reid, who became a regular visitor thereafter.
Like other hon. Members, this Christmas I shall be singing "I saw three ships come sailing in on Christmas day in the morning," but when I do I shall be thinking, "Where were they made?" People do not recognise that the British shipbuilding industry is a high-technology industry. I have seen as much for myself on the Clyde, at Barrow and on Tyneside. The Secretary of State for Defence disparagingly described it as a metal bashing industry, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a high-technology industry that should be given a fair chance. It is important to put on the record that only this week the former John Brown shipyard, which built the Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mary and the QE2, has been sold in an £8 million deal. The land ended up being owned by the UK-Norwegian engineering firm Kvaerner and UIE shipbuilding, which is French. Now we are to see a massive redevelopment of that site.
There are still many great shipyards, however, around the shores of the United Kingdom and on the Clyde in particular. Britain is still an important maritime nation. People have the idea that most of the freight coming into or going out of the country travels by jumbo jet, but it does not. Some 95 per cent. of the UK's trade still arrives and leaves by sea. We should never forget that the UK shipping industry as a whole is the fourth, or perhaps the fifth, biggest service sector exporter for the UK. It is bigger than communications, films and television and computer services. The shipping industry, in the widest sense, is extremely important to the future of our country's economy.
We have heard one or two stories of unfortunate incidents, including about Korea, to which I will return in a moment, but that is not all. UK shipyards have been very good at specialist high-technology ships. I was, therefore, very sorry to see an item on BBC News Online on 3 December about UK shipyards having lost out to China. The story was about the £22.5 million ship that was to be commissioned by the engineering firm Mayflower. It was to be a high-tech ship that would have been important in the installation of wind turbines, a point referred to earlier in the debate. In my view, that should not have gone to China.
Whether we are discussing the Clyde or the other shipbuilding yards around the country, one or two common threads run through the discussion. We have heard a lot of talk about A&P, which is based in Southampton and has yards all around the UK, including in Falmouth, Southampton, Wallsend, Chatham, Dover and Ramsgate. I do not see any of the Members of Parliament who represent those constituencies here today, another reason why the debate should perhaps have been held on the Floor of the House. A&P is an interesting company. I do not want to disparage it, because I think that it is struggling in the best interests of shipbuilding in this country. However, the Government should get closer to it.
88WH
The Government should also sharpen up on their naval procurement programme. It is one thing to announce a very substantial increase in naval shipbuilding, but the laying of the first steel is another and there is a gap between the two. That problem is faced by many of our shipyards today. I have seen that for myself, around the country. That gap is what particularly concerns the trade unions.
Other aspects that worry me very much include what has happened with Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton. It was originally hoped that Vosper Thornycroft would receive a legally binding commitment from the prime contractor, BAE Systems, by the end of September this year, with a detailed contract for the type 45 ships being placed by the end of March. That has fallen by the wayside. I had hoped that there would be an announcement before the House rose today. Vosper Thornycroft desperately needs a legally binding commitment before it can commence work on its planned investment. The situation is very serious and deteriorating.
We have also seen problems with naval procurement from Spain, where state-owned naval yards, in particular the Bazan yard, merged with a civilian yard to form Izar. The European Commission has decided to investigate whether that purchase, at a token price, was a hidden subsidy. I also flag up the problems of the Gibraltar shipyards, for which the MOD no longer has direct responsibility. They are a remarkable facility, and we should not neglect the people who have worked in them for many years.
The situation in Korea is perhaps not as simple as some hon. Members have suggested. From its point of view, Korea has been engaged in an argument with the European Commission, which has been seeking to increase world shipbuilding prices in line with what it says that the market will take. This is about the trade barrier regulation. Can the Minister update us on the trade barrier regulation inquiry and participation in talks? The European Commission seeks to include ships in segments of the large container ships sector for example, as well as liquefied natural gas carriers—which will be crucial for our economy—and liquefied petroleum gas carriers. The Koreans see it as an attempt by the European Commission to rig prices in favour of European shipyards. The issue is rambling on and no doubt will do so for some time, but I would be grateful if the Minister would update us.
Finally, I would like to talk about what we might do in the future. I commend the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on taking a remarkably relaxed and flexible approach. It is not calling for subsidies; it simply wants a more imaginative response from our Government. It wants the British Government to operate within the boundaries of European law in an imaginative way. Other European countries appear to be able to find more imaginative ways of favouring their yards. It was a tragedy when the ferries were not all built in Britain, as four of them went to German yards. If the French had been building them, they would have stuck a gun on the front and called them warships, and then circumstances would have been different.
I see the skills base in shipbuilding being lost if we do not do something to ensure that there is continuity. We need imaginative schemes, not only to procure orders

89WH
but to maintain the skilled work force around the country. The focus is not just the Clyde, although that is the biggest and proudest shipbuilding tradition left in the UK now, but small yards such as Appledore at Falmouth, and others at Portsmouth and Southampton. The skills base of the country is at risk here as well as the big ships that sail the ocean. Let us make sure that the Government take this very seriously, and I invite the Minister to tell us some good news for Christmas.
10.51 am
The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) not just on securing this debate but on his genuinely eloquent and interesting speech, which set the tone for an excellent debate. I hope that hon. Members will accept that in just eight minutes, I have to do justice to my hon. Friend's points, and I will not be able to get around to all the individual points raised.
My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the excellence of UK shipyards and the important role that they play in local economies within the UK, not least on the Clyde. The Government are confident that the industry has a sound future. I would like to mention a number of steps that we have taken since 1997 to help the industry achieve its potential.
I am aware that shipyards, especially those building merchant ships, face difficult challenges in a very tough world market. The estimate is that the current capacity globally exceeds demand by at least 33 per cent., so it is a tough competitive environment out there and UK yards are finding it difficult to win the orders against that fierce competition.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, who has responsibility for this issue, cannot be with us today because of an unavoidable commitment abroad. However, as my hon. Friend recognised, he has been involved in numerous meetings with the unions, the industry and concerned hon. Members. We entirely share their worries about current difficulties and I can assure them that the Government remain absolutely committed to working closely with the industry to help it meet the difficult challenges ahead.
The key challenge that was recognised by my hon. Friend when he said that German yards have higher productivity and are much more competitive, and is recognised by everyone in the industry, is to improve its competitive performance. It is nothing to do with the work force, who have improved their performance extraordinarily over the past 10 to 20 years.
Let me set out briefly what we have been doing to help the industry. First and most importantly, in 1998 we set up the shipbuilding forum comprising trade unions, the industry, training bodies, the national training provider—the Engineering and Marine Training Authority—Government Departments, the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Executive. It was the first time, in the history of this maritime nation that unions, industry and Government had ever sat around the table together. As a result of setting up the forum, we received the first report in December 1998, which concluded that the industry's long-term future depended on its ability to improve its competitiveness.
90WH
The forum set challenging targets: doubling the number of merchant ships built over a five-year period and increasing the turnover of the repair sector by 30 per cent. during the same period. To achieve that, the forum's 1998 report made 43 recommendations, including improved productivity, better marketing, enhanced finance packages and improvements to training and skills. It is important to stress that these recommendations were aimed at all participants, and not just the Government. This debate concerns not only what the Government can do, but what the industry can do to help itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland mentioned that we must look at other countries. When the forum was formed, one of the first things that the Department of Trade and Industry did was sponsor a visit to the Netherlands. It was an extraordinary visit on which the forum found no evidence of employees working harder than those in the UK. The productivity of the work force was no greater in terms of the effort put into the job, and there was little evidence of better yards or higher investment. The secret, if it is a secret, was that the Dutch yards were more successful because they co-operated with each other. They co-operated in order to be able to compete internationally, which is something that the UK yards have traditionally not done, and they had better marketing and extensive subcontracting. Following that visit, which was eye opening, the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association set up a group to examine how the UK industry could co-operate to compete. We have taken several measures and I do not have time to discuss them all, but that one is important. We are improving competitiveness through the forum, which is bringing the industry around the same table as the unions and the Government.
The international situation is crucial. The international marketplace is difficult and we share the industry's concerns about Korean unfair trade practices—make no mistake; they are unfair trade practices. The best means of tackling Korea is to launch action in the World Trade Organisation as recommended by the European Commission's May 2001 trade barriers regulation report on which all member states are agreed. Unfortunately, WTO action has been delayed because the commission has insisted on linking such action to the reintroduction of limited shipbuilding subsidies for container ships and product chemical carriers.
My hon. Friend asked whether we should subsidise the industry. There is no evidence of illegal subsidy occurring elsewhere. I remember Brett Martin, who has sadly departed, of Cammell Laird, saying in the forum that he would produce evidence of illegal subsidies; it did not materialise. Germany had considerable state aid for reunification, but there is no evidence of illegal subsidies anywhere else. The shipbuilding intervention fund existed for 36 years and at one time it paid up to 33 per cent. subsidy, but throughout that period British shipbuilding and ship repair declined. It was the view of the industry and the unions in 1999 that we should abolish the SIF throughout the European Union, and that happened on 1 January this year.
The reason for the delay in pursuing the WTO claim against Korea is that it is linked to the reintroduction of a form of subsidy that will not help British shipbuilding

91WH
because it concerns vessels with which we do not deal. The Commissioner is effectively proposing the partial reintroduction of operating aid, which was abolished at the end of last year. The commission proposal is likely to be difficult to operate in practice and risks undermining the EU position by opening up the possibility of Korean action. We must move ahead with the European Union agreement on taking WTO action against Korea, and we will work to that effect.
I must say a couple of words about the Clyde, and I apologise for not having more time to do so. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) said, if one looks back to what the yard faced as recently as a year ago, then looks at the position now, it is clear that it has the best prospects for many years, and we believe that it is secure for at least the next 10 years.

Camelot
11 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: The debate comes at a good time, because Camelot's new licence starts on 27 January 2002, by which time it will have a new chairman in Michael Grade, and the Government are considering their response to the recommendations in the Budd report on gambling. It is rumoured that next spring the Government will start a review of national lottery legislation that is relevant to the new licence that will start in 2009. That seems a long way ahead, but if we are to reach agreement on the legislative changes that will have to be implemented in time for bids for a fresh lottery licence to be invited on that new basis, we have to start quite soon.
The lottery licence runs to 164 pages. I shall not dwell on much of it, but emphasise two parts—condition 12, which relates to player access, and condition 15, which relates to distribution management.
Condition 12 requires that there should be a minimum of 24,250 online retail outlets and a minimum of 9,150 Instants-only outlets. For reasons that are not stated, in 2006 those minimums will be reduced to 23,750 and 4,500. I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government imposed the relaxation of that condition.
Condition 15 states:
"The licensee shall ensure that clear and fair criteria are specified and applied for retailers to qualify for selection and de-selection."
Those criteria must be available for public inspection. I submit that Camelot is not applying fair criteria for the selection and deselection of retailers, especially with the introduction of a minimum sales requirement of £1,500 per week. For Camelot, "reviewing the retail network" is tantamount to
"cutting back on the retail network of small independent retailers".
I shall illustrate my point with reference to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who run a small retail newsagents and tobacconists in Wimborne road, east in Ferndown. They sell between £1,000 and £1,200-worth of lottery tickets each week and have been told that if they do not raise their sales to £1,500 each week they will have their lottery licence taken away. As one would expect, before the licence is taken away they will be offered a period of counselling lasting 24 weeks to show them how to boost sales. Since they have spent the past seven years running their shop, the idea that somebody else can come in from outside and tell them how to do it better is surprising. Of course, at the end of the 24 weeks they will realise that they cannot magically increase their sales to £1,500 and will therefore lose their licence.
Some retailers are under the impression that the lottery licence imposes a maximum number of outlets for Camelot. Indeed, that is such a widely held misconception that a senior member of one of the national trade organisations recently repeated it to me. But the licence does not do that—it specifies a minimum. Why does not an organisation that wishes to maximise sales of lottery tickets and proceeds for good causes seek to expand, rather than contract, its network of retailers?

93WH
It costs about £5,000 to install a lottery terminal, but after that the running costs are negligible. If the cost of installation is a problem, that has already been incurred because a condition of the new licence was that Camelot had to install 24,500 new terminals at a cost, I am told, of £120 million. That was to ensure that they could be operational before 27 January. If ever there was an example of a waste of money, that is it. The existing lottery terminals were perfectly adequate, but to establish a level playing field for the bidders of the new licence, the requirement was that whichever company won—even if it were the incumbent—would have to replace all terminals. That is a waste of £120 million.
What justification can there be for imposing an arbitrary minimum sales requirement? Provided that a lottery retailer's premises are open during the hours in which the public want to purchase tickets, and that the retailer acts with honesty and propriety, what is the problem? Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a supporting petition with 1,400 signatures. They have raised their concerns on radio and television, and during a Radio Solent phone-in, they received an unparalleled 98 per cent. support for their cause to be allowed to continue to retail lottery tickets from their shop.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith have wondered whether there are too many lottery outlets close by in Ferndown. However, that cannot be the problem, because Tesco, Sainsbury and one independent supermarket have outlets on Ringwood road, while Mr. and Mrs. Smith's outlet is the only one on Wimborne road. I have discussed the issue with the Federation of Small Businesses and the Federation of Retail Newsagents. Both are worried about the adverse impact of Camelot's policies on the retail network of small shops. The FSB told me:
"It is important that Camelot, in satisfying its duty to the local community, actually favours installing the terminals in as many independent, community based businesses as possible."
However, the trend is the other way, with Camelot favouring supermarkets, petrol forecourts and other multiple outlets. The Government have given the impression that they are not concerned about the retail network and I secured this Adjournment debate as a result of the negative response from the Minister to my questions. I hope that in today's response, he will link his remarks in with the Government's response to the better regulation taskforce shopkeepers' report, published on 17 October. In paragraph 3.1, the Government state:
"Nigel Griffiths as Small Firms Minister will champion the interests of small retailers."
He has a good opportunity to start fulfilling his role as champion of small retailers by challenging Camelot on its unfair review of the retail network.
The Minister should make the point to Camelot about the lack of incentive, under the present arrangements, for a small retailer to build up his lottery sales so as to add value to his business for when he retires or sells out. Why are lottery licences not transferable on a similar basis to liquor licences? No publican or licensee has an absolute right to transfer a licence because the transfer must be approved by the court, but the norm is that, where the transferee is a fit and proper person, the transfer takes place. Why does Camelot not operate a similar system for its licensed lottery retailers, who
94WH
would then have an additional incentive to build up their retail business? Camelot told me that its objective in reviewing the retail network is to maximise income for good causes, but closing down outlets, rather than opening more, seems an odd way to go about it.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that the pressure on Camelot to contribute to good causes—I shall explore the reasons for that later— puts pressure not only on the organisation but on individual licensees such as Mr. and Mrs. Smith?
Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but if the pressure is on Camelot, it is self-induced. Both Camelot and Mr. Branson's People's Lottery said that they could raise £15 billion for good causes during the lifetime of the new licence. The National Lottery Commission reckons that £10 billion is more realistic and, as my hon. Friend knows, £10.7 billion has been raised since the lottery started. The details of the licence show that there are no penalties on Camelot if it does not succeed in selling enough tickets to raise £15 billion for good causes, although it would not make as much profit as it would otherwise do, so there no justification for putting this enormous pressure on small retailers.
Small retailers are being made scapegoats for the steady decline in sales of lottery tickets. It was reported on 28 November that combined sales of lottery tickets and scratch cards fell by 5.4 per cent. to £2.4 billion in the six months to 30 September. Sales would have plummeted further but for a 6.8 per cent. increase in scratch card sales. Why are sales of lottery tickets falling? Could it be that there is increasing disillusion about the so-called good causes that the lottery supports? Today's news reminds us that £628 million of lottery money was wasted on the dome; some £120 million was given to the Football Association for Wembley stadium, which will not now be spent on that project; some £20 million was given to the royal armouries, which then went bust. Could it be that potential purchasers of lottery tickets realise that very little of the money they might spend would be used for what they believe to be good causes, and that even less is returned to their local communities?
On 11 December, total lottery sales since the launch on 14 November 1994 were £35.2 billion. Camelot has been unable to break down that figure between constituencies, but if the gross sum is divided by 659 constituencies, the average is £53.3 million per constituency. I am not making allowance for the fact that my constituency of Christchurch has a slightly larger number of constituents than average and a higher proportion of people in the older age group, who are apparently more likely to buy lottery tickets. We are told that people aged between 55 and 64 are most likely to do so, while young people aged between 16 and 20 are least likely to do so.
Taking the average, £10.7 billion has been raised for good causes and if good causes in the Christchurch constituency had received a pro rata share, they would have received £16.21 million. It will not surprise you, Mr. Amess, to know that they have not received anything approaching that amount. Indeed, the information that Camelot provided to me and other hon. Members this week, broken down by constituency,

95WH
shows that the amount that has been given in national lottery awards to Christchurch is £3.9292 million—that is, less than 25 per cent. of the pro rata entitlement and less than 7.5 per cent. of the total sales of lottery tickets in Christchurch.
My constituents are contributing grossly disproportionately to good causes, and not-so-good causes, elsewhere in the country, and they now find that Camelot is trying to undermine the viability of small retailers in Christchurch through its retail network review. If Camelot wants to boost lottery ticket sales in Christchurch, I suggest that it puts pressure on lottery distributors to return more than 7.5 per cent. of gross sales to good causes in Christchurch. I have examined the figures for the past four years since 1 January 1998. During that period, my constituents have had just over £400,000 returned from the lottery—less than 1.5 per cent. of their gross expenditure on lottery tickets—and some £145,000 of that was given to an organisation called Adelphi Playclubs Ltd., which has gone bust and is in receivership. Is it surprising that there is growing disillusionment among my constituents and others about the way in which the lottery operates? I advise my constituents that, if they want to support local good causes, the last thing that they should do is play the national lottery.
That brings me to the Budd review of gambling, and the absurd letter from Camelot that I received this week that said that good causes in Christchurch would suffer to the extent of £500,000 if the recommendations for society lotteries were adopted. The reality is quite the reverse. If the people of Christchurch raised £53 million through a society lottery and a minimum of 20 per cent. had to be returned to good causes, as is proposed, Christchurch's good causes would be three times better off overall and 10 times better off than over the past four years.
Society lotteries have an important role to play. They could introduce competition, which is severely absent at the moment. Society lotteries are public lotteries promoted on behalf of a society that is established and conducted wholly or mainly for one or more of the purposes that are set out on page 156 of the Budd report. Those purposes are effectively charitable, and include sport, recreation and the arts.
Under present regulations, society lotteries may have prizes of up to 55 per cent. of their income. However, no prize may exceed £25,000 or 10 per cent. of ticket sales. It is not possible for an individual society lottery to have ticket sales that exceed £1 million. A minimum of 20 per cent. of the funds must go to deserving good causes.
There is much to be said for society lotteries, yet Camelot says that if society lotteries were introduced with larger prize payouts and the ability to attract gamblers who aspire to a lottery win that would be a life-changing event, sales would increase. However, owing to the language of Camelot's scaremongering letter, hon. Members may be surprised to hear that the figures for 1999–2000 show that for every £1 spent on the national lottery, only 2p was spent on society lotteries. Even if society lotteries increased twentyfold, they would take less money than the national lottery.
96WH
Society lotteries could introduce the element of competition that is lacking. Retailers that are not permitted to sell tickets for Camelot could sell tickets for the local society lottery. If local people felt that Camelot and the national lottery distribution organisations were not giving their local causes a fair share of the resources raised, they could show their disapproval by supporting the local society lottery rather than the national lottery.
That recommendation in the Budd review is worthy of adoption as a Conservative party policy, although I do not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) to announce that in her response. I certainly hope that the Government will not fall for the extraordinarily protectionist line taken by Camelot in the literature that was sent to hon. Members this week.
Anybody would think that Camelot was not given the opportunity to make a submission to the Budd review. It made a written submission, and its comments must have been taken into account. Indeed, great passages in the Budd report show that Camelot's concerns about the impact of society lotteries are not well-founded. It is recognised that the advent of society lotteries could mean that a different range of good causes would benefit. However, the notion that there would be a reduction in the amount of money going to good causes overall is rejected.
Before I close my remarks, I want to say a little about the part of the Camelot licence that deals with under-age sales—condition 15(4). Under that condition,
"The licensee shall conduct or procure the conduct of such tests of retailers as the National Lottery Commission may require to establish whether sales have been or are being made or are likely to be made by retailers to purchasers under the age of 16."
A requirement exists that there should be a minimum of 10,000 such tests each year. We are told that Camelot has invested £1.2 million over the past two years in the prevention of problem gambling in the national lottery. On the basis of the evidence produced, it has not been successful in dealing with the problem. That problem centres around scratch cards, which are described by Camelot as
"the UK's leading impulse brand".
The odds of winning on a scratch card are about one in five. Most significantly, however, 96 per cent. of the scratch card market is taken by Camelot.
The National Lottery Commission has commissioned a report on under-16s and the national lottery. That report was dated February 2000, and was prepared by BMRB Social Research. It contains some interesting points. It shows that 11.6 per cent. of 12 to 15-year-olds had spent their own money on national lottery scratch cards in the previous week. That was in 1999, when the research was carried out, whereas in 1997 the figure was 7.7 per cent. Therefore, a substantial and steep increase had taken place in the incidence of people under the age of 16 illegally purchasing scratch cards. The report also found that 60 per cent. of problem gamblers agreed that it was easier to spend more money than they planned on national lottery scratch cards—61 per cent. agreed that some people are hooked on them.
For a Government who preach about social inclusion, the report contains some pretty devastating findings. For example, table 8c deals with the prevalence of problem gambling on national lottery scratch cards among key sub-groups. Looking at the issue of

97WH
ethnicity, it shows that 1.6 per cent. of white youths are engaged in problem gambling with scratch cards—Instants—compared with 4.8 per cent. of blacks, and 3.8 per cent. of Chinese. We know that gambling is more a part of Chinese culture than British culture, but it is surprising and alarming that 4.8 per cent. of under-16s from black ethnic minorities are engaged in problem gambling with scratch cards.
Camelot is promoting scratch cards, which is why sales of scratch cards went up over the past six months while sales for the main lottery draw went down. We know that young people have the highest propensity to purchase scratch cards. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are now looking at state sponsorship of underage gambling. Such gambling is becoming worse, and it will become worse still if pressure is put on small retailers to attain minimum sales targets. How will they be able to increase their sales? They will be under tremendous pressure to sell more Instants scratch cards to the user group that enjoys them, namely the under-16s.
The issue is important, and is relevant to the retail review. Camelot has informed me that, in my Christchurch constituency, not one lottery retailer has lost his licence as a result of selling scratch cards to under-age people. However, I doubt whether that is the position throughout the country.
At page 413 of his autobiography, John Major wrote:
"The lottery has achieved so much in a very short period of time: arts centres here, new sports complexes there, restored churches, new village halls, festivals, new instruments for orchestras, cycleways, inner city parks and a thousand other benefits that give a new lease of life to all those Burkean 'little platoons', who make our country what I believe it to be: the best place in the world in which to live."
Recent experience in my constituency shows that the lottery is no longer delivering that vision. The current pressure from Camelot on small retailers and its monopolistic resistance to competition from society lotteries will be a further blow to the "little platoons".
11.26 am
Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on securing the debate. I do not know how long it took him to obtain an hour-and-a-half debate, and I do not want him to tell me, because the last time that I tried to achieve such a debate, it took me about six months and that burnt on my soul.
I have always been a firm supporter of the lottery. Having been in the House for several years, I have discovered that if I stand still long enough the wheel will turn and the same scenery will go by again, at which time I can evaluate and compare what happened the previous time with what is being proposed now. At the time of the first contest for the lottery licence, I studied all the applicants. Without any doubt, Camelot was the most efficient and effective. It presented its case in the best manner. The worst applicant was the noisiest, and I leave it to hon. Members to work out which one that was. I had an added interest in that at least two of the applicants were to establish their headquarters on the edge of my constituency between Rickmansworth and Watford. I hope that they stay there for a considerable time.
98WH
Camelot's is one of the world's most successful lotteries. Apparently, it launched itself to the outside world without a hitch and it worked smoothly. It then started to be knocked in the media, because it had brought out some of the worst characteristics of the British. The lottery was not knocked because it was doing so well, but some of the personalities involved were criticised for unjustifiable reasons. A characteristic of the British is that, if someone does well at something, we must have a go at it. However, I am wearing my Christmas tie, and given that seasonal charity has overcome me, I shall not labour that point.
I worried from the start about the Government's action, which widened the scope on which lottery moneys could be spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch touched on the expenditure on the dome. If anyone wanted to be turned off buying lottery tickets, to see the money squandered in such an horrendous fashion was ample justification for that. We do not know exactly what is happening about the dome's future—whether it has been given away or it is a special deal. We would love to hear the inside story. Perhaps the Minister will bring us up to date—and get himself some headlines—but I have a funny feeling that he will avoid discussing that problem.
The lottery suffers because it has a series of distribution bodies—they are listed in a document that Camelot has sent to hon. Members. All those bodies run publicity schemes and profiles, in which they seem to go out of their way to say, "Actually, our money comes from the national lottery." They seem to present it as their money, which reminds me of the way that the Millennium Commission—that glorious success—spent its money.
A parallel can be drawn with the European Union. When one drives around certain parts of the country, one sees lots of big blue boards adorned with a circle of gold stars and the slogan, "Project funded by the EU." There are never any brackets underneath containing the message, "By the way, it is your own taxpayers' money coming back to you." Similarly, some of the distribution organisations associated with the national lottery are not fulsome about stating that they are fuelled by lottery money—good causes money.
I have a wish list. The operation of the application process for the second licence was a shambles, and we must thank Lord Burns for rescuing the day by producing a result that got everything back on an even keel. We must ensure that that does not happen again. I do not know whether that can be achieved through the review of legislation that will take place, or through some form of internal diktat; I leave that decision to the Government. However, I wish clear-cut rules and procedures to be established before the third round of licensing applications takes place, because we cannot allow that appalling situation to occur again. It put the future of the lottery in doubt, and it did not give it a good image. That had nothing to do with the applicants for the licence; it was caused by the Government's attempt to control the way in which the licence was allocated.
Let me deal with new licences and the issue of timing. When the licence comes up for review, the entire staff of the operating company—which, in this case, was Camelot—get jittery about their future. Immediately before the review of its licence, Camelot had to spend a

99WH
lot of money on bonuses to stop people going when it was thought that the company might lose its licence. Would it be possible for the people in charge of the application process to have closer discussions with the lottery operator, in order to reassure those working for it? Perhaps the new operator should be chosen much earlier, so that it could promise the old operator's staff jobs. That would ensure continuity of, and greater security for, staff.
Although I have been critical of the Government, I now congratulate them on going ahead with the betting review by sir Alan Budd, because it is excellent. Slot machines are the only problem. If that aspect were allowed to come through, it would ruin every British Legion club in the country.
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): And Conservative clubs as well.
Mr. Page: The Minister is right: it would have a little impact on Conservative clubs as well. Perhaps there are slot machines even in Labour clubs, though not as many. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Amess, I am suffering, and I am finding it hard to go on because of my voice.
Gambling is a billion-pound industry throughout the world. This country has some of the most reputable bookmaking systems in the world and could receive a big chunk of overseas business.
Miss McIntosh: Does my hon. Friend share my embarrassment for the Minister, who, after a debate on the subject, felt unable to visit the Labour clubs in his area because of the validity of that point? He was too embarrassed to go.
Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for causing what is known in American football as "interference". It gave me a chance to take a sip of water and get my voice back.
This country has a reputable gambling industry, and it is a business that can go forward. I welcome Sir Alan Budd's work on that industry and should like to make a couple of points before I collapse. First, the lottery operator should not be blamed for a fall-off in sales. If extra gambling opportunities are introduced, those should be taken into account. Secondly, Camelot should rethink its review of the retail network, because in some villages, just as the post office is under attack, the removal of lottery machines from small shops would have a disastrous impact on village life, which we want to keep going.
I have no objection to competition in the gambling industry—that is part of the industry's ethos—but I am concerned about side betting, which rides on the lottery's work and profile. Side betting would be damaging for Camelot and any other lottery operator. Only in Ireland is it legal; in the rest of the world, it is not.
11.37 am
Nick Harvey: In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) focused on three issues: retail distribution of lottery tickets, under-age purchase of tickets, and the Budd report. I shall comment on each of those.
100WH
The National Lottery Commission grants Camelot a licence that requires it to provide a terminal for each postcode district within which there are at least 2,000 residents. Camelot must also make available for public inspection its criteria for selecting, or deselecting, the retailers that it uses. It is up to Camelot to exercise its commercial judgment in applying those criteria, and the commission is responsible for overseeing that.
It is legitimate for the hon. Member for Christchurch to raise the specific example of Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Ferndown or any other example. However, whether the Minister can reasonably be held accountable for every decision that Camelot makes in exercising its commercial judgment is another question. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
There are 25,000 online lottery terminal operators and a further 10,000 scratch card retailers, so it is fair to say that Camelot reaches most parts of the country. Particular provisions are in place for sparsely populated areas that might not otherwise fulfil Camelot's commercial criteria. Reference has been made to the award of the second licence and certainly, as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said today, and as the Select Committee said at the time, that process was a shambles. The national lottery licence is a licence to print money and is, in that sense, a state-backed monopoly. It is interesting that the main business of De La Rue—one of the major stakeholders in Camelot—is printing money. The licence requirements must be taken seriously and drawn up carefully.
Despite the criticism that it has attracted, notably for some of the payments made to its directors, Camelot is one of the best lottery operators in the world. I noted the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, but I am not sure that they are fair. A 1998 survey showed that Camelot was returning more to good causes—and, indeed, to the Treasury—as a percentage of sales than any of the other 34 lotteries that were monitored. The salaries of its board members have been trimmed. Despite falling sales, the proportion of income that goes to good causes continues to increase. As part of its social and ethical audit, bonuses have been reduced to a uniform level and linked to the national lottery distribution fund. Camelot operates on a margin of 1 per cent. That is worth remembering when people criticise it.
Despite its problems, Camelot has been a successful operator and it is against that background that we should judge the proposals in the Budd report. The hon. Member for Christchurch welcomed its recommendation that the monopoly should be broken, allowing others to compete with Camelot. Camelot has been stoically defending its position, and has argued that exposure to competition would be unwelcome. I urge the Minister to weigh up carefully that argument before proceeding.
The hon. Member for Christchurch was cavalier in his dismissal of Camelot's argument. I do not swallow hook, line and sinker everything that Camelot has said in its defence, but there are arguments that need careful consideration. A deregulated lottery market would probably be dominated by large national organisations with the means to invest in the relatively high capital and operating costs, and the strength to compete with the

101WH
national lottery. The Budd report recommends that commercial companies should not be allowed to operate in competition with the national lottery. However, charities that are large enough to do so on a meaningful scale would, to all intents and purposes, be operating in the same way as a commercial company.
Camelot passes on a high percentage of its revenue to good causes. The Budd report proposes that competing companies would be required to guarantee distribution of 20 per cent. of their ticket sales. That is considerably less than the 40 per cent. that Camelot distributes. There is a genuine threat that, in total, the sums that find their way through to good causes would be smaller. Even if the variety of good causes that were benefiting was more widely drawn than at present, we risk diluting what we can achieve with the moneys.
Mr. Chope: I know that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to what I said. In Christchurch, significantly less than 5 per cent. of gross sales is being returned to recognised good causes in the local community. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be much better for the people of Christchurch to have the option of spending money on a lottery that delivered 20 per cent. for local good causes, as opposed to less than 5 per cent.?
Nick Harvey: Possibly, but not necessarily. The hon. Gentleman divided the revenues into equal amounts for constituencies and said that his constituency had benefited from less than 5 per cent. of the whole. If his constituency has been badly served by the distribution bodies, he and other public authorities should set about those distribution bodies with their cudgels. If the market were completely liberalised, the critical mass of the national lottery would be diminished and smaller proportions of ticket sales would go to charities as a whole. Thus there is no guarantee that the recipients in Christchurch would receive more than they do at present. On balance, it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been rather badly served by the distribution bodies. His energies might be better devoted to that end of the equation and to breaking the critical mass that the national lottery currently involves.
Camelot estimates that adopting the proposal could result in a loss of more than £1.28 billion to good causes. I am not taking its brief and suggesting that that figure is necessarily absolutely correct. I have no doubt that we shall take such matters with a pinch of salt. However, a substantial loss on that front seems possible.
The second report was on side betting. I do not know about the impact of that aspect. Clearly, it will divert some of the money that players currently pump into the lottery. The disadvantage is that none of that money will go to good causes, and not much will go to the Treasury, either.
Mr. Page: Unfortunately, I did not have the stamina to develop the point about side betting. There is probably more clear evidence in that case than in any other of the effect on Camelot. We have the Irish experience to draw on, and we are looking at a considerable reduction of some 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman may agree that the only way for side betting to continue is for people to have to pay Camelot for a licence to side bet on its numbers.
Nick Harvey: It is an interesting proposition that that is the only way to guarantee that some of the money will be invested and ultimately go to good causes.
The third recommendation of the Budd report was a universal minimum age of 18 for all gambling. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, young people are becoming addicted to the purchase of scratch cards. There is no doubt that that is a serious problem. In 1997, a hotline was established for those who suspect retailers of selling tickets to under-age players. The commission has discussed with Camelot how to patrol the matter, and Camelot is committed to 10,000 under-16 tests on retailers in the forthcoming year. Retailers must fill in a refusal register every time they turn away what they suspect to be an under-age player.
Serious issues are involved. We are all aware that the proceeds of the national lottery are waning and diminishing. I do not believe that anyone seriously blames independent retailers for that, as the hon. Member for Christchurch suggests. Whether those diminishing sales would be combated by competition, and whether people would be willing to donate more if they knew which cause their money was going to, are issues that are worth debating. However, I urge the Government to proceed with caution.
Another option is simply to increase the number of terminals. However, we must recognise that that would have serious cost implications, and whether it would pay for itself is a matter of doubt. Camelot must remain commercially viable, and in terms of extra sales it simply would not be worth connecting a huge number of extra terminals if only a small number of people used them. As I said, Camelot ring-fences up to 1,000 outlets in which the terminal allows a small business to serve a community as a shop or other useful commercial premises. That is very much appreciated, especially in constituencies such as mine.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Clearly, not all is entirely well with the operation of the lottery, but Camelot has, I believe, been a successful operator. The licence conditions under which it operates are legitimate matters for us to debate, but I do not believe that some of the criticisms of it have been entirely fair.
11.49 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up for the official Opposition. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place, and it would be most welcome if he would also respond to the points that I made in a previous debate on the Budd review. I shall certainly give him plenty of time to gather his thoughts.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on securing this welcome and timely debate. He has raised a number of very important issues, which I hope the Minister will address. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who made some excellent points. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) might not realise that my married name is Mrs. Harvey. It is probably a good thing that I am speaking today under my maiden name, as that will avoid any confusion between the official Opposition and the rest

103WH
I should declare an interest in respect of the lottery grant funding—almost £6 million—that the Vale of York has been fortunate to receive to date. The manual that we received this week from Camelot was impressive, and in that regard I am grateful to the previous Conservative Government. The lottery was a great Conservative initiative, and it is pleasing to learn that the hon. Member for North Devon shares the view of the official Opposition that it has been a huge success. It has made a significant contribution to sport, the arts and local initiatives.
A fundamental Conservative principle, which we always followed, was that good causes such as health and education should not be funded by taxpayers' money that they otherwise would not receive. In setting up the lottery, we had two guiding principles: arm's-length operation, free from Government interference; and additionality, whereby any money was additional to Treasury expenditure. It is with regret and disappointment that I record that the Labour Government reversed both those principles in their first term.
The renewal of Camelot's licence, over which the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport presided, proved shambolic. The 1997 Labour party manifesto—that dreadful document—states:
"When the current contract runs out, Labour will seek an efficient not-for-profit operator to ensure that the maximum sums go to good causes."
In January 1999, the former Secretary of State appointed a National Lottery Commission to oversee operation and regulation of the lottery, and to choose the next licence holder. The commissioners took up their posts on 1 April—a noteworthy date—1999. The Government then reversed their pre-election pledge and ruled that the next operator would be allowed to make a profit.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. Those responsible for recording our proceedings advise me that we are not making ourselves clearly heard. If hon. Members could speak directly into the microphones, such technical difficulties might be sorted out. The problem has probably been exacerbated by the fact that various hon. Members have had difficulty breathing.
Miss McIntosh: I shall endeavour to be even more robust in my delivery than usual, Mr. Amess, and I hope that the technical difficulties will be dealt with as soon as possible.
The most shambolic of licence procedures was then adopted. The National Lottery Commission announced that neither the new applicants, The People's Lottery, nor Camelot, the then licence holder, would be awarded the next licence. Only the People's Lottery was allowed to proceed, and it had one month in which to improve its bid. Camelot then took the commission to the High Court, and won its case. It was not until 19 December 2000 that Camelot was eventually awarded the licence.
It matters not to me in which direction the Minister cares to look, but he cannot ignore the implication for good causes: that in future, the Government must respond by having a mechanism to protect lottery good
104WH
causes from legal action. He must also recognise that the 5.4 per cent. slide in ticket sales—a reduction to £2.4 billion in the six months to 30 September—has had a knock-on effect. Camelot attributes that to the controversial licence competition and warns of a further decline for the second half of the year, up to 31 March 2002.
Hon. Members have referred to a threat. I would formulate it differently from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, but I believe that the Budd review places an enormous dilemma before the Government. It is not for me, as a member of the official Opposition, to provide the answers. I merely humbly submit to put the questions. How will the Minister resolve the dilemma? In the Vale of York, the projected loss over the initial seven-year licence period alone would be almost £800,000. Projected lottery sales nationally would be £51 billion—a 13 per cent. reduction as a result of the gambling review.
Mr. Chope: Before my hon. Friend accepts hook, line and sinker the quotation from the letter about the Vale of York, will she compare the figure of £6 million, which I think she said good causes there have received from the lottery so far, with total sales in her constituency of more than £50 million? The good causes there have been getting far less than the 20 per cent. minimum that would be required were there a society lottery instead.
Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point, and I accept what he says. However, no matter how frustrating we might find its conclusions, we are looking at independent research commissioned by the Henley centre and PricewaterhouseCoopers, which developed models to predict the impact of the recommendations of the gambling review. I shall say later why I think that there might be further losses in ticket sales.
The independent research brought to our attention this week, in excellent timing for my hon. Friend's debate, suggests that the good causes will lose £2 billion nationally during the seven years. I entirely accept the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for South-West Hertfordshire that there are many good recommendations in the Budd report. That was the subject of a separate debate, and we look forward to hearing more on it. However, we must not lose sight of the losses mentioned by many hon. Members in that debate, which could have a huge impact, especially on seaside resorts. They have suffered a huge fall in income from tourism generally this year.
Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend completely discounting paragraph 35.9 of the Budd report? It says:
"The effect will largely be a shift from good causes supported by the National Lottery to other good causes. The effect on total income for good causes will depend on any differences in the proportion of lottery proceeds paid out".
It suggests that there will be no significant effect on good causes overall, just competition among good causes.
Miss McIntosh: That is very interesting, and the Minister must weigh up any disagreement between the conclusions of the Budd report and those that face us today.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Lady was asked the question.
Miss McIntosh: The Minister challenges me, and I shall respond to that by using some figures with which I was provided by the Library in preparation for today's debate. The figures make no recognition of any contribution that was the subject of the gambling review. I could almost argue for a different debate, but I would hate to see my hon. Friend ruled out of order. The figures provided by the Library compare national lottery sales with those of leading market brands sold through normal retail stores. National lottery sales, at £4.532 billion, top the table, followed by Coca-Cola with £640 million, closely followed by Instants with £561 million. I share those figures with hon. Members as I welcome Mr. Conway to the Chair.
How will the Government respond to the drop in sales? Will the Minister specifically consider the impact of the new opportunities fund? This is a classic case of the Labour Government raiding the lottery and taking money away for purposes such as sport, the arts and village hall projects. I have heard about several applications that have regrettably been turned down by the community fund because the money is no longer available under the national lottery. Many such bodies fear that there will be even less money in future. The new opportunities fund is being used to distribute money to pay for Ministers' pet projects in health, education and environmental projects. It takes 13 per cent. of lottery money, and that will rise to 33 per cent. once the Millennium Commission has been wound up. One third of all lottery income for good causes will be siphoned off to Labour's pet projects.
The Government must be aware that they are seen to be increasingly prescriptive about how lottery money is distributed. They are dictating strategies and priorities to bodies that are meant to be independent. To take sport as an example, Sport England will be made to ring-fence 20 per cent. of lottery funds for allocation to youth sport, the bulk of which will be spent in schools. That amounts to putting £750 million into school sport over three years. That approach is wrong. Using the lottery to fund health projects means that it works like a regressive tax, for the simple reason that poorer people spend disproportionately more on the lottery than wealthier people. Moreover, lottery money was meant to provide additional funds to the Treasury, not to substitute funds that would otherwise be spent by the Treasury.
I shall conclude in order to give the Minister ample time to respond both to this debate and to the comments that I made in the Budd recommendations debate a short time ago. The debate is timely and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on securing it and on introducing it so eloquently. He was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire and gained the recognition of the hon. Member for North Devon regarding the success of the national lottery.
The debate raised several issues to which the Minister must respond as a matter of urgency. First, the loss of ticket sales must be reversed. Last year, the shambolic licensing procedure led to six wasted months, uncertainty, legal action and the resignation of two commissioners. Secondly, the potential loss of lottery money to good causes through the Budd recommendations poses a dilemma. Thirdly, the new opportunities fund substitutes Treasury expenditure
106WH
rather than adding to it, and the Minister must accept that that was never the original intention of the national lottery.
12.4 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I have enjoyed the debate because it has shown the great divisions between Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers. It was quite enlightening. I have no doubt that those differences of view about how the lottery should be run will be taken into consideration when we carry out the various reviews.
I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for allowing us to debate this important subject, as it gives me the opportunity to put one or two things on the record. I had understood that the debate would be about Camelot's licence, not the Budd report or the distributing bodies. That is what I shall respond to, although I acknowledge that there are wider concerns.
The hon. Member for Christchurch cited three major capital projects: the dome, the royal armouries and the national stadium. All of those were set up in terms of the major capital spends while his party was in government; it was not this Administration who set them in train.
Mr. Chope: It is certainly true that the original sum of money for the dome was established under the Conservative Government. However, the money that was put in subsequently—about a 50 per cent. Increase—which was then qualified by the auditors as being not good value for money, was put in at the insistence of the Labour Government.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman might be able to enlighten the Chamber about the national stadium and what his Government did in 1996, and about the armouries. However, perhaps we should leave that for another debate.
There have been many references to the Budd report, and we are considering all the responses to it. It would be premature for me to second-guess what the conclusions will be. We have had a good debate on that as part of the consultation process. We allowed three months for the consultation and made no comment on the Budd report, or the commission's recommendations to the Government, which we put into the public domain. As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said, we have had discussions here in Westminster Hall, and questions have been asked on the Floor of the House. All of that will be factored in to our conclusions. We have given an undertaking that early in the new year we shall come forward with both our considered reply and a timetable for implementation. I have no doubt that there will be further discussions on the conclusion that we draw.
Many of the comments made today have been about the implementation of the Budd report, yet it will not necessarily be implemented in its entirety. It makes recommendations to the Government, but we are mindful of the fact that the lottery could be affected, as the hon. Lady said.
It is amazing how people become such experts on these issues. I was interested to read Polly Toynbee's article in one of our national newspapers. I had never

107WH
realised that she was such an expert on working men's clubs, but obviously people read up on those issues from time to time, even if they do not experience them. I read her article with interest, as I did the Henley report and other submissions that have been made. There is no doubt that this is a serious issue, and the Government are taking it seriously in responding to the Budd report.
This morning's debate has clearly shown that there are differences in approach to the national lottery, vis-a-vis Budd—even within the Conservative party. I accept that that is quite genuine, and we shall take it into consideration.
Mr. Chope: Does the Minister agree that the debate is not so much between individual members of the Conservative party, but between those Members of Parliament whose constituencies have received far less of the pro rata return from the good causes fund?
Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman wanted to discuss lottery distribution, he should have made that the subject of the debate. I understood that the subject of the debate was Camelot's licence. Camelot has no responsibility for distribution, which is dealt with by the national distribution bodies. If one wants to criticise distribution, that is fine and justifiable, but it is the not the subject of today's debate.
Mr. Chope: I take the Minister's point, but surely the national distribution bodies are independent of the Government. My concern is that, because of the way in which they operate, they create a disincentive for my constituents to use the lottery.
Mr. Caborn: There is an old saying: one should throw the shovel away when one is in a hole. Whenever the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce a debate on the distribution of national lottery funds, that will be fine and I shall debate it, but it is not the subject of today's debate. The debate is about Camelot's licence.
I give credit to the previous Administration for introducing the national lottery. It was not popular at the time, but since 1994 it has probably become the most successful lottery in the world. Many people have gained from it and nearly three quarters of the population of the United Kingdom participated in it last year. That shows its popularity. I do not think that those people play for good causes—they play to win—but that nevertheless provides a good mechanism for producing the £10.5 billion that has been raised over the past seven years, which is commendable. That income may not be protected, in the strict sense of the word, but we want to ensure that despite modernisation—and regardless of what happens about the Budd recommendations—such income is maintained for good causes. We shall take that point into careful consideration when we review the Budd report.
The success of the lottery to date has not been inevitable or preordained, so credit must be given where it is due. A key point about the lottery is that the operators operate at arm's length from the Government. The hon. Member for Christchurch did not factor in the new role of the National Lottery Commission. The
108WH
commission was created under the National Lottery Act 1998 to take over the functions of the former director general of the National Lottery. Its statutory duties are to ensure that the lottery is run with due propriety and that the interests of players are protected. Subject to those two conditions, the commission also has a duty to maximise the returns to good causes.
Exercising its own independent judgment, the commission awarded the second licence to operate the lottery to Camelot 12 months ago. We all remember the difficulties and I acknowledge, as the hon. Member for Vale of York said, that they undoubtedly did a lot of damage to the lottery. One can see how ticket sales fell off. The procedure was not good and we must review it, but although the damage was considerable, we have come through it. It is true to say that lotteries need to refresh themselves from time to time, and have new innovations and creativity. The debacle that took place during the awarding of the licence damaged the lottery, but I hope that it is now recovering. Many people jumped on the bandwagon of bashing Camelot and the lottery, which was unjustifiable at that time.
The licensing included not just a choice of operator, but the terms and conditions of licence. The new seven-year licence starts at the end of January 2002 when the current interim licence expires. The new licence includes a number of changes, which the commission believes are significant improvements. The most noteworthy change addresses the incentive for Camelot to increase sales to maximise the proceeds for good causes. I am concerned, as is Budd, about young people having access to gambling, and that has been acknowledged through the new licence. I remind hon. Members that Camelot must establish at least 10,000 under-16 tests each year and the commission can increase that number if it can show grounds for doing so. There is a minimum threshold, and a regulation that relates to young people having access to the lottery and scratch cards, and I know that Camelot will take those seriously.
The gambling industry now recognises the problem of under-age and problem gambling. The Budd report recommended that a charitable trust of £3 million be set up and I am pleased that the industry is now responding positively. It has set up the trust, in which the whole industry is participating, and I understand that funds are approaching £1 million. The gambling industry, including Camelot, is being socially responsible and wants to find the cause of under-age and problem gambling generally. The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to under-16s having access to the lottery. Camelot will take that seriously in the new licence and I know that the commission will be watching what it does.
Mr. Chope: What will the sanction be if, as happened between 1997 and 1999, under-age sales of scratch cards increase?
Mr. Caborn: I imagine that the commission would take whatever action it has the power to take. I do not know exactly what that is. If it believes that its power is not strong enough and young people continue to have access to the lottery, doubtless the commission will bring that to the Government's attention. We would then have to consider how to strengthen that power in any subsequent licensing. The concern relates not just to the lottery and Camelot; the Budd report raised a wider

109WH
concern and the industry is responding to that. The discussion will continue and I hope that we shall eradicate the worst excesses to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
If Camelot's after-tax profits exceed those in the principal forecast included in its bid, the excess will be shared evenly with the national lottery distributors fund. Pages 23 and 24 of the commission's annual report for 2000–01 includes a table listing other improvements, which covers issues ranging from advertising to intellectual property to software testing. The important point is that Camelot will have even more incentive than previously to increase sales. However, the licence to run the lottery does not set the terms of the relationship between Camelot and the network of retailers. That is essentially a commercial relationship for Camelot to manage. Approximately 24,750 retailers have an online lottery terminal and around 10,400 sell scratch cards only. Camelot estimated that 94 per cent. of the population live or work within a couple of miles of a lottery outlet. Retailers take about £250 million a year in commission on national lottery sales, which is approximately 5 per cent. of total turnover.
In its bid for the second licence, Camelot set out plans to review its network of retail outlets. As part of that process, it intends to introduce an improvement programme, which will take account of consultation with the commission and its own retail forum. It will introduce a minimum weekly sales target of £1,500 for online ticket retailers. The target is a weekly amount of sales, covering all national lottery games, which each retailer will be expected to meet or exceed. Each outlet's sales will be averaged over 13 weeks to determine whether it is performing under or over the minimum weekly sales target. That will ensure a reasonable spread of sales, levelling any unusually high or low performance.
Retailers performing below the expected level will be placed on a sales improvement programme lasting 24 weeks, during which time they will receive practical advice, assistance and support from Camelot staff. The hon. Member for Christchurch was derisory about that, but he then said that we should help retailers to sell more tickets.
Camelot is being responsible and allowing a fair spread of time in which sales can take place. If they are not sufficient, Camelot will try to help the retailers by sending its experts to assist, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is welcome because it covers issues such as shop layouts, staff training and increasing sales. After an initial period for retailers to implement their improvement plans, Camelot intends to monitor sales on a weekly basis for about 16 weeks. It has made its expectation clear: that sales should achieve the £1,500 a week target over that period, and that it will give notice of termination to retailers who fall short of that. The period of time and the consultation are both reasonable. One hopes that it will be a win-win situation, because if a retail outlet can be improved in terms not only of lottery ticket sales but of activity in the shop, the retailer will be in a better position.
Mr. Page: I thank the Minister for giving way. I agree with everything that he has said, and I understand that Camelot wants greater efficiency and through-put—amen to all that. However, in small villages with limited
110WH
populations, retailers cannot generate sufficient sales to meet Camelot's criteria. If those outlets close, we shall be confronted by the post office argument.
Mr. Caborn: Camelot has said that it will take account of mitigating circumstances, such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Certain categories of retailers will be excluded from this exercise, and Camelot is committed to ensuring that the isolated communities to which he referred continue to have access to the national lottery. It has made provision to ring-fence up to 1,000 "community outlets", which will not be subject to the general sales target, and it has identified several other special cases.
Camelot has established arrangements under which retailers will have the opportunity to ask an appeals panel to review a decision to terminate their agreement, which means that there is a safety mechanism in the system. That will be an internal company procedure, but Camelot intends to make it fair and transparent. I have described the intended measures, but I must make two points about them. First, these are not matters for the Government to approve or disapprove. Secondly, the measures appear to be consistent with the commission's aim in setting the new licence terms of getting Camelot to focus on sales improvement. The new licence will be the basis for operation of the lottery over the next seven years.
The Government have decided that it is time to reconsider the licensing structure and system, because we want to ensure that when it comes to the third licence there is effective competition. There are several options for change, some of which would involve legislation, but I said at the outset that the lottery has been successful and we want to keep it that way.
Mr. Chope: The Minister has been generous in giving way. He seems to accept that it is reasonable for Camelot to impose a £1,500 minimum for sales. If the objective is to increase sales, Camelot should tell all its retailers that they must increase sales by 10 per cent., rather than expecting small shopkeepers to increase their sales by as much as 50 per cent., which is surely unreasonable.
Mr. Caborn: Ultimately, those are commercial judgments, and the Government do not interfere with them. The hon. Gentleman is being hypocritical: on the one hand, he is arguing that the Government should get out of the lottery; on the other, he is trying to get the Government into it. The Government are not involved and it is a commercial decision. We have imposed conditions on Camelot through the commission, and the system is fair and transparent. If difficulties arise, there are several safety valves in the system that his constituents can use.
The commission oversees the operation, and I hope that Camelot will increase sales because that will benefit everybody. An increase in sales of lottery tickets could mean an increase in activity for individual retailers.
Miss McIntosh: When the Government consider the national lottery review, will they bear in mind that the thrust of proceeds to good causes should be shifted from major national projects to smaller projects, especially those that will have an impact on local communities?
Mr. Caborn: Although we have been criticised this morning for our actions, the hon. Lady will know that, since we came into power, we have moved significantly from capital to revenue. One of the present difficulties is the major capital investments that were made in the past with lottery money. I am not criticising the Conservative Government; what they did at the beginning was fair, but we have now reviewed the matter and have moved to a position where capital is 49 per cent. and revenue is 51 per cent. We have moved from big projects, such as stadiums, domes and armouries, to local schemes that deal with the needs of the community.
I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. We shall continue to take such action, but such a transition takes time. There has been a significant change from capital to revenue, from large to small. Although the new opportunities fund has been criticised this morning, it takes account of what is happening at the grass roots and is responding to that, as did the coalfields community fund through the lottery.
As for changing the licence, we shall consider what has been said this morning and what will be said in other debates. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that the lottery is successful. We have been through the debacle of the licence, which did neither the lottery nor good causes any good. That can be in no one's interests, and we must get it right next time. We shall consult on such matters; we shall listen to what people say and incorporate those views into our decisions.

Euro
12.26 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, in such an important debate. It seems that we have had the mantra about the euro—the referendum and the five tests—for ever. It has been necessary and important. I do not underestimate it. However, the introduction of the euro on mainland Europe and its creep into the United Kingdom must be taken into account.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer need to discuss the new situation and to agree a new way forward. Incidentally, I hope that they disagree. It is ludicrous for the media to pretend that Britain's two most powerful political personalities, when discussing the most important issue before the nation, will synchronise immediately. I hope that they have serious discussions, and as an adult, I expect them initially to disagree, but then to reconcile their views. I hope that we all play a mature part in those discussions and I appeal particularly to my friends in the media to allow a sensible debate to take place.
History offers the Government a chance to consider soberly a subtle addition to the black-and-white choice of joining the euro outright and abolishing the pound, or rejecting the euro and clinging to the pound. That has hitherto been on offer at the end of the barrel of a referendum. I propose instead that the euro be accepted in our economy as a parallel currency to the pound, to be used by businesses and customers—by choice—in the marketplace. That proposal would offer significant advantages to the nation, to businesses and to our economy. In addition, it would avoid major political and economic risks that are associated with joining the euro outright in one fell swoop.
The process of creating a parallel currency has already begun. A recent survey showed that 83 per cent. of retailers in tourist areas will accept euros. Remarkably, those retailers include such normally anti-European retailers as Dixons and JD Wetherspoon, as well as household names such as Marks and Spencer. At Sainsbury's, the euro coin will release a supermarket trolley.
I have tabled questions asking whether Parliament's bars and canteens will accept euros in the new year, and whether Members of Parliament or even Ministers could be paid in euros if they wish. The London Eye will accept euros, although Buckingham palace still requires convincing. In Northern Ireland, where businesses have been working with two currencies for many years, the Assembly takes it as read—a couple of weeks ago, there was a debate there not dissimilar to this one —that there will be a parallel currency. Businesses currently work with pounds and punts, but after 1 January, that will be pounds and euros. According to a recent survey in Marketing, two thirds of electors think that it would be useful and appropriate to have dual pricing so that the price of goods in our shops is shown in euros and pounds.
This time next year, everyone will have been on their continental holiday. Everyone will have bought their margaritas by the pool using euros, whether they went to Greece, Italy, Spain, or anywhere else in Europe.

113WH
That will turn this year's euro fear into next year's cool fashion accessory. can imagine you Mr. Conway, in the bars—not that you frequent the bars—paying proudly with your new, crisp and colourful euro notes and expecting, or even requesting, that your change be given in euros.
Of course, it is open to any business in the United Kingdom to accept any currency, be it dollars, yen or Guatemalan quetzals. Will our Government nimbly respond to the changing situation and encourage, or discourage, the process? Alternatively, will we sit tight and marooned as events change around us and we keep our euro mantras intact? Can we get our act together sufficiently to respond to the new situation?
Our Government should not sit and watch as the situation develops. We should go with the flow and encourage and support the changes. For example, for a small outlay, we could issue free pound to euro calculators to every household and school in the UK. The French chambers of commerce did that successfully. If hon. Members went to Calais to do Christmas shopping over the past two years, they would have found people proudly holding French chamber of commerce euro calculators.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Allen: I will, but I ask my hon. Friend to allow the Minister plenty of time to reply.
Mr. Hopkins: How would my hon. Friend's system work if there were significant fluctuations in the exchange rate between the euro and sterling? If he proposes a rigid, fixed exchange rate, will that put us back into the exchange rate mechanism and effectively inside the euro?
Mr. Allen: I will deal with that question later. Economic arguments are on my website, which I shall give details of later. The precise answer to my hon. Friend's question is that I would expect individuals to deal with the market rate on a per day basis. Indeed, it may be possible for entrepreneurs, be they landladies of a boarding house or arbitrageurs of the City of London, to make a turn on the exchange rate. That may be more encouragement for those who want a dual currency in the UK.
Last week, I introduced the Euro and Sterling Choice Bill. The Bill provides for the Government to make the euro legal tender alongside the pound for the settlement of debts above a certain value. It also provides for dual pricing in pounds and euros of goods and services above that value. The choice of the value is left to Parliament and the Government. Initially, I would envisage a level of £1,000 to exclude everyday transactions in shops and vending machines. However, the level would be sufficiently low to include financial purchases such as cars and consumer durables. Dual pricing would help us to discover the often cheaper prices that are available elsewhere in the European Union. When people travel next year and compare the euro price in a showroom in Athens or Madrid with the euro price in the UK, that will have a beneficial downward effect on consumer prices in the UK, which all too often are concealed
114WH
behind the myriad exchange rates in Europe. Parliament would be free to lower the £1,000 figure if and when business and consumers—without being forced or pushed—welcomed and started to use the euro and wanted to extend its use. My Bill would also provide Government help for businesses and consumers who want to take advantage of the euro as an alternative means of payment.
Some hon. Members may find the idea of a parallel currency inconvenient or even outlandish. In fact, it is extremely commonplace. All over the world, businesses operate routinely with a parallel currency. Some of those businesses are tiny and their owners and employees have little formal education. If a street trader in India can switch effortlessly between currencies, it should not be impossible for British businesses to do likewise.
The motive for accepting another currency is simple and universal—to make more money. A parallel currency and a legal framework for using it are not an inconvenience to business but a resource. British businesses and British people are capable of using more than one currency if they wish. They should be allowed and encouraged to discover for themselves whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
Serious risks are attached to going cold into the euro and abolishing the pound without effective familiarisation beforehand. The political risks begin with the need to pass a referendum Bill. In that regard, I am happy no longer to be in the Government Whips Office. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary are not exactly gagging for the challenge of putting that Bill through Parliament. It will have a difficult passage through both Houses, delay more important and popular legislation, and expose the Government to endless argument and recrimination over the perceived fairness of the referendum question and procedures.
What is the rush? Our European colleagues need us in the euro more than we need to be in the euro. They need us to join, not least to legitimise the euro in the eyes of the United States and the global financial markets. Rather than falling for any euro tosh about missing the boat, train or whatever transport analogy comes to mind, we should consider whether the UK's price for what some have called unilateral economic disarmament is far too low. What about applying a quid pro quo—or a euro pro quo—such as reform of the common agricultural policy, the integration of capital markets in Europe or the acceptance of funded pension schemes, a time bomb of which many in the European Union are not aware? If we choose to join the euro, we should seek to maximise a unique bargaining opportunity.
Setting up a referendum will be difficult enough. Winning it from a cold start—many feel that little has been done to educate the public about the euro so far—will be even harder. Whenever it is held, there will be a risk of defeat. Opposition will come from all parts of the political spectrum, including the Labour movement, from all classes and age groups, from significant economic and business interests, and, above all, from a hostile and unscrupulous media. Turnout will be low, and even strong supporters of the Government will take

115WH
it as a free kick—a chance to have a go at the Government of the day to protest on any issue that comes to mind.
There are many economic risks associated with calling, then winning a referendum. Rather than detain my hon. Friend the Minister by reading them out for the record, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) may wish to browse my website—www.grahamallen.labour.co.uk—on which I have listed them. Any euro-anoraks in the Chamber who feel the need to go through those arguments can do so, but I do not want to impose them all on you, Mr. Conway. We do not need to flagellate ourselves over the euro. We do not need to prove ourselves and our pain in order to make a sensible decision about it. There is a gentler, subtler way on offer.
There is no good economic scenario in which to hold a referendum. If the economy is doing well, why do we need to join the euro and give up the benefits of the Chancellor's excellent economic management? If the economy were doing badly, why would we expect people to trust our economic judgment? Joining the euro is like buying a dog: it is not just for Christmas, it is for ever. My proposal allows us to take the puppy home for a while to see whether it can be house-trained.
A parallel currency would allow British businesses and British people to choose, in their own time and at minimal cost, whether and how they wish to join the euro. That is what my proposal aims to achieve. It would develop competition between the pound and the euro. In the marketplace, people would choose to be paid in the better performing currency—the one that kept more of its value over time. We should experience Gresham's law in reverse: good money driving out bad.
A competitive process would offer significant benefits for our economy and would provide an additional defence against inflation. I am glad that there are some murmurs of support from Conservative Members. The previous Prime Minister, John Major, alluded to the possibility of what he termed a "hard ecu". That is similar to my proposal and would allow some choice.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that his proposal is strikingly similar to the hard ecu proposal or currency substitution ideas introduced in Major's Administration. My concern about the European monetary union project—I am not against it in principle—is that it is far from similar to buying a dog for life. We might be sold a pup.
Mr. Allen: I am pleased to be the straight man for my hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend for his lines. None the less, I do not believe that there was a serious point behind the joke.
The political benefits should appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends. By keeping the pound, the Government would deprive the Conservative leadership of its only popular policy overnight. I am trying to be non-partisan. I would risk saying that it is not the Conservative party's only popular policy, but its only policy, but that would break the all-party consensus that I am trying to develop on the issue.
United Kingdom businesses and customers would conduct an informal rolling referendum, and would provide not a snapshot of one day in the distant future,
116WH
but a constant series—almost a hidden hand—of market-oriented interventions in buying and selling. That would give a longer-term rolling picture of how the British public felt about the issue. Our European partners would also be relieved to avoid a premature British referendum, which would be likely to paralyse European decision making and provide an outlet for yet more British hostility towards the European Union.
On the economic front, a parallel currency would not need to meet the five economic tests. It would avoid the need to fix exchange rates irretrievably, and avoid the risk of Britain being trapped with the wrong interest rate, thereby being forced to raise taxes or cut public spending. A parallel currency would reinforce convergence with the other economies of Europe but would give time for that convergence to become permanent. Our European partners may also welcome that, as it may be preferable to having to accommodate within the euro zone a large economy that continues to follow a different, more transatlantic economic rhythm. It would spread the costs of conversion to the euro, giving businesses the chance to delay them until it becomes advantageous to use the euro, and it would allow the British people to adjust voluntarily to the euro, if it is successful—and to stick with the pound, if it is not.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have to stick closely to the approved script of the Treasury and No. 10 Downing street. I understand that. However, behind the scenes, I hope that the Government will take seriously the creative, imaginative but very practical idea of encouraging the euro as legal tender alongside the pound. That could provide a democratic and organic way for the British people to take themselves into the euro, if it works—and to walk away from it, if it does not.
12.45 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I am delighted to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, for the first time in Westminster Hall.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the introduction of the euro in the 12 countries in the euro area, and to restate the Government's policy on membership of the single currency. In the course of so doing, I also hope to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). His speech was thoughtful and well argued. I was delighted to learn that his economic arguments are presented on his website, and I look forward to browsing through them. He has a long-standing interest in these matters, and I hope to hear more from him about them.
The Government's policy on the single currency remains unchanged, as my hon. Friend is well aware. The policy was set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997, and it has frequently been reiterated by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. In principle, the Government are in favour of UK membership of EMU. In practice, the economic conditions must be right. The Government have set out five economic tests that must be met before any decision to join the euro can be made, and an assessment of those five tests will be made within two years of the start of this Parliament.
The Government believe that, if a clear and unambiguous case in favour of joining can be made, it would be right and proper to put that case to Parliament

117WH
and, subsequently, to the British people in a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree. It is clear that my hon. Friend would impose the euro on the British people before they had the opportunity to register their preference in a referendum; that is inherent in the proposal that he has put forward today.
I turn to the important subject of business preparations. The introduction of the euro marks the end of years of careful planning in the 12 countries in the euro area. Wim Duisenberg, president of the European central bank, has highlighted the challenge of the cash changeover. It must not be underestimated, but he is confident that careful and comprehensive preparations should ensure a smooth changeover. In the United Kingdom, we must be equally careful and equally comprehensive. Let us make no mistake: for firms operating in the United Kingdom, the introduction of the euro marks a major change in the business environment—not a threat to our tradition of free trade, but an opportunity to engage in a more efficient and competitive single market.
The changeover will have major implications for businesses with links with the European Union, including importers and exporters. Our fellow members of the EU are the recipients of the majority of the United Kingdom's overseas trade; over half of our exports go to other members of the EU. Individually, France, Germany or Italy may not be our largest trading partner, but I do not think many people are aware that we export more to the Netherlands than we do to Japan. The EU as a whole accounts for about 53 per cent. of our exports. That means that it is more important for our exporters than the United States of America or the far east.
Mr. Tyrie: That is visible trade.
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes a point from a sedentary position. I am sure that he is well qualified to speak on such matters, but he would not doubt that trade with the euro zone is important to companies in the UK. The euro zone is not as far away as one might think. The Republic of Ireland will, of course, also be dealing in euros. It is vital that companies in the UK are able to benefit from free trade with our European partners. From 1 January next year, that means having the choice to trade, quote, invoice and account in euros.
Mr. Hopkins: I am interested in our trade relations with the euro zone countries. Currently, a significant trade deficit arises from the overvaluation of our currency in relation to the euro, or the undervaluation of the euro in relation to sterling. If no reference is made to an appropriate parity during our entry discussions, there might be serious dangers. If there is overvaluation, it will leave us at a permanent competitive disadvantage. Alternatively, if we try to get down to a serious competitive parity, euro zone countries might find that unacceptable.
Ruth Kelly: The Chancellor has made his position clear. The economic case must be clear and unambiguous before the Government recommend to Parliament and the people, in a referendum, that we should enter the euro. The tests must have been met.
Mr. Allen: May I obliquely refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North?
118WH
Clearly, the more we trade in sterling and the euro within the European Union, and the more we are dealing with the euro in the UK, the more accurate a market rate we will develop as we move, if we do, towards a European referendum. The most viable rate at which to go in will be a sustainable one, which will be closer to a market rate. The more market transactions, the more likely it will be that we will reach that rate by encouraging use of euros, rather than allowing things to move at their own steady pace.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but it is not one with which the Government agree. Our position is that the economic case must be clear and unambiguous before the recommendation to join the euro is made to Parliament and the British people, whereas he proposes that the euro should be adopted before that case is clear and unambiguous.
To return to the question of business preparations, we have been working with businesses in the UK for the past few years to ensure that they achieve the right level of preparation for the euro. Our euro website has received 230,000 visits. A guide, "Using the euro —
competing in Europe" has been mailed to 1.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises, and a leaflet has been sent to 1.6 million businesses with autumn VAT returns. We are ratcheting up our efforts as the introduction of notes and coins draws near.
Of course we want as many businesses as possible to be prepared, and we have made every effort to assist them. However, we will not go down the road of compulsion. Why is that? Among other reasons, there would be potentially significant costs to business were we to do so. UK businesses already have the choice to use the euro. There is no need to legislate for that choice. Many retailers have already stated that they will accept euros in many of their outlets—for example, in hotel chains and major tourist areas. I recently visited the North West Euro Forum near my own constituency in Bolton. In the course of meeting businesses large and small, I was impressed by their engagement with the possibilities opened up by the introduction of the euro. They saw it as an opportunity to gain competitive advantage and break into new markets. Their attitude might be very different if, instead of having the choice of trading, pricing and invoicing in euros, they faced a compulsion to do so, whether or not they judged that it was in their best interests, before the economic case had been decided, and without the consent of the British people.
Mr. Allen: To pick up on my hon. Friend's point, it may therefore be sensible for the Government not to adopt the figure of £1,000. Let us start a lot higher—at £1 million, or whatever the Government or Parliament feel is appropriate as a way of testing the water.
To correct a possible misunderstanding, especially in the Treasury, I do not propose that we ditch the five economic tests; indeed, I agree that they must be passed if we go exclusively into the euro. My proposal is to dip a toe in the water before making that decision. I would not want it to be regarded as an alternative. It is in a sense the widest possible market testing ahead of the difficult decision that must be made on, I agree, the basis of the five tests.
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for making his position clear. I respect the fact that he does not believe

119WH
that we should abandon the five economic tests. As he acknowledges, businesses already accept the euro. Even Northern Ireland would be directly affected by the euro. Many businesses in Northern Ireland may choose to accept the euro, just as Irish punts are accepted today. However, I do not believe that merely raising the threshold of the limit changes the principle involved. I therefore disagree with him in that respect.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the Economic Secretary give way?
Ruth Kelly: I must make some progress.
Mr. Tyrie: I promise to be brief.
I am sympathetic to the idea of currency substitution in principle, but a cost is involved to the Exchequer in the loss of seignorage. Will the Economic Secretary estimate what seignorage loss the Government expect without an element of compulsion? If she does not have the figures with her, perhaps she would send them to me and make them publicly available.
Ruth Kelly: I have the figures with me, and I shall give the hon. Gentleman an estimate. However, I shall finish the argument that I was advancing when I gave way.
The argument advanced in the Bill is that using the euro as a parallel currency would avoid the deadweight cost of converting Britain to the euro. However, in most cases the systems that would allow dual currency functions would be similar to those necessary for a complete changeover to a single currency. Legislation to make the euro legal tender alongside sterling would not avoid the deadweight cost. Indeed, it is hard to envisage how that would demonstrably help UK business. Businesses with both high and low-cost transactions would be placed in a particularly difficult position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North would effectively be asking shops and businesses to incur the costs of accepting two distinct currencies
120WH
simultaneously and indefinitely, while denying them the benefits accruing from participation in the single currency area. They would face the additional expense of maintaining a daily calculation of exchange rates, running concurrent pricing system structures, training staff to work with euro cash and maintaining accounts in two currencies. In addition, UK businesses would still be adversely affected by the foreign currency and hedging issues arising from trade with euro-area businesses. Issues of complexity would be involved.
My hon. Friend says that two thirds of people believe that it would be helpful if shops showed euro prices alongside sterling prices. However, there are difficulties in doing that, and it may cause confusion, especially as euro and sterling would not, under his proposals, have a fixed exchange rate.
The value of debts would be affected by fluctuations between sterling and the euro. Those fluctuations in value would be more pronounced in the relatively high value transactions that my hon. Friend suggests would be subject to the dual pricing requirements. I have only a minute left, and I had better discuss seignorage if I have a chance.
Notes and coins in circulation generate seignorage income from the issuing authority. To put the figures into the public domain, for every £1 billion of sterling notes displaced, an estimated £39 million of seignorage would be lost each year. For every £1 billion of sterling coins displaced, an estimated £880 million would be lost. Granting parallel legal tender status to the euro without the UK's entering the single currency would therefore entail a transfer of seignorage away from the UK. It would have other implications, which I do not have time to go into today.
The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has significant disadvantages, particularly the extra cost to business. Business could regard the euro as a threat—
Mr. Derek Conway (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

Police Funding (Dorset)
1 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Conway. First, I should apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who is otherwise engaged with his duties as shadow Home Secretary, but who offers his support for this debate. I have also contacted the Minister's office about my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) making a brief contribution to the debate, and I am sure that the Minister is happy with that. I am also pleased that my other Dorset colleagues, the hon. Members for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), are attending this important debate.
Dorset police are a good and efficient force, and Dorset's crime levels are low compared with the rest of the country. However, there is an on-going funding problem, which I am here to address. Neither I nor my colleagues feel that Dorset is being treated fairly. The Government's headline settlement figure for the increase in policing is 6.1 per cent., and 3.3 per cent. is maintained for central initiatives and priorities, including the crime fighting fund. The figure for centrally provided services such as the National Crime Squad, and for the general increase in respect of individual police authorities, is just 2.8 per cent. Although forces such as Dorset's receive a share of the crime fighting fund, rural moneys and Airwave funding, the settlement is not particularly good. Differences in funding resulting from the present formula cannot be explained by the different spending needs of police authorities. The matter is dealt with in part in the recent White Paper, which in general we welcome.
The level of policing in Dorset is good despite the low level of funding. The 2000–02 budget provided real opportunities to improve and increase operational effectiveness. Dorset police are grateful for Government support for its private finance initiative project, and for grant in support of party conference policing, which is particularly useful in Dorset. Continuation of the 2002–03 crime fighting fund, and of rural and Airwave grants, is also most welcome.
Our principal concern is that Dorset police receive the second lowest amount of central funding per head of population of any police authority in England. The difference between Dorset police and the rest of the service increased following the 2001–02 settlement, and matters have not been improved by the 2002–03 settlement. Dorset remains 3 per cent. below the third lowest funded authority, receiving only £85.40 per head, yet the weighted average is £110.39. If Dorset received the average, it would receive an extra £17 million in central funding.
Last year, Dorset police received the third lowest funding increase of any authority. For 2002–03, Dorset police will receive the standard spending assessment increase of 2.8 per cent., which is approximately the average. However, the settlement is not enough to cover even basic police pay increases of 3.5 per cent., and national estimate pension increases of 8 per cent. Dorset cannot continue to absorb a funding shortfall through reductions in expenditure and increases in precept beyond the level of other authorities. According to
122WH
future funding figures in the comprehensive spending review, and to our prediction on police pensions, times will be hard for police authorities, particularly Dorset's. There is much concern that Dorset will suffer disproportionately, and that the poor overall settlement will exacerbate an already difficult funding situation.
The on-going low level of central funding has two direct results, the first of which affects resources available to fund policing in Dorset. I am pleased that the crime fighting fund has enabled an increase in officer numbers, but Dorset still has 95 more members of the public per police officer than the English average. It has a population of 511 per police officer, compared with the English average of 416.
Secondly, low central funding affects the level of council tax paid by the population of Dorset. Dorset police authority carefully balances the needs of policing with the cost to council tax payers, and expenditure per head of population that is 22 per cent. below the service average is testimony to that. Nevertheless, a low central contribution means that Dorset currently has the third highest council tax of any police authority, a situation unlikely to improve in 2002–03.
Jim Knight: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, overall, Dorset does not get its fair share, but while he is on the subject of council tax, I remind him of one piece of good news that he has not so far mentioned. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced in the local government White Paper last week the intention to remove the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. That is good news for us because it should result in a reduction in the precept.
Mr. Syms: It should do. It is good news, but we will still have a fairly high precept in Dorset.
The 2001–02 budget is £3 million below the total needed to provide the same level of service as in 1992–93. Since 1995–96, the budget has increased by 29 per cent., but central funding by only 17 per cent. Expenditure on pensions has increased by 83 per cent. in the same period. In 1995–96, Dorset police authority received 78 per cent. of its funding from the centre. By 2001–02 that had been reduced to 70 per cent. Although the budget requirement for 2002–03 has not yet been finalised, the discussions currently going on with the police authority are for a precept increase of between 10 and 14 per cent. That is likely to keep us somewhere at the top of the list of precepting authorities.
Issues of real concern to the authority include changes in grant allocation, the future of the crime fighting fund—the CFF—rural funding and the funding of pensions affecting Dorset in particular because of its low central funding. What help could be provided? It is important that floors and ceilings have been applied for 2002–03. That is welcome. It is important to continue to apply any funding changes that may arise from data or methodology changes, especially because of the proposals in the local government White Paper.
It would be helpful if there were more stability in the CFF and rural grant, which could continue outside the standard spending assessment and affect the time for which the grants were allocated. Assurances on the medium-term future of rural and CFF funding could be

123WH
made to assist planning and budget strategy. Pensions data should be updated, perhaps with assurances provided by external auditors. Increased predictability of general fund settlements for future years would be helpful. Spending review figures have not provided the detail that individual police authorities could use for financial planning. That must be improved.
The additional detailed settlement information that is available from the website of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for the first time this year has helped us to analyse the position, but further comparison tables would make the analysis more complete and straightforward. We are interested in seeing how the elements of the formula have changed to affect our settlement. Comparisons with other forces are helpful. The availability of capital grant information at the same level as information on revenue funding would assist us greatly.
Recent years have seen a trend in capital information being made available much later in December, or even in January. The two budgets are necessarily interlinked, and it is difficult for the authority to give firm budgetary direction when part of the settlement is not known. Dorset police support a formula-based method of fund allocation, but some issues relating to the formula must be taken into account in any future developments.
The first such issue is area cost adjustment, something that comes up again and again in the south-west. A report produced in 1996 at the Government's request acknowledged that the majority of police expenditure went on pay and pensions and that, apart from the housing allowance and London weighting, there was no variation of costs between authorities. The report recommended a recalculation of the ACA, which would have expanded recompense for higher rates and support staff costs to areas adjoining the current ACA area. That would have provided an additional £1 million funding to Dorset police. It is important for Dorset that proposed changes take that into account.
The second area of concern is SSA variations. Clearly, the White Paper on local authority finance seeks to reassure all authorities that SSA variations will be carefully managed to avoid significant changes in funding. However, to put SSA changes into context, their effect on relatively small authorities such as Dorset can be devastating. For example, if an authority received 0.99 per cent. of total police SSA rather than 1 per cent., its funding would be reduced by £1 million.
The third area of concern is the data used in the pension calculation, which were provided as long ago as 1995. It cannot be right that funding for such an important aspect of expenditure is based on potentially out-of-date information. To give an indication of the scale of the financial effect of police pensions, they accounted for 10 per cent. of overall expenditure in 1995–96. In 2001–02, they represent 15 per cent., and it is estimated that by 2005–06 they will represent 17 per cent. It is vital that authorities can be reassured that the data that is used to allocate funding is accurate, especially in the case of authorities such as Dorset that are at the bottom of the funding level.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there could be no better time to review the problems that he is describing, given the recent White Papers on police reform and local government settlement reform?
Mr. Syms: I agree with the hon. Lady, but it is always a matter of winners and losers when one is dealing with a formula. We Dorset Members are arguing the best case for our authority, which has not been treated fairly. It has struggled with settlements over a long time, including under the previous Government, and that has led to problems in terms of police funding.
Fourthly, the review of SSA methods of calculation that was announced in the White Paper should take full account of the unique funding position of police authorities. All police authorities have a lower proportion of their funding met through council tax than local councils, owing to direct police grants. That has meant that the impact on council tax payers of changes has been disproportionate when applied to police authorities.
Jim Knight: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has said that when the formula is reviewed there will be winners and losers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we have to keep reminding the Government that we in Dorset have been losers for too long and it is about time we were winners. When the formula is reviewed, we must ensure that we are not on the losing side again.
Mr. Syms: That is absolutely right. As local Members of Parliament, we experience pressure from our constituents for more policing, we put pressure on the chief constable and the police authority, and the police authority faces the problems of juggling the budget. Difficult issues such as pensions are starting to have a big impact on Dorset's funding.
We have mounting problems in Dorset. We are second lowest in terms of funding, we have one of the highest council tax precepts and our low budget base will inevitably cause the chief constable difficulties in undertaking policing in the county. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response after my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has, I hope, supported me in my arguments.
1.12 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and congratulate him on securing the debate.
This has been an issue for us in Dorset for many years. Last year, when Dorset Members took a deputation led by the chief constable to see the Minister's predecessor, he gave us to believe that we had a strong case and that the Government would respond to it. It is therefore particularly disappointing to find that this year's settlement is the same as before.

125WH
In essence, the Government say that Dorset police authority needs to spend only £75.5 million a year, yet the police authority says that it needs to spend £85.5 million a year. That extra £10 million has to be funded totally by the council tax payer. As the Minister knows, a disproportionately high number of council tax payers in Dorset are in pensioner households and on fixed incomes. If they are faced with a 10 per cent. to 14 per cent. increase in their police precept this year, they will have to cut other items of household expenditure.
We in Dorset have the third highest council tax of any police authority, but because of our high property values we make the highest per capita contribution towards the police of anywhere in the country. As my hon. Friend said, the fact that our spending is so much below the national average suggests that something unfair is happening in the system. I look to the Minister to sort it out for Dorset by bringing that to an end.
1.14 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this debate on police funding in Dorset. I am pleased to see so many of his Dorset colleagues from different parties in the Chamber. This is a useful, albeit brief, opportunity to air some of the concerns and issues about crime and policing in Dorset and to discuss the resources that the Government provide to support policing in Dorset.
It is worth emphasising the point made by the hon. Member for Poole that the record on crime in Dorset—that is what people are primarily concerned about—is good relative to the remainder of the country. Crime recorded by police in Dorset fell by 3.8 per cent. during the 12 months to March 2001, which is better than the national picture—crime throughout England and Wales fell during the same period, but by 2.5 per cent. Throughout the south-west, recorded crime fell by 2.6 per cent. during the 12 months to March 2001 and since 1997 has fallen by 14.6 per cent. Those are important reductions in crime. During the past five years, recorded crime in Dorset has fallen by 22.1 per cent., compared with the national average for England and Wales of 11.75 per cent. Detection rates in Dorset are also slightly better than the national average in England and Wales. Some good results should be recorded about the level of crime in Dorset.
We are committed to raising police standards wherever necessary, and in our recent White Paper we set out more details of our proposals to set up a new standards unit. We have established in Dorset, as in other parts of the country, local crime and disorder reduction partnerships to ensure that the police can work effectively with other local agencies to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour at local level. We are backing that with the biggest ever investment in crime reduction. The crime reduction director for the south-west tells me that Dorset has received around £2.6 million from the crime reduction programme to help with crime reduction initiatives throughout the county, ranging from large-scale closed circuit television projects to burglary reduction projects in houses in multiple occupation. An additional £650,000 has been allocated from the community against drugs fund in the current financial year to tackle drug markets and reduce drug-
126WH
related crime. We are making a significantly broader investment in fighting crime in Dorset, which will be welcomed by all hon. Members who are present this afternoon.
We have recently announced that the provisional police funding settlement for 2002–03 at national level will be just over £9 billion. That is a 6.1 per cent. increase and builds on the record 10 per cent. increase last year. The amount going directly to police authorities, including funding for specific initiatives—for example, the crime fighting fund, the rural policing fund and Airwave, all of which Dorset benefits from—will increase by 5 per cent. The settlement is just part of our commitment to crime reduction.
Through the settlement for next year, Dorset will receive an increase in total standing spending, excluding specific initiatives, of 2.9 per cent. over this year, which is higher than the average increase for forces in England and Wales. In addition, Dorset will receive £1.892 million through the crime fighting fund for the specific purpose of recruiting additional police officers to police the towns and villages of Dorset; that is over and above the amount of money that is received in the police grant.
Dorset continues to benefit from additional funding towards the cost of Airwave, which is the new radio communications system for police forces. It will receive around £200,000 towards that next year. That is a centrally provided budget, but it is for something that is an absolute operational necessity to the police service—decent communications are essential—as is the money for police officers. The fact that it does not appear in the grant should not lead us to believe that Dorset is not receiving a more substantial increase in resources, which will be of practical benefit to the police and communities.
We recognise the problems of policing rural areas, and that is why in the last spending settlement we announced that an extra £30 million will be invested for the next three years in those police authorities that contain substantial rural areas. Dorset receives £442,000 from the rural policing fund this year, and it will receive slightly more than that next year. This is additional funding for the force over and above the grant settlement that we discussed earlier. I am confident that the extra resources will help to sustain quality rural policing. It is for forces to decide how best to use the additional resources, and they must explain how that is done in their annual policing and best value performance plan.
Dorset has used the money to provide two mobile community support units with facilities to report crime and incidents online. The units regularly serve rural areas and market towns. Specially selected support personnel staff them. Visits to communities by those units are often arranged to coincide with a visit from the local community officer. Those facilities increase police presence and visibility, and will give added reassurance to those living in rural areas. I understand from the chief constable that the units have been well received and that the facilities are being used effectively. Indeed, I have an outstanding invitation from the chief constable to visit the units in Dorset, which I hope to be able to do next year. When the crime fighting fund and the rural policing fund are taken into account along with grant funding, Dorset police force will benefit from an overall increase in funding of 3.4 per cent.

127WH
The hon. Members for Poole and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) reasonably raised several issues about funding. I shall refer the matters relating to information available on the DTLR website to my ministerial colleagues to see whether they want to respond.
I turn to a substantive issue. Police pensions represent an increasing burden to many police authorities. That has been reflected in the increasing size of the pensions component within the funding formula, which has risen from 13.2 per cent. in 1998–99 to 14.5 per cent. in 1999–2000. Rising costs are a matter of concern to both the police service and to Ministers, and a review of the issue by the Home Office and Treasury officials is nearing completion. The options include establishing fully funded schemes and changing the way in which expenditure on police and fire pensions is presented in the accounts. The views of police authorities and other key stakeholders have been sought.
In the recent White Paper in which we examined future arrangements for police pensions, we acknowledged the importance of having a system of benefits that is appropriate to the 21st century and that gives greater certainty to police authorities in planning their pension budgets. I hope that I shall receive a report on the alternatives in the new year. Meanwhile, we intend to update the pensions data used in the police funding formula in time for the next settlement, which addresses a specific point raised by the hon. Member for Poole.
I turn to the formula, the SSA process and the area cost adjustment. In the White Paper on local government, which was published last week, the Government outlined a number of weaknesses in formula grant distribution, but stressed that formulae can continue as the basis for distributing the great majority of general grant. However, the systems must be fairer and more intelligible, although formulae cannot take into account every local circumstance in each police authority. The White Paper emphasised the Government's commitment to introduce new grant formulae to replace SSA from 2003. That will clearly have consequences for the formula for police authorities, which we will need to address.
The area cost adjustment is designed to reflect the higher costs of providing a policing service in London and the south-east. Some forces regard the ACA as inappropriate in a service in which pay is nationally determined. It is also true that the dates used are volatile and can swing significantly from one year to the next. The methodology for determining the ACA is a matter for the DTLR. A review is under way and we are taking a close interest in that.
Jim Knight: Last week, when the Secretary of State made a statement on the local government White Paper, he repeated his assertion that the formula was unfair. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the formula is unfair, particularly in relation to the police? My constituency has one of the lowest levels of funding in the country and one of the most efficient forces, yet we are paying the highest proportion of council tax. It will
128WH
be of some comfort to council tax payers in Dorset if the Minister agrees that that is unfair and that he hopes that we will get something better.
Mr. Denham: I am sure that it would be of enormous benefit to the taxpayers of Dorset if I were to say what my hon. Friend invites me to, but it is more prudent to say that we recognise that worries exist about the way in which the area cost adjustment is calculated and operated. It is not inherently unfair and it should be possible to produce a system that is better and more widely understood, which will also mean that it is better supported.
Police numbers are of great concern to everybody. As we announced yesterday, we have had the largest intake of recruits into the police service of England and Wales since 1979, and we are well on our way to achieving a record number by April 2003. Dorset is already in the position of having record numbers of police officers—1,360 at the end of September, which is 76 more than in March 1997. The hon. Member for Poole talked about officers per head of population. Some 18 forces, most of which are predominantly rural like Dorset, have fewer officers per head of population than Dorset. Therefore, although I cannot say that Dorset is in the strongest position, many have worse ratios.
We have record numbers in Dorset, which is good news. In addition, civilian support staff numbers have risen to 721; that is 126 more staff than in 1997. Civilian staff play a crucial role in releasing police officers from paperwork and jobs that can be done as effectively, and sometimes better, by civilians. That allows the record number of police officers to devote more time to professional policing work.
We have achieved that through the introduction of the CFF. Dorset police have been allocated 85 recruits from that fund. They were so successful in their recruitment efforts that, in 2000–01, they were able to bring forward part of this year's allocation and recruited 46 recruits through the CFF, compared with the 29 that they had been allocated. The excellent record on recruitment continues: the force expects to use all remaining allocation for CFF recruits for this year, and we are considering a request to bring forward into this year six further recruits that were scheduled and budgeted to be recruited next year.
I am pleased to say that wastage—a terrible term— which means the loss of officers to the force through resignation, retirement or movement to other jobs, has fallen in Dorset during the past year. Therefore, its record on retention and recruitment looks to be good. Both additional recruitment and the reduction in wastage have helped to achieve the record police officer numbers that Dorset enjoys today.
This has been a useful opportunity to raise a number of important issues. We are committed to providing Dorset, and indeed all police forces, with the resources that they need to continue to provide a quality service to the public. The hon. Member for Poole and his colleagues have raised legitimate issues for discussion, but I hope that I have been able to put those in context by talking about the good performance in Dorset in bringing down crime, and the excellent record in increasing the number of police officers who are there to serve the public.

Bedfordshire Health Services
1.30 pm
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am very pleased to have secured this short debate on the funding of Bedfordshire health services, although I chose for the title, "Underfunding of Bedfordshire Health Services". I have sought this debate to draw attention to the long-term, underlying underfunding of national health services in Bedfordshire, and to ask that action be taken to put things right.
Bedfordshire has been at or below target since the funding formula based on population was introduced in the mid-1970s. Despite the real growth nationally in NHS funding that has thankfully occurred since the late 1990s, Bedfordshire health authority has continued to move further away from target: for example, from 3.61 per cent. below in 1998–99, to 4.4 per cent. below in the current financial year. That is contrary to the Government's general policy of moving health authorities closer to their capitation target.
The principal reason for that damaging trend is the scale of population growth in the area and the failure of NHS annual allocations to keep pace with it. Bedfordshire, in particular mid and north Bedfordshire, is located in the sub-region between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge, which is one of the fastest growing areas of England and is set to remain so for at least the next 20 years in the light of regional planning policies and housing allocations supported by the Government. Bedfordshire's difficult financial position was made even worse in the current financial year, when the pace-of-change policy on achieving target was suspended pending a major review of the national capitation formula, and replaced by an interim measure known as years of life lost.
I am in favour of these matters being reviewed to ensure that fair shares can be achieved more quickly than hitherto and that needs can be met, but I am not in favour of an allocation system whereby Bedfordshire loses out year after year. I welcome the improvements in revenue funding that have been made and sustained by this Government—they are real—but the point about Bedfordshire's weak position is that its budget base is too small. Therefore, the satisfactory and even very good percentage allocations that have been made in the annual budget rounds of late do not yield enough growth to strengthen that weak base sufficiently. Those things really matter in terms of delivering health services and making progress with modernisation.
The main issue at Bedford hospital is the lack of capacity—insufficient beds, inadequate operating theatre capacity, and insufficient out-patient facilities. Furthermore, there is long-term neglect of the local social services and home care infrastructure, poorly worked up intermediate care, excessive dependency on in-patient care and, of course, bed blocking. All those things chase each other around to create pressures on the budget, on staff and on patients.
Bedford hospital faces serious problems. It is not meeting its waiting list targets, waiting times are not reducing, and the number of cancelled operations is rising, forcing some people to go private at their own expense. That is offensive and unacceptable, not to mention all those people who are waiting longer at home, perhaps in pain but certainly anxious.
130WH
Admissions to Bedford hospital's accident and emergency department have increased substantially since early 1998. It is not limited to the winter months; admissions increase all year round. I understand that the annual rate of increase has been around 10 per cent. compared with the national average increase of 1.5 per cent. As I have recently seen for myself, pathology services at Bedford hospital are also considerably underfunded. I have raised the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I hope that, within the next few weeks, the business case for improved facilities at Bedford hospital will be considered favourably. We shall wait and see.
Given those pressures, it is perhaps not surprising that Bedford Hospital NHS trust is heading for a projected £3 million overspend, £1 million of which is due to expenditure on elective surgery in the private sector and funding beds in private nursing homes. The key problem in community health services is its historically weak infrastructure—its inadequate capacity. That causes negative knock-on effects for the acute sector. The threshold at which someone receives the care that they need is higher than it should be; it is higher than in many other parts of the country. In other words, to receive that care in Bedfordshire, a person's health has to be worse than that of a person who lives elsewhere. That is the clear impression of some district nurses in Bedfordshire who have recently worked in other places.
The lack of capacity puts great pressure on the community funding required to meet the exceptional needs of some patients in the community. Because of the lack of local facilities, the community trust, primary care trusts and Bedfordshire social services have to fund expensive out-of-county placements. Services for children and adolescents may incur heavy costs that last for many years.
Mental health services are also under pressure. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health undertook an external review and concluded that such services are 20 per cent. below their target level compared with similar health authorities. Historic underfunding has prevented the community trust from reproviding mental health services at the Weller wing at Bedford hospital and from meeting its obligations under the national health service framework for mental health. The closure some 10 years ago of Clapham hospital and John Bunyan ward at the Bedford hospital north wing site, which provided beds for the long-term sick elderly, was not followed by the reprovision of rehabilitation, intermediate and home care facilities.
Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for consultation between NHS trusts to be improved when there are closures? I refer to what is happening at Hemel Hempstead, where services for women and children are being closed. Does he agree that it is not right that the first senior management at Luton and Dunstable Hospital trust knew about the closure was when they heard it on the local radio? At such short notice, it is impossible for them to plan properly.
Mr. Hall: That is unsatisfactory. Co-operation and partnership working are a key goal of the NHS plan. The lack of it in the past has been a source of problems.

131WH
As I said, the closure of Clapham hospital and the John Bunyan ward at Bedford hospital's north wing site was not followed by reprovision of facilities in the community. If such facilities had been provided, elderly patients might have been able to leave hospital more quickly. It might also have prevented many of them from going into hospital in the first place. Again, there is a failure to invest. It contributes to the real problems facing the NHS in Bedfordshire. There are many other matters, including tackling health inequalities and drug addiction, but lack of time prevents me from pursuing such issues.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's excellent speech. The critical question—for not only this Government but previous Governments—is why Bedfordshire has not received the funding to which the Government acknowledge it is entitled.
Mr. Hall: That is the question that I am addressing today. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the efforts to deal with what went wrong in the past; many things did go wrong.
In the light of limited time, I am concentrating on what I understand to be the key problems. They have been put to me by people who work in the NHS and my constituents; I have seen them, too. I acknowledge the efforts of, and the high standards that are often achieved by, those who work in the NHS. There is no doubt that morale is not that high. However, I am convinced that the staff believe in the NHS and want it to work. That reflects the views of the public.
Of course, some positive things have happened and are happening at all levels in Bedfordshire. Bedford hospital has a refurbished operating theatre and accident and emergency department. It has doubled the number of beds in the critical care unit. The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS trust has attracted and trained 800 volunteers to assist qualified staff. NHS dentistry has returned to Bedford and Kempston. A community outreach programme for children and adolescents with mental health problems has received national recognition, and a project aimed at employers to enhance the awareness of adults with mental health problems has been acclaimed. In primary care, there are innovations of a 24-hour advanced care scheme and the use of electronic patient records to help general practitioners and hospitals to deal with patients more efficiently.
I have great hope in the sustained development of co-operation at different levels in the local NHS economy. In sharp contrast with the past, people are talking to each other. There is a culture change. People in the NHS at management and other levels are prepared to learn from each other and to put the patient and the community first. The primary care trusts have been instrumental in triggering that. It is a new way of working that belongs to all and includes social services.
Reform is important alongside funding. I do not deny that the long-term capacity weaknesses in Bedfordshire to which I referred are associated with a past lack of
132WH
local leadership and partnership. Although the NHS plan generates cynicism and indifference from some quarters, it inspires others in the NHS who believe in the NHS and want it to succeed. The frustration for such people occurs when the lack of capacity and long-term underfunding impede the delivery of that plan.
I have a number of points to put to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, will she acknowledge the long-term underfunding and the lack of capacity that is associated with that in the area served by Bedfordshire health authority?
Secondly, I am delighted by the announcement of next year's allocation, which is the third most generous in England and, for the first time in years, begins to close the gap. None the less, Bedfordshire remains the second worst funded health authority in England in terms of distance from the fair shares target. Will the Minister acknowledge the case for above-average capitation increases year on year in Bedfordshire to close that gap as soon as possible?
My third point is also about capitation. Will the Minister acknowledge that population estimates and forecasts consistently indicate that the population of the northern and middle parts of the county taken together—broadly the catchment area of Bedford general hospital—will continue to grow quickly? Between 1991 and 2011, the growth in the total population will be 121 per cent.. However, more significantly for the NHS, the growth in the number of over-65s will be 120 per cent., in the number of over-75s 131 per cent. and in the number of over-85s 149 per cent.. The growth of 108 per cent. in the population of the under-fives reflects a growing younger population. Those demographic pressures are important because, as the Minister knows, roughly two thirds of NHS expenditure is on the over-65s and the very elderly. A further 10th of expenditure is on under-fives. Both categories are growing fast in Bedfordshire, and they are set to continue doing so.
Bedford hospital has experienced heavy increases in A and E admissions, which have added to cost pressures. I understand that no systematic research into that trend has taken place, despite the fact that it has been continuing for about three years. Will the Minister ensure that that research is conducted soon, so that action can be taken, resources can be effectively targeted and additional resources can be allocated, if necessary?
I turn to the insufficient bed capacity at Bedford hospital. There is a strongly held view within the trust that, although increased capacity and other changes are required throughout the local NHS, the situation is so severe in Bedford that, to break the cycle, a new, fully staffed, 25-bed modular ward is needed as soon as possible. I recently read that the national beds inquiry had suggested that, as a guide, an extra 55 general and acute in-patient beds, 45 intermediate care beds, and 23 day care beds should be provided by 2003–04 in the Bedfordshire health authority area, which includes the south of the county. I also learned that that issue did not necessarily revolve around increasing bed provision at acute hospitals, and that the development of intermediate care could lead to a substitution of acute beds by community provision.
I have spent much of my speech emphasising the importance of developing strong community provision, and thereby improving the range of services available to

133WH
people, while taking the pressure off the acute sector. However, I hope that that argument will not be used to weaken the case for the additional capacity that is desperately needed at Bedford hospital. I apologise for not mentioning Luton and Dunstable hospital. I am not speaking against that hospital, but Bedford hospital desperately needs that extra capacity, and it is needed sooner rather than later—certainly sooner than the unambitious goal of 2003–04 that was mentioned by the national beds inquiry.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend mentioned Luton and Dunstable hospital. I support his excellent speech by pointing out that the problems in Bedfordshire are not caused by the inefficiency or the lack of dedication of the staff. On the contrary, they have done a tremendous job, as is demonstrated by the fact that Luton and Dunstable hospital obtained a three-star rating—it is, I understand, the 11th best hospital in the country. The problem is lack of resources.
Mr. Hall: The problem is lack of resources throughout the health economy, not just with regard to hospitals, which is what the media tend to concentrate on: the rest of the NHS matters very much, as my hon. Friend understands.
I am convinced that if a modernised NHS is to be achieved, which all of us want, it will need to include, in Bedfordshire, a strengthening of the acute sector at Bedford hospital, as well as at Luton and Dunstable hospital, and the creation of decent community services, so that a comprehensive and balanced service that puts the needs of patients first is created.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this important debate on the funding of Bedfordshire health services. He has rightly been raising concerns about the matter for a long while.
I want to try to address my hon. Friend's concerns in turn. As he will be aware, the Government's plans for the NHS involve both extra money and reform. It must be reformed to deliver improved and more responsive services to match modern needs, and to ensure that patients have more power and greater choice over services. Reform is also necessary to empower communities to have greater involvement with local services. My hon. Friend mentioned many of those points. They are the reasons why we are shifting the balance of power in the NHS by getting money to the people who are on the front line, so that they can, in consultation with patients and local communities, decide on the services that they need to deliver.
The NHS needs more investment, in Bedfordshire and across the country. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Health announced on 6 December that health authorities in England will receive total allocations of £41.5 billion in 2002–2003. That is an increase of £3.7 billion from this year and represents an average cash increase of 9.9 per cent., which is a real-terms rise of 7.2 per cent. Our key priorities for the money are to make an enhanced effort
134WH
to build capacity and increase activity levels in the national health service. We want to reduce waiting times further, particularly for cardiac patients. We also want to ensure that, by the end of 2002, 90 per cent. of general practitioners see their patients within 48 hours, and we want to enable some patients to choose where and when they are treated for the first time.
Health services in the eastern region will receive an extra £373.4 million. Those extra resources will help us to cut waiting times for treatment and build local health services with more doctors and nurses. The extra funding will also help us to continue the fight against cancer and coronary heart disease—two of the country's biggest killers. Next year, Bedfordshire health authority will receive an increase of £39.1 million, or 10.5 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, that is the fourth largest increase provided to a health authority in England.
My hon. Friend is right to say that Bedfordshire's allocation will remain 4 per cent. below its fair share as calculated under the formula. However, he will recognise that the Government are making sustained additional investment in local health services. In Bedfordshire, that amounts to £100 million extra, or 33 per cent. extra, in the past three years.
The speed at which we move health authorities towards their targets, and the speed at which health authorities move primary care trusts and primary care groups towards their targets, depends on two objectives. First, we want to move health authorities towards equity as represented by weighted capitation targets. Secondly, we want to introduce increases across the board to maintain continuity and stability in the service and make progress nationally in priority areas. As my hon. Friend would agree, every area in the country is in need of additional investment. We are committed to helping health authorities and PCTs reach their target fair shares. We think that that is important. However, that obviously cannot be achieved overnight.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Minister says, understandably, that we cannot reach our targets overnight. Does she accept that we have an enormous distance to go, given that the difference between spending on health in France and spending on health in Britain is the equivalent of £40 million for each constituency every year?
Yvette Cooper: I agree that increased additional investment is needed in the NHS. In the past few years, we have invested substantial additional resources. However, we need national debate on our future direction and the need for additional investment. That debate is on-going, and is informed by the interim report by Derek Wanless.
One of the biggest issues for Bedfordshire is population growth in the county, which means that the target moves every year. We recognise the pressures that population growth creates for Bedfordshire. However, funding in Bedfordshire has increased faster than population growth. The population has grown by 2 per cent. in the past three years, but funding has increased by 33 per cent. As other health authorities have also received large increases, Bedfordshire has remained below its fair shares target.
Mr. Sayeed: Does the Minister acknowledge that Bedfordshire's chronic underfunding—not just by this

135WH
Government but by previous Governments—has resulted in an enormous deficit in its capabilities? I recognise that the underfunding will not be changed overnight. Can the Minister guarantee that during this Government's period in office Bedfordshire will at last get fair shares?
Yvette Cooper: We remain committed to moving areas towards their target fair shares. As I said, different factors need to be borne in mind, as we also need to maintain continuity and stability and to increase investment across the country. We are at present engaged in a review of the formula and how it works. It will have implications for Bedfordshire, and I shall say something about it later.
I agree that there are investment needs throughout the country and in Bedfordshire. However, they must be linked to reform. Investment is already increasing and making a substantial difference in Bedfordshire and elsewhere. More must be done, but it must be conditional on getting the right reforms in place so that the additional investment has the biggest impact.
A review of the existing funding formula used to distribute resources is under way. The NHS plan has made the direction of travel clear: we want reducing inequalities to be a key criterion for allocating additional NHS resources. The review is being carried out under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, which has NHS management, GP and academic members.
We will adopt an incremental approach to the review of resource allocation and to its implementation. We shall move towards fairer resource allocation as improvements become possible. As we said in the NHS plan, by 2003, following the review, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country.
Allocations for the current year and for next year already include a health inequalities adjustment. In part, that replaces the targeted funding for those health authorities such as Bedfordshire with health action zones. Bedfordshire has benefited from the Luton health action zone, which receives £700,000 per year.
Bedfordshire has benefited in other ways from allocations in the current year. An additional £1.1 million was awarded in recognition of the high costs of living, providing a 2.5 per cent. pay rise on top of the review body allocations. For 2002–03, the cost of living supplement has increased to £1.56 million. In addition, £300 million is being invested across the
136WH
country this year and next year to tackle bed blocking by 2004, with the purpose of freeing up 1,000 NHS beds this year alone. In Bedfordshire, that means just under £500,000 being made available in 2001 to free up 25 beds across Bedfordshire, 12 of which will be at Bedford hospital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford mentioned capacity at Bedford hospital. I can confirm that there have been discussions between the trust and the regional office about additional capacity at the hospital. That, as well as improved efficiency, will form part of the strategic and financial framework negotiations for next year. I understand that the trust is looking—
Andrew Selous: The Minister referred to £500,000. Her notes may show that that is the figure over two years. Does she agree that it is set against the £10 million for which Bedfordshire social services is looking to sort out the problem over the next two years?
Yvette Cooper: I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of the allocation. The investment plan to tackle bed blocking is planned over two years but it is also about freeing up capacity in the acute sector.
I understand that the trust plans to open two additional wards in the new financial year. Issues such as investment in services in the community, in primary care and in acute care need to be tackled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford mentioned increased accident and emergency admissions at Bedford hospitals. I can confirm that officials from eastern regional office visited the trust in the summer to discuss the issue. The region and the trust are working together to identify the action required to identify the possible causes of the increased activity in A and E and to improve the accuracy of the data collected on admissions and treatment.
As I said, the Government are determined to increase investment in the NHS but in that regard the NHS also needs to reform to deliver first-class care to patients. The Wanless report identified cumulative underinvestment over at least 30 years but also the need for reform, so that additional resources to Bedfordshire and elsewhere make the biggest possible impact. The biggest and most sustained growth in any four-year period in the history of the NHS was announced in the 2000 Budget. However, we need to look to the long term, so that investment and reform can provide my hon. Friend's constituents and those of other hon. Members with the national health services that they need.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what form consultations with the Government of Gibraltar will take prior to the next meeting with Spain under the terms of the Brussels Process. [21684]

  Peter Hain
  Ministers and officials will continue actively to maintain and pursue contacts with the Chief Minister and Government of Gibraltar.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what future discussion he has planned with the Governor of Gibraltar. [23913]

  Peter Hain
  Normal contacts between Ministers and officials and the Governor of Gibraltar will continue.

  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be taken on the model adopted by Gibraltar for the 2004 European elections; and what discussions he has had with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on the participation of Gibraltar in the 2004 European elections. [24028]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer (UIN 21531) I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 632W.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Spanish Government and (b) EU partners regarding participation of Gibraltar in the 2004 European elections. [24029]

  Peter Hain
  Following the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in Matthews v. UK, the extension of the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar was discussed with our EU partners in the relevant Council working group.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on 5 December 2001, Official Report, column 312W.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to introduce legislation to allow Gibraltar to participate in the 2004 European elections; and when the next round of discussions under the Brussels process will take place. [24030]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 11 December 2001,Official Report,
  304W
  column 800W; and to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on 5 December 2001, Official Report, column 311W.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Southern African Governments about the situation in Zimbabwe. [22721]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ministers and officials at all levels are in regular contact with representatives of Southern African Governments. My noble Friend Baroness Amos has recently spoken to representatives of the South African, Malawian, Mozambican and Zimbabwean Governments, among others. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Botswana Foreign Minister on 3 December and plans to meet him again during the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on 20 December.

  Oman
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Oman. [23231]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State has no plans to visit Oman at present.

  EU Accession
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's position for the date of entry to the European Union of the applicant countries. [23230]

  Peter Hain
  The Laeken European Council (14–15 December) stated its determination to complete accession negotiations by the end of 2002 with those candidates that are ready, so they can participate in the 2004 European Parliament elections as members. The Government welcome these conclusions, which echo the objective set by the Prime Minister in Warsaw last year.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 10 to 11 December; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [23886]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 10 December.

  The GAC adopted the 16 "A" Points listed in document number 15005/01. It also noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its part-session of 12–15 November 2001 in its part-session in Strasbourg listed in document number 13612/01. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Conclusions of the Council were adopted by consensus. The only formal vote took place on the Generalised System of Preferences (see following).
  305W
  Work in other Council Formations
  The Presidency drew attention to the Secretariat's stocktaking report of the main issues being discussed by other sectoral meetings of the Council of Ministers, with particular reference to the European Arrest Warrant, Galileo and the Community Patent.

  Preparations for Laeken (including Council Reform)
  The Presidency issued a draft agenda for the first day of the Laeken summit. The following items featured:

  post-11 September—an updated road-map and report of EU action

  Afghanistan

  the Middle East Peace Process

  the Western Balkans

  ESDP

  Justice and Home Affairs

  EU enlargement

  Economic/social issues (taking forward the Lisbon process to Barcelona, Community Patent, introduction of the euro).

  modalities for a Convention on the Future of the EU

  EU agency locations.

  Enlargement
  Conclusions were agreed by Council underlining the EU's commitment to meeting the Gothenburg timetable, noting that enlargement was affordable within the current financial perspective, welcoming the recent signs of progress in the UN Cyprus process and confirming that the provisions of a Cyprus settlement could be accommodated within the terms of its accession to the EU. The UK welcomed in particular the emphasis on meeting the timetable set at the Gothenburg European Council.

  EU follow-up to 11 September
  The Council, as co-ordinator of the EU's Action Plan against terrorism, examined the updated roadmap outlining the current state of play. It was encouraged by substantial development made, particularly in priority areas. It also welcomed the Presidency's prospective report to the Laeken European Council on the implementation of the Action Plan.

  The Council reached political agreement on EU measures to freeze terrorist assets in pursuit of UN Security Council Resolution 1373. The Council also agreed to consider further the implications of the 11 September attacks for EU non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control policy.

  The Council welcomed progress made on 7 December on the European arrest warrant, a common definition of terrorist offences and minimum sentencing thresholds and a decision to make Eurojust fully operational. It reiterated the Union's commitment to winning the fight against terrorism and welcomed the support of candidate countries as noted at the meeting of the European Conference on 20 October. The UK underlined the need for continuing work to ensure rapid implementation of the commitments made by the Union.

  General System of Preferential Tariffs 2002–04
  The Council adopted by a qualified majority the new GSP Regulation, which provides for enhanced EC trade preferences to developing countries. All member states except Portugal voted for the regulation.
  306W
  Governance White Paper
  The Council noted with interest the measures proposed in the Commission's White Paper on European governance. It undertook to hold a detailed discussion at a subsequent meeting, giving the Commission its reaction in due course and aimed to co-ordinate a plan of action during the first half of 2002. The UK is keen to see a debate on the measures proposed in the White Paper.

  ESDP
  The Presidency's draft report, summarising progress over the last six months on the European Security and Defence Policy, was discussed by Ministers and will be forwarded to the European Council at Laeken. The UK supported the draft report and in particular the emphasis on capabilities.

  Middle East Peace Process
  The Council reiterated its commitment to the Middle East peace process. It concluded that only determined and concerted action by the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and the Russian Federation would help break the cycle of violence and restore the negotiations.

  The Council noted that this required: the reaffirmation and full recognition of Israel's irrevocable right to live in peace and security within internationally recognised borders; the establishment of a viable and democratic Palestinian State; and an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories.

  The Council stated that, as a first step, the following pledges had to be given: by the Palestinian authority to dismantle Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist networks plus a public appeal for an end to the armed intifada; from Israel, a pledge to withdraw its military forces, end extrajudicial executions, lift all restrictions imposed on the Palestinian people, and impose a freeze on settlements.

  The Council asked Javier Solana, High Representative for CFSP, to go to the region and report back to Laeken European Council. The UK supported this proposal.

  Afghanistan
  The Council confirmed the appointment of Klaus Klaiber, a senior German diplomat, as EU Special Representative for Afghanistan. The Council adopted Conclusions underlining the importance of effective donor co-ordination in the reconstruction effort. The UK emphasised the importance of early, visible results.

  Western Balkans
  The Council noted that the planned Macedonia donors' conference would not be held before next year, after the adoption of the local self-government law required by the August 2001 Framework Agreement. It confirmed the appointment of Erhard Busek as EU Special Representative for the Stability Pact.

  AOB: Gender Mainstreaming in the EuroMed/Barcelona Process
  The Presidency reported on its programme for developing gender mainstreaming in the Barcelona Process, highlighting its EuroMed conference on the role of women in economic development.
  307W

  Egypt
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas have been issued for settlement for spouses from Egypt in the last five years. [23777]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The total number of settlement visas issued in Cairo between 1996 and 2000 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  104

  1997

  164

  1998

  185

  1999

  194

  2000

  152

  Note:

  Figures do not distinguish between spouse and other settlement visas. This information could be obtained only by mutual search of Post's records, at disproportionate cost.

  The Home Office has provided the following information on the number of settlement applications received from Egyptian nationals at all ports, which resulted in the applications being accepted.

  Year

  Number

  1996

  190

  1997

  190

  1998

  210

  1999

  210

  2000

  210

  Note:

  Figures for both spouses and unmarried partners, rounded to the nearest five.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Yemen. [23779]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State has no plans to visit Yemen at present.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British diplomatic representation in Kabul. [24543]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Following discussions with the incoming Interim Administration, we expect to renew diplomatic relations with Afghanistan on 22 December and to re-designate the Office of the British Representative in Kabul as an embassy, headed by a Chargé d'Affaires. We last had permanent diplomatic representation in Kabul in 1989. We did not have normal government-to-government dealings with the Taliban regime.

  Data Protection
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the certificates he has signed under section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998, covering personal data processed by(a) the SIS and (b) GCHQ. [24960]
  308W
  Mr. Straw
  On 8 December I revoked Data Protection Act exemption certificates dated 30 July 2000 and issued new ones. I have placed copies of the new certificates, and a statement outlining the reasoning behind their issue, in the Library of the House.

  Regional Funding
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had regarding the implications of European Union enlargement on regional structural fund programmes in Wales. [23981]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have so far been no specific discussions on the implications of EU enlargement for the Structural Funds programmes in Wales. However, as the Minister in the DTI responsible for the Structural Funds, I represented the UK at an informal meeting of EU regional policy Ministers held in Namur on 13 July under the Belgian Presidency of the EU, at which the Structural Funds was the main item on the agenda. More recently, I also touched on the subject with Michel Barnier, European Commissioner responsible for Regional Affairs, during his visit to the UK in early November. On both these occasions I put forward the current UK position that there should be a thorough review of the purpose and added value of the Structural Funds, and of the balance between the role of the EU and that of member states in providing assistance to lagging regions, before we enter into a debate about the implications for different member states, nations and regions of possible future Structural Funds regimes.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 June 2000,Official Report, column 230W, on small businesses, how many of the improvements listed have been instigated; and what is his assessment of (a) the costs and (b) benefits to business therefrom. [19627]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  Heads of Government will review progress on reform undertaken as a result of the Lisbon and Stockholm European Councils at their Council in Barcelona in March 2002.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Trial Delays (Counsel)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the circumstances in which major trials have been delayed recently owing to commitment of Counsel to other cases for which they have agreed to be instructed which are listed at the same time. [24153]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is important that major trials are conducted expeditiously in the interests of justice. Decisions as to the timing of trials are for the judges to determine, bearing in mind the representations that they receive. I am aware of the case to which this question refers, the name of which I am omitting since the matter
  309W
  is sub judice; however, I hope that the following information will be of assistance. The trial was originally fixed to commence on 2 October 2001. Application was made on behalf of one defendant for that date to be vacated due to serious illness rendering him unfit to stand trial. The matter was investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service and an independent medical report confirmed the position.

  The case was therefore listed again before the trial judge to fix a new date. At this hearing it was clear that the first defendant would not be fit for trial for a period of six months. All parties, prosecution and the four defendants, were agreed that it was in the interests of justice that all should be tried together. However, when Counsel for the Crown sought a listing on the first available date in April 2002, six months ahead, Counsel for another defendant opposed this, on the grounds that neither he nor his junior, who had represented their client from the first appearance before the Crown court, would be available until the end of October 2002, and it would be unjust to deprive him of both counsel in those circumstances.

  The Counsel for the prosecution opposed a delay of this length. In the event, the trial judge, having accepted that a delay until April was unavoidable because of the first defendant's illness and having weighed all the competing interests, ruled, with, she said, great reluctance, that the trial should be fixed for 4 November 2002.

  One defendant involved in these proceedings is already serving a sentence of imprisonment having been convicted following an earlier linked trial.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the legal implications for the United Kingdom of the adjudication of the United Nations International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, Ireland v. United Kingdom, on the Sellafield MOX plant, given on 3 December in Hamburg. [22825]

  Peter Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  By its order of 3 December 2002, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea "pending a decision by the Annexe VII arbitral tribunal" prescribed a provisional measure that Ireland and the United Kingdom "shall co-operate and shall for this purpose enter into consultations forthwith in order to:

  (a) exchange further information with regard to possible consequences for the Irish Sea arising out of the commissioning of the MOX plant;

  (b) monitor risks or the effects of the operation of the MOX plant for the Irish Sea;

  (c) devise, as appropriate, measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment which might result from the operation of the MOX plant."

  This provisional measure is legally binding and the United Kingdom will comply fully with it.
  310W

  Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many people were employed in her Department in each of the last four years. [23791]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Cabinet Office.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on the contribution made by the New Audiences Fund to the efforts to widen access to the arts; [22540]

  (2) if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to increase access to the performing arts by attracting new audiences. [22542]

  Dr. Howells
  Attendance figures at organisations funded by the Arts Council of England increased by nearly 2 million between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The contribution of the New Audiences Programme to this improvement is set out in the 2001 DCMS annual report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement to devolve decision-making to the regions; [22561]

  (2) if the New Opportunities Fund has established a network of regionally based staff in pursuit of the PSA target to devolve decision-making to the regions and strengthen regional bodies. [22582]

  Dr. Howells
  The Regional Cultural Consortiums have all produced regional cultural strategies. The Heritage Lottery Fund in England is now devolved to nine separate regional decision-making committees and by April 2002 the fund will open offices in each English region. The New Opportunities Fund now has a regional team and one representative in each region.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to work with the British film industry to implement a new joint funded strategy for the development of the industry; [22543]

  (2) if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to develop film culture and a sustainable domestic film industry; [22564]

  (3) if she will make a statement on progress towards the target for improving strategic mechanisms for influencing anti-fraud standards in sponsored bodies; [22523]

  (4) if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for performance-related funding agreements of non-departmental public bodies. [22560]

  Dr. Howells
  The current position is set out in the Department's 2001 Annual Report (CM5114).
  311W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what standard performance targets have been incorporated in the funding agreements of her Department's sponsored museums and galleries. [22559]

  Dr. Howells
  The following core performance targets appear in the current funding agreements

  Number of total visitors

  Number of adult visitors

  Number of child visitors

  Number of over-60s visitors

  Number of website visits

  Number of UK and overseas loan venues

  Percentage of collection stored in correct environmental conditions

  Percentage of collection internet-accessible

  Number of learners in on-site educational programmes

  Grant-in-aid per visitor

  Average days lost sick per employee excluding long-term sickness.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target of extending social inclusiveness by increasing the involvement of identified priority groups in each of the sectors for which her Department has responsibility. [22552]

  Dr. Howells
  In January this year, DCMS published a sectoral social inclusion strategy for libraries, museums, galleries and archives. Counterpart documents on the historic and built environment and on the arts will follow. In its follow-up report to the work of the Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport, published in February 2201, the Department also presented an action plan for disabled people and an outline action plan for people from ethnic minorities.

  DCMS is working with the Arts Council of England to develop the £40 million Creative Partnerships programme, bringing together arts and media professionals with children in 16 deprived areas. All pilots will be up and running by April 2002. DCMS is also working alongside Department for Education and Skills, the New Opportunities Fund, Sport England and the Arts Council of England on the Space for Sport and Arts programme. This will fund new or renovated sports and arts facilities in around 300 primary schools in 65 deprived local education authority areas.

  The Millennium Commission made decisions on their fifth funding round in June 2001, for projects that reflect the aims and aspirations of ethnic minority communities in the UK. The Commission awarded 10 grants with a total value of £23.6 million. Grants were awarded during 2000 for projects that reflected the aims and aspirations of black communities in the UK.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Public Service Agreement target to transfer her Department's responsibility for underwater archaeology to English Heritage. [22563]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are supporting a Private Member's Bill introduced into another place in July 2001 by Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, which includes provisions that were originally in the Culture and 312W
  Recreation Bill to transfer underwater archaeology to English Heritage. The Bill has completed its passage through the other place and will shortly be introduced into the Commons.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she has made of the margin of failure to achieve the target for reduced sickness absence in the Royal Parks Agency in 2001; [22571]

  (2) what steps she is taking to assist the Royal Parks Agency in meeting its 2003 target for reduced sickness absence. [22570]

  Dr. Howells
  The Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Agency (RPA) is responsible for meeting the targets set for reduced sick absence. He has put in place a strategy to deliver improved performance in this area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State monitors the performance of the parks through a funding agreement. Should the RPA fail to meet any of its targets the Chief Executive is required to report this to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target of increasing visitor numbers in major national museums. [22525]

  Dr. Howells
  Visitors to DCMS sponsored museums and galleries increased by 22 per cent, in 2000–01. Child visitors have increased by up to 20 per cent, since 1 April 1999 and visits from people over 60 increased by 40 per cent, in 2000–01. Free access for all to permanent collections held by DCMS sponsored museums was introduced on 1 December 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target of promoting quality tourism development. [22547]

  Dr. Howells
  Using the performance measure of the level of expenditure in the United Kingdom by domestic and overseas tourists, the target for 2000, £29.1 billion, was exceeded with an outturn of £38.9 billion.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the target for answering external correspondence. [22579]

  Dr. Howells
  In the period April-October 2001 (latest figures) 88 per cent. of all external correspondence was answered within 18 working days.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of improved performance as a result of redeveloped funding agreements with non-departmental public bodies. [22565]

  Dr. Howells
  It is too early to make a full assessment because the new funding agreements came into effect in April of this year. Regular six-monthly reports on the funding agreement targets will be monitored by the Department and will feed into the assessment of progress towards the value-for-money target in the DCMS 2001–04 Public Service Agreement.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the target for the effective use of her Department's estate. [22575]
  313W
  Dr. Howells
  The progress statement in the Department's 2001 Annual Report is still current. With regard to the property at 7 St. James's Square, this has been disposed of by assigning the lease.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of invoices to her Department in 2000–01 were undisputed. [22580]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2000–01, 99.4 per cent, of invoices were undisputed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the target for the review of her Department's services and activities. [22574]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is on schedule to meet its current Service Delivery Agreement target to review 50 per cent, (by expenditure) of its services and activities by December 2004. We completed a review of facilities management, accounting for 8 per cent, of spend, in 1999–2000; the function was contracted out. We are about to carry out a review of the core functions of policy-making and sponsorship of non-departmental public bodies. This review will account for a further 40 per cent, and will be completed during 2002–03. Information technology support (5 per cent.) will be reviewed in 2003–04, when contracts are up for renewal.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for long-term savings in the support for heritage, sport and tourism. [22557]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is currently conducting the second stage of a Quinquennial Review of Sport England and the first stage of a review of English Heritage. These reviews will examine, among other issues, the scope for improvements in efficient, effective and responsive service delivery. Following the reconstitution of the English Tourist Board as the English Tourism Council (ETC), resources have been freed up to allow an increase in support to the English Regional Tourist Boards of over a third.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target of ensuring that public service broadcasters sustain the quality and range of their output. [22544]

  Dr. Howells
  On 13 September 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the BBC approval to launch three new digital television channels—BBC4 and two children's channels—and five new digital radio channels. The approval was subject to conditions, including commitments to high quality, interactivity and the use of home-grown talent and productions. The new channels should educate and inform as well as entertain, and they should attract a wider range of viewers to all digital services. On 4 December 2001, my right hon. Friend received an application from the BBC to launch BBC3, a channel targeted at younger people, which will be considered in accordance with the published criteria for BBC new services.
  314W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for the number of new educational sessions undertaken by arts organisations. [22555]

  Dr. Howells
  Estimates based on returns received by the Arts Council of England indicate that the PSA target has been exceeded.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the target for the disposal of surplus properties at St. Pancras has been achieved. [22568]

  Dr. Howells
  The land to the north of the British Library at St. Pancras has been temporarily transferred to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, for purposes connected with the channel tunnel rail link. Once the land is returned to DCMS, disposal will be considered in the light of available opportunities.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the target for the reduction of running costs as a proportion of the departmental expenditure limit. [22578]

  Dr. Howells
  On the basis of my Department's current expenditure limits for the financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04, the average annual reduction in running costs is forecast to be approximately 4 per cent.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on performance against the target for the Millennium celebrations. [22524]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department remains committed to co-ordinating the Government's interest in the Millennium following an array of successful celebrations during the year 2000. After the closure of the Millennium Experience on 31 December 2000 which was operated by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), the Department has continued to worked closely with the Millennium Commission which is distributing over £2 billion of Lottery funds. The commission has invested carefully and the projects it has funded will leave a lasting legacy for generations to come.

  The commission's projects have created an estimated 13,300 permanent jobs and many capital projects have also acted as a catalyst for the regeneration of key areas throughout the country. Projects have levered in significant additional funding from a wide variety of sources, and the capital projects programme has constituted 1.35 per cent, of the total UK construction industry by value since 1994.

  A study into the economic impact of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich which was jointly commissioned by NMEC, English Partnerships and the London borough of Greenwich, has established that the Dome eventually generated contracts worth more than £500 million for UK companies; generated £385 million in direct spending by visitors on transport, accommodation, catering etc.; provided work for over 7,700 people in construction and over 5,000 in management and operation between 1997 and 2000; and led to the regeneration of nearly 300 acres of formerly derelict, contaminated land.
  315W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to raise standards of care of museum collections and public access to them. [22553]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1999, the Designated Museums Challenge Scheme has provided support for each museum with designated collections. £15 million has been awarded to help improve the care of and access to those collections, in recognition of their outstanding importance. The number of museums in the scheme was increased to 62 in 1999.

  Works of Art
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by the Government since 1 May 1997 on acquiring works of art; and how much has been realised from the sale of works of art. [23073]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1 May 1997 the Government Art Collection has spent £688,000 on purchases of works of art. No works of art have been sold from the Government Art Collection. The Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office has spent approximately £506,501 and the Department for Education and Skills approximately £26,451.

  We have been notified of no other purchases or sales by other Government Departments.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public libraries there were in the Buckingham constituency in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [23749]

  Dr. Howells
  There are eight public libraries in the Buckingham constituency: Buckingham; Haddenham; Ivinghoe; Long Crendon; Steeple Claydon; Stewkley; Wing; and Winslow. This is the same number as in 1997. The Buckingham mobile library (full-time) and the Aylesbury Urban and Aylesbury Rural mobiles (part-time), also serve the constituency.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the percentage of adults in the Buckingham constituency that are library members. [23748]

  Dr. Howells
  Such statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis, and Buckinghamshire do not currently differentiate between adult and child members. However, Buckinghamshire county council's statistics show that 75 per cent, of the population of the county are library members. This is in excess of the national average.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the libraries based in the Buckingham constituency which have received funding from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge indicating(a) the nature of the project, (b) the date of the award and (c) the amount of funding provided in each case. [23747]

  Dr. Howells
  No libraries in the Buckinghamshire constituency have been successful in their applications for match funding from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund since the programme began in 1998.
  316W

  Arts Bodies
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the evidence presented in the Arts Council of England's two consultation periods; and if she will make a statement. [23570]

  Dr. Howells
  Following the first consultation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted to see proposals which created a dynamic new organisation; brought the regions into the heart of the funding system; delegated real decision making to regional level; set challenging targets for administrative savings; was simpler and more consistent for those applying for funding.

  We are confident that the new proposals will deliver this.

  The Secretary of State has just received a progress report following the second consultation exercise and will respond to the Arts Council in due course.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) PFI and (b) PPP contracts her Department maintains; if she will list those contracts, giving their (i) length and (ii) value, and the businesses involved in fulfilling them; what assessment she has made of those contracts; and if she will make a statement. [23575]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has not itself entered into any PFI or PPP contracts. The Royal Parks Agency, which is an executive agency, has entered into one PFI contract, Pembroke Lodge, Richmond, relating to the restoration of building and operation of catering facilities, which is to last for 30 years. Its value is £1 million, and The Hearsum Family Ltd. is fulfilling the contract. The Agency has employed consultants to advise on whether construction works are compliant with the contract.

  Gambling Report
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many responses the Government have received to recommendations(a) 60, (b) 61, (c) 62, (d) 63 and (e) 64 of the Gambling report, indicating how many (i) supported, (ii) opposed and (iii) were in neutral in respect of each recommendation. [23781]

  Mr. Caborn
  By the end of the consultation period we had received 20 responses supporting and 10 opposing recommendation 60, nine responses supporting and seven opposing recommendation 61; 11 responses supporting and 11 opposing recommendation 62; eight responses supporting and 10 opposing recommendation 63; and nine responses supporting and 13 opposing recommendation 64. A very much larger number of responses did not specifically refer to this group of recommendations. Since these we have received a number of further letters from hon. Members enclosing correspondence from constituents operating or employed in businesses involving gaming machines which children may currently play, criticising the recommendations.
  317W
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the impact on the Government's policies to regenerate seaside resorts of the implementation of recommendations 60–64 of the Gambling Review report; [23780]

  (2) what estimate the Government have made of the impact on jobs of the implementation of recommendations 60–64 of the Gambling Review report. [23782]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have not yet completed out consideration of the report.

  Betting Levy Board
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the use by the Betting Levy Board of its general funds to finance a pension shortfall. [23767]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Horserace Betting Levy Board is responsible for its pension commitments and may properly use Levy income for these purposes.

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received about making the Millennium Dome a listed building; what the earliest possible date for listing the Dome would be; and if she will make a statement. [24130]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations this year about making the Dome a listed building. The general rule when looking at buildings for listing is that those less than 10 years old are not eligible for consideration. There is no reason for us to adopt a different policy for the Millennium Dome.

  Public Entertainment Licences
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding the issuing of public entertainment licences; and if she will make a statement. [24133]

  Dr. Howells
  Representations from hon. Members, industry, performers and licensing law practitioners concerning public entertainment licensing law have tended to fall into five main categories. These are concerns about inconsistent approaches adopted by different licensing authorities; the scope for local licensing authorities to impose disproportionate and burdensome requirements on smaller venues; the duplication of the requirements with the fire safety and health and safety regulations; some evidence of excessive fee charging; and the limitations on the exemption from public entertainment licensing for public houses in the Licensing Act 1964. Changes to public entertainment licensing laws require primary legislation, and our reform of the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws will address these anxieties. We shall present the necessary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  "Time for Reform"
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to implement the 318W
  proposals outlined in 'Time for Reform'; what estimate she has made of the time scale for implementation; and if she will make a statement. [24132]

  Dr. Howells
  We remain fully committed to the proposals set out in the White Paper "Time for Reform" and intend to introduce legislation to implement them. The timetable for implementation inevitably depends on when it will be possible to introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament and this will be done as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 889W, on capital assets, if she will place in the Library information on the accounting treatment of the public private partnership projects relating to (a) British Library corporate bibliographic services, (b) British Library provision of catering services and (c) the Royal Parks Embassy Pembroke Lodge; and if she will make a statement. [24258]

  Dr. Howells
  The contract for the British Library corporate bibliographic services project has been terminated. I refer the hon. Member to the Minister for Sport's letter of 18 November 2001 to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The British Library provision of catering services project is treated as the purchase of services and is accounted for off balance sheet. The Royal Parks Agency Pembroke Lodge project is accounted for on balance sheet in accordance with the Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Standard Accounting Practice—Accounting for Leases and Hire Purchase Contracts.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date she received the responses to consultations about the Arts Council of England's proposals to merge the regional arts boards to create a single organisation for arts funding; and if she will place a copy of the responses in the Library. [24080]

  Dr. Howells
  The Arts Council of England has submitted a progress report on its proposed reorganisation on 29 November 2001. This includes a summary of responses to the consultation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will respond to this in due course.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date she received the business plan supporting the Arts Council of England's proposals to merge the regional arts boards to create a single organisation for arts funding; and if she will place a copy of the plan in the Library. [24081]

  Dr. Howells
  On 29 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a progress report on which she will respond shortly.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the
  319W
  Chairman of the Arts Council of England's handling of the proposals to merge the regional arts boards to create a single organisation for arts funding. [24077]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have every confidence in the ability of the Chairman of the Arts Council to deliver a streamlined system for funding the arts in this country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a progress report to which she will respond shortly.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will assess the Arts Council of England's proposals to create a single organisation for arts funding against the criteria for new organisations established by her Department. [24082]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a progress report from the Arts Council of England, which she will assess against her original criteria. These are to create a dynamic new organisation which brings regions to the heart of the funding system, delegates decision making, sets challenging targets for administrative savings and is simpler and more consistent for those applying for funding.

  Go Digital
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Go Digital research programme. [24079]

  Dr. Howells
  The Go Digital pilot project, being led by the Independent Television Commission, and comprising Government and industry partners, has been established to trial the conversion of 300 homes to digital television. Its aim is to address technical and social issues related to switchover. We expect the conversion of 30 homes comprising the first phase of the trial to take place early in 2002.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the funding of arts in England. [24076]

  Dr. Howells
  Arts funding in England is now higher than it has ever been. Funding will rise to £338 million by 2003–04 which represents an increase of over £100 million over four years.

  Arts Subsidies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the total spending by her Department in the next 12 months in subsidising(a) live drama, (b) art galleries, (c) ballet, (d) opera and (e) literature. [24394]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport allocates funds to the Arts Council of England, which in turn allocates funds to the regional arts boards as appropriate, and to those arts organisations that it deems most deserving and which meet the criteria set for the various funding programmes. The Department allocated a total of £252.2 million to the Arts Council for 2001–02 and £297 million to the Arts Council for 2002–03.
  320W

TREASURY

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients will pay an effective marginal tax rate of 40 per cent, as a result of the pension credit. [14444]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  Most pensioners do not pay tax. Very few of those receiving pension credit will be liable. Pension credit is not taxable.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many formal notices his Department has received in the last year from the Parliamentary Ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18761]

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

  Since 1 April 2001, the Treasury has received three new statutory statements of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. So far, the Treasury has responded to all three of these cases, and the average time taken to respond overall is 24 days.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy not to allow(a) social insurance, (b) a ring-fenced hypothecated tax and (c) additional health user charges as solutions for the future funding mechanism for the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [23659]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have made their commitment to increasing resources over the next three years for the NHS, funded from general taxation and linked to reform. Decisions on taxation and spending will be taken in future Budgets and in the spending review next year.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the FSA complied with the service level agreement concluded on 18 December 1998 in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [13256]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 9 November 2001,Official Report, columns 489–90W.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the reserves of using them for compensation payments for Equitable Life policy-holders. [14387]

  Ruth Kelly
  Equitable Life's reserves are a matter for the board of Equitable life and its members.
  321W

  Treasury Website
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the latest overhaul of the HM Treasury website cost; and what the breakdown of spending on the website has been in each year since 1997. [18307]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury's new website was launched in November this year and replaces the site originally launched in 1994, which was struggling to cope with the levels of traffic it attracted on Budget day.

  The new site is designed to cope with the growing demands being placed upon the Treasury's website, to offer a better service to the public, and to ensure that the Treasury is prepared for future technological developments.

  On PBR day the new site was accessed by 20,000 visitors who between them downloaded 183,250 separate documents. This represents a 50 per cent, growth in the number of recorded visitors to the site compared with Budget 2001. There were no reports of anyone being unable to access the site.

  This new, more robust site employs completely new computer hardware and software so that it can handle both the tens of thousands of visitors that it receives on Budget day and the increasing number of Treasury documents being made available on the site. The latest version of the site includes new services, such as a comprehensive search facility. It is also designed to cope with emergent technologies, such as mobile internet devices and digital television.

  The total cost of launching the new site was £240,595. This included the costs of purchasing new computer hardware and software, software development and integration, and web page design.

  This is the first capital expenditure by the Treasury on the www.hm-treasury.gov.uk site since it was launched in 1994.

  This investment is intended to ensure that the Treasury is ready to meet its current and future information obligations.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what HM Treasury's estimate is of the asset mix of UK pension funds in(a) 2005 and (b) 2010; [23764]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his assessment of the implications of current trends in respect of the equity/bond asset mix of UK pension funds for (a) overall equity risk and (b) access to equity finance for small companies. [23760]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has made no forecast of the asset mix of UK pension funds. However, it keeps developments in financial markets under constant review.

  War Risk Insurance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost was of the Government's decision to underwrite the third party war risk insurance for UK airline and service providers. [22963]
  322W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The total cost of the scheme is unquantifiable at this time, as it depends on potential claims—if any—made under the scheme to the Treasury as reinsurer. Full details of the scheme and the liabilities entered into were submitted to Parliament in a Treasury Minute of 28 November 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the question of 15 October from the hon. Member for Hertsmere, on the subject of fraud and the WFTC. [23151]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so today, at columns 323–24W.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to(a) encourage and (b) enable the public to provide information about fraudulent or improper claims for working families tax credit or other tax credits. [23308]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue treats all information received from members of the public about suspected fraud, including tax credit fraud, very seriously. Members of the public are able to inform the Inland Revenue about potential fraudulent or improper claims to tax credits in a number of ways. They can write to or telephone the Tax Credit Office or a local office or telephone a helpline, including the Benefits Anti-fraud Hotline. The Tax Credit Office also has a Childcare Tax Credit Hotline for child care providers to give information of suspected improper claims for child care costs.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers have been(a) investigated and (b) prosecuted in respect of fraudulent claims for (i) working families tax credit and (ii) other tax credits in each year since the relevant credit commenced. [23309]

  Dawn Primarolo
  (a) In 2000–01, routine checks were carried out on the payroll records of approximately 6,800 employers who made payments of tax credits to their employees. The checks established that the vast majority of employers were operating tax credit payments correctly.

  In addition, 199 employer cases were taken up by local offices for action in 2000–01 where the Tax Credit Office suspected error or breakdown of the payment system. Of those cases
  13 resulted in recovery of tax credits and payment of penalties;
  161 were settled in other ways, for instance by giving educational assistance and explanations to the employer, that enabled the employee to receive the tax credits due to them;
  25 cases are still working, and the outcome is not yet known.
  (b) There have been no prosecutions of employers in respect of tax credits.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) investigations, (b) penalties and (c) prosecutions in respect of (i) working families tax credit and (ii) disabled person's tax credit involved the child care tax credit in each year since the credit commenced. [23306]
  323W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The following table lists the number of investigations, penalties and prosecutions involving child care for working families and disabled person's tax credits, broken down into financial years since the schemes began in October 1999.

  Period

  Child care investigations

  Penalties

  Prosecutions

  Working families tax credit

  1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000

  55

  2

  0

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  263

  0

  0

  1 April 2001 to 30 November 2001

  100

  0

  0

  Disabled person's tax credit

  1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000

  1

  0

  0

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  14

  0

  0

  1 April 2001 to 30 November 2001

  5

  0

  0

  Tax Credit Claims
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance is given to resource officers concerning tax credit claims where the claimant is allegedly in receipt of payment at a rate beneath the minimum wage. [23310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue computer system prompts staff looking at working families tax credit applications to check whether the National Minimum Wage is being paid for each employment. The Employment Relations Act 1999 makes provision for information about apparent non-compliant employers to be passed to the National Minimum Wage Unit for further investigation.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department spent to counter fraud in the working families tax credit in nominal terms and expressed as a percentage of the total working families tax credit expenditure in the last three years. [1151]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent of fraud in working families tax credit; how many prosecutions have been undertaken in respect of such fraud; and what plans he has to tackle fraud in WFTC. [7471]

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the level of WFTC fraud; and if he will make a statement; [18884]

  (2) how many investigations have been conducted into WFTC fraud; and how many successful prosecutions there have been since the commencement of the scheme. [18885]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) investigations of fraudulent claims, (b) penalties for fraudulent claims, (c) prosecutions of fraudulent claims and (d) successful prosecutions for fraudulent claims there have been in respect of the working families tax credit, since its introduction, broken down into (i) monthly and (ii) quarterly periods. [2272]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: The Inland Revenue is currently undertaking an exercise to benchmark the level of fraud within the working families tax credit. The full results of this will be known early next
  324W
  year. The findings of this exercise will then be used by the Inland Revenue to ensure that WFTC compliance work is adjusted if necessary.

  The Revenue's approach to compliance is based on the progressive use of civil penalties, and prosecution in cases of criminal fraud.

  The tables show the number of WFTC applications investigated by the Inland Revenue for the period from October 1999 (when the scheme began) to September 2001. Of the applications investigated for this period, 8,852 were closed in the Department's favour by recovering overpaid tax credits. At present, there are 7,560 WFTC investigations under way.

  Month ending

  WFTC investigations opened in period

  Total WFTC investigations opened for quarter ending

  1999

  October

  0

  —

  November

  608

  —

  December

  730

  1,338

  2000

  January

  1,518

  —

  February

  3,009

  —

  March

  5,189

  9,716

  April

  2,620

  —

  May

  2,930

  —

  June

  2,987

  8,537

  July

  3,012

  —

  August

  3,797

  —

  September

  2,368

  9,177

  October

  1,553

  —

  November

  2,135

  —

  December

  1,692

  5,380

  2001

  January

  2,446

  —

  February

  2,483

  —

  March

  2,393

  7,322

  April

  1,257

  —

  May

  1,317

  —

  June

  1,486

  4,060

  July

  2,749

  —

  August

  1,349

  —

  September

  1,615

  5,713

  Number

  Approximate number of penalties imposed for false WFTC applications1

  478

  Number of successful prosecutions for false WFTC applications1

  13

  Number of prosecutions for false WFTC applications1

  22

  Number of prosecutions pending as at 22 November 2001

  9

  1October 1999 to September 2001

  While tax credit applications are received and processed centrally, compliance work associated with them is also undertaken in network offices throughout the UK and consequently it is not possible to answer specific questions about the proportion of the Inland Revenue's compliance costs that relate to Tax Credits.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome is of the Inland Revenue benchmarking exercise to establish the level of fraud in
  325W
  tax credit claims; if he will place a copy of reports received from the Inland Revenue (a) relating to this exercise and (b) otherwise concerned with fraud in tax credit, in the Library; by what criteria the seriousness of fraud cases is assessed with a view to prosecution; and if he will make a statement. [23228]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 3 April 2001,Official Report, column 154W. The Inland Revenue assess cases for prosecution according to their published prosecution policy, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Gentleman.

  Rebated Fuels
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for consultation on the proposal to introduce an approval scheme for distributors of rebated fuels. [25096]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise today published a formal consultation document on this proposal, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  National Statistics Code of Practice
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the National Statistics Code of Practice will be released for public consultation. [25097]

  Ruth Kelly
  The National Statistics Code of Practice, which represents a significant step in the implementation of the proposals contained in the White Paper "Building Trust in Statistics" (Cm 3882), is being published today. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses and electronic copies are accessible via the National Statistics website www.statistics.gov.uk. The code sets out the professional standards applicable to National Statistics, the range of official statistics that together provide an accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK economy and society.

  The public consultation will end on 28 March 2002. Responses should be sent by post to James Denman, Room D4/12, ONS, 1 Drummond Gate, London, SW1V 2QQ, or via e-mail to codeofpractice@statistics.gov.uk. Hard copies of the consultation documents are available from either of these addresses.

  Debt Management
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the UK Debt Management Office's debt management accounts. [25098]

  Ruth Kelly
  The first published Debt Management Account covering the period 15 November 1999 to 31 March 2001 is being laid before the House and published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of the introduction 326W
  of the aggregates levy in Scotland; and what the cost will be to Scottish local authorities per year in each of the five years after April 2002. [23954]

  Mr. Boateng
  No estimates have been made.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what aid the Government will provide to businesses in Scotland which will be affected by the aggregates levy. [23955]

  Mr. Boateng
  The aggregates levy receipts will be returned to business through a 0.1 percentage point reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, and the £35 million Sustainability Fund. The Government will not provide specific aid to businesses affected by the levy because their objective is to provide an incentive to make more efficient use of virgin aggregate and to use more recycled or alternative materials.

  Tax Credit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by the Inland Revenue in investigating fraudulent claims for tax credits. [22941]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 31 December 2001, there were a total of 542 Inland Revenue staff involved in investigating possible false applications for tax credits. This figure comprises 27 Investigators and 226 support staff employed centrally at the Tax Credit Office. There are a further 247 Inland Revenue Network staff who also deal with tax credit investigations, and a specialist team of 42 staff dealing with the most serious cases including those resulting in prosecution.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value is of(a) overpayments and (b) penalties recovered by the Inland Revenue as a result of fraud investigations in respect of each tax credit in each year since their introduction. [22929]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I will write to the hon. Member about this matter and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised by air passenger duty in each year since 1997. [24027]

  Mr. Boateng
  Receipts of air passenger duty for the financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are published in Table A1 of the tables and statistics accompanying the HM Customs and Excise Annual Report for 2000, available on the Customs and Excise website www.hmce.gov.uk/general/about/index.htm—scroll down to 'Annual Report 2000', click on 'Tables and Statistics'.

  Details for the year 2000–01 can be found in the National Statistics Publication "Financial Statistics" Table 2. ID.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the VAT which will be forgone in this financial year as a result of the new stamp duty exemptions for properties where the price does not exceed £150,000. [23761]
  327W
  Mr. Boateng
  The stamp duty exemption will have no direct impact on VAT receipts. Any VAT due on the sale of a property is charged before stamp duty is calculated.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23783]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 256W.

  National Insurance
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the national insurance fund is in surplus. [23978]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 2 of the report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2001 (Cm 4933), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the first stage of the changes to NIRS2 needed to support the introduction of stakeholder pensions was completed by the October deadline. [24236]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The first stage of changes to NIRS2 needed to support the introduction of stakeholder pensions was delivered on time and to the required standard.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason it was decided to base entitlement to the child tax credit and the working tax credit on current year income. [24232]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such decision has been taken. It has been decided that tax credits will be based on the income of a tax year. The Tax Credits Bill allows for a variety of approaches to responding to changes in income as between one year and the next.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of total compliance costs for employers the reduction listed in paragraph 2.20 of the Inland Revenue Regulatory Impact Assessment for the new tax credits is; and if he will make a statement. [24129]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated recurrent compliance costs to business of the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit were set out in paragraph 44 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Tax Credits Act 1999 and accompanying regulations (December 1999).

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library(a) a summary and (b) a complete set of the responses to the Inland Revenue consultation paper, "New Tax Credits". [24241]
  328W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury issued a summary of the responses to the Inland Revenue's consultation paper, "New Tax Credits: supporting families, making work pay and tackling poverty" (July 2001). This summary was attached to a Treasury press notice of 29 November 2001 (no. 132/01). A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. A complete set of responses, except for those we have been asked to keep confidential, has also been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the minimum age of working tax credit recipients will be. [24233]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Workers with a disability or with children will be eligible for the working tax credit from the age of 16. The minimum age for those without children or a disability is to be set at 25, since those aged 25 or over are more likely to face severe financial barriers to work or suffer persistent poverty.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether entitlement to the child tax credit and the working tax credit will be based on net income. [24231]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. The Government have decided, in the light of representations received in response to consultation, that entitlement to the working tax credit and the child tax credit will be based on gross income.

  Public Expenditure
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference between the initial voted annually managed expenditure and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, "Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn", for the accounting and other adjustments category; and if he will make a statement. [24109]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury document "Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn" presented early estimates of annually managed expenditure accounting adjustments in 2000–01, based on the difference between published national accounts estimates of total spending and Treasury estimates for the identified individual components of spending. Updated estimates, which remain provisional, of the outturn for 2000–01 were published in the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318), Table B13. The pre-Budget report also includes, in Table B15, a detailed breakdown of accounting and other adjustments.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for (1) what reason the final departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn rows relating to the Capital Modernisation Fund in Table 1 of the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn are blank; and if he will make a statement; [24106]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001, Official Report, columns 769–70W, for what reason the Capital Modernisation Fund capital budget line for financial year 2000–01, Table B16 of the Treasury document, 'pre-Budget report 2001' is blank; and if he will make a statement. [24126]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The line for the CMF 2000–01 is left blank in the public expenditure outturn white paper and the pre-Budget report because the fund for that
  329W
  year was fully allocated to Departments. Allocations for 2001–01 from the CMF have been drawn down into the capital Expenditure Limits for individual departments and will be included in the outturn figures for those departments.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people arriving in the Channel ports in each of the last four years were found to have(a) alcohol and (b) tobacco in excess of EC-defined minimum guide levels; what proportion were unable to satisfy Customs that those goods were for their own use; and if he will make a statement; [23257]

  (2) how many people were stopped by HM Customs at the Channel ports in each of the past four years. [23256]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: While Customs do maintain and publish records on the number of people they have searched and on the numbers of seizures they have made, there are no records either of the total numbers of people spoken to by Customs officers or of the qualities of goods they were carrying.

  Customs use the indicative levels set out in EC legislation as a guide to help distinguish between goods being imported for individuals' own use and goods which may be being imported for a commercial purpose. Customs then consider a range of other factors in order to determine whether goods are actually being brought into the UK for a commercial purpose.

  It is estimated that—in the majority of cases—those individuals with goods in excess of the indicative levels who were stopped and asked questions by Customs when entering the Channel ports in 2000–01 were able to demonstrate that the goods they are carrying were for their own use and were allowed to travel on freely.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has set a specific target for the rate of checks to be carried out by HM Customs and Excise on spirits consignments entering this country under duty suspension, pursuant to paragraph 4.23 of 'Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud'. [23273]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: No specific targets have been set.

  Excise Warehouses
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to strengthen the controls on bonded warehouses within the United Kingdom; [23275]

  (2) when he will complete the review of excise warehouse approvals. [23274]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: Customs have already begun to strengthen the controls on excise warehouses by increasing the number of visits made to excise warehouses and by extending the range of checks performed during those visits. Customs are also tightening up procedures for the approval of warehouse premises and for the authorisation and registration both of warehouse-keepers and of the owners of excise goods held in warehouses. A review of current warehouse approvals will be completed by 31 March 2002.
  330W

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, 'Winning the Generation Game',(a) what progress his Department has made and (b) what future plans his Department has for acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24204]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the preliminary technical work to be undertaken before the assessment of the five economic tests for Euro entry will be completed. [24825]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the Five Tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment has not yet started, but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment within two years as promised—is under way.

  Asbestos Victims
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what measures he will introduce to stop companies and insurers avoiding their asbestos liabilities; [24878]

  (2) if he will ensure that Treasury officials assist the lawyers acting for UK claimants to co-ordinate their claims against Turner and Newall with lawyers working for creditors against Federal Mogul; [24877]

  (3) what money Turner and Newall put aside for future asbestos claims; and (a) whether this constitutes a trust and (b) how it is affected by the administration order; [24879]

  (4) when he expects the stop that has been placed on compensation cheques by Turner and Newall to be lifted; [24880]

  (5) what action he will take to ensure that the interests of UK asbestos victims are protected during (a) the administration of Turner and Newall and (b) the Chapter II reorganisation of Federal Mogul pending in the USA bankruptcy court in Wilmington, Delaware; [24876]

  (6) what was the basis of the financial package Turner and Newall agreed with a consortium of European re-insurers to cap their asbestos liabilities in November 1996; [24883]

  (7) if he will set up a public inquiry (a) to examine the sale of Turner and Newall to Federal Mogul and (b) to ascertain whether the company has been managed in accordance with good business practice; [24881]

  (8) what the trading position of Turner and Newall is; and on what date it formally stopped trading in the U.K. [24875]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since 1 October, Turner and Newall have been operating under an Administration Order, and as a consequence all legal actions against the company have been stayed. They are continuing to trade. We understand
  331W
  the driver for the administration is to crystallise asbestos claims in the US and UK in a consistent and fair manner so the company can arrange for their payments. The administrators are exploring ways of trying to resolve this problem, and if necessary will seek direction from the courts to do that. We do not yet know when the stay on legal actions will be lifted. The insurance and compensation arrangements surrounding asbestos-related claims against Turner and Newall are very complex, and not yet completely clear. Officials are in contact with the administrators and are looking into this as a matter of urgency. Therefore I am not able to make further comments about Turner and Newall's insurance arrangements or payment of compensation claims.

  Once the situation is clear the Government will be in a position to assess whether and what action is required.

  User Fees
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the 2001 IMF Article IV consultation, Concluding Statement, regarding user fees; and if he will make a statement. [23759]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have made their commitment to increasing resources for the NHS over the next three years funded from general taxation and linked to reform. Decisions on taxation and spending will be taken in future Budgets and the Spending Review next year.

  Government Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecast is for total Government underspend in this financial year; and what the figures are for(a) health and (b) education. [20472]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We make no forecast. Provisional outturn data on Supply spending for the Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills and other departments for the first six months of this financial year was shown in Table 1.6 of the Winter Summary Supplementary Request for Supply (HC391) presented on 4 December.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when and on how many occasions the Chairman and individual members of the Commission have received complaints concerning the conduct of the Commissioner for Standards. [23666]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: No complaints have been received by the Commission and no individual Commissioner has raised a complaint with the Commission.

  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will consult the Committee on Standards in Public Life on where 332W
  responsibility should lie for the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; and if he will make a statement. [23321]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in its first report (Cm 2850), page 43, that the House of Commons itself should take responsibility for appointing a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the selection process now under way, the House of Commons Commission proposes to make a recommendation to the House. Any change in the method of appointment would be a matter for decision by the House.

  Select Committee on Standards and Privileges
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the annual cost was of meeting the staffing needs of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges in each year since its establishment; and what his estimate is of the(a) funding requirements and (b) staffing needs of the Select Committee in the next three years. [23665]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: The staff of the Committee consisted of the following:

  Date

  As Clerk of the Committee:

  November 1995 to October 1997

  1 principal clerk

  November 1997 to present

  1 deputy principal clerk

  As Second Clerk:

  November 1995 to October 1999

  1 senior clerk

  November 1999 to October 2000

  1 assistant clerk

  November 2000 to present

  1 senior clerk

  and, as secretary:

  November 1995 to present

  1 secretary grade 3

  all of whom had other duties in the Department of the Clerk of the House. It is not possible to specify precisely how much time each of these staff devoted to the work of the Committee, and so it is not possible to calculate a total attributable cost.

  The Committee on Standards and Privileges will continue to be funded and staffed on the same basis as other Select Committees, commensurate with the work load.

  Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many times the Commission has met in the past two years; how this body is serviced; how many staff at what grades are attached to the Commission; what the job title is of each post; by what method the staff are recruited; what the breakdown is of employees by(a)gender and (b) ethnicity; and what plans he has to make the work of the Commission more transparent. [23664]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: In the two years to 31 December 2001 the Commission will have met 19 times.
  333W
  The Commission is advised and assisted by the Finance and Services Committee and the five Domestic Committees, by the Board of Management, and by other Committees, Chairmen, individual Members and Officers of the House, according to the business under consideration. It draws upon outside advice when appropriate.

  The Secretary to the Commission is a Principal Clerk, who also serves as Clerk of the Finance and Services Committee and as a Clerk at the Table. On Commission business he is supported by one Grade 2 Secretary (this post is job shared) and one Grade 3 Secretary, who also help support the Finance and Services Committee and the Domestic Committees. All four staff are permanent members of the House of Commons Services; all were recruited by open competition. Three are female and one is male. Ethnic origin information is provided by staff in confidence; it is the House's practice not to disclose the ethnic mix of small groups of staff, in order to maintain that confidence.

  The Commission reports on its work in its Annual Report, which also includes sections on the Board of Management, and on the performance and plans of individual Departments. It now includes the Annual Report of the Audit Committee. The latest Report, for 2000–01 (HC 155 of Session 2001–02), is available from the Vote Office and on the internet. The Commission is seeking further to improve content and presentation in the Annual Report for 2001–02. In addition, it has approved intranet webpages covering the Audit Committee, the Board of Management and the Office of the Clerk, as well as the Commission itself. These will be available shortly.

  Standards Commissioner
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will establish an inquiry into reports of briefing against the Standards Commissioner. [22723]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 2001, c. 2W]: The Parliamentary Commissioner has now replied to Mr. Speaker's letter of 6 December. Following discussion at the meeting of the Commission on 18 December Mr. Speaker has passed the Parliamentary Commissioner's letter to the Standards and Privileges Committee for consideration.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will submit their second Annual Report as required by paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 7 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [24959]

  Mr. Browne
  I have today laid before Parliament the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's second Annual Report.
  334W

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21324]

  Dr. John Reid
  The NIO (and its agencies) currently employs one person under the new deal for young people. New dealers are recruited to the NIO on a subsidised basis and take up existing vacancies. Therefore extra costs are limited to the subsidy and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot be readily identified.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times since November 2000 Ministers from the Cabinet Office have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet locally based businesses. [19076]

  Mr. Leslie
  There have been five visits to the Teesside area by Cabinet Office Ministers since November 2000, involving meetings with locally based businesses.

  Cross-Government Communications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if new electronic tools for cross-Government communication, presentation, policy analysis and development were delivered by April. [21462]

  Mr. Leslie
  Yes. The Government's programme of work to ensure that the UK is a world leader in the knowledge economy were published on 4 December 2001 in the Second UK Online Report. This includes details of the UK strategy for transforming Government, empowering people to make the best of new technology, and putting in place the infrastructure for e-Government (please see Chapter 5 of the report, available at: hhtp: //www.e-envoy.gov.uk/ukonline/progress/anrep2001/ default.htm).

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on progress since April 2000 in meeting the public service agreement target for promoting the needs of women in society; [21258]

  (2) in pursuit of the PSA target on women's interests, by what means his Department has involved the Treasury in realising the potential of women in addressing the productivity gap. [21259]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is no public service agreement target for promoting the needs of women in society nor is there a public service agreement on women's interests. However, the Government are committed to bringing about practical improvements to women's lives that benefit society as a whole. The Women and Equality Unit, a cross-cutting unit within the Cabinet Office, supports the Ministers for Women in delivering these changes.
  335W
  For example, next year I will be running a series of seminars to encourage more women to take up public appointments.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, 'Winning the Generation Game',(a) what progress his Department has made and (b) what future plans his Department has for acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24205]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Civil Service is committed to the active employment of older people. Figures for April 2000, for example, show that the Civil Service as a whole has more staff in the 55–75 age group (47,680) than it does in the 16–24 age group (31,770). In the light of the recommendations in the "Winning the Generation Game" report, Departments and agencies have been considering what further action they can take to improve their record by offering more options for employees over 50 to work in different ways and at different levels towards the end of their working lives.

  The Cabinet Office is in the process of collecting data from Departments on their current position in considering each of the recommendations of the "Winning the Generation Game" report in order to have a full picture in the new year.

  I will write to the hon. Member once all Departments have provided the information.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for Vote XVII, Cabinet Office, subcategory 3 Cabinet Office: civil superannuation; and if he will make a statement. [24113]

  Mr. Leslie
  Full details of outturn against 2000–01 voted provision will be published in the appropriation accounts to be presented to the House of Commons by 31 January. The resource accounts on an accruals basis will also be presented to the House of Commons by 31 January.

DEFENCE

  Drug Misuse
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken on trends in the percentage of service personnel testing positive for controlled substances. [23693]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since routine, random compulsory drug testing became regular practice across the three services in 1998, the percentage of armed forces personnel proving positive has only risen from 0.45 per cent, to 0.54 per cent, (in 2000) of the total number tested. The services reflect the society from which they are recruited and employ mainly 336W
  young people who are at an age when they are most vulnerable to drug misuse. In addition to rigorous single service drug education programmes, the compulsory drug testing programme is a specific deterrent against the misuse of drugs by service personnel. Despite the comparatively low number of personnel who return positive results, the services continue to examine their drugs policies to remain vigilant against the problem.

  Recent improvements in drug testing methods have given the Ministry of Defence a more reliable detection capability for the Class A drug, Ecstasy. While this and an increase in the number of service personnel being tested generally, year on year, is reflected in the overall number of positive findings, our enhanced drug testing capability is viewed as a positive measure against members of the armed forces misusing drugs.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many convictions there were for drug-related offences among armed forces personnel in each year since 1995; [23694]

  (2) which units have been subjected to compulsory drug testing since January 2000; and how many personnel tested positive in each unit, broken down by substance. [23692]

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

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of children of armed forces personnel have special educational needs. [23206]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no remit on service personnel to inform the Ministry of Defence when their children have special educational needs. Therefore, this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Submarines
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which submarines will receive the final stage of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar Update; and for what reasons the remaining fleet submarines are not receiving this upgrade. [23618]

  Mr. Ingram
  The submarines which will receive the final stage of the update are HMS Torbay, HMS Trenchant, HMS Talent and HMS Triumph.

  The remaining Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class submarines have insufficient remaining planned service life for the procurement and fitting of the final phase of the update to be cost effective.

  Sea Eagle Missile
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile will be withdrawn from service; and what anti-surface capability the aircraft carriers will have after the withdrawal of the Sea Eagle missile. [24025]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision to withdraw the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile from service in April 1999 was taken as a consequence of the Strategic Defence Review. The review
  337W
  concluded that since the end of the cold war the threat of open ocean warfare had reduced and that the requirement for air launched anti-surface ship capability had diminished. While our carriers no longer possess an organic anti-surface ship capability, they would normally operate as part of a Maritime Task Group whose component escorting vessels would typically be armed with a potent mixture of anti-surface weapons including the long range, ship launched Harpoon missile and the helicopter launched Sea Skua missile.

  Leisure Time (Submarine Crews)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the set number of hours given over to downtime for sleep and rest in every 24 hours are for submarine naval officers; and if he will make a statement. [23288]

  Mr. Ingram
  Warfare officers in submarines operate in a six hours on, six hours off watch-keeping routine when at sea in a nuclear powered attack submarine. Their 12 hours off watch in each 24-hour period are used for sleep, meals, rest and recreation as well as dealing with routine administrative work.

  Submarine Officers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is expected to have been completed by submarine officers before being left as duty officers of a nuclear powered cruise missile-equipped submarine; and if he will make a statement. [23286]

  Mr. Ingram
  All Royal Navy warfare officers undergo a lengthy period of training, progressing from general naval training to specific disciplines, such as navigation, to the level of detail necessary to conduct safely a warfare officer's first appointment. Beyond this, submariners sub-specialise and receive an appropriate level of training tailored to meet the particular demands of watch-keeping in submarines.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment is made of the competency and physical fitness of officers before they are placed in charge of a nuclear powered submarine; and if he will make a statement. [23291]

  Mr. Ingram
  Any officer appointed to a submarine is required to be assessed as medically fit for his duty. A comprehensive training and assessment regime is in place to ensure that such officers possess the professional ability and competence required by their duties. This includes a Basic Sea Qualification, which all officers must undertake in the submarine in which they are serving; this is a stringent test to ensure that they have knowledge of the systems onboard required to operate the boat effectively and safely.

  HMS Triumph
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to hold an inquiry into the events which led to the court martialling of Lieutenant Ashley Philpott and Lieutenant Ian Tabberer; and if he will make a statement. [23302]
  338W
  Mr. Ingram
  A full board of inquiry was held into the circumstances surrounding the grounding of HMS Triumph immediately after the incident occurred in November 2000. It is not intended to hold another inquiry.

  Spanish Airspace
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of UK military aircraft avoiding Spanish airspace over the last year. [23814]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: This information is not held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many joint military operations with(a) other EU partners and (b) non-EU states have taken place in Gibraltar in each of the last three years. [23815]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: None.

  HMS Gannet
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost is of the HMS Gannet site, including rates and utilities. [23935]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: The total cost of the HMS Gannet site, including rents, rates, utilities and property management, is in the order of £1.736 million per year, inclusive of VAT.

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if serving personnel based at HMS Gannet are renting private accommodation to armed forces personnel based at HMS Gannet(a) as part of the Hambros scheme and (b) by other methods. [23936]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Three Naval personnel, currently serving at HMS Gannet, are renting accommodation which they own to other armed forces personnel also based at HMS Gannet. The property involved is rented by Hambros Countrywide Mobility Service, who are the agents for Substitute Single Service Accommodation on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

  We do not hold records on personnel based at HMS Gannet who are renting out private accommodation by means other than through the Hambros scheme, as that would be a private transaction.

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel who are in the Hambros scheme were previously accommodated at HMS Gannet. [23937]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: There are 78 Naval personnel and 21 RAF personnel currently living in Substitute Single Service Accommodation (the Hambros scheme), who were previously accommodated at HMS Gannet.

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the cost of the leases of HMS Gannet site are(a) detailed and (b) publicly available in the asset register of Defence Estates. [23938]
  339W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: HMS Gannet is occupied and held by Commander in Chief Fleet and therefore Defence Estates do not show the property in their annual accounts, but do show it within their property records, as per all other departmental properties.

  Because the property is held at market rent there is no value in the land to the Department, however the Ministry of Defence buildings on site are shown on page 298 of the National Asset Register holdings of Commander in Chief Fleet under the heading "Royal Naval Air Station Prestwick".

  While the actual cost of the leases of the property are detailed within departmental records, the precise details are commercial in confidence and I am therefore withholding details under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Recruitment (Medical Rejections)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of applicants to the(a) Army, (b) RAF, (c) Royal Navy and (d) Royal Marines turned down on medical grounds in each quarter of the last seven years. [21818]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on the number of applicants rejected on medical grounds is not held centrally in the format or for the time period requested. Details which are available are as follows:

  Medical rejections

  Service/financial year

  Officers

  Other ranks

  Royal Navy

  1996–97

  32

  544

  1997–98

  16

  764

  1998–99

  32

  813

  1999–2000

  39

  821

  2000–01

  43

  923

  2001–021

  35

  626

  Royal Marines

  1996–97

  3

  52

  1997–98

  1

  93

  1998–99

  3

  103

  1999–2000

  18

  215

  2000–01

  21

  247

  2001–021

  7

  187

  Army

  1995–96

  30

  2—

  1996–97

  38

  2—

  1997–98

  41

  1,880

  1998–99

  42

  2,304

  1999–2000

  60

  1,660

  2000–01

  33

  1,132

  2001–021

  43

  2—

  Royal Air Force

  1996–97

  3184

  56

  1997–98

  3183

  88

  1998–99

  >3215

  105

  1999–2000

  3215

  126

  2000–01

  3255

  193

  2001–021

  3107

  184

  1The figures for 2001–02 are as at 7 December 2001

  2Army Other Rank figures unavailable for these years

  3These figures are for RAF Officers and Airmen Aircrew combined

  340W

  Royal Scots Regiment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the(a) establishment and (b) current strength of the Royal Scots regiment. [23766]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 December 2001,Official Report, columns 455–56W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  Afghanistan
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his latest estimate is of(a) the deployment of United Kingdom military personnel in the Afghan theatre of war and (b) the total value of ordnance dropped in the conflict; [23639]

  (2) what the total number of United Kingdom military personnel serving in Afghanistan is; and under whose command they operate. [23644]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: There are approximately 3,800 involved in support of Operation Veritas, the UK element of Operating Enduring Freedom. This figure excludes the number of UK personnel operating within Afghanistan, and I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  British troops operating in Afghanistan are under the overall command of the UK Chief of Joint Operations, and are available for specific tasks to the US Commander-in-Chief, Central Command.

  We have not estimated the value of ordnance dropped in the operation.

  Army HQ
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the final cost was of moving the army's northern headquarters from York to Edinburgh; what estimates he has made of the economic consequences for York of this move; and what estimates he has made of the economic benefit to the area around Craigiehall. [24021]

  Mr. Ingram
  A final assessment of the cost of moving the Army's northern headquarters from York to Edinburgh will be made shortly, now that the organisation is fully established in its new location. It is already clear, however, that the increase in the number of people working both at Craigiehall and in York continues to benefit both locations.

  Military Training Grounds
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to ensure that Kenyan civilians are not killed, disabled and injured by unexploded munitions on military training grounds used by the British Army in the central part of Kenya. [23130]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Army takes every precaution to minimise danger to the Kenyan people and follows the same infantry training regulations in Kenya for live firing as it does in the UK. These are laid down in Infantry Training Volume 4, Pamphlet Number 21, and Artillery Training Volume 3, Pamphlet 19. Details of ammunition used are recorded and units are required to submit a
  341W
  certificate to state that the range has been cleared of ammunition fired during that exercise. In addition, we have a continuing programme of activity, which we carry out in conjunction with the Kenyan authorities. This includes the provision of training for Kenyan range staff; the construction of a range control centre; the employment and training of range wardens; and the erection of substantial warning signs on specific areas of the training area. Beyond that, we are also engaged in a continuing information campaign and provide assistance to the Kenyan authorities with range clearance. Our mutual aim is to ensure that the ranges are as safe as they can be.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (1) the procedure is for clearing live ammunition from military training grounds in the UK; [23133]

  (2) what regulations are in place to govern the clearance of live ammunition from military training grounds; [23131]

  (3) what records the British Army keeps during training exercises with live ammunition, of the number of rounds of ammunition fired and the number of unexploded ammunition; and if these records are published. [23134]

  Mr. Ingram
  The regulations and procedures for the clearance of live ammunition from military training grounds are laid down in Infantry Training Volume 4, Pamphlet Number 21, and Artillery Training Volume 3, Pamphlet 19. These regulations and procedures are adhered to wherever British forces are required to train with live ammunition, whether in the UK or overseas.

  Each unit training on a range or training area is required to clear military debris from the range after live firing or training with pyrotechnics, with details of the ammunition used recorded on a relevant form. In addition, units are required to submit a certificate to state that the range has been cleared.

  Any live ammunition that has not been used during training is returned to the ammunition store for use at another time. We aim to recover any ammunition not accounted for during the clearance operation at the end of the training. If there have been misfires —where a round does not fire correctly —or blinds —where a round is fired but does not explode correctly —a qualified individual would destroy the misfire or blind on site.

  Joint Service Publication 403 —Defence Land Ranges Safety-Volume 1, Chapter 6 requires that records are kept of all live ammunition firing, the amount of live ammunition fired and the number of misfires or blinds. These records are not made public.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army have served with regular army forces overseas in each of the last five years; and in which countries. [23667]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of Territorial Army personnel that have served with regular army forces overseas in each of the last five years are shown in the table.
  342W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  12001

  Bosnia

  640

  609

  489

  129

  210

  Kosovo

  0

  0

  290

  291

  289

  Sierra Leone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  51

  Macedonia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Total

  640

  609

  779

  420

  559

  1To date

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had, and with whom, concerning the location of the headquarters of the Territorial Army in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [23201]

  (2) if he has had discussions with (a) the Scottish Executive and (b) Scottish local authorities on the siting of TA Brigade headquarters in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [23203]

  (3) which local authorities in Scotland have been consulted regarding the location of TA brigade headquarters in Scotland; [23204]

  (4) what discussions he has had regarding the amalgamation of 51 and 52 Brigade of the Territorial Army in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [23202]

  Mr. Ingram
  The roles and responsibilities of the regional brigade structure in Scotland have been studied extensively by the Ministry of Defence as part of a wider examination of our force structure. This work has now concluded and I am pleased to announce that 52 (Lowland) Brigade will re-role to become a light infantry brigade, retaining command of the light role battalions in Redford Barracks and Dreghorn Barracks, Edinburgh and assuming command of those based at Preston and Chester. It will also retain responsibility for public duties. The Brigade will be known as 52 Infantry Brigade and the HQ will continue to be based at Edinburgh Castle. In parallel, 51 (Highland) Brigade will become the Scottish Regional Brigade assuming the infrastructure responsibilities of both 51 and 52 Brigades. The Brigade will be known as 51 (Scottish) Brigade and will be based at Forthside in Stirling.

  These changes support the Strategy for the Army, are wholly consistent with the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review and will enhance our military capability.

  There have been no discussion about these plans outside my Department but I have written to the First Minister for the Scottish Parliament to advise him of these changes.

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Invincible's refit will be complete; and when HMS Invincible will be withdrawn from service. [23614]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Invincible will complete her current refit and return to operational status in the summer of 2003. On current plans she will be withdrawn from service towards the end of this decade.

  Sub-harpoon Anti-ship Missiles
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the sub-harpoon anti-ship missiles will be withdrawn from service; and what effect this will have on submarine capabilities. [24026]
  343W
  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans the sub-harpoon anti-ship missiles will be withdrawn from service in 2008. Subsequent to this date it is assessed that the anti-surface ship capability required of the nuclear submarine flotilla will be delivered by the Spearfish heavyweight torpedo.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for Vote VI, Defence, subcategory 2 Defence: Armed Forces retired pay, pensions etc; and if he will make a statement. [24115]

  Mr. Ingram
  Outturn was lower than estimated in financial year 2000–01 mainly because receipts from the Accruing Superannuation Liability Charge were slightly higher than anticipated, and because the overall increase in pensions was lower than forecast. For further information I refer the hon. Member to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme Resource Accounts for 2000–01, published on 21 November 2001. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Army Pensions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the pre-1973 army pensioners and army widows identified as entitled to tax free pensions under the pre-1973 attributable tax exercise of 1999 were entitled due to aggravated unfitness. [24181]

  Dr. Moonie
  The figures available to us on service pensions do not differentiate between those awarded for injuries or conditions that were attributable to, and those that were aggravated by, service. Figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Moved Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list any major moves of(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Airforce bases since 1997. [24020]

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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with other European Governments regarding the provision of emergency aid for the Palestinian Authority. [21888]

  Clare Short
  Without peace, the prospects for economic growth and improved quality of life are negligible. But the potential for the region is considerable. Following the Oslo Accords in 1993, the area enjoyed a period of relative peace and economic growth. This benefited Palestinians and Israelis. Events took a downward turn in September 2000. Since then, there has been a continuing cycle of violence. Various attempts to re-engage the peace process have made little progress.344W
  Following the events of 11 September, there has been increased pressure from the international community for a resumption of productive dialogue, accompanied by renewed calls for the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

  This is the context for UK development assistance to Palestinians and Palestinian refugees. Our assistance is part of an international effort, with the international financial institutions, the US, and the European Community playing leading roles.

  We have provided over £43 million in development assistance and a further £61 million to UNRWA since the establishment of the PA in 1994. We also contribute substantially through our share of the EC and World bank spending. Between 1995 and 1999, the EC's MEDA programme provided euro 3.4 billion (about £2 billion), of which the UK share was 16 per cent, (about £320 million). The World bank has provided some $380 million to the West Bank and Gaza Strip; the UK share is about 5 per cent.

  In response to the current crisis, I have increased our contribution to UNRWA by a further £7 million, to a total of £25 million for calendar year 2001. I have also increased our support to the Palestinian Authority by £6 million, to a total of £14 million for 2001–02 financial year.

  World Trade Round
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how she intends to help developing countries to make gains from trade following the launch of a new trade round at the ministerial meeting in Doha. [21889]

  Hilary Benn
  Following the outcome of last month's meeting in Doha, the new trade round could potentially provide significant benefits for developing countries. The challenge now will be to deliver on that potential in the negotiations.

  As part of this process, we are continuing to support capacity building in developing countries. Last month, my right hon. Friend announced further help to strengthen involvement in trade policy making and negotiating, and assist countries seeking accession to the WTO.

  Afghanistan
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to the people of Afghanistan to help them throughout the winter. [21890]

  Clare Short
  We have so far provided almost £40 million to United Nations agencies, the Red Cross movement and NGOs, including support for provision and stockpiling of assistance for the winter. The UN is aiming to maximise delivery through both road and air routes and is prioritising deliveries to areas where access may become more difficult over the winter, including the central Highlands, the Panjshir valley and the north-east of the country.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the amount of aid reaching the people of Afghanistan. [21892]
  345W
  Clare Short
  United Nations agencies, particularly the World Food Programme (WFP) and UNICEF, the Red Cross movement and NGOs continue to make good progress in transporting essential relief supplies into Afghanistan. Over the past month, WFP has delivered over 68,000 tonnes of food, exceeding its monthly target. International staff of humanitarian agencies have now returned to some areas of the country and are working with national staff to reach those in need of assistance. However, progress is heavily dependent on improved security. Despite the best efforts of humanitarian agencies, some areas of Afghanistan are still proving difficult to access because of continuing insecurity.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the situation in the central highlands of Afghanistan with regard to the distribution of humanitarian aid. [21893]

  Clare Short
  United Nations agencies, particularly the World Food Programme (WFP) and UNICEF, the Red Cross movement and NGOs continue to make good progress in transporting essential relief supplies into the central Highlands. UN international staff have now returned to the area.

  WFP has achieved its target delivery of 33,000 tonnes of food aid to the central Highlands; the food will be distributed by partner NGOs to support up to a million people over the winter.

  Other agencies, including UNICEF, the International Organisation for Migration and Oxfam, have continued to deliver health, shelter and education supplies.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to support recovery and reconstruction in Afghanistan. [21896]

  Clare Short
  I have just announced an additional £20 million to support the UN-led recovery effort. We are fully committed to supporting Ambassador Brahimi and the United Nations system in their central role to help the people of Afghanistan and their new Interim Authority to begin this huge task. A copy of our updated "Emergency Plan to Initiate Recovery" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to relieve the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [21903]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [21904]

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the international aid situation in Afghanistan;and if she will make a statement. [21906]

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [21908]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains serious. The United Nations estimates at least 5 million people are in need of assistance, and over 1 million have been displaced from their homes.
  346W
  UN agencies, particularly the World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEF and the Red Cross movement continue to make good progress in transporting essential relief supplies into Afghanistan. Over the past month, WFP has delivered over 68,000 tonnes of food, exceeding its monthly target. International staff of humanitarian agencies have now returned to some areas of the country and are working with national staff to reach those in need of assistance. However, progress is heavily dependent on improved security. Despite the best efforts of humanitarian agencies, some areas of Afghanistan are still proving difficult to access because of continuing insecurity.

  My Department has so far allocated £60 million to United Nations agencies, the Red Cross movement and NGOs for their response to the Afghan crisis.

  EU Aid
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the distribution of the EU aid package to overseas countries. [21894]

  Clare Short
  European Community aid is distributed on a regional basis to all developing countries and countries in transition. Provisional figures for 2000 show that the percentage of EC development assistance spent in low-income countries continues to fall and is now below 50 per cent. This is unsatisfactory but difficult to change because many members states and large parts of the Commission support the distribution of aid for political rather than developmental purposes.

  In November 2000, the Council and Commission adopted a new development policy which makes poverty reduction the central objective for all EC programmes in developing countries. In line with our published strategy on working with the European Community we continue to work to improve the impact of EC aid on the Millennium Development Goals including through the allocation of a much higher percentage of EC aid to poor countries.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is giving to the amputee victims of terrorism in Sierra Leone. [21897]

  Clare Short
  There are around 1,000 amputee victims of the conflict in Sierra Leone. DFID has provided £110,000 to the Mercy Ships project, which helps both conflict amputees and polio victims —the latter greatly exceed the former. Through our contributions to the EC's humanitarian programme we also support the work of Handicap International, the main provider of prosthetic limbs and rehabilitation support at the amputee centre in Murray Town, Freetown.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of her Department in Sierra Leone. [21895]

  Clare Short
  In Sierra Leone, we are engaged primarily in promoting security and good governance. We are providing £30 million per annum to provide long-term support to the police, strengthening the Ministry of Defence to ensure the armed forces are more democratically accountable, and helping reintegrate
  347W
  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.

  Somalia
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department has given to Somalia in the last 12 months. [21898]

  Clare Short
  This calendar year we have pledged almost £3 million to Somalia, mainly directed towards emergency and humanitarian activities:

  International Committee of the Red Cross

  2001 Appeal for Somalia —£1,000,000

  United Nations

  2001 Consolidated appeal for Somalia —£410,850

  World Vision

  Primary health care in Middle Juba —£328,785

  Primary health care in Bay Region —£266,163

  International Organisation for Migration

  Workshop to encourage Somali women's participation in the peace process —£88,969

  Norwegian People's Aid

  Water rehabilitation, Sool region —£200,173

  Medecins sans Frontieres

  Health assistance, Bakool Region —£207,000

  Health assistance, Middle Shabelle —£377,689

  Africa Educational Trust

  Developing community school partnerships in Somaliland — £123,863.

  The pursuit of a lasting peace agreement in Somalia remains the highest priority. To this end we, with the international community, continue to support the efforts of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD).

  Palestinian Territories
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of her Department in the Palestinian territories. [21899]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, columns 915–16W.

  Latin America
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has for further work in Latin America following the economic crisis in Argentina. [21900]

  Clare Short
  We are working to implement our existing strategy for Latin America, which is focused on reducing poverty in the region through the promotion of pro-poor growth, reducing inequality and improving governance. In addition to our programmes in Guatemala and El Salvador we provide support to improve the effectiveness of national development programmes in 348W
  middle-income countries with major inequality and poverty problems such as Brazil and Peru. In Nicaragua, Honduras and Bolivia, which are highly indebted poor countries (HIPC) we are working with the Government, civil society and other donors to help with the implementation of their poverty reduction strategies.

  Details of our strategy for Latin America will be published in various country strategy papers in the new year.

  UNICEF
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she next plans to meet the Executive Director of UNICEF to discuss its work. [21901]

  Clare Short
  I met the Executive Director of UNICEF in February in New York and briefly in Paris in October in the margins of a Unesco conference. I have no plans to meet her in the near future but I would hope to see her next time I am in New York, she is in London or we are both attending the same international conference.

  HIV/AIDS
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's work on HIV/AIDS. [21902]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is the single most important development challenge in Africa. We know what needs to be done to tackle the disease, and countries such as Uganda, Thailand and Cambodia have shown that political commitment and leadership can help to contain the spread of the disease. My Department supports comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, control and mitigation programmes. We continue to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also place emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease.

  We seek to support the development, strengthening and implementation of national strategies to combat HIV/AIDS and to provide assistance in the framework of such strategies. We have recently approved several new major programmes to support national HIV/AIDs responses in, for example, Russia, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Nigeria, China and India totalling around £300 million, and a £20 million programme is being designed to support Mozambique. A major new multi-sectoral HIV programme for South Africa is also planned for this year.

  My Department is supporting the development of HIV/AIDS vaccines through the support of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. Work is under way to support the development of microbicides to prevent HIV. We are also working on a range of initiatives which aim to increase the long-term affordability and availability of treatment for HIV/AIDS and related infections.

  Our strategy for our HIV/AIDS works is outlined in our HIV/AIDS strategy paper published in summer 2001 and available in the Library of the House.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to help poor countries which have been hard hit by HIV and AIDS. [21911]
  349W
  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is the single most important development challenge in Africa. The epidemic is undermining economic growth and fundamentally threatens social and economic development in many countries. It also poses a threat to health in many other countries around the world. My Department supports comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, control and mitigation programmes. We continue to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also place emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease.

  We seek to support the development, strengthening and implementation of national strategies to combat HIV/AIDS and to provide assistance in the framework of such strategies. We have recently approved several new major programmes to support national HIV/AIDS responses in, for example, Russia, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Nigeria, China and India totalling around £300 million, and a £20 million programme is being designed to support Mozambique. A major new multi-sectoral HIV programme for South Africa is also planned for this year. We have committed £25 million to support the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa.

  In addition, the Government are exploring the potential of a number of options for increasing the long-term affordability and availability of treatment for HIV/AIDS and related infections, while maintaining a focus on the development of sustainable health systems which is needed to deliver them.

  Our strategy for our HIV/AIDS work is outlined in our HIV/AIDS strategy paper published in summer 2001 and available in the Library of the House.

  Development Targets
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the World bank about progress towards the 2015 development targets. [21905]

  Clare Short
  I have regular discussions with the World bank about this issue. The most recent occasion was at the meeting of the World bank/International Monetary Fund Development Committee in Ottawa, 17–18 November. I am pleased to report that there is an increasingly strong commitment within the World bank and its member countries for concerted action to meet the 2015 targets. This includes growing recognition of the need to increase the volume of resources made available to poor countries committed to the policy and institutional changes needed to reduce poverty and achieve the other targets; and to enhance the effectiveness of this aid, including by untying it. The UK has already untied its aid, and pledged to increase the oda/GNI ration from 0.32 per cent, in 2000 to 0.33 per cent, by 2003–04. Substantial progress is being made towards the key 2015 target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. While regional progress varies, the best available evidence suggests that on present trends the global target will be met but some of the targets, particularly the reduction of maternal mortality, will not be met. Progress varies between regions and countries. Very few African countries are on track to meet the targets.
  350W

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the programme to develop the technical competence of engineers in Bangladesh. [21907]

  Clare Short
  My Department has just completed a successful five-year project to strengthen the Institute of Engineers, Bangladesh and to establish an Engineers Registration Board to enable Bangladeshi engineers to be internationally recognised within the various branches of the engineering profession.

  We have recently commenced a new project to strengthen the professional engineering associated in eight developing countries (including Bangladesh) following on from the success achieved to date under the previous project.

  Corruption
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's priorities are for tackling corruption. [21909]

  Clare Short
  The priorities of our bilateral programmes are to support national strategies which address both enforcement action against corruption, such as strong and effective anti-corruption agencies, and preventive measures, such as strengthening capacity for public sector budgetary and financial management, procurement, accounting and audit; reforming civil service management, enhancing public oversight through strengthened parliamentary committees, developing measures to reduce judicial corruption and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability in public life.

  At the multilateral level, negotiations for a United Nations Convention Against Corruption commence in January. This is a major opportunity to develop global standards for tackling corruption and improving international co-operation. We will be playing an active role in these discussions.

  We attach importance also to strengthening collaboration with other bilateral development agencies and multilateral partners, in particular through supporting the implementation conventions against bribery in international trade and strengthening regional anti-money-laundering mechanisms.

  Pakistan
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's assistance to Pakistan. [21910]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to supporting Pakistan's economic and social development for the long haul. This includes support for the Road Map to Democracy announced by President Musharraf in August 2001, which envisages national elections by October 2002.We are working closely with the international financial institutions and other multilateral organisations to ensure sustainable improvements in the lives of poor people in Pakistan. Our bilateral assistance is designed as a contribution to this wider international effort; and my Department meets the UK share of expenditure by the World bank, Asian Development bank, European Commission and UN agencies.
  351W
  Our bilateral programme is focused on three objectives: creating the economic conditions for poverty reduction; strengthening health systems and improving quality and management in education. These are pursued through support to the process of devolution; support to rural livelihoods; and support to the development of the poverty reduction strategy paper.

  In health, we are working to improve access to —and quality of —public health services, especially for the poorest. For example, we are helping to improve reproductive health through support for social marketing of condoms through Population Services International. We are also working up an HIV/AIDS drug harm prevention project. On education, we are supporting the implementation of the devolution of education management to provincial and district levels in North West Frontier Province and Northern Areas. We are also helping to raise quality standards by collaborating on reform of the National Education Assessment System.

  In terms of support for the political reform effort, examples of these are the assistance my Department is providing to improve the quality of governance by supporting the Elections Commission in the run up to next year's provincial and national elections, and the National Reconstruction Bureau in its deliberations on constitutional reform. We are also focused on working

  Pakistan bilateral aid programme

  Projects

  Project budget (£000)

  Education

  Punjab Middle School Project

  4,900

  NWFP Primary Education (including contribution to PEPCO)

  6,500

  Northern Areas Education

  3,900

  Sindh Education Foundation

  150

  Support for National Education Foundation

  167

  Support to IED, Aga Khan Uni-Policy Research and Decision Making Education

  80

  National Education Assessment System and MSU Workshops

  140

  WB and BC Courses on Education Reform

  91

  Review Present Status of EMIS and Edu GIS in Pakistan

  33

  Sub total

  15,961

  Health

  Private Sector Population KSM/FG

  9,886

  Chitral Primary Health Care III

  3,380

  PAVHNA: Phases I and II

  4,382

  Surveys of Sexually Transmitted Diseases

  700

  Evaluation of Lady Health Workers Programme

  1,207

  Lady Health Worker Programme

  5,200

  FPAP Doorsteps Project

  517

  Social Marketing of Condoms (PSI/SMP)

  4,073

  The Network

  1,808

  Marie Stopes International—Khaipur

  1,828

  HIV-Aids Drug Harm Reduction—Main Project

  600

  Neelum Valley AJK

  1,186

  Health and Population Section (including Hon. and P Adviser)

  1,327

  TB Scoping Mission (PPP) and Follow-up

  75

  NWFP Devolution/Reform Support—Prep

  50

  HIV Aids Mainstreaming

  20

  NWFP Drugs

  1,000

  Balochistan Drugs

  1,000

  Sub total

  38,239

  Water/Sanitation

  Rural Water Supply and Sanitation NWFP

  6,500

  Sub total

  6,500

  352W
  with the appropriate Government Departments and civil society groups to address gender discrimination and violence against women.

  In recognition of Pakistan's reform progress to date, and to support the new three-year Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility agreed with the IMF earlier this month, I have allocated a further £15 million for budgetary aid this financial year, and £45 million for each of the subsequent two years. This is in addition to the on-going technical assistance programme, and represents a major increase in our engagement with Pakistan's medium-term reform programme.

  As announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 802W, I have also allocated £11 million of short-term assistance to help host communities affected by the refugee influx.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects which she is funding in(a) part and (b) whole in Pakistan; and what is the cost involved in each case. [22978]

  Clare Short
  The following projects are being, or have been, funded by my Department in the current financial year 2001–02. Implementation periods can range between a few weeks to several years.
  353W

  Pakistan bilateral aid programme

  Projects

  Project budget (£000)

  Human Rights (including Gender Equality)

  Protect Rights and Livelihoods of Working Children

  1,225

  JPO for UNICEF (Shiona Hood) + Extension

  232

  Gender Equality Project

  2,800

  Violent Crimes Against Women (VCAW)

  700

  Safety, Security and Access to Justice

  90

  Sub total

  5,047

  Economic Management/Public Sector Reforms

  Pakistan WTO Trade Policy Project

  1,081

  General Sales Tax Reforms Phases I–III

  2,378

  Governance and World bank (includes NAB, NRB and Civil Service Reform (TR))

  170

  Social Sector Public Expenditure Analysis

  40

  PRGF Budget Support

  15,000

  Sub total

  18,669

  Electoral Systems Transition to Democracy

  UNDP Support for Elections

  1,200

  Analysis of Local Elections (PATTAN)

  50

  Democracy Study

  100

  Support for Democratic Elections

  63

  Sub total

  1,413

  Corruption

  National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

  81

  Anti-Corruption Strategy

  350

  Sub total

  431

  Sustainable Livelihoods

  AKRSP Chitral Phase III

  8,120

  AKRSP Gilgit 1997–2001

  8,000

  Lachi Poverty Reduction Project

  2,900

  NWFP SRSP Capacity Building

  1,830

  Alternative Patterns of Land Tenure (Haris Gazdar Study)

  52

  RSP Network Project

  1,032

  Faisalabad Area Upgrading I-G.cd 018–001

  12,520

  Traidcraft 'PRIDE' Feasibility Study

  90

  Micro Finance for Women—KASHF

  3,200

  Micro Finance Group

  300

  SRSP Community Infrastructure

  1,120

  Sub total

  39,164

  Poverty Policy

  Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA)

  2,562

  Assistance to PIHS Phase II —Extension

  1,498

  Building Capacity for Poverty Analysis—Main Project

  300

  Sub total

  4,360

  Environment

  Clean Fuels Study

  165

  Sub total

  165

  Other

  Small Grants Scheme (SGS)

  176

  BHC Development Section Project (BHCDSP)

  2,920

  Sub total

  3,096

  Projects funded by Civil Society Department

  Civil Society Challenge

  Population Concern—Integrated Rural Reproductive Health Project (Lahore)

  210

  Joint Funding Scheme

  Learning for Life—Community Education Programme

  237

  Population Concern—Kohat Family Planning and Mother and Child Health

  278

  Sub total

  725

  Total

  133,770

  354W 355W

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game",(a) what progress her Department has made and (b) what future plans her Department has for acting on them; and if she will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24199]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  Conclusion 6:
  My Department will within the next few weeks publish a booklet for staff on alternative working patterns. The booklet, which has been approved following discussion by a staff Consultative Group on Diversity, will explain the options available for adjusting working patterns in a way which will permit part-time working or downshifting.

  Conclusion 7:
  My Department already makes extensive use of retired staff for suitable short-term assignments.

  Conclusion 8:
  A review of the implications of allowing staff to serve to age 65 is in hand and will be completed by 31 March 2002.

  Conclusion 9:
  My Department has decided not to introduce a short service concession on the grounds that a considerably smaller proportion of men rather than women would be able to comply with the criterion of having less than 20 years service and that the adoption of such a condition would therefore be potentially indirectly discriminatory under s. 1 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as amended. There are also potential difficulties associated with the concept of the "normal age of retirement" which defines the upper age limit applicable to complaints of unfair dismissal in terms of s.109 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  Conclusion 10:
  Discrimination on grounds of age is already forbidden by my Department's Equal Opportunities policy as published in our Staff Handbook (and has been for some years).

  Conclusion 11:
  Is for action by the Cabinet Office rather than Departments.

  Conclusion 12:
  My Department already recruits a considerable number of staff (particularly in professional and specialist grades) in mid to late career and age does not figure in our recruitment advertising or in our selection processes.

  Refugees (Former Yugoslavia)
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to support internally displaced people and refugees within the former Yugoslavia during the winter months. [23263]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian assistance from the international community, including assistance for internally displaced persons and refugees, is co-ordinated by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the European Commission 356W
  Humanitarian Affairs Office (ECHO). The UK provides funds for these agencies, including 19.7 per cent, of the ECHO budget.

  We are not planning to provide bilateral assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons this winter. By agreement with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, our bilateral programme focuses on providing technical assistance for institution and capacity building, and for economic and social reform. We aim to address the longer-term needs of poor people in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by helping to restructure the economy, strengthen public administration and improve the delivery of social and health care services. This strategy is described in the DFID country strategy paper for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions her Department has taken to further good governance in the oil producing states of Nigeria. [21858]

  Clare Short
  My Department is focusing on three key areas of assistance in Nigeria: a governance and economic reform programme at federal level, with particular emphasis on strengthening the justice sector (including the police), implementing key economic reforms and promotion of an effective poverty reduction strategy; support in the continuing fight against HIV/AIDS; and working closely with four identified reforming states of the 36 states of Nigeria to demonstrate that reform can deliver practical benefits for the poor. None of our four focal states, Benue, Jigawa, Ekiti and Enugu, is oil producing. However, DFID supports good governance in oil producing states through the European Commission, which is implementing a large programme of small-scale community driven projects. These projects implement progressive and participatory community development, with the aim of enhancing the voice of the communities to articulate effective demand on services from state and local government. The programme is operational in Rivers, Bayelsa and Delta states and will expand to a further three states. A DFID-seconded official has assisted the Delegation of the Commission in the development and implementation of this programme.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the OECD convention on bribery and the impact it will have on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. [21859]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is intended to meet two recommendations made by the Organisation for Economic, Co-operation and Development (OECD) Bribery Working Group. The provisions provided for two changes in the law to ensure that: it covers the bribery of foreign public officials, ministers, Members of Parliament and judges; and the United Kingdom has jurisdiction over acts committed by our nationals and companies abroad.
  357W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents who have participated in the new deal for lone parents have later returned to income support, broken down into(a) those who originally left the NDLP because they found work, (b) those who left the NDLP to return immediately to income support and (c) those who left the NDLP for other reasons. [7911]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish an evaluation of the proportion of lone parents who return to income support within(a) one month, (b) six months and (c) one year of finding work under the new deal. [7985]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on the number of lone parents returning to income support will be included in the evaluation of the new deal for lone parents national programme, which is expected to be published in spring 2003.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 371W, for what reason the publication of the evaluation of the new deal for lone parents has been put back to 2003. [7912]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The publication of the evaluation of the new deal for lone parents (NDLP) national programme has been delayed until spring 2003 to extend the data collection period thereby increasing the quantity of available data on NDLP participants and non-NDLP participants. This will allow the evaluation team to present a more informed and accurate evaluation.

  Young People
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of persons leaving(a) the gateway period and (b) each of the four options in the new deal for young people entered (i) unsubsidised jobs and (ii) sustained jobs in each year since the inception of the new deal for young people. [7977]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The table shows the proportion of all new deal for young people leavers who move into sustained, unsubsidised jobs from the gateway stage of the programme and from each of the options. In addition to these job outcomes we know from survey findings that around two-thirds of young people who leave options for unknown destinations do in fact find work.

  There is an on-going programme of database development to capture outcomes. For the subsidised employment option in particular, the figures prior to 2001 reflect follow-up work with employers to capture lost performance. This exercise will be repeated for 2001 leavers and we expect the figure of 37 per cent, to be revised in line with previous years' figures.
  358W

  Proportion of new deal leavers moving into jobs by year

  Percentage

  Stage of leaving new deal

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Gateway

  49

  45

  44

  42

  Subsidised employment

  56

  51

  51

  237

  Full-time education and training

  38

  32

  31

  30

  Voluntary sector

  37

  33

  33

  31

  Environmental task force

  33

  30

  31

  30

  1To end of July

  2Initial figure

  Note:

  By definition, all jobs gained by new deal leavers are sustained, unsubsidised jobs (ie to have left the programme, they must not re-claim jobseeker's allowance within 13 weeks).

  All figures are immediate destinations on leaving new deal

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of persons on each of the four options in the new deal for young people have left the option and returned to benefits in each year since the inception of the new deal. [7984]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table. Around one-third of young people starting the new deal go onto one of the options. The figures in the table therefore relate only to this group of new dealers. The design of the new deal includes a period of follow-through during which people return to JSA if they don't move into work immediately at the end of an option. The follow-through provides each individual with help to make the most of the skills they have gained on their option so that they can find work as soon as possible.

  Proportion of people who left direct from the option and returned to claim jobseeker's allowance

  Percentage

  New deal option

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Subsidised employment

  50

  39

  37

  39

  Full-time education and training

  67

  69

  63

  65

  Voluntary sector

  63

  67

  62

  65

  Environmental task force

  69

  67

  64

  64

  1To end of July

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Third-age Apprenticeships (Wirral)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to develop third age apprenticeships in the Wirral. [15594]

  Mr. McCartney
  Third age apprenticeships are still in the early stages of development. Their purpose is to increase the take up of training within the new deal 50-plus programme, and to engage more directly with employers in particular sectors of the market rather than in particular locations.

  The new deal 50-plus is already operational in the Wirral, helping with the recruitment and training of older people. In the first 18 months of national operation the new deal 50-plus has helped over 51,000 people back into work. Up to the end of September 2001, 382 people in the Wirral unit of delivery area had returned to work with the help of the Employment Credit1

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database
  359W

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expenditure in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative (a) in the UK and (b) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [16432]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative. [14037]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: Action Teams for Jobs are the Department's main Area-Based Initiative. They are based in some of the most employment-deprived areas of Great Britain and work closely with local regeneration-related initiatives.

  Action teams were announced as a one-year initiative in the March 2000 Budget. Three pathfinder Teams started in June 2000, 37 others followed in mid-October 2000, all completed their first year on 12 October 2001. Although final figures are not yet available, initial results indicate that the Teams have engaged over 38,000 clients and helped 41 per cent, (over 15,500) of them into work.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that the initiative would be extended to March 2004 and expanded to include seven new areas, while a number of existing areas would be divided to sharpen their focus on the most disadvantaged areas. By 2002 there will 63 action teams across GB.

  Information on action team budgets and expenditure is not available in the form requested. £45.5 million was available for the original 40 teams for their initial one-year life-span. £133 million in total has been allocated to the initiative for the period October 2001 to March 2004.

  An action team has been operating in the area covered by the Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland Employment Zone since October 2000. It did not originally include any part of the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. However, in March 2001 the Team's remit was extended to cover certain disadvantaged groups across the whole of Redcar and Cleveland.

  From January 2002 there will be two separate action teams in the Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland area. One in Middlesbrough, covering 13 wards with high levels of worklessness (Ayresome; Beckfield; Beechwood; Berwich; Easterside; Grove Hill; Hemlington; North Ormsby; Pallister; Park End; St. Hilda's; Stainton and Thornton and Thorntree) and another in Redcar and
  360W
  Cleveland covering six wards (Coatham; Newcomen; Grangetown; South Bank; Kirkleatham and Easton). The Middlesbrough Action Team will include two wards in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency, Hemlington and Park End.

  The current Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland Action Team has been allocated £625,000 for the period October 2000 to December 2001. The new Middlesbrough Action Team has been allocated £760,000 a year from January 2002 and the new Redcar and Cleveland Action Team has been allocated £500,000 a year.

  Another Area-Based Initiative is the Employment Zone initiative which was introduced in April 2000 to test out an alternative approach to delivering help to long-term unemployed people find work. They are located in 15 areas of the country where there are high concentrations of long-term unemployment.

  Originally intended to run for two years until March 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced in February 2001 that the Zones would be extended for one year until March 2003.

  The amount budgeted and the total expenditure to date is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Budget

  Spend

  2000–01

  52.945

  68.273

  2001–02

  83.374

  —

  2002–03

  53.574

  —

  The Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland Employment Zone covers the following wards in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency: Hutton, Guisborough, Saltburn, Skelton, Belmont, Brotton, Lockwood, Loftus, Hemlington and Park End. The Zone's total expenditure for the financial year 2000–01 was nearly £3.2 million.

  It is not possible to identify other specific regeneration-related expenditure in any meaningful way. All the programmes run by the Department for Work and Pensions aim to support the Government's overarching commitment to tackling social exclusion and poverty and improving economic growth. We are doing this in particular by providing a joined-up approach to employment and benefit policies for people of working age, with a single modern, nationwide point of delivery for advice and support on jobs and benefits through Jobcentre Plus; and by introducing a new Pension Service to provide advice and support to today's and tomorrow's pensioners, including the introduction of the pension credit.

  New Deal
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Glasgow(a) are unemployed and (b) have found work from the new deal. [21665]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is as follows:

  (a) There are currently 17,992 unemployed claimants in Glasgow, a fall of one-third since 1997.

  361W

  (b) The available information is in the table.

  Programme

  Number of people helped into work in the Glasgow Unit of Delivery area1

  New deal for young people

  6,369

  New deal 25 plus

  1,071

  New deal for lone parents

  2,073

  New deal 50 plus2

  3907

  New deal for partners

  432

  Total

  10,452

  1Up to the end of September 2001

  2Employment credit claims

  3At end of October 2001

  4At 26 October 2001—Source: Employment Service Labour Market System

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  The information is not available for the new deal for disabled people.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) record is kept and (b) assessment is made of the destinations of people who leave the new deal for 50-plus for employment. [18056]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Records are kept of participants in new deal 50-plus who have entered work with the support of the new deal 50-plus employment credit, broken down by gender, ethnicity, disability and type of employment (full-time, part-time or self-employed). An assessment of the destinations will be covered by the evaluation of the programme.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much public money has been given to each private company in Leicester operating a new deal initiative; [20258]

  (2) how much public money has been spent on the new deal in the city of" Leicester. [20257]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The total expenditure on new deal programmes in the Leicestershire unit of delivery since the introduction of new deal in April 1998 until the end of October 2001 is £22,283,937. This includes staffing costs for the Employment Service, programme expenditure and other associated costs.

  It is not possible to give details of how much public money is given to individual private companies involved in the programmes, as this would be a breach of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps he is taking to prevent(a) local authorities and (b) monopoly training agencies diverting new deal training budgets from training provision to administrative budgets; [20758]

  (2) what action he will take to ensure that the organisations that provide training for new deal trainees receive the bulk of money allocated for the purpose; [20756]

  (3) if he will take action to prevent (a) local authorities and (b) other training agencies from top-slicing the individual cash allocation for training each new deal trainee in such a way that the bulk of the budget goes for administration rather than training. [20757]
  362W
  Nicholas Brown
  Costs associated with training provision are reflected in the contract price. Payment is made to contractors in line with actual performance in delivering training to agreed standards.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 160W, what proportion of the number of people leaving for (a) employment and (b) sustained employment in Government Departments represents of the (i) total number of people leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed and (ii) the number of people leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed for employment. [18040]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Soft Skills
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the soft skills promoted by his Department; and if he will make a statement on how they relate to hard skills. [18904]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There is no formal list of soft skills provided through the Department's employment and training programmes. Soft skills relate to good work discipline, attitude and behaviour, which are necessary skills for everyone entering or wanting to re-enter employment. Our programmes include help with motivation, attitude problems, interpersonal skills and customer care skills. These skills relate to hard skills in that both are necessary to find and retain work.

  Benefit Fraud (Publicity Campaign)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the costs of the publicity campaign to tackle benefit fraud. [18985]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 438W.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department will publish the results of the quinquennial review into the Independent Living Fund; and what plans he has to abandon its means test. [23141]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York (Mr. Bayley) today.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if adjudicating officers deciding on the eligibility for attendance allowance are advised to consider virtual inability to walk as defined by Cassinelli v. Secretary of State for Social Services TLR 6/12/91 as evidence that constant daytime supervision is required. [22959]
  363W
  Maria Eagle
  When assessing whether someone satisfies the qualifying conditions for attendance allowance, decision makers (known as adjudication officers until 1999) are advised to take into account, among other things, whether that person needs supervision from another to avoid danger. It is the Department's view that the Court of Appeal in Cassinelli v. Secretary of State for Social Services is not relevant here as it did not address the question of supervision and only considered the meaning of "severe discomfort" as it related to mobility allowance, a benefit replaced in 1992 by disability living allowance.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when Pat Sutton, a constituent, will receive an answer from the Department's Medical Services about her industrial injuries benefit; and if he will make a statement. [20448]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 December 2001: ] I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Unemployment (Disabled People)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the performance of Disability Employment Service instigated courses in finding work for unemployed disabled people. [11374]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The majority of unemployed disabled people find work through mainstream Jobcentre services and programmes which include vacancy displays, the various New Deals, Work Based Learning for Adults, Programme Centres and Work Trials.

  The number of disabled people who entered work using these services last year (to March 2001) totalled 83,523. The number who have entered work this year up to the end of September totals 48,081.

  In addition to these services there is a range of specialised support available from the Employment Service Disability Service Teams accessed through Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs) who are based in Jobcentres. DEAs support clients who are more significantly disadvantaged in their search for work as the result of a disability and offer a range of additional programmes and services to their clients. These include the Access to Work programme, the Work Preparation programme, Workstep, Residential Work Based Learning for Adults and the Job Introduction scheme.

  The number of people helped into work by DEAs last year (to March 2001) totalled 18,754. The number helped into work by DEA's this year, up to the end of September, totals 8,314.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on 15 October, ref. 8410 and 8 October, ref. 7989. [16191]

  Mr. McCartney
  Question 8410 was answered on 30 November and question 7989 was answered on 29 November.
  364W

  Winter Fuel Payment (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) women aged over 60, (b) men aged over 65 and (c) men aged 60 to 65 receive the winter fuel payment in the Buckingham constituency. [22638]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, for winter 2000–01, around 5,800 men aged 60 and over and around 8,800 women aged 60 and over in the Buckingham constituency received a winter fuel payment. The figure for this year will be similar.

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners received the minimum income guarantee in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1998. [22636]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest figures as at August 1998, 1999 and 2000 show that there were 1,400 pensioners in the Buckingham constituency receiving the minimum income guarantee. By August 2001 this figure had risen to 1,500 pensioners.

  Private Pension Provision
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how his Department plans to encourage private pension provisions. [22664]

  Mr. McCartney
  This Government are committed to encourage private pension provision —through pension education, making saving pay, providing appropriate savings vehicles and better regulation. This strategy goes hand-in-hand with our broader reform of the pensions landscape with introduction of the state second pension and the launch of the pension service.

  Our pension education campaign has been driving home the message that those who can afford to save have an obligation to do so. As part of this, combined pension forecasts will ensure that people have the right information to make well-informed decisions on their retirement income.

  The introduction of stakeholder pensions has a significant impact the pensions landscape. Stakeholders are safe, flexible and value for money. For the first time, we have also opened up private pensions to non-earners — giving carers and the disabled a chance to build up a private pension. Since October, all employers with five or more employees must offer access to a stakeholder pension, unless they already offer an appropriate alternative, greatly increasing the coverage of private pension saving.

  The Association of British Insurers has calculated that by the end of October nearly 300,000 employers had designated a scheme. The figures also show that some 492,000 policies have been sold in the first seven months since the introduction of stakeholder pensions in April.

  We are committed to reforming the regulation of private pension provision. That is why we have commissioned Alan Pickering to lead a review of the regulatory regime, and to report in July with a package of measures for simplification. We have already accepted the recommendations of the Myners Review of institutional

  365W
  investment, are developing proposals to replace the minimum funding requirement with a long-term scheme-specific standard, and have consulted on a package of measures to speed up the winding-up of occupational pension schemes. Better regulation will be better for the individuals —by maintaining their security while removing unnecessary barriers to providing pensions.

  From 2003, around half of all pensioners will stand to gain from the new pension credit. For the first time, saving will be rewarded rather than penalised. All single pensioners with weekly incomes of up to £135, and couples with weekly incomes up to £200, will receive a cash top-up. This reward will also be good news for women —around two in three recipients of the credit will be women, as women tend to have smaller pensions than men.

  We believe that those who can afford to save for their retirement have an obligation to do so. Our policies will encourage and facilitate that saving, and allow every individual to make informed choices to safeguard their future.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what records his Department keeps of the number of notified changes to housing benefit claims each year in each local authority; and whether such information is published. [17864]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Data are collected quarterly, through the Housing Benefit Management Information System, on specified changes of circumstances notified to local authorities by people claiming Housing Benefit. This information is not routinely published.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the introduction of an integrated claim form for housing benefit, council tax benefit and other benefits. [18001]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We expect Jobcentre Plus and local authorities to work closely together to provide a coherent service for customers. From next October, Jobcentre Plus offices plan to introduce an electronic process which allows us to collect information on a range of benefits only once and pass relevant housing benefit and council tax benefit claim details to local authorities. We are discussing these plans with the local authority associations on an on-going basis to ensure local authorities play a full role in the new processes we are developing.
  366W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason it is not possible for housing benefit administrators to share data with his Department on benefits other than income support and jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement. [15859]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All local authorities have clerical access to information held by the Department which is relevant to the processing of housing benefit claims.

  Electronic access to income support and jobseeker's allowance data is already available through remote access terminals sited in local authorities. We are currently investigating how we can give local authorities tailored electronic access to other Departmental benefit data.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department was involved in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive prior to the removal of glass security screens from new Jobcentre Plus offices. [14236]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Yes.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for disabled people in work to be charged on their earnings. [17672]

  Maria Eagle
  This Government are committed to removing barriers to work for severely disabled people, making work possible and making it pay for those who can move into employment. To this end the Departments of Health and for Work and Pensions have both recently announced significant improvements in this area. The Department of Health issued new guidance for local councils setting out a new fairer charging framework for home care services on 23 November requiring councils to disregard earnings in assessing ability to pay a charge by no later than 1 October 2002.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions announced in his uprating statement on 28 November that the earnings rule in the independent living funds will be abolished from April 2002, removing a disincentive for severely disabled people and/or their partners to obtain or retain work, or to seek advancement at work.

  Benefit Take-Up
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action has been taken by each local authority in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 to increase benefit take-up; how much each campaign has cost; and how many people are employed by each local authority to improve benefit take-up. [15150]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  367W

PRIME MINISTER

  Secondment (BP)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many BP employees are on secondment to the Government; for what purposes; and on what terms. [22990]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to interchange which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations.

  Information about individual secondments to Government from outside organisations is not held centrally.

  Since May 1997 there have been no inward secondments from BP to the Cabinet Office, including No. 10.

  Interception of Communications
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) in respect of the allegations made by Lord Ahmed of telephone tapping, for what reason his spokesman departed from the normal policy of neither confirming nor denying; and if he will make a statement; [24375]

  (2) if it is his policy that in respect of Members of the House of (a) Commons and (b) Lords, no authorization will be given for the interception of communications; and if he will make a statement. [24376]

  The Prime Minister
  As I informed the House on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 861, Government policy remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. In answer to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of the House of Commons and that if there were a development which required a change of policy, he would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Bassam, confirmed on 27 September 2000 that this policy extended to Members of the House of Lords.

  With this long-standing exception in relation to Members of Parliament, it remains the normal policy of the Government neither to confirm nor deny allegations in respect of interception matters.

  National Health Service Review
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will publish the terms of reference of the inquiry into the NHS headed by Adair Turner; and if he will publish the final report; [24092]

  (2) if he will publish the review by Adair Turner of the workings of the NHS. [24618]

  The Prime Minister
  Adair Turner is working with my Forward Strategy Unit to provide advice as required on taking forward the NHS Plan and its objectives. Internal policy advice to Ministers remains confidential. Any decisions made by Ministers in the light of it will, of course, be made public.
  368W

  European Union
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what the purpose is of the proposal to create an elected President of Europe discussed at the European Union Summit; if the proposal is subject to unanimity; and what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is on the issue. [24287]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in the House on 17 December 2001,Official Report, columns 34–35.

  Quality of Life Speech
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on the issues outlined in his Quality of Life speech in April; and if he will make a statement. [21926]

  The Prime Minister
  We are delivering on our commitment to improve the lives of people through the regeneration of our communities and neighbourhoods. The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit was established in April 2001, dedicated to ensuring no one is seriously disadvantaged by where they live. Substantial resources have been made available, including the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund which will provide £900 million over the next three years to improve services in the most deprived neighbourhoods. Proposals in the Police Bill and Local Government White Paper will also take forward the liveability agenda, helping to make our streets and neighbourhoods safer, cleaner and more accessible.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Spending
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by her Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if she will make a statement. [6922]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are committed to using only whatever media and channels are judged to be the most cost-effective way to deliver the publicity necessary to support the implementation of policy. Paid advertising is only resorted to after careful consideration of the cost benefits.

  As the volume of information requested spans Scottish Office/Scotland Office dates, I shall write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as possible.

  Press Notices
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation
  documents were issued by her Department during the Summer recess. [9226]
  369W
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: 59 press notices were issued during the summer recess. They are published on the Scotland Office website, which is freely available to the public. No consultation documents were issued during the period.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much her Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99,(e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [12276]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Office spends on information literature, advertising and campaign material are listed:

  £

  Year

  Total spend

  1995–96

  2,778,000

  1996–97

  3,778,621

  1997–98

  3,344,245

  1998–99

  5,644,262

  1999–June 1999

  878,330

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The spends on information literature, advertising and campaign material since this date are listed.

  £

  Year

  Total spend

  1 July 1999–2000

  1,131.63

  2000–01

  322,136.64

  Departmental Name Change
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of re-branding her Department following its name change after the general election. [17863]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department did not change its name after the general election.

  Air Services
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with(a) airline companies and (b) others regarding the extra costs of flights to and from Scotland since 11 September. [22969]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On 3 December I hosted a meeting attended by most of the major airlines, airport operators, business representatives and development and tourism agencies.

  While some of the airlines have experienced additional security costs following the events of 11 September, a number of operators confirmed that they were successfully generating new business.

  Night Flights
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions she has had with 370W
  representatives of the airline industry regarding the noise of night flights arriving at or departing from Scottish airports; [22966]

  (2) what complaints the Government have received about the noise of night flights from people living under the flight path or close to (a) Edinburgh Airport, (b) Glasgow Airport and (c) Aberdeen Airport. [22967]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The control and regulation of noise generated by the use of airports in Scotland is a devolved responsibility and is therefore a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Tourism
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact on Scottish tourism of the additional costs imposed on flights to and from Scotland since 11 September. [22968]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Sponsorship of the tourism industry in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive and Visit Scotland.

  Boundary Commissions
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure the publication of alternative proposals made by electoral boundaries commissions to the Boundary Commissioners, at the same time as the commissioners publish their proposals for boundary changes. [23494]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The publication of provisional recommendations for parliamentary constituencies is a matter solely for the Boundary Commission for Scotland in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, 'Winning the Generation Game',(a) what progress her Department has made and (b) what future plans her Department has for acting on them; and if she will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24194]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minster of State, Cabinet Office, at column 335.

WALES

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reason for the projected change in the level of receipts from the EU from 2001–02 to 2002–03. [24836]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The projected level of receipts from the EU shows a progressive increase between 2001–02 and 2002–03 to reflect the expected build-up of spend in the Structural Fund programmes. The management of EU Structural Funds is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
  371W

  Government Accounts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the financial implications of the participation by his Department in the whole of Government Accounts project. [24729]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I expect any net additional costs to be minimal.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reason for the change in the cost of depreciation from 1999 to 2001 to 2001 to 2004. [24733]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting has altered the way that depreciation is reflected in Government accounts. Depreciation factors reflect best accounting practice and may vary depending on the nature of the asset involved.

  Learning and Skills Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the costs to public funds of the implementation in Wales of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. [24760]

  Mr. Touhig
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Business Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what cost savings have been identified by his Department's preparation of an annual business plan. [24731]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department's financial provision for capital expenditure and for paybill and general administrative expenditure is constant in cash terms over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04. This provides an automatic mechanism for delivering cost savings at least equal to the rate of inflation each year.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding settlement for the Welsh Assembly for 2001 to 2004. [24762]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made to the Welsh Grand Committee on 19 July 2000.

  Departmental Operating Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reasons for the change in the operating costs of his Department from(a) 1999–2000 to 2000–2001 and (b) 2000–01 to 2001–02. [24735]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department came into being on 1 July 1999 and so was operational for only three-quarters of the financial year 1999–2000.

  Annexe 3 of the Departmental Report 2001 shows an estimated outturn on "paybill and general administrative expenditure" of £2.259 million in 2000–01 and projected expenditure of £2.279 million in 2001–02. This is a change of less than 1 per cent.
  372W

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on progress with his Department's target for making payments in accordance with the applicable timetable where a contract applies; [24757]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress with the target of paying accounts within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice. [24756]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Over the last three months, my Department has on average paid 88 per cent, of its bills on time each month.

  Capital Charges
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reason for the change in the cost of capital charges from 1999–01 to 2001–04. [24730]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The treatment of capital charges has altered during this period with the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting.

  For my Department, the cost of capital arises essentially from the headquarters building (Gwydyr House) and its contents. Gwydyr House was professionally valued on 31 March 2000 and under current accounting policies is due to have professional revaluations every five years.

  The cost of capital charge is applied to average net assets of a department over a financial year and is charged at 6 per cent, which is the Treasury's discounted rate.

  Children's Commissioner for Wales
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [24761]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reason for the change in the capital departmental expenditure limit from(a) 1999–2000 to 2000–01 and (b) 2000–01 to 2001–02. [24734]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The capital Departmental Expenditure Limit attributable to my Department meets those administrative costs which are of a capital nature—primarily the need to maintain, refurbish, and improve access to, Gwydyr House, Changes in provision are agreed in the light of expected pressures.

  Information Systems
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on changes resulting from his Department's development of its financial and management information systems. [24732]
  373W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department's financial and management information systems are being further upgraded; the changes which may result are not yet known.

  Brynglas Tunnels
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whatdiscussions he has had with the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly on the effects on the future economy of Wales of traffic congestion at the Brynglas Tunnels. [24393]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Minister when we discuss a range of matters, including the economy and the transport infrastructure in Wales.

  The new Southern Distributor Road recently announced by Newport county borough should greatly improve the road network in the Newport area and help provide a boost to economic development prospects.

  The National Assembly is considering other options to alleviate congestion around Newport.

  Job Losses (Nantgarw)
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what co-operation he has had with the National Assembly in developing a response to the job losses at G.E. Aircraft Engine Services at Nantgarw in South Wales. [23399]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regret the decision taken by General Electric to shed around 350 jobs at its plant in Nantgarw and the effect this decision will have on those who will lose their jobs and the effects on their families and the community.

  The First Minister met representatives of GE in September of this year. I know that Assembly officials have been in regular contact with GE and will offer and provide whatever support they can.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Waleshow many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23788]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Figures are published in annual Departmental Reports.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, 'Winning the Generation Game',(a) what progress his Department has made and (b) what future plans his Department has for acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24195]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not employ any staff directly and so is limited in its capacity to influence the terms on which they are employed.

  However I should be delighted to welcome a higher proportion of older people among those being seconded to the Wales Office from other organisations.
  374W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the list of the changed circumstances a housing benefit claimant must report. [17867]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The duty to notify changes of circumstances is set out in regulation 75 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. Subject to the exceptions set out in regulation 75(2), the regulation provides that a person claiming housing benefit has a duty to notify the local authority in writing of any change of circumstances that he or she might reasonably be expected to know might affect his or her right to housing benefit, the amount of benefit or his or her receipt of benefit. It is not possible to provide a definitive list of relevant changes as these will depend on each person's individual circumstances.

  How people are made aware of their responsibility to notify changes of circumstances is a matter for individual local authorities to decide upon. However, we have developed a model housing benefit and council tax benefit claim form which local authorities are encouraged to use. The guidance for completing the form includes a list of many of the common changes which must be reported.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list in date order the housing benefit regulations and amendments to them issued since September 2000; [7904]

  (2) how many (a) sets of housing benefit regulations, (b) number of housing benefit regulations, (c) amendments to housing benefit regulations and (d) housing benefit circulars there have been in each year since 1988. [7905]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the date and nature of each of the changes to housing benefit regulations that have been made since April 1997; [15858]

  (2) if he will list the dates and subject matters of the circulars he has sent to local authorities on (a) housing benefit administration and (b) measures to tackle housing benefit fraud since April 2000. [15860]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many regulatory changes affecting the administration of housing benefits have been made(a) in each year since 1997 and (b) in each month since July 2000; [19503]

  (2) how many departmental circulars modifying housing benefit rules have been issued (a) each year since 1997 and (b) each month since July 2000. [19504]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: Many of the changes we have made to the housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes since 1997 support our wide-ranging welfare reform initiatives.

  We recognise the need to ensure that the impact of such change on local authorities is fully taken into account before implementation. We are, therefore, establishing a

  375W
  Regulation Scrutiny Group, including local authority representatives, to consider future proposed regulations, and to report on the implications for local authorities.

  The available information on the number of sets of housing benefit regulations, statutory instruments containing regulations amending housing benefit provisions and circulars issued is in the table.

  year

  Sets of housing benefit (HB) regulations

  Statutory instruments containing regulations amending HB provisions

  Number of HB circulars issued

  1988

  3

  3

  20

  1989

  2

  2

  25

  1990

  3

  8

  23

  1991

  3

  6

  20

  1992

  4

  11

  35

  1993

  5

  11

  46

  1994

  5

  10

  34

  1995

  7

  13

  58

  1996

  4

  16

  57

  1997

  8

  18

  83

  1998

  4

  14

  89

  1999

  4

  15

  81

  2000

  5

  23

  73

  20011

  8

  20

  74

  1To October 31

  Information on the number of individual provisions, including how they affect administration, within each set of regulations and amendments to them could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a list of sets of regulations affecting housing benefit (including amendments to these regulations) made between 1 September 2000 and 10 December 2001 has been placed in the Library.

  The numbers of departmental circulars identified as giving guidance on changes to housing benefit rules for each year since 1997 and each month since July 2000 are in the table.

  Year/month

  Number

  1997

  47

  1998

  41

  1999

  43

  2000

  January to June

  21

  July

  3

  August

  1

  September

  6

  October

  2

  November

  5

  December

  3

  Total

  41

  2001

  January

  3

  February

  4

  March

  5

  April

  6

  May

  3

  June

  2

  July

  2

  August

  4

  September

  2

  October

  6

  376W

  Year/month

  Number

  November

  3

  December

  1

  Total1

  40

  1To 30 November

  Note:

  Circulars that confirm, consolidate or reinforce previous guidance are not included. Circulars that interpret changes to rules in relation to the Verification Framework are also not included.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the figure for expenditure on the housing benefit under occupation pilot that was not specified on page 103 of the 2001 Departmental report. [18917]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The under-occupation pilot encourages housing benefit recipients living in under-occupied social housing to move to smaller and cheaper accommodation in order to make more efficient use of housing stock. The pilot is expected to run until 2003. Estimated expenditure in 2000–01 was £17,335. This figure is subject to adjustment on receipt of audited claims from participating authorities.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the(a) costs and (b) savings to the housing benefit budget in each region in England of the introduction of rent restructuring in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [19820]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Initial estimates suggest that the overall public expenditure cost of rent restructuring, taking account of housing benefit payments, rental income of councils and grant requirements for new housing association developments is broadly neutral.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what percentage of all(a) council and (b) registered social landlord tenants in each London local authority are in receipt of housing benefit; [19911]

  (2) what percentage of (a) council and (b) registered social landlord tenants in each London local authority are pensioners and of these what proportion are in receipt of housing benefit. [19821]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  The total number of local authority and social landlord tenants by local authority is not collected centrally. Reliable estimates of the number of pensioners in receipt of housing benefit and living in either local authority or social landlord housing by each London local authority are not available.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of and how many people in receipt of disability living allowance have mental health problems. [20783]

  Maria Eagle
  At 31 May 2001, about 267,500 recipients of disability living allowance—almost 12 per cent, of the total number—had mental health problems recorded as
  377W
  their principal disabling condition. In addition, about 222,200 recipients—almost 10 per cent, of the total number—had learning difficulties so recorded.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of claimants in receipt of the mobility components of disability living allowance do so because of mental health problems. [20784]

  Maria Eagle
  At 31 May 2001, about 12 per cent, of people who receive the mobility component of disability living allowance had mental health problems recorded as their principal disabling condition. In addition, about 10 per cent, had learning difficulties so recorded.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many awards of disability living allowance have been made in each of the last three years to people suffering with sickle cell anaemia. [22178]

  Maria Eagle
  This information is not available in the form requested. About 600 awards of disability living allowance are made each year to people with blood disorders recorded as their principal disabling condition. Some of these cases may involve sickle cell anaemia.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training front-line staff of Jobcentre Plus receive on working with clients with mental health problems. [20782]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All staff working in the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices work through an open learning module on disability awareness. This covers different types of disabilities including mental health. We are also developing a two-day trainer-led event for front line Jobcentre Plus staff. This includes information on working with customers with mental health conditions provided by The Mental Health Foundation. Our training provision also makes use of a video from the Employers' Forum on Disability.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 901W, on the new deal, to the hon. hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) how many of the new deal starts in his Department resulted in sustained employment for the person concerned in the Department; if he will give a breakdown of these starts by branch of the new deal; and how many of the starts in other Government Departments resulted in sustained employment for the person concerned in the Department in question. [21267]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This information is not collected centrally for all of the Department and its agencies, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, in the Employment Service (ES) up to October 2001, of the 768 people taken on under the new deal for young 378W
  people and new deal 25 plus, 284 have gained permanent employment with the ES and a further 87 have found permanent employment outside the ES.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21312]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information follows on the number of people employed by the Employment Service under the new deal for young people. Information for the rest of the Department is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  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.

  Up to October 2001, the Employment Service had recruited 688 people under new deal for young people. The subsidy had been claimed for 562 of these at a cost of approximately £1.3 million. The Employment Service has also taken on 2,254 new deal jobseekers under its normal recruitment processes. This figure includes people on new deal for young people and new deal 25 plus and cannot be broken down. These recruits have been treated the same way as other employees and have generated no extra costs to public funds.

  Wirral Young Carers Project
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State forWork and Pensions when he expects to pay Wirral Young Carers group the money from the European Social Fund applied for in 2000. [21407]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Payment in respect of the Wirral Young Carers project will be progressed as quickly as possible when an application for an advance claim is received from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.

  Maternity Allowance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Glasgow receive the sure start maternity grant. [21666]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table:

  Benefits Agency District

  Number of sure start maternity grants made between 27 March 20001 and 31 October 2001

  Glasgow East

  1,250

  Glasgow North

  1,735

  Glasgow South

  2,380

  Total

  5,360

  1 Sure start maternity grants replaced the social fund maternity payment for any child born or adopted on or after 11 June 2000 at the rate of £200 for each child. 27 March 2000 is the earliest date on which a claim for a sure start maternity grant could be made.

  Notes:

  1. The payments were raised to £300 from 18 September 2000 and the rate is set to increase again to £500 in 2002.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest five

  Source:

  Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management System
  379W

  Maternity Pay
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much small employers will be able to recover for the statutory maternity pay they pay out from 6 April 2002. [24995]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Currently small employers whose gross national insurance payments in a tax year are £20,000 or less (the small employers relief threshold) can recover 100 per cent, of the Statutory Maternity Pay they pay out plus an additional amount, currently 5 per cent., in compensation for the employers share of national insurance contributions due on SMP payments. The compensation rate is reviewed each year based on a formula which compares the employers' share of national insurance paid on SMP with the total amount of SMP paid by all employers.

  From 6 April 2002 the threshold is being doubled to £40,000. This will mean that an additional 10,000 employers a year will qualify and in all around 60 per cent, of all employers paying SMP in a year will get full reimbursement. At the same time the additional compensation rate is being amended to 4.5 per cent, in line with the estimates made of SMP due to be paid and employers' national insurance costs on those payments from April 2002. Regulations will shortly be laid to achieve these changes.

  Disability Rights Task Force
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals have been made by the Disability Rights Task Force; and how they will be implemented. [21808]

  Maria Eagle
  The Disability Rights Task Force issued two reports. The first was on a Disability Rights Commission, which we established in April 2000. The second was on comprehensive civil rights, on which we published our response, "Towards Inclusion", in March 2001. Copies of "Towards Inclusion" are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21828]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to the Work-Life balance of its staff. A range of flexible working patterns including part time working, job sharing and homeworking is available to staff by agreement with their management. The flexibility to work at home is most frequently used on an ad-hoc basis, but there are individuals who have homeworking as a regular part of their working pattern. The Department is currently looking at ways in which data on the number of people taking up the flexibility can be captured.

  The Department for Work and Pensions publicises its policy on flexible working and encourages managers to respond positively to requests as part of their commitment to the diversity agenda. Although the current disparate IT systems allow varying degrees of access to systems at the office, the Department is developing IT infrastructures,
  380W
  complete with the necessary security measures that will in the future allow more flexible and widespread access to office IT systems from home.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 81W, on departmental underspend, how he intends to spend the money transferred to his Department from underspend in the Department for Education and Skills in financial year 2000–01. [22777]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Of the £326 million, £220 million is ring fenced for European Structural Funds and was included in Department's Estimate at the Winter Supplementary. The Remaining £106 million was available end year flexibility within the Employment Opportunities Fund.

  The Department has included £52.6 million in its estimate at the Winter Supplementary; this has been allocated to the new deal programmes. DfES has included £40 million in their estimate at the winter supplementary and allocated it to new deal for Schools. Any further draw down will need to be agreed with the Treasury.

  Winter Fuel Allowance (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Battersea will receive the £200 winter fuel allowance this winter. [22943]

  Mr. McCartney
  Winter fuel payments are made to most people aged 60 and over, regardless of whether they receive a state retirement pension. The rate is either £200 or £100, depending on whether the person lives alone or with another eligible person. Around 10,400 people in Battersea received a winter fuel payment last year and, of these, around 6,800 received a payment at £200. We expect the figures for this year to be similar.

  Benefits (Epsom and Ewell)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Epsom and Ewell constituency receive(a) disability living allowance and (b) carers allowance. [23428]

  Maria Eagle
  There were 1,795 recipients of disability living allowance in Epsom and Ewell at 31 May 2001.

  No information is available on invalid care allowance by parliamentary constituency. At 30 September 2001 there were 379,780 recipients in Great Britain.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applicants for carers benefit in the Epsom and Ewell constituency have had their claims refused in each of the past five years. [23427]

  Maria Eagle
  This information is not readily available for individual constituencies.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library(a) a summary and (b) a complete set of responses to the Pension Credit consultation paper. [24242]
  381W
  Mr. McCartney
  The responses were placed in the Library on 28 November.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the pension credit, the method of application and who is eligible to receive it. [19364]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's oral statement on 28 November.

  A Bill to implement the Government's proposals for Pension Credit was introduced in the House of Lords on 28 November 2001. Copies of the Bill and the explanatory notes have been placed in the Library, together with a booklet, "The Pension Credit: the Government's proposals setting out how Pension Credit will work". Copies are also available in the Vote Office.

  Advertising Campaign
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 828W, which section of the table shows the costs of the 'What Have You Got to Offer?' advertising campaign. [24230]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  £

  Advertising and Media

  Other costs

  Targeting benefit fraud

  5,747,000

  402,252

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline advertising

  425,178

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  3,365,000

  176,0001

  Inherited SERPS

  340,000

  345,000

  Winter Fuel Payments

  616,000

  294,000

  Pensions Education3

  5,232,0002

  1,297,000

  Bereavement Benefits

  155,000

  90,000

  New Deal for Young People

  558,201

  951,728

  New Deal 50+

  2,175,367

  63,793

  New Deal Partners

  99,445

  67,310

  Action Teams for Jobs

  58,504

  440

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  2,292,000

  295,000

  "What have you got to offer"

  2,946,997

  152,625

  New Deal for Disabled People

  31,372

  240,387

  1 This includes £30,985 customer research into a new MIG claim form which straddled two financial years.

  2The overall Pensions Education marketing budget figure remains unchanged at £6,529,062 (which was rounded to £6,530,000).Within this total, the advertising media and production cost given previously has changed from £5,212,000 to £5,232,000. This takes account of some photography costs that were previously included as part of "other costs", but can be directly attributed to advertising.

  3In addition to the total of £6,529,062 (which was rounded to£6,530,000) £103,370 was spent on completing our previous pensions education activity (with a Monopoly theme) that preceded the new "Working Dogs" campaign, as well as some developmental work that was undertaken before the new Working Dogs Campaign was launched.

  Older People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what preparatory work his Department is undertaking in conjunction with other departments for the UN World Assembly for Older People in Madrid next March. [23121]
  382W
  Mr. McCartney
  Our preparation for the United Nations' World Assembly on Ageing is on schedule and is being taken forward in close co-operation with other government departments and older people's organisations.

  Much of the work to date has focused on developing the main objective of the Assembly—the International Strategy on Ageing. Consultation with colleagues across Government and the voluntary sector has helped to shape the UK's contribution to the Strategy.

  The current draft can be found on www.un.org/esa/socdev/ageing/waa.

  The World Assembly will be an important event and we will be working closely with our colleagues across government, older people's organisations and older people themselves to finalise our plans.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates he has made of non-take-up of means-tested benefits by pensioners by(a) expenditure and (b) caseload in (i) the English regions, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland. [24034]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates for non-take-up of income-related benefits (council tax benefit, housing benefit, income support, jobseeker's allowance) by pensioners are available for Great Britain and can be found in the DWP publication "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up 1999–2000". Copies are available in the House of Commons Library. No estimates are available for different parts of Great Britain.

  Unemployment (West Wiltshire)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many young people in Wiltshire have gained employment under the new deal; and what percentage this represents of all unemployed young people. [18406]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to the end of September 2001, the new deal had helped 1,888 young people move into work in the Wiltshire Employment Service district. There are currently 919 unemployed young people in the district.

  Setting the stock of unemployed young people at a point in time against the flow of young people into jobs through the new deal is not a meaningful comparison. However, in Wiltshire long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent, since the new deal started. Although some of this reduction is a result of this Government's success in delivering steady economic growth, the new deal for young people has also played an important role.

  Landlords (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what were the figures for compensation payments to landlords that were not specified on page 103 of the 2001 Departmental report. [18905]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The compensation scheme ended in April 2000 when the transitional housing benefit scheme was implemented.
  383W
  The information requested is in the table.

  £

  Year

  Outturn

  1997–98

  6,000

  1998–99

  363,000

  1999–2000

  140,000

  2000–01 (estimated)

  27,000

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000

  IS and IT Services (Savings)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the saving from the contract for IS and IT services to deliver new wide area network services. [18983]

  Mr. McCartney
  The contract price of the new WAN service is broadly comparable to that of the old one.

  However, the Department will receive a significantly improved service in the areas of service flexibility, performance, management information and security, and so position the Department to further modernise its IT in the future.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the council tax benefits restriction scheme; and if he will make a statement. [19041]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have no plans to review the present council tax benefit restrictions.

  Since 2 July 2001, local authorities have been able to make discretionary housing payments to those people entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit who require additional financial assistance with their rent or council tax. This includes those whose council tax benefit has been restricted. These payments are at the discretion of the local authority and subject to an annual cash limit.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20670]

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

  Stakeholder Pension Schemes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if contracted-in stakeholder pension schemes will be deregistered. [21441]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has written to the four stakeholder pension schemes that are not contracted-out, and they have the opportunity of applying for contracted-out status.
  384W

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish draft regulations to facilitate the equalisation of benefits for pensions schemes being wound up. [23771]

  Mr. McCartney
  We do not propose to publish draft regulations. Equalisation of benefits in pension schemes is a matter for the trustees of schemes.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the reports by the Pension Provisions Group entitled (1) "Pensions and the Labour Market"; [23772]

  (2) "Pension Provision and Self-Employment". [23773]

  Mr. McCartney
  We welcome the "Pensions and the Labour Market" report. We are pleased to note that the group has concluded that our pension reforms, together with measures to encourage and facilitate paid work,"should improve the overall level of pension provision".

  We share the Pension Provision Group's view that good quality, occupational pension schemes will continue to work well for large numbers of people.

  We also welcome the group's report on pension provision and self-employment. It makes a useful contribution to the debate on this important issue.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost savings arising from the simplification of income support and the income based element of the jobseeker's allowance as a consequence of the provisions of the Tax Credits Bill. [23998]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Paragraph 210 of the explanatory notes to the Tax Credits Bill says that there are expected to be annual reductions in expenditure across DWP policy responsibilities amounting to £4 billion, arising from the abolition of the child related elements of IS/JSA, the new deal 50 plus employment credit and child dependency increases.

  Benefits (South Shields)
  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in South Shields are claiming(a) incapacity benefit, (b) working families tax credit and (c) children's tax credit. [23770]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: The available information is in the table.

  Recipients of incapacity benefit and working families tax credit in the South Shields parliamentary constituency

  Benefit/tax credit

  Number

  Incapacity benefit1,2,3

  5,600

  Working families' tax credit2,3

  2,500

  1Excludes a small number of cases held clerically.

  2Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3Estimates based on 5 per cent, samples and are subject to error.

  Notes:

  1. Incapacity benefit figures are for August 2001. Working families tax credit figures are for May 2001.

  2. Children's tax credit figures are not available by parliamentary constituency.
  385W
  Source:

  Incapacity Benefit Quarterly Statistical Inquiry August 2001.

  Working families' tax credit quarterly statistical Inquiry May 2001.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will give the latest annualised cost of means-tested benefits for those also in receipt of a retirement pension, broken down by(a) minimum income guarantee payments, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit,(d) disability benefits and (e) other benefits. [23329]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Forecast expenditure for 2001–02 on income-related benefits for the pensioner group1 is given in the table:

  £million2

  Minimum income guarantee3

  4,530

  Housing benefit

  4,460

  Council tax benefit

  1,390

  Social fund

  35

  Total

  10,415

  1Statistics for the pensioner group in income-related benefit include benefit units in which the claimant is a man aged 60–64 as well as those in which the claimant is over pension age.

  2Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million and are consistent with social security totals published in the pre-Budget Report 2001.

  3 Expenditure on minimum income guarantee includes premiums related to disability where relevant.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Accommodation
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation, if he will publish (a) the terms of reference and (b) the comparison made of the value for money provided by judges lodgings undertaken as part of the triennial review of judges lodgings. [23912]

  Mr. Wills
  The notional comparison referred to in my previous reply was undertaken merely to test the overall assumption that lodgings should continue to be the main method by which accommodation is provided. The terms of reference were to compare the cost of lodgings with alternative forms of accommodation providing appropriate standards of security, privacy and comfort. Hotel costs were calculated on the assumption that the judge and his clerk would be accommodated in a high quality hotel, that the judge would occupy a suite of rooms consisting of a double bedroom, a lounge/study and en-suite bathroom facilities, and that the clerk would have a single room with en-suite bathroom facilities. Allowance was also made for other associated costs e.g. transport to and from court.

  This comparison was an academic exercise using notional representative costs and only formed a small part of the triennial review. Additionally, the costs attributed to hotel use excluded any additional security costs that would inevitably be required to provide the safe and secluded environment provided by lodgings. It would therefore be misleading to publish the comparison.
  386W
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the average cost of running judges' lodgings per judge accommodated at each of the individual lodgings in the Lodging Estate for the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [24128]

  Mr. Wills
  It has not been possible in the time available to provide the average cost per judge accommodated for each lodgings. However, the following four tables show the average cost per judge week for each of the lodgings based on:

  Total costs;

  Total costs excluding capital charge; and

  Costs solely attributable to judicial occupation

  The figures for 2000–01 are yet to be audited and may therefore be subject to slight change.

  Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 2000–01

  Lodgings

  Total cost

  Total cost (ex. capital charge)

  Judicial cost

  Birmingham

  3,533.91

  2,699.39

  1,575.38

  Leicester

  4,762.45

  4,762.45

  2,014.00

  Lincoln

  4,243.80

  4,243.80

  1,394.48

  Nottingham

  4,390.58

  3,673.53

  1,713.84

  Northampton

  6,656.09

  6,656.09

  2,957.22

  Oxford

  7,151.67

  7,151.67

  3,027.67

  Stafford

  4,795.15

  4,795.15

  1,475.21

  Warwick

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Worcester

  4,156.39

  4,156.39

  2,494.23

  Hull

  1,531.60

  1,531.60

  531.60

  Leeds

  3,396.48

  3,396.48

  1,875.43

  Plawsworth

  3,609.13

  3,162.78

  1,577.22

  Sheffield

  5,648.90

  4,930.35

  1,887.64

  Carlisle

  2,894.76

  2,894.76

  1,380.47

  Liverpool

  2,572.33

  2,572.33

  1,464.24

  Manchester

  3,545.65

  3,204.06

  1,768.03

  Preston

  4,923.96

  3,774.42

  2,345.18

  Chelmsford

  8,006.79

  8,006.79

  1,325.09

  Lewes

  7,324.39

  7,324.39

  1,851.19

  Maidstone

  9,562.82

  6,599.90

  1,624.16

  Norwich

  7,668.02

  5,859.42

  1,443.11

  Reading

  7,879.09

  4,609.15

  2,750.35

  St. Albans

  6,517.64

  4,086.66

  2,154.30

  Caernarfon

  4,621.95

  4,621.95

  2,365.17

  Cardiff

  3,765.72

  3,348.43

  2,056.06

  Chester

  7,678.89

  6,800.42

  2,408.72

  Mold

  9,141.94

  9,141.94

  2,546.64

  Swansea

  5,662.69

  5,005.88

  2,362.40

  Bristol

  4,591.42

  4,591.42

  1,676.56

  Exeter

  2,214.01

  2,214.01

  972.89

  Plymouth

  3,568.68

  3,568.68

  1,857.96

  Truro

  3,317.57

  3,317.57

  1,026.95

  Winchester

  4,615.57

  2,899.21

  1,666.25

  Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1999–2000

  Lodging

  Total cost

  Total cost (ex. capital charge)

  Judicial cost

  Birmingham

  2,876.90

  2,289.93

  1,449.13

  Nottingham

  4,702.90

  4,003.62

  1,866.48

  Leicester

  3,303.62

  3,303.62

  1,227.78

  Oxford

  4,108.95

  4,108.95

  1,956.76

  Worcester

  4,138.25

  4,138.25

  2,158.81

  Lincoln

  4,175.64

  4,175.64

  1,602.87

  Northampton

  5,441.63

  5,441.63

  2,363.53

  Stafford

  3,569.39

  3,569.39

  1,450.80

  Warwick

  1,305.70

  1,305.70

  1,128.76

  Leeds

  2,824.77

  2,824.77

  1,676.55

  387W

  Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1999–2000

  Lodging

  Total cost

  Total cost (ex. capital charge)

  Judicial cost

  Plawsworth

  2,971.92

  2,444.50

  1,599.24

  Sheffield

  7,098.81

  6,437.52

  1,791.37

  Carlisle

  3,068.06

  3,068.06

  1,138.70

  Liverpool

  2,743.22

  2,743.22

  1,325.40

  Manchester

  3,455.46

  3,131.71

  1,983.10

  Preston

  3,922.62

  2,951.78

  1,941.19

  Chelmsford

  3,361.45

  3,361.45

  863.91

  Lewes

  6,016.60

  6,016.60

  1,862.79

  Maidstone

  7,798.97

  5,855.74

  1,738.38

  Norwich

  4,836.31

  3,910.96

  1,257.34

  Reading

  5,155.12

  3,480.41

  2,536.65

  St. Albans

  6,526.01

  4,384.25

  2,242.23

  Caernarfon

  5,296.55

  5,296.55

  3,388.50

  Cardiff

  3,552.48

  3,135.69

  1,890.13

  Chester

  4,999.98

  4,304.70

  2,372.98

  Mold

  10,131.43

  10,131.43

  2,070.52

  Swansea

  6,196.83

  5,312.62

  2,547.83

  Bristol

  3,315.83

  3,315.83

  1,411.90

  Exeter

  3,482.10

  3,482.10

  810.02

  Plymouth

  5,623.55

  5,623.55

  2,625.57

  Truro

  4,996.84

  4,996.84

  1,306.44

  Winchester

  3,461.95

  2,754.38

  1,624.54

  Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1998–99

  Lodging

  Total cost

  Total cost (ex. capital charge)

  Judicial cost

  Birmingham

  2,856.91

  2,357.07

  1,487.28

  Nottingham

  2,802.23

  2,404.89

  1,615.48

  Leicester

  3,769.64

  3,769.64

  2,103.60

  Oxford

  5,284.32

  5,284.32

  3,234.05

  Worcester

  3,491.08

  3,491.08

  1,546.46

  Lincoln

  3,988.73

  3,988.73

  1,313.98

  Northampton

  5,021.86

  5,021.86

  2,567.08

  Stafford

  5,306.43

  5,306.43

  817.91

  Warwick

  1,644.05

  1,644.05

  1,392.05

  Leeds

  3,852.17

  3,852.17

  2,169.48

  Plawsworth

  3,840.67

  3,271.12

  1,580.26

  Sheffield

  6,252.50

  5,679.93

  1,948.07

  Carlisle

  2,648.33

  2,648.33

  1,336.01

  Liverpool

  3,892.21

  3,892.21

  1,899.50

  Manchester

  2,830.63

  2,568.57

  1,764.47

  Preston

  6,479.53

  5,403.21

  2,529.82

  Chelmsford

  3,038.26

  3,038.26

  693.29

  Lewes

  5,464.20

  5,464.20

  2,454.96

  Maidstone

  7,834.84

  6,568.36

  1,625.89

  Norwich

  4,596.76

  3,873.48

  1,434.15

  Reading

  6,621.13

  4,953.60

  2,883.90

  St. Albans

  8,558.11

  5,916.78

  2,237.04

  Caernarfon

  5,356.68

  5,356.68

  1,740.05

  Cardiff

  3,516.80

  3,136.46

  1,981.07

  Chester

  5,834.61

  5,150.78

  2,857.79

  Mold

  5,641.53

  5,641.53

  1,438.88

  Swansea

  11,842.66

  10,507.26

  3,123.63

  Bristol

  2,983.57

  2,983.57

  1,528.26

  Exeter

  4,102.47

  4,102.47

  1,241.47

  Plymouth

  3,377.18

  3,377.18

  1,749.64

  Truro

  2,821.11

  2,821.11

  1,209.87

  Winchester

  3,962.79

  3,163.77

  1,747.46

  Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1997–98

  Lodging

  Total cost

  Total cost (ex. capital charge)

  Judicial cost

  Birmingham

  2,986.24

  2,164.86

  1,594.29

  Nottingham

  4,170.22

  3,477.96

  1,860.28

  388W

  Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1997–1998

  Lodging

  Total cost

  Total cost (ex. capital charge)

  Judicial cost

  Leicester

  3,250.92

  3,250.92

  2,292.38

  Oxford

  5,314.22

  5,314.22

  2,898.02

  Worcester

  3,875.66

  3,875.66

  2,142.06

  Lincoln

  4,633.50

  4,633.50

  1,597.65

  Northampton

  9,203.92

  9,203.92

  2,171.35

  Stafford

  4,453.38

  4,453.38

  944.64

  Warwick

  1,342.73

  1,342.73

  1,389.23

  Leeds

  4,188.48

  4,188.48

  2,277.69

  Plawsworth

  2,931.25

  2,462.51

  1,589.49

  Sheffield

  7,133.36

  6,899.23

  2,247.91

  Carlisle

  2,594.40

  2,594.40

  1,145.03

  Liverpool

  3,755.24

  3,755.24

  1,860.92

  Manchester

  2,258.38

  2,204.99

  1,840.68

  Preston

  5,091.80

  4,760.03

  3,369.78

  Chelmsford

  7,173.80

  7,173.80

  1,089.71

  Lewes

  6,082.34

  6,082.34

  2,483.14

  Maidstone

  5,626.91

  4,341.27

  1,689.13

  Norwich

  5,906.86

  5,385.04

  1,653.75

  Reading

  6,832.71

  6,063.71

  3,847.25

  St. Albans

  7,522.03

  6,379.12

  2,468.59

  Caernarfon

  7,007.99

  7,007.99

  3,864.64

  Cardiff

  2,462.49

  2,439.58

  1,817.53

  Chester

  4,651.06

  3,736.86

  2,076.27

  Mold

  12,783.80

  12,783.80

  3,002.27

  Swansea

  5,787.72

  5,429.20

  2,874.06

  Bristol

  2,590.13

  2,465.39

  1,432.53

  Exeter

  4,144.44

  4,144.44

  1,084.05

  Plymouth

  3,089.98

  3,089.98

  1,734.57

  Truro

  3,888.54

  3,888.54

  1,408.22

  Winchester

  2,457.83

  2,357.20

  1,576.91

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary,Lord Chancellor's Department what is the capital value of the leasehold Lodging Estate in which his Department accommodates judges on circuit. [23705]

  Mr. Wills
  Of the leasehold Lodgings Estate only two have a notional capital value (as the rents are nominal and/or historic). These are the lodgings at Birmingham and Winchester, with a combined estimated capital value of £2.75 million. The remainder are held under leases where the rents are reviewed frequently and which therefore have no capital value to the Department.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to theanswer given on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation, how many (a) butlers, (b) cooks and (c) security personnel are employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department to look after judges on circuit. [23916]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the numbers of butlers and chefs/cooks employed to look after judges on circuit were provided in my earlier answer given on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W. The answer also states that we do not employ dedicated security staff at lodgings. All staff are expected to be vigilant and ensure that the lodgings are secure at all times.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his definition is of a guest house of the Wolsey Lodge variety; and how it is differentiated from other forms of accommodation for judges on circuit. [24100]
  389W
  Mr. Wills
  I am advised that "Wolsey Lodges" are a consortium of privately owned homes providing a small number of quality rooms for temporary rental. While the properties vary in size and style, they are essentially a public hotel chain. As such Wolsey Lodges are completely different from the network of private lodgings maintained by the Court Service to provide accommodation for High Court judges while on circuit.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation (a) if the comparison made of the value for money provided by judges' lodgings examined each judges' lodgings individually and (b) which judges' lodgings were assessed not to provide value for money. [23911]

  Mr. Wills
  As stated in my earlier answer, the notional comparison undertaken as part of the triennial review was merely to test the overall assumption that lodgings should continue to be the main method by which accommodation is provided. It did not form the main value for money examination within the review.

  While a comparison was made for each judges' lodgings individually, the 'hotel alternative' costs were indicative only and did not include additional security costs which would necessarily be incurred for the protection of Her Majesty's High Court judges. It would therefore be misleading to base any decision on the future viability of individual lodgings on this comparison and to publish details of the same.

  It should also be recognised that, when discussing alternatives to lodgings, cost is not the only issue. The availability and proximity of suitably secure, private and comfortable accommodation has also to be considered.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840, on judges' accommodation, what action has been taken since publication of Lord Justice Auld's report to assess the value for money provided by individual judges' lodgings; and what action will be taken in respect of judges' lodgings assessed not to provide value for money in line with the recommendations of the Auld report. [23917]

  Mr. Wills
  As my hon. Friend is aware, Sir Robin Auld's report was only published on 8 October. Public consultation on his recommendations takes place up to 31 January 2002.

  Consequently, no new assessment of the value for money provided by individual lodgings is being considered until this period of consultation has concluded. The Lord Chancellor will then decide on a course of action with regard to lodgings in the light of this and the findings of the triennial review.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance he issues to courts on sending their record of a remand decision to the prison where a defendant is remanded to custody; and which courts follow this practice. [23904]
  390W
  Mr. Wills
  All magistrates, Crown and county courts produce a warrant when remanding an individual to custody. This is given to the person or organisation transporting the individual to prison, and then handed over at the place of detention.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will break down the contract allocation for legal aid in London. [23295]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of solicitor and not-for-profit contractors in the London region, by category of law, as at the end of March 2001, was as follows:

  Solicitors

  Not-for-profit

  Family

  413

  2

  Mental health

  59

  4

  Debt

  23

  22

  Employment

  39

  22

  Consumer

  32

  3

  Housing

  222

  30

  Welfare benefits

  65

  43

  Education

  12

  0

  Community care

  23

  0

  Actions against the police

  18

  n/a

  Public law

  9

  n/a

  Immigration

  266

  37

  Personal Injury

  183

  n/a

  Clinical Negligence

  70

  n/a

  Additional Tolerance

  438

  n/a

  Note:

  Not-for-profit organisations are not awarded contracts for actions against the police, public law, personal injury, clinical negligence or additional tolerance work.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the civil legal aid budget was in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01;and how much was spent on the different categories of law. [23300]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the financial year 1999–2000 the Legal Aid Board was allocated provision of £1,182.1 million of the overall legal aid budget. There was not a predetermined sum allocated to civil legal aid. A net total of £768.5 million was spent on civil legal aid.

  In 2000–01, the Legal Services Commission was allocated a provision for the Community Legal Services Fund of £781 million.

  The Legal Services Commission, and the Legal Aid Board before it, spent the following amounts on civil representation in the different areas of law in 1999–2000 and 2000–01:

  £000 gross

  Category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Family

  390,895

  421,094

  Non-family

  Actions against the police

  9,149

  9,869

  Clinical Negligence

  43,229

  52,779

  Community Care

  0

  42

  Consumer

  39,617

  37,031

  Debt

  5,865

  6,329

  Education

  0

  263

  391W

  £000 gross

  Category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Employment

  1,368

  1,542

  Housing

  36,641

  37,861

  Immigration and nationality

  3,130

  3,497

  Mental Health

  44

  237

  Personal Injury

  261,623

  267,060

  Public Law

  8,231

  9,775

  Welfare benefits

  353

  470

  Miscellaneous

  103,514

  99,904

  Non-family total

  512,763

  526,660

  Overall total

  903,658

  947,754

  Note:

  Figures are stated gross since receipts cannot readily be allocated by category of law

  In addition, net expenditure on other civil legal aid (legal help, assistance by way of representation and advice and assistance) was £231.7 million in 2000–01 and £208.4 million in 1999–2000. It is not possible to split this into comparable categories because category definitions changed between the two years.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many full legal aid practitioners there were in(a) private practice and (b) not for profit contracts in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01, broken down into (A) housing, (B) immigration, (C) employment, (D) welfare benefits, (E) education, (F) community care and (G) mental health. [23296]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of solicitor contractors by category of law at the end of March 2000 and March 2001, was as follows:

  Category

  2000

  2001

  Housing

  733

  673

  Immigration

  419

  482

  Employment

  342

  300

  Welfare benefits

  451

  391

  Education

  31

  40

  Community care

  25

  38

  Mental Health

  322

  349

  The number of not-for-profit contractors by category of law at the end of March 2000 and March 2001, was as follows:

  Category

  2000

  2001

  Housing

  113

  115

  Immigration

  63

  66

  Employment

  67

  73

  Welfare benefits

  226

  245

  Education

  4

  4

  Community care

  3

  0

  Mental Health

  10

  6

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent on setting up and maintaining community legal service partnerships in the current financial year; and which budget the funding comes from. [23297]
  392W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As at the end of September, the Legal Services Commission had spent £1,881,500 in the current financial year on setting up and maintaining community legal service partnerships (CLSPs).

  The funds allocated to the community legal service partnerships are:

  £000

  Partnership support fund (PSF)

  Spent so far

  56.5

  Allocated

  900

  The £900,000 allocated is made up of £400,000 from the Commission's grant in aid, and £500,000 from the Community Legal Service (CLS) Fund.

  Total staffing costs at the end of September were £1,825,000. This figure relates to the totality of planning and partnership work, and includes some elements not related to CLSP development, such as the support for, and administration of, the Commission's regional legal services committees. As these various functions are so integrated with CLSP development it has not been possible to separate out the expenditure.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) specialist help providers and (b) generalist providers are in operation; and how many specialist help providers were in operation when the community legal service was setup. [23299]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As at November 2001, the following numbers of providers were in operation:

  (a) Specialist: 5,463

  (b) General help: 302

  (c)General help with casework: 241.

  At the time of the launch of the community legal service (CLS) in April 2000 only certain categories of work at what is now known as the specialist level were restricted to specialist suppliers, namely those with a licence granted under the Commission's general civil contract. Other work at what is now known as the specialist level was provided outside the contracted system. All legal help work—formerly known as advice and assistance—was contracted. It is therefore impossible to make a direct comparison between the position before 1 April 2000 and now. There were 5,286 contracted providers of all types in place in April 2000.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many community legal service partnerships are operating without a specialist help provider in each category of law. [23298]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. The Legal Services Commission does not routinely collect information at national level in the terms this question asks.

  Community legal service partnerships (CLSPs) do not deliver services. They bring together organisations offering legal and advice services, such as solicitors in private practice, citizens' advice bureaux, law centres, and local authorities, and other funders, providers and users

  393W
  of legal and advice services. Partners act together to co-ordinate and improve access to, and delivery of, legal services and help to carry out need assessment, gap analysis and planning activity.

  The Commission currently records data according to 'bid zones'. 'Bid zones' are geographical areas which form the basis of contracting decisions. Information is recorded highlighting areas where a high level of need has been identified, and indicating whether the need has been met, in order to measure progress against the Commission's objective to develop effective providers operating in those categories of law where a need has been identified. In many areas, there will only be a relatively low level of need identified for specialist categories. In these areas, services are often provided by family practitioners who are authorised to carry out work in other categories under what we call 'tolerances'. The process of assessing priority is a key responsibility of CLSPs.

  Consolidated Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, on how many occasions sums in excess of £10 million were erroneously paid by the Local Chancellor's Department into the Consolidated Fund in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [22550]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No individual payments in excess of £10 million have been made by the Lord Chancellor's Department into the Consolidated Fund in error in the last 12 months. The Department secured a short surrender of £12,002,137 from the Consolidated Fund to recover moneys wrongly paid into the fund, due to an error in the accounting processes employed by the magistrates courts during the 2000–01 financial year. The mistakes were detected by internal controls and action has been taken to tighten procedures and to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated. None of the individual payments was for £10 million or more, and the funds were recovered from the Consolidated Fund by short surrender.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were employed in her Department in each of the last four years. [23790]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 256W, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office.

  Judicial Appointments
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Lord Chancellor will take to increase the number of women appointed to the judiciary. [23355]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor appoints to judicial office exclusively on merit. The number of women holding judicial office substantially reflects the number of women practitioners in the legal profession with the appropriate period of experience which is usually not less than 20 years. The Lord Chancellor has already introduced a number of initiatives to encourage greater 394W
  numbers to apply for judicial office and to secure equality of opportunity in the appointments process. For example, he has made information about the appointments procedures widely available; he applies the procedures flexibly in relation to the age and sitting arrangements; he has introduced a work shadowing scheme; he has reviewed the detailed criteria for appointment against which assessments of suitability are made; he is piloting a scheme to encourage applications from those who may think that their career progress to date understates their judicial potential; and has appointed a Commissioner for Judicial Appointments to audit and make recommendations about the appointments procedures and handle complaints. Preparatory work for a pilot assessment centre has begun with a view to running the pilot in 2002. A video about the appointments process will be completed soon. These efforts will continue and be developed with a view to progressive increases in the numbers of women appointed.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has for part-time, permanent judicial appointments. [23349]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor decided that the facility for salaried part-time working should be piloted in the most recent competition for district judge appointments as part of his policy to promote equality of opportunity for judicial appointments. Following the outcome of this pilot, the Lord Chancellor has decided that the facility may be extended to future competitions for appointments to certain other judicial posts.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game",(a) what progress her Department has made and (b) what future plans her Department has for acting on them; and if she will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24202]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, at column 335.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for Vote V, Lord Chancellor's and Law Officers' Departments, subcategories(a) 1 Lord Chancellor's Department and (b) 6 HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor; and if she will make a statement. [24116]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  (a) An analysis of significant discrepancies between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and the actual outturn will be published shortly in the Department's Resource Account.

  (b) I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit for Vote V Class 6:

  395W
  HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor and the provisional outturn shown in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn results from Appropriations in Aid which were higher than the sum originally estimated. This followed improvements in debt recovery processes in the Treasury Solicitor's Department which resulted in speedier payment of bills for legal services provided to client Departments.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new head teachers were appointed between September 1999 and July 2000(a) in total and (b) by ethnic grouping. [8402]

  Mr. Timms
  The estimate of new head teachers appointed to posts in the maintained schools sector in England between March 1999 and March 2000 was 2,330 (provisional).

  The number of head teachers appointed by ethnic origin is not collected centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many head teachers have left the profession since 1997. [10442]

  Heads leaving in year prior to March 1997

  Heads leaving in year prior to March 1998

  Heads leaving in year prior to March 1999

  Retired

  110

  100

  50

  Left service for reasons other than retirement

  20

  30

  30

  In service in maintained sector but not as a head

  40

  40

  50

  Changed phase, still a head in the maintained sector

  1—

  10

  10

  Total wastage

  170

  180

  150

  1Less than five teachers

  The most recent reliable data available are for March 1999.

  Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not appear to be the addition of the component parts because of rounding.

  Some teachers who have left service will return after a career break.

  Teachers (Offences)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers were convicted of offences committed on school premises in(a) 1990, (b) 1995 and (c) 2000; [23417]

  (2) how many teachers were subject to criminal investigations as a result of incidents in schools in (a) 1990, (b) 1995 and (c) 2000. [23418]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not collected centrally.
  396W
  Mr. Timms
  Head teachers who are no longer in service as heads in the maintained schools sector in England since 1997 are given in the table. The numbers include teachers who are still in service but are not serving as heads.

  Heads leaving in year prior to March 1998

  Heads leaving in year prior to March 1999

  Retired

  1,980

  850

  Left service for reasons other than retirement

  440

  640

  In service in maintained sector but not as a head

  620

  1,050

  Total wastage

  3,040

  2,550

  The most recent reliable data available are for March 1999.

  Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not appear to be the addition of the component parts because of rounding.

  Some teachers who have left service will return after a career break.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special school heads have left the profession in the past three years. [20110]

  Mr. Timms
  The head teachers who have left service as heads in the maintained special schools sector in England in the last three years are given in the table. These include teachers who are still in service but are not serving as heads.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many supply teachers are working in Buckinghamshire; and what percentage supply teachers comprise of the total number of eachers in Buckinghamshire expressed as full-time equivalents. [15769]

  Mr. Timms
  120 occasional teachers on contracts of less than one month were employed in maintained schools in Buckinghamshire for the whole of 18 January 2001, the date of the annual census of teachers in service. That was 2.9 per cent, of the full-time equivalent of regular and occasional teachers working in maintained schools in Buckinghamshire on that day.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many supply teachers are working in each local education authority area; and what percentage supply teachers comprise of the total number of teachers in each local education authority, expressed as full time equivalents. [15617]
  397W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer16 December 2001]: The numbers of teachers on contracts of less than one month 1 (occasional teachers), employed for the whole day in the maintained schools sector on the 18 January 2001, the Date of the annual census of teachers in service, and expressed as percentages of the full-time equivalent of regular and occasional teachers, were as follows:

  Occasional teachers

  Occasional as percentage of all

  Darlington

  50

  6.5

  Hartlepool

  30

  3.6

  Middlesbrough

  60

  4.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  40

  3.2

  Stockton on Tees

  130

  6.9

  Durham

  270

  6.0

  Northumberland

  190

  6.8

  Gateshead

  130

  7.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  120

  5.3

  North Tyneside

  100

  5.3

  South Tyneside

  80

  5.0

  Sunderland

  80

  2.9

  Blackburn with Darwen

  80

  5.5

  Blackpool

  100

  8.6

  Halton

  60

  4.9

  Warrington

  60

  3.4

  Cheshire

  170

  3.0

  Cumbria

  180

  4.0

  Bolton

  140

  5.3

  Bury

  100

  6.1

  Manchester

  240

  6.0

  Oldham

  30

  1.4

  Rochdale

  130

  6.6

  Salford

  100

  5.0

  Stockport

  120

  4.9

  Tameside

  80

  4.2

  Trafford

  100

  4.9

  Wigan

  170

  6.2

  Lancashire

  340

  3.3

  Knowsley

  40

  2.8

  Liverpool

  130

  2.9

  St. Helens

  60

  3.5

  Sefton

  150

  5.3

  Wirral

  170

  5.3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  140

  5.2

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  180

  8.0

  North East Lincolnshire

  80

  5.3

  North Lincolnshire

  70

  5.2

  York

  100

  6.5

  North Yorkshire

  270

  5.1

  Barasley

  140

  7.9

  Doncaster

  100

  3.6

  Rotherham

  140

  5.3

  Sheffield

  210

  4.7

  Bradford

  310

  6.6

  Calderdale

  80

  4.2

  Kirklees

  130

  3.7

  Leeds

  240

  3.8

  Wakefield

  140

  4.9

  Derby

  2—

  0.1

  Leicester

  150

  5.1

  Nottingham

  130

  5.6

  Rutland

  30

  10.0

  Derbyshire

  260

  4.3

  Leicestershire

  180

  3.5

  Lincolnshire

  230

  4.1

  Northamptonshire

  190

  3.5

  Nottinghamshire

  280

  4.5

  Herefordshire

  60

  4.3

  Stoke on Trent

  130

  6.2

  Telford and Wrekin

  90

  5.8

  Shropshire

  100

  4.6

  Staffordshire

  320

  4.4

  Warwickshire

  130

  2.9

  398W

  Occasional teachers

  Occasional as percentage of all

  Birmingham

  300

  2.8

  Coventry

  110

  3.6

  Dudley

  120

  4.2

  Sandwell

  90

  3.4

  Solihull

  80

  3.9

  Walsall

  80

  3.1

  Wolverhampton

  150

  6.0

  Worcestershire

  160

  3.5

  Luton

  420

  20.2

  Peterborough

  90

  5.6

  Southend on Sea

  60

  4.0

  Thurrock

  60

  4.6

  Bedfordshire

  130

  3.7

  Cambridgeshire

  90

  2.1

  Essex

  480

  4.3

  Hertfordshire

  120

  1.3

  Norfolk

  220

  3.4

  Suffolk

  240

  4.2

  Camden

  70

  4.5

  City of London

  2—

  4.5

  Hackney

  230

  13.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  230

  18.6

  Haringey

  100

  5.3

  Islington

  120

  8.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  60

  8.8

  Lambeth

  50

  3.3

  Lewisham

  100

  4.7

  Newham

  230

  8.7

  Southwark

  120

  5.8

  Tower Hamlets

  220

  9.2

  Wandsworth

  50

  3.0

  City of Westminster

  80

  6.1

  Barking and Dagenham

  110

  6.9

  Barnet

  100

  3.5

  Bexley

  110

  5.0

  Brent

  100

  4.7

  Bromley

  110

  4.2

  Croydon

  190

  6.4

  Ealing

  100

  4.1

  Enfield

  140

  5.0

  Greenwich

  100

  4.7

  Harrow

  120

  7.3

  Havering

  90

  4.4

  Hillingdon

  90

  3.9

  Hounslow

  50

  2.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  60

  5.1

  Merton

  60

  4.5

  Redbridge

  60

  2.6

  Richmond upon Thames

  110

  9.4

  Sutton

  40

  2.6

  Waltham Forest

  40

  1.9

  Bracknell Forest

  40

  4.5

  Brighton and Hove

  60

  3.3

  Isle of Wight

  60

  5.1

  Medway

  130

  5.7

  Milton Keynes

  80

  4.5

  Portsmouth

  70

  4.5

  Reading

  60

  5.3

  Slough

  60

  5.3

  Southampton

  100

  5.7

  West Berkshire

  30

  1.9

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  20

  1.7

  Wokingham

  40

  2.7

  Buckinghamshire

  120

  2.9

  East Sussex

  150

  4.0

  Hampshire

  520

  5.5

  Kent

  470

  4.0

  Oxfordshire

  130

  2.6

  Surrey

  260

  3.4

  West Sussex

  210

  3.6

  Bath and North East Somerset

  60

  3.8

  Bournemouth

  80

  6.3

  City of Bristol

  150

  5.1

  399W

  Occasional teachers

  Occasional as percentage of all

  North Somerset

  70

  4.6

  Plymouth

  170

  7.1

  Poole

  30

  2.6

  South Gloucestershire

  130

  5.7

  Swindon

  50

  3.5

  Torbay

  60

  5.4

  Cornwall

  250

  6.2

  Isles of Scilly

  2—

  4.5

  Devon

  270

  5.1

  Dorset

  100

  3.4

  Gloucestershire

  130

  2.7

  Somerset

  330

  8.1

  Wiltshire

  120

  3.5

  England

  19,590

  4.6

  1Numbers of occasional teachers are rounded to the nearest ten. The total may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.

  2Less than 5.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to eliminate the differences in rates of pay per hour for supply teachers working for Cumbria LEA and those employed by Lancashire LEA; and if she will make a statement. [24047]

  Mr. Timms
  Supply teachers employed by an LEA or by the governing body of a maintained school must be paid under the provisions of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. The document provides that teachers employed on a short notice basis should be paid a proportion of the remuneration that would be appropriate if they were employed full-time. It is, however, for the individual employer to determine what that proportion should be on the basis of the number of hours worked in the day. An interpretation of how to calculate the appropriate proportion and hours worked per day could differ between two authorities. I am content to allow this flexibility of interpretation to remain.

  Teachers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers in Buckinghamshire schools left the profession before retirement age in each year since 1992. [20131]

  Mr. Timms
  Numbers of qualified teachers who have left full or part time regular service in the maintained schools sector in England since 1992, who were under 60 and who were teaching in Buckinghamshire at the time of leaving are as follows:

  Financial year of leaving

  Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes

  "Old" Buckinghamshire1

  1991–92

  —

  —

  650

  1992–93

  —

  —

  540

  1993–94

  —

  —

  440

  1994–95

  —

  —

  400

  1995–96

  —

  —

  510

  1996–97

  —

  —

  500

  1997–98

  —

  —

  560

  1998–99

  320

  170

  490

  1999–20002

  310

  160

  470

  1Buckinghamshire LEA was split into Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes LEAs as a result of local government reorganisation in 1998.

  2The most recent year for which data are available is 1999–2000. These data are still provisional.

  400W
  Notes:

  1. The figures exclude 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, of part-time teachers not included on the teacher pension scheme records.

  2. Some teachers who left service will return after a career break.

  3. Leavers include teachers who moved to teach in other countries, or the independent or F/HE sectors, those who were not teaching and not receiving a pension, and those who had left with premature, ill health or actuarially reduced pensions.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual average staff turnover has been in secondary schools in the last five academic years. [20106]

  Mr. Timms
  Turnover data are not available for academic years.

  The annual average staff turnover of full and part time regular teachers in maintained secondary schools in England in the last five financial years for which data are available are as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  Turnover1

  1995–96

  15.9

  1996–97

  16.5

  1997–98

  18.2

  1998–99

  15.5

  1999–20002

  15.9

  1 Turnover includes teachers leaving regular service in the English maintained sector and changing schools within the maintained sector. Employers do not always notify details of a teacher moving between schools in their employment and so the overall level of turnover quoted is lower than the true level, which is not known.

  2 1999–2000 data are provisional.

  Note:

  The figures exclude 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, of part-time teachers not included on the teacher pension scheme records.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual average staff turnover has been in primary schools in the last five academic years. [20107]

  Mr. Timms
  Turnover data are not available for academic years.

  The annual average staff turnover of full and part-time regular teachers in maintained nursery/primary schools in England in the last five financial years for which data are available are as follows:

  Percentage

  Turnover1

  1995–96

  14.1

  1996–97

  13.8

  1997–98

  15.2

  1998–99

  13.3

  1999–20002

  14.2

  1Turnover includes teachers leaving regular service in the English maintained sector and changing schools within the maintained sector. Employers do not always notify details of a teacher moving between schools in their employment and so the overall level of turnover quoted is lower than the true level, which is not known.

  21999–2000 data are provisional.

  The figures exclude 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, of part-time teachers not included on the teacher pension scheme records.
  401W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many newly qualified teachers who began work in London and the South East have left the profession within the five years since 1997. [20261]

  Mr. Timms
  Teachers who gained their teaching qualification in England; were in full or part-time regular service in the maintained schools sector in London or the south-east in March of the year after they qualified; and who were not in service in the maintained schools sector in England five years later, are as follows:

  Not in service in the maintained sector in England five years after first service

  Year of qualification/not in service at

  Number

  Percentage

  1991

  March 1997

  1,230

  29

  1992

  March 1998

  1,510

  31

  1993

  March 1999

  1,610

  30

  1994

  March 20001

  1,860

  32

  1 The most recent year for which data are available is 1999–2000.

  These data are still provisional.

  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.

  Leavers include teachers who moved to teach in other countries, or the independent or FE/HE sectors, those who were not teaching and not receiving a pension, and those who had left with premature, ill health or actuarially reduced pensions.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are at each(a) primary and (b) secondary school in the Portsmouth, South constituency. [21222]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The numbers of full-time vacancies for teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Portsmouth local authority in January 2001 were as follows:

  Number of vacancies

  Nursery and primary

  20

  Secondary

  36

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers working in the Buckingham constituency took early retirement under(a) premature and (b) ill-health retirement arrangements in each year since 1997. [23724]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of teachers from the maintained schools sector in Buckinghamshire local education authority, who took premature or ill-health retirement, were as follows.
  402W

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Premature

  149

  58

  37

  32

  Ill-health

  23

  14

  14

  10

  1 Provisional data

  Note:

  There were no teachers who took actuarially reduced pensions

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many days on average were lost per teacher due to sickness in each of the last five years(a) nationally and (b) in the Buckingham constituency. [23725]

  Mr. Timms
  Information for the Buckingham constituency is not collected centrally.

  The average number of days of sickness absence taken per teacher in the maintained schools sector in calendar years 1999 and 2000, in the Buckinghamshire local authority area and England were, as follows:

  1999

  2000

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  5

  England1

  5

  5

  1 England figures have been estimated to allow for local authorities that did not make a return. Teacher sickness absence data was not collected centrally before calendar year 1999.

  Teachers (Assaults)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were subject to violent assaults in schools in the last year for which records are available. [23497]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not collected centrally. However, the number of injuries to teachers involving acts of assault or violence in England, Wales, and Scotland reported to the Health and Safety Executive in 2000–01 was 166.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were assaulted by(a) pupils and (b) parents in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; and in how many cases a conviction was obtained. [23723]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not hold these data. Buckinghamshire local education authority has informed us that, from 1998 to 31 July 2001, there were 552 assaults on teachers in the county. 541 were by pupils, the majority by pupils in special schools. Eleven were by parents and others. The authority is not aware of any convictions.

  FE Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had with the Association of Colleges to discuss the shortage of(a) teachers and (b) lecturers in further education. [23545]

  John Healey
  The Secretary of State met David Gibson from the Association of Colleges (AOC) on 14 November 2001 and also addressed the AOC Conference on 20 November. Additionally, my colleague the Minister for Lifelong Learning and I have each met twice with representatives from the AOC, on 15 June and 31 July, and 12 July and 10 October respectively.
  403W
  Discussion at these meetings covered a wide range of issues about the FE sector, including recruitment and retention difficulties in some subject areas and the initiatives that Government have introduced to attract new staff to the profession and reward and retain excellent teachers and lecturers, including the Teaching Pay Initiative, Golden Helios, Student Loan Write Off and Training Bursaries.

  School Buses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government have taken to combat(a) bullying and (b) vandalism on school buses. [20636]

  Mr. Timms
  Bullying can be a serious problem in and around schools and in December 2000 we launched a new anti-bullying strategy, including a comprehensive new anti-bullying pack for schools with an accompanying video aimed at pupils. We have also required headteachers to draw up anti-bullying policies; these should be kept under regular review with Ofsted involved in carrying out inspections. Although the courts have ruled that a school's duty of care to prevent bullying applies within the school precincts, teachers could discuss bullying on school buses with escorts, the transport company and the local education authority and all three could take action when appropriate.

  Vandalism can also be a serious problem on some occasions. It is for the operators of school buses as well as the local education authority to address safety issues including the prevention of bullying or violence. The DTLR has recently published "The School Run" training programme for bus drivers (February 2001), designed to help improve the relationships between bus drivers and young people. The publication also contains "best practice" checklists for schools, bus companies and Passenger Transport Executives, and lesson material alerting children to the dangers of misbehaving on buses.

  >Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Admissions)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to require Oxford and Cambridge Universities to publish information in respect of student admissions to constituent colleges for the year 2001–02 in standardised format, indicating the number and percentage of(a) applications and (b) acceptances from (i) private schools, (ii) state selective schools, (iii) state comprehensive schools, (iv) sixth form colleges, (v) tertiary colleges and (vi) other places; and if she will make a statement. [20737]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Cambridge and Oxford Universities have published information on admissions for entry in 2001 from both the maintained and independent sector, disaggregated by college. The relevant extracts are in the table. The universities are responsible for the accuracy of this information. Further disaggregation is not held centrally.

  We recognise and welcome the efforts made by both universities to widen participation, and urge them to continue this important work.
  404W

  Applications and offers at Oxford University broken down by college, for 2001 admissions

  Percentage

  College

  Applications for maintained

  Offers for maintained

  Balliol

  49.6

  (52.5)

  52.7

  (51.1)

  Brasenose

  39.8

  (40.0)

  44.0

  (41.5)

  Christ Church

  43.0

  (46.6)

  38.9

  (43.0)

  Corpus Christi

  57.3

  (60.0)

  51.6

  (55.8)

  Exeter

  50.9

  (55.7)

  55.6

  (53.1)

  Harris Manchester

  100.0

  (100.0)

  85.7

  (95.2)

  Hertford

  69.3

  (65.2)

  67.2

  (61.1)

  Jesus

  66.6

  (64.1)

  58.3

  (59.5)

  Keble

  58.4

  (60.8)

  60.0

  (59.7)

  Lady Margaret Hall

  45.9

  (47.3)

  41.2

  (45.5)

  Lincoln

  51.5

  (49.0)

  57.0

  (50.0)

  Magdalen

  56.2

  (53.9)

  51.9

  (49.1)

  Mansfield

  71.4

  (66.1)

  67.1

  (68.3)

  Merton

  61.0

  (65.0)

  53.6

  (56.1)

  New

  54.0

  (54.1)

  49.1

  (49.3)

  Oriel

  46.1

  (45.1)

  44.6

  (42.6)

  Pembroke

  45.0

  (43.6)

  54.5

  (47.5)

  Queen's

  49.5

  (53.1)

  56.8

  (56.4)

  St. Anne's

  53.0

  (54.2)

  60.7

  (56.6)

  St. Catherine's

  58.9

  (60.0)

  57.1

  (56.8)

  St. Edmund Hall

  40.1

  (42.4)

  48.5

  (44.8)

  St. Hilda's

  62

  (60.5)

  59.8

  (57.2)

  St. Hugh's

  62.9

  (59.8)

  63.9

  (54.3)

  St. John's

  67.0

  (65.6)

  66.4

  (64.3)

  St. Peter's

  49.6

  (46.9)

  52.8

  (50.0)

  Somerville

  54.6

  (55.1)

  61.3

  (57.6)

  Trinity

  47.1

  (42.7)

  53.6

  (46.6)

  University

  45.5

  (48.7)

  42.6

  (45.8)

  Wadham

  71.2

  (71.1)

  67.5

  (65.5)

  Worcester

  40.9

  (40.0)

  47.8

  (44.0)

  Note:

  A three-year average from 1999–01 is shown in brackets

  University of Cambridge Applications and acceptances by college—2001

  College

  Applications for 20011

  Acceptances in 20011

  Christ's

  58

  (55)

  51

  (37)

  Churchill

  68

  (75)

  58

  (68)

  Clare

  65

  (56)

  59

  (55)

  Corpus Christi

  56

  (49)

  53

  (39)

  Downing

  47

  (51)

  46

  (41)

  Emmanuel

  59

  (61)

  53

  (54)

  Fitzwilliam

  68

  (71)

  60

  (66)

  Girton

  62

  (61)

  58

  (61)

  Gonville and Caius

  46

  (48)

  36

  (48)

  Jesus

  53

  (57)

  56

  (54)

  King's

  85

  (84)

  78

  (77)

  Magdalene

  42

  (42)

  44

  (36)

  New Hall

  58

  (59)

  55

  (58)

  Newnham

  64

  (58)

  59

  (49)

  Pembroke

  57

  (55)

  50

  (50)

  Peterhouse

  45

  (52)

  43

  (43)

  Queens'

  60

  (60)

  53

  (55)

  Robinson

  64

  (65)

  64

  (56)

  Selwyn

  54

  (58)

  48

  (49)

  Sidney Sussex

  58

  (55)

  52

  (45)

  St. Catharine's

  52

  (58)

  51

  (52)

  St. John's

  55

  (52)

  49

  (45)

  Trinity

  52

  (56)

  45

  (48)

  Trinity Hall

  53

  (55)

  50

  (47)

  All standard Colleges

  58

  (59)

  53

  (52)

  1 Maintained percentage

  Note:

  Figures in brackets are for last year
  405W

  Social Deprivation
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish comparisons of academic results between schools with equivalently socially deprived catchment areas. [23350]

  Mr. Timms
  Benchmark information based on national pupil performance in maintained, mainstream schools is published annually in the Department's autumn package. The benchmark data enable schools to compare their performance with other schools grouped according to one measure of social disadvantage, that is, the percentage of children known to be eligible for a free school meal. A copy of the autumn package has been placed in the House of Commons Library; it is also available on the Department's website.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will implement measures to ensure that industry is(a) consulted and (b) represented in attempts to replace the individual learning accounts scheme. [23544]

  John Healey
  Some discussions have already been held with training providers. We are now about to seek the views of a wider range of stakeholders. This will include representatives of industry and employers, both large and small. The views obtained will be an important element in designing a new ILA-style programme.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she had made of the deadweight cost of individual learning accounts. [19526]

  John Healey
  With any universal offer deadweight will exist. Although not an exact calculation, an assessment of deadweight within the ILA programme can be based upon the evaluation evidence drawn from a series of hypothetical questions. Based on the sample selected the first stage evaluation showed that 44 per cent, of account holders said that they would have been able to pay for their course without their ILA discount.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the first date her Department was informed of alleged misuse of individual learning accounts. [21305]

  John Healey
  My Department actively engaged learning providers in the development of the individual learning accounts programme. For example, a number of seminars were held with learning providers in 2000, prior to the introduction of the national framework for individual learning accounts, and these continued into 2001. At these events providers expressed a wide range of opinions. In September 2000 James O'Brien, Managing Director, Pitman Training, wrote to Ministers to express concern that the programme was open to abuse, but also said that the cap on public support for each individual's ILA account introduced to help control such abuse had been set at too low a level. This is the earliest correspondence we have traced on the specific topic of potential misuse of the ILA scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning providers were registered with the individual learning accounts centre on 27 November. [23109]
  406W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: When the individual learning account programme closed on 23 November 2001, there were 8,900 learning providers registered with the ILA centre.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 814W, on individual learning accounts, by whom it is not expected that the Department should offer financial advice. [23580]

  John Healey
  It is not expected within the design or operation of the ILA programme that the Department should provide financial advice to any firm that considered participating in the ILA programme or that was affected by its closure.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when pending ILA applicants will be validated so that training providers can be paid outstanding money. [23437]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Officials have, as a matter of priority, been working to validate outstanding claims for payment to learning providers. I can confirm that we will be making payments this week to almost 1,400 providers who had submitted claims up to 21 November. There are, however, a smaller number of claims from around 140 providers, in some cases for significant amounts, on which we need to carry out further checks before payments can be cleared. Officials will be writing this week to all providers whose claims were outstanding up to 21 November to explain the general arrangements for taking forward the processing of existing and future claims.

  We are also continuing to work on validating claims made between 21 and 23 November and on dealing with learning booked on the ILA system up to its closure on 23 November. Once we are satisfied that eligible learning has taken place in accordance with the rules of the programme, we will be able to arrange payments to all providers who are not currently subject to investigation, provided that this status does not change following the analysis of recent complaints received.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what checks were carried out to prevent multiple ILA applications from single addresses. [23439]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: A full common address trawl of the ILA system has been carried out to identify multiple individual applications at the same address. This led to investigations by the Department into 41 providers. As a result 15 providers were suspended from the register of learning providers eligible to receive funds from the ILA programme. Investigations are continuing.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for adult skills the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey) of 11 December 2001,Official Report, Westminster Hall, columns 218–224WH, on individual learning accounts, what the budget was for ILA by March 2002; and how many of the accounts were budgeted to be used. [23541]
  407W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: The total budget available in England over the two years 2000–01 and 2001–02 is £202.1 million, which includes £115.1 million which has been recycled from TEC resources. The aim was to have 1 million ILAs opened by March 2002. No precise number was set for ILAs budgeted to be used, as the ILA programme was an entirely new and innovative programme for which take-up could not accurately be predicted in its early years.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 813W, on individual learning accounts, whether there were constraints upon the absolute exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion; and whether the power of the Secretary of State to close down the learning account scheme immediately and without notice was publicised to (a) learning account holders and (b) learning account providers. [23581]

  John Healey
  The only constraints on the absolute exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion would be where this was inconsistent with natural justice.

  The Secretary of State and I took the decision to shut down the programme with immediate effect from 6.30pm on 23 November. That decision was taken to minimise a serious risk to public funds. Under these circumstances, there was no time to notify providers or account holders in advance.

  The shutdown meant that neither the ILA account holders database nor the ILA learning providers database was 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 of the ILA helpline for account holders, on a limited basis, on 27 November.

  All learning providers were notified by letter on 29 November.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 814W, on individual learning accounts, if she will give reasons for not offering compensation in the circumstances described. [23584]

  John Healey
  The purpose of the ILA scheme was not to give people rights to money but to encourage them to undertake learning.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether her Department has contacted the Data Protection Registrar about possible unauthorised access to the ILA account holders database; and if she will make a statement. [23577]

  John Healey
  The Department has not contacted the Information Commissioner (previously Data Protection Registrar) concerning possible unauthorised access to the ILA account holder's database. The Department's Special Investigations Unit has been working closely with the police and where prima facie evidence of criminal activity has been found the police have been asked to take over investigations.
  408W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 813W, on individual learning accounts, if she will pay interest on sums due to learning providers but not paid on time. [23586]

  John Healey
  The Department has no plans to pay interest to learning providers on payments delayed because of the closure of the individual learning account programme on 23 November 2001 following evidence of serious potential fraud and theft.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to which individuals and organisations the individual learning account holders database has been available since April. [23543]

  John Healey
  Learners and potential learners could visit the website (www.my-ila.com) only for information purposes and to request application packs. Registered learning providers could access the database once they had been provided with a user name and password. This allowed them to register courses, book learning and to confirm learning had taken place. Learning providers could only view personal name and address details of individuals registered on courses with that learning provider. Staff in DfES had view access only. The organisation 'learndirect' had a separate although restricted access to allow them to issue application packs to inquirers.

  Selected Capita staff at the ILA centre locations in Coventry and Darlington, together with the programme development team at Trowbridge, had operational access to the database in order to administer the programme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 813W, on individual learning accounts, if she will place in the Library a copy of the rules of the programme. [23587]

  John Healey
  Copies of the definition of eligible learning, the regulations and guidance and the incentives rules have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for adult skills the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey) of 11 December 2001,Official Report, Westminster Hall, columns 218–224WH, on individual learning accounts whether the aim was that all holders should have used their accounts to embark on a course of eligible learning by March 2002. [23542]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: Our aim was to have 1 million account holders by March 2002. By July 2001 we had 1.5 million account holders in England.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list those representations she received before 24 October on the administration of the ILA scheme, distinguishing those which identified the danger of(a) fraud and (b) financial over-run. [19465]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: I have already announced to the House details about complaints and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on PQ12290.
  409W
  We have received a number of representations about fraud from hon. Members, individual learning account holders and individual learning account registered learning providers. It is established practice that the Department is only expected to publish or list correspondence if it has specifically invited stakeholders to write or feedback on an issue and that the information supplied will be placed in the public domain. We have not received any representation about financial over-run.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether individual learning account numbers were randomly generated. [23435]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Individual learning account numbers consisted of 10 digits. The first nine digits were sequential; the last digit was randomly selected.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 813W, on individual learning accounts, for what reason those account holders who had not used their accounts by 23 November cannot be subject to a validation process as a condition of being able to undertake eligible learning. [23582]

  John Healey
  The Individual Learning Account programme was closed on 23 November as a result of evidence of serious potential fraud and theft. That decision was taken to minimise a serious risk to public funds. However, subject to new validation arrangements, all eligible learning booked onto the ILA system before 6.30 pm on 23 November will be honoured.

  The programme is now closed to the further booking of learning by ILA account holders and learning providers. Account holders who did not have their learning booked onto the ILA system by 23 November will not be able to benefit from a discount on the cost of their learning.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by what means the Government intend to enable genuine learning providers to access moneys that have been diverted to bogus learning providers. [21078]

  John Healey
  The ILA programme was shut down on 23 November and closed to the further booking of learning by learning providers. 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 will not benefit from an ILA discount.

  The overall purpose of ILAs was to help people overcome the financial barriers to learning by helping with the costs. The incentives and discounts were placed in the hands of the individual as they are best placed to choose learning that is most beneficial to their training needs. Some learning providers will, as a result, have received an increase in their business because of ILAs.
  410W
  However, learning providers can only access moneys if an account holder has decided to use their ILA to help pay for learning at their establishment.

  The Department has already been successful in reclaiming public funds and is actively working with other partner organisations including the police to recover funds wherever possible.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many holders of individual learning accounts have complained to her Department about their account being been used without their authority. [23108]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: As at 30 November 5,732 complaints had been received from individuals about ILA incentives taken without their knowledge, out of over 2.6 million account holders.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will permit clusters of schools to apply jointly for specialist school status. [23599]

  Mr. Timms
  The published assessment criteria for each specialism permit joint specialist school applications involving two schools. The criteria also allow for collaborative approaches involving associated applications. Arrangements for associated applications involve a group of schools making solo applications or a combination of solo and joint applications, across a range of specialisms as part of a strategic approach to specialist school provision across an area. Each application succeeds or fails on its own merits.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on the targets agreed by specialist schools consequent on that status and their success in achieving them. [23679]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the specialist school targets agreed by individual arts, language, technology and sports colleges is not collated but is contained in the development plans and progress reports of each of the 685 specialist schools. These plans and progress reports are retained on individual school files and used in the assessment process for redesignation. Typically, the four-year development plans of an applicant school set between 100 and 400 targets, which focus on a range of school and community strands.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collates on the success of specialist schools in achieving targets agreed consequent on their status. [23680]

  Mr. Timms
  Specialist schools are required to provide annual reports of the progress they have made in implementing their development plans. Information on the achievement of the targets set in the plans is taken into account alongside a new development plan when they seek redesignation as specialist schools.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will seek a report from HM Chief Inspector of Schools on the level of success of specialist schools in achieving targets consequent on that status. [23681]

  Mr. Timms
  As part of Ofsted's survey of specialist schools, published in October, HMI assessed the progress of schools visited in relation to their targets in order to
  411W
  examine the impact of the programme on attainment and he quality of provision in designated schools; to evaluate how specialist schools were managing their role and to illustrate good practice. The first main finding in the report confirms that four out of five specialist schools covered by the survey.
  "are in large measure achieving the aims of the specialist schools programme and making good use of the advantages it brings".
  We believe Ofsted's report will help all specialist schools sustain and accelerate their achievements and see no need at present to commission another survey. However, we do continually review the need for evaluation evidence about the progress of specialist schools in meeting their targets, including the information my Department requests of them in their annual reports.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each specialist school(a) the names of sponsors, (b) the amount of money contributed in aggregate by external sponsors and (c) the additional resources contributed by her Department. [23682]

  Mr. Timms
  A list of the names of sponsors of each specialist school can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The aggregate contribution of external sponsorship to specialist schools to date is at least £58 million. The additional resources provided for the specialist schools

  Academic year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England—percentage achieving

  One or more grades A*-C

  70.5

  71.4

  72.6

  73.6

  74.0

  Five or more grades A*-C

  45.1

  46.3

  47.9

  49.2

  50.0

  Buckingham—percentage achieving

  One or more grades A*-C

  77.1

  82.0

  81.8

  80.2

  82.2

  Five or more grades A*-C

  54.1

  54.4

  57.7

  56.0

  60.6

  Pupil Absences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unauthorised absences there were from schools(a) nationally and (b) in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [23722]

  England

  Buckingham

  Year

  Number

  Primary Percentage

  Number

  Secondary Percentage

  Number

  Primary Percentage

  Number

  Secondary Percentage

  1996–97

  5,214,716

  0.5

  8,464,617

  1.0

  1,265

  0.1

  1,589

  0.2

  1997–98

  5,436,843

  0.5

  9,111,510

  1.1

  1,766

  0.1

  2,703

  0.3

  1998–99

  5,575,015

  0.5

  9,395,441

  1.1

  874

  0.0

  2,288

  0.3

  1999–2000

  5,228,644

  0.5

  9,165,319

  1.0

  885

  0.0

  5,210

  0.5

  2000–01

  5,356,096

  0.5

  9,430,735

  1.1

  1,856

  0.1

  5,963

  0.6

  School Computers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average number of pupils per computer was in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [23729]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  412W
  programme by this Department from the academic year 1994–95 to the academic year 2000–01 inclusive is £245 million.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the performance of schools within education action zones. [23675]

  Mr. Timms
  The performance of schools in education action zones continues to improve. They are making useful contributions to raising standards and are closing the gap with national achievements. The most significant impact is being made by primary schools where achievement continues to rise faster than the national rate.

  Examination Results (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the proportion of pupils achieving(a) one or more A to C and (b) five or more A to C GCSE grades was (i) nationally and (ii) from schools based in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [23721]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The proportion of 15-year-old pupils achieving(a) one or more A* to C and (b) five or more A* to C GCSE grades in England and the Buckingham constituency since 1997 are as follows:

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers and percentages of half days missed due to unauthorised absences in maintained primary and secondary schools in England and the Buckingham constituency since 1997 are:

  Information for England for 1998–2001 was published in Statistical Bulletin 09/01 "Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2001", which is available on my Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics and from the Library. Information for England is derived from a sample of schools, which is too small to produce reliable information for sub-national areas.
  413W

  Muslim Teachers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of female (i) primary and (ii) secondary school teachers who are Muslims. [23810]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Teachers (Work Load)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she plans to take to reduce the time teachers spend on administration. [23977]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department keeps administrative requirements on all schools under continuous review. We have taken a number of actions to reduce the burdens on schools, including simplifying the Standards Fund, providing extra funding for small schools to meet proportionately higher administrative costs and to encourage the development of collaborative approaches to reducing burdens, such as shared ICT technicians, and actively screening all mailings to schools. In addition, in the school year 2000–01, we achieved a significant reduction in the number of pages sent to schools by the Department.

  We recognise that there is more to be done to make teaching a more manageable profession. The PricewaterhouseCoopers study of teacher work load, published on 5 December 2001, has put forward further practical ways of addressing work load issues, which the Department and other stakeholders are considering.

  School Partnerships
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which grammar/non-selective school partnerships are in receipt of financial support from her Department; and how much support and what the nature of the partnership is in each case. [24086]

  Mr. Timms
  We have allocated £505,616 to 28 partnerships for the 2001–02 school year. Detailed information on the successful partnerships have been placed in the Libraries.

  Standards Fund
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will announce next year's Standards Fund allocation to local education authorities; and what the increase in the Standards Fund will be. [24279]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the Standards Fund programme for 2002–03 was issued to local education authorities on 28 September in the form of a circular from

  Decisions issued in 2000–01

  Upheld1

  Dismissed2

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Total

  Appeals not involving contents of Statements

  Refusal to assess

  229

  67

  115

  33

  344

  Refusal to statement

  66

  70

  28

  30

  94

  Refusal to re-assess

  15

  65

  8

  35

  23

  Cease to Maintain

  13

  62

  8

  38

  21

  Total

  323

  67

  159

  33

  482

  414W
  the Department for Education and Skills. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library. Allocations for most of the grants supported under the Standards Fund were notified to local education authorities by the end of November. Allocations for some grants remain to be issued as they are based on information not yet available. The total expenditure to be supported through the Standards Fund in 2002–03 will be £3.6 billion, compared to £3.1 billion in 2001–02. The totals include both Government grant and local education authority contributions.

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases set down for a hearing in the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in the latest year for which figures are available were(a) abandoned at the instigation of the local education authority, (b) abandoned at the request of parents, (c) determined in favour of the local education authority and (d) determined (i) in whole and (ii) in part in favour of parents. [23942]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following information gives a breakdown of appeals for 1 September 2000 to 1 August 2001. It gives the number of appeals abandoned at the request of the local education authority and at the request of the parent. The tribunal does not collect information about the outcome of appeals in the format requested. However, information about the number of appeals upheld or partially upheld is available and a table providing this information is also included. A case is listed as "upheld" when any of the points at issue are decided in the parents' favour.

  SEN Tribunal

  Breakdown of appeals information 1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001

  Total number of Registrations: 2,728

  Total number of Decisions: 1,206

  Total number of Withdrawals: 1,368.

  How many cases set down for hearing in SENT in the latest year were:

  (a)abandoned at the instigation of the LEA
  Of the total number of withdrawals last year, 699 appeals were withdrawn because the LEA had fully complied with the appeal and therefore not opposed. A further 475 cases were withdrawn because the LEA had negotiated an agreement with the parents.

  (b)abandoned at the request of the parents
  Of the total number of withdrawals last year 40 related to parents changing their minds about the appeals. The remaining 154 cases were withdrawn but the Tribunal does not know the reason.

  (c), (d)(i), (ii) determined in favour of the LEA and parent in whole or in part

  The outcome of the appeals for which the Tribunal issued a decision during the year is summarised in the table:
  415W

  Decisions issued in 2000–01

  Upheld1

  Dismissed2

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Total

  Contents of Statement

  Parts 2 and/or 3, not 4

  157

  89

  19

  11

  176

  Parts 2, 3 and 4

  354

  92

  29

  8

  383

  Part 4 only

  106

  76

  34

  24

  140

  Refusal to change school named

  14

  70

  6

  30

  20

  Failure to name a school

  4

  80

  1

  20

  5

  Total

  635

  88

  89

  12

  724

  Total decisions issued

  958

  79

  248

  21

  1,206

  1Total upheld appeals includes those cases remitted to the LEA in the Refusal to Statement category

  2Total dismissed appeals includes strike outs

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administration costs of the Disability Rights Commission were in 2000–01; and what she expects them to be in 2001–02. [21295]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 2000–01 the administration costs of the Disability Rights Commission were £8.063 million. In 2001–2 they are expected to be £7.508 million. These figures includes staff salaries and other related expenditure such as premises and equipment.

  Trailblazer Sector Skills Council
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which sectors are to be covered by a Trailblazer Sector Skills Council. [24365]

  Estelle Morris
  From the 31 expressions of interest received, I am pleased to announce that the following five sectors will be invited to form a Trailblazer Sector Skills Council:

  apparel, footwear and textile

  audio visual industries

  land based industries

  oil and gas extraction; petroleum refining and distribution; and chemical manufacture

  retail.

  All sectors who expressed an interest, but were unsuccessful in being awarded Trailblazer SSC status, have been offered one-to-one feedback meetings to explain reasons for the decision and to initiate a dialogue on the way forward for their sectors.

  Employment and Social Policy Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Employment and Social Policy Council held in Brussels on 3 December; what the Government position was on each issue discussed, including their voting record; and if she will make a statement. [21219]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions represented the UK at the Employment and Social Policy Council in Brussels on 3 December, together with the Minister for Employment and the Regions.
  416W
  The Council agreed parameters for the simplification of the co-ordination of social security schemes under Regulation 1408–71. The UK was able to accept the parameters, subject to detailed scrutiny, further negotiations and correction of linguistic points. The parameters will be forwarded to the Laeken European Council. The UK was also able to endorse the Council's Conclusions identifying the appropriate legal base for extending co-ordination of social security schemes to nationals of third countries.

  The Council reached political agreement on the 'Autumn Package' of Employment measures, comprising the Employment Guidelines for 2002; Recommendations on the implementation of member states' employment policies and the adoption of the Joint Employment Report for 2001: the 'package' will go to the Laeken European Council for endorsement.

  The Council adopted Conclusions on indicators on 'Quality in Work' which will be presented to the Laeken European Council, thus fulfilling the remit from the Stockholm European Council.

  The Council adopted a report on indicators of poverty and social exclusion for Laeken; a Joint Commission and Council Report on social inclusion and a joint report from the Social Protection Committee and the Economic Policy Committee on objectives and working methods in the area of pensions. All three documents will go to the Laeken European Council for adoption.

  The Council agreed a common position on amending the Insolvency (worker protection) Directive, to bring it in line with recent jurisprudence.

  The Council also agreed to adopt 2003 as the European Year of People with Disabilities.

  The Council adopted Conclusions on Structural Indicators, which will be forwarded to the General Affairs Council; indicators on the Gender pay gap, and on an EU-level mechanism to help resolve transnational employment disputes.

  The Belgian Presidency presented a progress report on a Directive on Employee Involvement in the European Co-operative. The Presidency reported progress on the Asbestos (worker protection) Directive. A common position is expected to be finalised under the forthcoming Spanish Presidency. The Council noted two Presidency reports on gender mainstreaming in Council formations and agreed a contribution to work on the Broad Economic Guidelines for 2002, to be forwarded to ECOFIN.
  417W
  The Council adopted a Resolution on the Commission's Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility and requested that the outcomes of the current debates at national level be incorporated in the Commission's next Communication on this subject.

  The Commission gave an overview of its Communication on increased Labour Force Participation and Active Ageing. The Commission presented its Communication on Lifelong Learning.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the new deal for Disabled People pilot studies. [18410]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  Evaluation has shown that the New Deal for Disabled People Personal Adviser Service and Innovative Schemes produced encouraging results.

  Pilot evaluation reports are available in the Library and on the new deal website.

  The national extension of the new deal for disabled people from 2 July 2001 was informed by the pilot evaluation reports. It too will be evaluated to find the best ways of helping disabled people find work.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administration costs of the Equal Opportunities Commission were in 2000–01; and what she expects them to be in 2001–02. [21294]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am replying as I am responsible for the financial arrangements of the Equal Opportunities Commission. The Commission's administration costs in 2000–01 were £6.929 million. The Commission expects their administration costs to be £6.333 million during the current financial year. Details of the Commission's expenditure are published in their combined annual report and accounts, which is available to the public.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, 'Winning the Generation Game', (a) what progress her Department has made and (b) what future plans her Department has for acting on them; and if she will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24196]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, at column 335W.

  Teachers' Qualifications
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 44W, for what
  418W
  reason figures have not been collected since 1996–97 on the percentage of secondary school teachers holding an appropriate subject qualification. [10407]

  Mr. Timms
  Surveys to collect these figures have been undertaken every four to five years. We plan to conduct another survey shortly.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for Vote I, Department for Education and Employment, subcategories(a) 1 Department of Employment: programmes and central services and (b) 5 Sure Start; and if she will make a statement. [24111]

  Estelle Morris
  Full details of outturn against 2000–01 voted provision will be published in the appropriation accounts to be presented to the House of Commons by 31 January 2002. The departmental resource account on an accruals basis will also be presented to the House of Commons before 31 January. Updated estimates of the outturn for Departmental Expenditure Limits in 2000–01 on an accruals basis were published in the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318), Table B16.

  New Deal (Over-25s)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were employed by her Department under the new deal for the over-25s; and at what cost to the public funds in 2001–02. [21688]

  Estelle Morris
  Information follows on the number of people currently employed by my Department under the new deal for over-25s. New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy paid under the programme, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed, the cost of the latter cannot be readily identified.

  I confirm for the period 2001–02 there are currently four new deal participants aged 25 plus employed in the Department for Education and Skills. The total cost to the public purse for this period in employer subsidies is approximately £1,440.00.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people are employed by the Department under the New Deal for Young People; and at what cost to public funds. [21325]

  Estelle Morris
  Information follows on the number of people currently employed by my Department under the new deal for young people. New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy paid under the programme, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot be readily identified.

  I confirm there are 14 people currently employed by the Department for Education and Skills under the new deal for young people. The cost to the public purse in employer and training subsidies is approximately £30,660.
  419W

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when she expects to reply to the Question of 5 December, ref. 21335, from the hon. Member for Buckingham on sickness absence; [24754]

  (2) how many days were lost owing to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21335]

  Estelle Morris
  The overall sickness absence rate in the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) in each of the last four calendar years for which official figures are available was:

  Days per staff year

  1999

  11.0

  1998

  11.6

  Table A: The total numbers and proportions of each civil service grade within the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in each region and nation of the UK

  Number of staff by grade level and region (full-time equivalent.

  Government office region

  All grades

  SCS

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Permanent staff

  London

  1,963

  86

  298

  699

  466

  414

  North West

  501

  2

  10

  108

  111

  270

  North East

  508

  2

  28

  124

  147

  207

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,084

  22

  126

  435

  228

  273

  Total permanent staff

  4,056

  112

  462

  1,366

  952

  1,164

  Casual staff

  London

  53

  —

  2

  2

  11

  38

  North West

  29

  —

  —

  2

  —

  27

  North East

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54

  —

  —

  —

  4

  50

  Total casual staff

  168

  —

  2

  4

  15

  147

  Total all staff

  4,224

  112

  464

  1,370

  967

  1,311

  Percentage of staff by grade level and region

  Government office region

  All grades

  SCS

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Permanent staff

  London

  48

  77

  65

  51

  49

  36

  NorthWest

  12

  2

  2

  8

  12

  23

  North East

  13

  2

  6

  9

  15

  18

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  27

  19

  27

  32

  24

  23

  Total permanent staff

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Casual staff

  London

  32

  —

  100

  50

  73

  26

  NorthWest

  17

  —

  —

  50

  —

  18

  North East

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  32

  —

  —

  —

  27

  34

  Total casual staff

  100

  —

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Total all staff

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Notes:

  1. No staff are located in other regions or nations of the UK.

  2. DfES has no industrial staff.
  420W

  Days per staff year

  1997

  12.6

  1996

  11.8

  The DfES is committed to reducing sickness absence in line with the targets agreed across Whitehall.

  Civil Servants
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of each civil service grade in her Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the average salary is for each grade; and if she will make a statement. [6862]

  Estelle Morris
  The total numbers and proportions of each civil service grade within the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in each region and nation of the UK are shown in table A. The average salary for each grade in DfEs by region of the UK is shown in table B.
  421W

  Table B: Average salary for each grade in DfES by region of the UK

  £

  Government office region

  All grades

  SCS level

  G6/7 level

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Permanent

  London

  26,338

  78,327

  45,523

  29,742

  22,040

  17,239

  North West

  17,493

  72,250

  37,928

  28,031

  18,379

  15,403

  North East

  17,947

  67,556

  40,463

  27,243

  18,770

  14,025

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  24,147

  73,746

  43,005

  28,031

  17,939

  13,923

  All regions

  24,672

  75,894

  44,348

  28,243

  21,138

  16,167

  Casual

  London

  15,790

  —

  41,423

  23,832

  18,468

  15,790

  North West

  12,720

  —

  —

  27,435

  —

  12,720

  North East

  9,639

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,639

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,720

  —

  —

  —

  15,235

  12,720

  All regions

  12,720

  —

  41,423

  25,672

  18,468

  12,720

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to extend the Education Maintenance Allowance pilot scheme to the constituency of Buckingham. [24839]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no such plans at present. We will be taking decisions on any future extension of the scheme on the basis of the rigorous evaluation, which is currently being conducted.

  GCSE (Road User Studies)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will introduce a GCSE in Road User Studies based on the GCSE run by the Northern Ireland Education Department. [24156]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are keen to ensure that all young people should have the opportunity to study subjects that interest them. However, we have no plans to introduce a GCSE in Road User Studies as there are other GCSE qualifications that cover elements of the subject area, for example, Design and Technology GCSE. Other vocationally related qualifications approved for use include the Motor Vehicle and Road User Studies Certificates offered by the City and Guilds of London Institute, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) and the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC). There is also the Motor Vehicle Foundation Studies Certificate offered by the Awarding Body Consortium (ABC).

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the provision of emergency heating for pensioners on the waiting list for heating insulation under fuel poverty schemes. [12519]

  Mr. Meacher
  The majority of new heating installations under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme are now being completed within 12 weeks of the date of home survey.
  422W
  Where there is a risk of severe delay, and the householder has no form of alternative heating, the HEES scheme managers will provide portable heating appliances.

  As fuel poverty is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made as to the number of people who would be in fuel poverty in(a) England and (b) the Isle of Wight if there were a 5 per cent, rise in fuel prices. [23678]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, which was published in November 2001, states that for the purposes of estimating the effects of price changes on future numbers in fuel poverty, a reasonable range of price movements by 2010 to consider would appear to be: for domestic gas prices—an increase of 15 per cent, to a fall of 10 per cent, in real terms; and for domestic electricity prices—an increase of 5 per cent, to a fall of 2 per cent, in real terms

  If electricity prices were to rise by 5 per cent, and gas prices by 15 per cent, then the number in fuel poverty in England could increase by around 0.8 million. If electricity prices fell by 2 per cent, and gas prices fell by 10 per cent, then the numbers in fuel poverty could fall by around 0.3 million. Future gas and electricity prices are uncertain and will be affected by a number of factors. It is difficult to estimate the precise impacts of price changes on the numbers in fuel poverty. The figures presented give a broad indication of the changes in fuel poverty which might be expected from the stated changes in energy prices.

  It is broadly estimated that a 5 per cent, increase in fuel prices may increase the number of households in fuel poverty in England by around 0.4 million. Data are not available to produce estimates of fuel poverty on the Isle of Wight and it is therefore not possible to estimate the impact of changes in fuel prices on fuel poverty on the Isle of Wight.
  423W

  Sustainable Development Summit
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will include a representative of the Scottish Executive in the United Kingdom delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. [13148]

  Mr. Meacher
  The devolved Administrations have been closely involved in the development of the UK's position on the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We will certainly want to ensure that they are represented at the Summit, but the precise composition of the UK's delegation will be a matter for the Prime Minister nearer the time.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) is the predicted and (b) was the average period between initial application for a (i) HEES and (ii) HEES Plus grant and completion of the home improvements in (A) England, (B) each English region and (C) each local authority area in each month since June 2000; and what performance targets have been set regarding waiting times for HEES customers. [19349]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Eaga Partnership Ltd. and TXU Warm Front Ltd. manage the Home Efficiency Scheme, marketed as the Warm Front Team, under contract. The table shows the average timelines for each of the English regions since the launch of the scheme in June 2000. It is not possible to provide the further breakdown requested by the hon. Member.

  The scheme managers have a target time for completion of work following application. This is set at 40 days for insulation measures, and 120 days for heating measures. The delays experienced by householders have been due to the national shortage of gas heating engineers.

  Time taken from date of application to payment of grant1

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  1 January 2001 to 30 June 2001

  1 July 2001 to 30 November 2001

  HEES:

  East

  230

  120

  70

  East midlands

  220

  110

  70

  Yorkshire and Humber

  210

  110

  70

  North-east

  220

  130

  70

  North-west

  240

  140

  70

  London

  230

  150

  90

  South-east

  230

  160

  70

  West midlands

  220

  130

  70

  South-west

  230

  140

  60

  Average for England

  230

  130

  70

  HEES plus

  East

  220

  130

  80

  East midlands

  230

  120

  70

  Yorkshire and Humber

  220

  130

  70

  North-east

  240

  130

  70

  North-west

  260

  150

  70

  London

  260

  150

  80

  South-east

  250

  160

  70

  West midlands

  250

  140

  70

  South-west

  260

  140

  60

  Average for England

  250

  140

  70

  1 There is usually a period of one to eight weeks between the date of actual installation and the receipt of the invoice from installers.

  424W

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has received from the Food Standards Agency regarding the labelling of GMOs. [21209]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Food Standards Agency Board considered their position on the labelling of foods containing GMOs and foods produced from GMOs in a public meeting on 19 September. The minutes of this meeting and a statement by the Agency are available on their website. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House. The Board's advice, in summary, was to maintain the current labelling rules supplemented with the introduction of a provision for "GM-free" labelling.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21336]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1078W, to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean).

  The Department is committed to the effective management of sickness absence, and has included targets for a reduction in days lost due to sickness in a Service Delivery Agreement (SDA).

  Responsibility for attendance matters within the Central Science Laboratory, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Agency and the Rural Payments Agency—all former MAFF Agencies—has been delegated to the Agency Chief Executives and I have asked them to reply direct. The Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate Agencies are covered by the Departmental response.

  Residential Gardens
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what powers local authorities can take action to deal with residential gardens which become dumping grounds for household and other rubbish; and if she will make a statement. [22715]

  Mr. Meacher
  The illegal disposal of waste without a waste management licence or registered exemption (commonly known as fly-tipping) is a criminal offence. In the event of a conviction, severe penalties are available to the courts, including an unlimited fine or imprisonment of up to five years.

  Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, provides the local authority or the Environment Agency with the power to effect the removal of fly-tipped waste (including that which is fly-tipped in residential gardens) and to recover costs from those responsible.

  End-use Equipment
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with EU partners to reach agreement to the
  425W
  European Commission's proposals for a Framework Directive for Minimum Efficiency Requirements for End-Use Equipment. [22600]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission has yet to bring forward a formal proposal for a Framework Directive for Minimum Energy Efficiency Requirements for End-Use Equipment, but it has recently indicated that it should be in a position to do so early in 2002. To help ensure that work on this subject can then proceed as efficiently as possible, the Department has been working closely with other member states to identify the key issues which will need to be addressed. Such work has been advanced this year by the Market Transformation Programme Information Forum www.mtpif.com, a joint initiative between the Department and the Dutch Government, which is designed to promote the development and free exchange of policy information in this field.

  Household Appliances
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with EU partners to reach agreement to complete the Review of Council Directive 92/75/EEC on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances. [22601]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have actively worked with other member states to encourage the European Commission to bring forward proposals for the revision of Council Directive 92/75/EEC as soon as possible. We have pursued this in collective discussions and directly with the commission.

  To help ensure that a review can proceed as efficiently as possible, my Department has also been working closely with other members states to identify the key issues which will need to be addressed. Such work has been advanced this year by the Market Transformation Programme Information Forum www.mtpif.com, a joint initiative between the Department and the Dutch Government, which is designed to promote the development and free exchange of policy information in this field.

  North Sea Conference
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Scottish Executive will be represented as part of the United Kingdom delegation at the North Sea conference in March 2002. [23238]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Scottish Executive is contributing to preparations for the conference on issues where policy has been devolved. We are currently considering arrangements for attendance at the conference by Ministers and officials.

  Low Frequency Noise
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has funded in the last five years on the prevalence and impact of low frequency noise. [23284]
  426W
  Mr. Meacher
  We have funded the production of guidance for use by local authorities which will shortly be placed on DEFRA's website. This updates the advice provided to the Department by the Building Research Establishment in 1992.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when a Minister in her Department last met the organisations listed on the reverse of the game licence. [22396]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: It is intended to revise the wording of the licence as it is out of date in a number of respects.

  Currently the organisations listed on the reverse of the licence are the RSPCA, the British Field Sports Society and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Ministers have many meetings which involve the RSPCA and the Countryside Alliance, which is the successor organisation to the British Field Sports Association. I have met both during the course of the last month. The Universities Federation for Animal welfare is a scientific and technical animal welfare organisation. It uses scientific knowledge and established expertise to improve the welfare of animals as pets, in zoos, laboratories, on farms and in the wild. There has not been a recent meeting with this organisation.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the text of the game licence was written; and when it was last revised. [22393]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: Game licences are issued under legislation which has roots in the 19th Century. We have tried to discover the date on which the text was written, or revised, and it has proved difficult. The last changes were made in the 1970s.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many items of correspondence from hon. Members addressed to her, which were received by her Department between(a) 1 June and 31 July, (b) 1 August and 31 August and (c) 1 September and 30 September, remain unanswered. [16286]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: Between (a) 7 June and 31 July, 1,311 were received and 607 remain unanswered.

  Between (b) 1 August and 31 August 1,078 were received and 592 remain unanswered.

  Between (c) 1 September and 30 September 941 were received and 449 remain unanswered.

  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.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will receive a substantive
  427W
  reply to his question, tabled on 19 November, ref 16824, concerning Dr. Reza Hossam of St. John's Hospital, Chelmsford; [23663]

  (2) when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will be given a reply to his letter of 12 June to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which was transferred to her Department on 18 June concerning Dr. Reza Hossam of St. John's Hospital, Chelmsford. [16824]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]Unfortunately, we have no record of your letter of 12 June concerning Dr. Reza Hossam on our correspondence database.

  Hunting
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list meetings held by(a) Ministers and (b) officials with (i) pro-hunt organisations, (ii) anti-hunt organisations and (iii) other organisations as part of the consultation on the resumption of hunting after the end of the foot and mouth outbreak. [23185]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]During the consultation period, I met the following:(i) on the pro-hunt side:
  the Countryside Alliance including representatives of the Master of Fox Hounds Association and The Campaign for Hunting; and
  (ii) on the anti-hunt side:
  the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals which incorporated representatives from the RSPCA, League against Cruel Sports and International Fund for Animal Welfare.

  In addition, officials met the English and Welsh Farmers Fox Control Associations; the National Coursing Club; Council of Hunting Associations; the Federation of Welsh Packs; and the Countryside Alliance.

  Nitrates Directive
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made in meeting the United Kingdom's legal obligations to implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive. [24996]

  Margaret Beckett
  Following the decision by the European Court of Justice that the United Kingdom has failed to comply with the Nitrates Directive, I will be issuing a consultation document to key organisations very shortly, setting out the proposals for implementing the Nitrates Directive in England. The consultation will get under way in earnest in the new year, when a summary version of the consultation document will be sent to all farmers in England seeking their views on implementation options. The consultation document includes an outline of the help available from DEFRA for farmers to meet the cost of compliance.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to require(a) restaurants and (b) fast-food outlets to disclose the country of origin of the meat in the meals which they serve. [19248]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.
  428W
  We have no plans to require this information to be given either in restaurants or fast-food outlets.

  However, the Food Standards Agency has recently reviewed the advice produced by the Government last year on the interpretation of existing rules on misleading labelling and country of origin. The review aims to ensure this advice addresses the issues that are of most concern to consumers and encourage increased voluntary declarations. The FSA's draft advice has been issued for public consultation and makes clear that, in catering establishments, care should be taken to ensure the wording of any origin information on menus etc. is clear and unambiguous.

  Biosecurity (Rights of Way)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department has issued for footpath users when footpaths cross fields and farmyards covered by biosecurity recommendations. [23630]

  Alun Michael
  With the improving foot and mouth disease situation, the veterinary risk assessment on use of public rights of way has been revised, and concludes that it is now safe to re-open footpaths crossing remaining restricted premises—apart from those passing through farmyards or buildings—once final cleansing and disinfection is complete, or, if final cleansing and disinfection is not being undertaken, three months after completion of preliminary cleansing and disinfection.

  The revised risk assessment was issued on 7 December, along with revised guidance to local authorities which encourages them to work closely with the Department's Divisional Veterinary Managers to establish exactly which rights of way may now be re-opened. Where paths pass through farmyards or buildings, authorities should try to arrange temporary permissive diversions with the farmers concerned, especially where heavily-used paths or national trails are affected. If this is not possible, those paths must remain closed until the veterinary restrictions are lifted. The revised risk assessment and guidance refer to footpaths as the most familiar rights of way, but apply equally to all types of public right of way.

  The guidance includes a code of conduct which local authorities are asked to publicise to path users, to encourage them to behave so as to reduce still further the already minimal risk that their activities could transmit the disease. However, there is no conflict between the relaxation of restrictions on rights-of-way users and continuing tight biosecurity controls on some farming activity: the latter are designed to limit the risks arising from working directly with animals, which, though now small, are far more significant than those arising from footpath use.

  97 per cent, of footpaths in England are now open. Local authorities may require a little time to establish which footpaths across restricted premises can be re-opened, but almost all should be open by early in the new year, provided that there are no further outbreaks of the disease.

  Common Land
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish(a) a report on the consultation responses and (b) the Government's proposals on greater protection and better management of common land. [23695]

  Alun Michael
  The Government are considering proposals for improving the legislation on common land and town and village greens, as set out last year in the consultation paper "Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land in England and Wales". We expect to publish a detailed report on the responses to the paper and to announce our proposals for future action shortly.

  Sheep and Cattle Subsidies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people claim(a) sheep and (b) cattle subsidy broken down by the geographical areas used by her Department for payment purposes. [20713]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]The table shows the number of people claiming sheep subsidy, broken down into claims received at the nine (former) Regional Service Centres (RSCs) during the 2001 Scheme year application period.

  Regional Service Centre (RSC)

  Number of Claims

  Bristol

  2,248

  Cambridge

  998

  Carlisle

  5,824

  Crewe

  2,922

  Exeter

  4,588

  Northallerton

  5,073

  Nottingham

  2,813

  2000 scheme year bovine claims

  Number of claims for:

  RPA

  1 animal

  2–5 animals

  6–10 animals

  11–20 animals

  21–100 animals

  101–200 animals

  More than 200

  Total

  BSPS

  Bristol

  212

  262

  477

  617

  1,435

  284

  0

  3,287

  Cambridge

  143

  349

  274

  307

  887

  123

  0

  2,083

  Carlisle

  236

  661

  569

  850

  2,343

  383

  0

  5,042

  Crewe

  264

  702

  540

  675

  1,406

  221

  0

  3,808

  Exeter

  342

  1,015

  760

  1,028

  2,591

  580

  0

  6,316

  Northallerton

  257

  728

  637

  932

  2,289

  290

  0

  5,133

  Nottingham

  184

  526

  485

  604

  1,618

  301

  0

  3,718

  Reading

  188

  485

  395

  475

  1,191

  340

  0

  3,074

  Worcester

  183

  472

  403

  521

  1,237

  277

  0

  3,093

  Total

  2,009

  5,200

  4,560

  5,809

  14,797

  2,799

  0

  35,554

  Number of claims for:

  RPA

  1 animal

  2–5 animals

  6–10 animals

  11–20 animals

  21–100 animals

  101–200 animals

  More than 200

  Total

  SCPS

  Bristol

  35

  245

  289

  332

  720

  76

  21

  1,718

  Cambridge

  34

  182

  188

  230

  480

  65

  21

  1,200

  Carlisle

  25

  209

  278

  452

  1,537

  244

  53

  2,798

  Crewe

  39

  297

  328

  421

  766

  55

  15

  1,921

  Exeter

  59

  460

  457

  694

  1,441

  138

  54

  3,303

  430W

  Regional Service Centre (RSC)

  Number of Claims

  Reading

  2,906

  Worcester

  3,608

  Total

  30,980

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the figures for the numbers of people claiming(a) sheep subsidy and (b) cattle subsidy for (i) one animal, (ii) two to five animals, (iii) five to 10 animals, (iv) 10 to 20 animals, (v) 20 to 100 animals, (vi) 100 to 200 animals and (vii) more than 200 animals. [20712]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]The table shows the number people claiming sheep subsidy on the above specified ranges of sheep numbers. This information reflects the 2001 Scheme year and therefore includes claims received at the nine (former) Regional Service Centres (RSCs).

  Figures for one to five sheep are nil as the rules for Sheep Annual Premium claims state that the claim must be made on a minimum of 10 sheep.

  Number of sheep

  Number of claims

  1

  0

  2–5

  0

  6–10

  342

  11–20

  2,046

  21–100

  9,933

  101–200

  6,225

  More 200

  12,434

  Total

  30,980

  The tables set out similar figures for the bovine schemes.
  431W

  Number of claims for:

  RPA

  1 animal

  2–5 animals

  6–10 animals

  11–20 animals

  21–100 animals

  101–200 animals

  More than 200

  Total

  Northallerton

  44

  349

  388

  647

  1,483

  145

  24

  3,036

  Nottingham

  39

  278

  309

  444

  880

  110

  18

  2,078

  Reading

  46

  276

  288

  414

  876

  112

  23

  2,035

  Worcester

  49

  298

  282

  369

  707

  74

  11

  1,790

  Total

  370

  2,594

  2,807

  4,003

  8,890

  1,019

  240

  19,879

  Number of claims for:

  RPA

  1 animal

  2–5 animals

  6–10 animals

  11–20 animals

  21–100 animals

  101–200 animals

  More than 200

  Total

  SPS

  Bristol

  396

  852

  708

  1,094

  1,589

  131

  46

  4,816

  Cambridge

  163

  397

  325

  351

  634

  102

  65

  2,037

  Carlisle

  433

  1,075

  981

  1,429

  2,294

  222

  89

  6,523

  Crewe

  481

  1,122

  881

  1,237

  2,109

  165

  100

  6,095

  Exeter

  548

  1,392

  1,162

  1,586

  2,101

  229

  57

  7,075

  Northallerton

  420

  1,119

  942

  1,097

  2,087

  329

  161

  6,155

  Nottingham

  289

  803

  851

  1,022

  1,675

  242

  104

  4,986

  Reading

  241

  560

  415

  549

  1,216

  156

  53

  3,190

  Worcester

  256

  591

  473

  600

  1,217

  156

  68

  3,361

  Total

  3,227

  7,911

  6,738

  8,965

  14,922

  1,612

  743

  44,238

  2001 scheme year bovine claims

  Number of claims for:

  RPA

  1 animal

  2–5 animals

  6–10 animals

  11–20 animals

  21–100 animals

  101–200 animals

  More than 200

  Total

  BSPS

  Bristol

  208

  662

  535

  646

  1,296

  151

  49

  3,547

  Cambridge

  131

  327

  272

  292

  532

  70

  38

  1,662

  Carlisle

  197

  776

  667

  953

  1,773

  169

  35

  4,570

  Crewe

  232

  758

  626

  664

  1,157

  156

  38

  3,631

  Exeter

  324

  1,178

  961

  1,282

  2,465

  296

  81

  6,587

  Newcastle

  73

  245

  228

  297

  540

  62

  11

  1,456

  Northallerton

  379

  1,159

  1,018

  1,226

  2,010

  269

  64

  6,125

  Nottingham

  177

  627

  505

  613

  1,296

  173

  60

  3,451

  Reading

  113

  350

  274

  311

  726

  126

  48

  1,948

  Total

  1,834

  6,082

  5,086

  6,284

  11,795

  1,472

  424

  32,977

  Number of claims for:

  RPA

  1 animal

  2–5 animals

  6–10 animals

  11–20 animals

  21–100 animals

  101–200 animals

  More than 200

  Total

  SCPS

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridge

  22

  119

  122

  134

  318

  36

  14

  765

  Carlisle

  29

  182

  247

  375

  1,150

  149

  30

  2,162

  Crewe

  30

  185

  204

  264

  465

  32

  13

  1,193

  Exeter

  61

  421

  458

  579

  1,323

  127

  38

  3,007

  Newcastle

  11

  83

  99

  110

  201

  16

  4

  524

  Northallerton

  41

  336

  364

  539

  1,211

  120

  30

  2,641

  Nottingham

  30

  163

  199

  262

  554

  62

  13

  1,273

  Reading

  5

  46

  57

  62

  183

  21

  7

  381

  Total

  229

  1,535

  1,750

  2,325

  5,405

  563

  149

  11,946

  432W 433W

  Number of claims for:

  RPA

  1 animal

  2–5 animals

  6–10 animals

  11–20 animals

  21–100 animals

  101–200 animals

  More than 200

  Total

  SPS

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridge

  98

  280

  177

  287

  532

  85

  53

  1,512

  Carlisle

  276

  1,000

  723

  858

  1,383

  137

  43

  4,420

  Crewe

  145

  486

  388

  458

  926

  106

  30

  2,539

  Exeter

  468

  1,586

  1,230

  1,376

  2,493

  239

  72

  7,464

  Newcastle

  47

  183

  158

  206

  497

  45

  20

  1,156

  Northallerton

  304

  991

  693

  941

  2,026

  280

  115

  5,350

  Nottingham

  125

  439

  399

  589

  1,289

  183

  73

  3,097

  Reading

  76

  235

  208

  259

  577

  89

  27

  1,471

  Total

  1,539

  5,200

  3,976

  4,974

  9,723

  1,164

  433

  27,009

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if pet owners may apply for(a) sheep and (b) cattle subsidies. [21447]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]To qualify for subsidy on sheep or cattle an individual must be a producer as specified within European Community legislation.

  In some circumstances "pets" may qualify but this is subject to detailed regulations. The definition of a producer, with regard to the grant of premiums for sheepmeat and goatmeat, is laid down within Council Regulation 3493/1990. For beef and veal subsidies this definition is in Council Regulation 1254/1999. Copies of these Regulations are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Claimants must also meet the specific eligibility requirements of each subsidy scheme. These are also set out in Community legislation.

  An overview of how livestock schemes operate within England, and which animals may be eligible for subsidy, is provided on-line at www.defra.gov.uk, under the headings of 'Farming' and 'Cattle and sheep schemes'.

  Administration of the livestock subsidy regimes within England is carried out by the Rural Payment Agency (RPA). Local offices of the RPA are able to provide, free of charge, notes for guidance to claimants, which detail the specific rules of the individual schemes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the written questions of the hon. Member for Vale of York tabled on 27 November, Refs. 20822, 20823, 20825 and 20826. [22056]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answers provided on 11 December 2001,Official Report, columns 845–51W, and the answer of 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 145W.

  Sugar Beet
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the sugar beet industry; and what steps her Department has taken to ensure that the UK's rhizomania-free status remains. [23061]
  434W
  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom has not been rhizomania-free since 1987, when the first outbreak was found. Since then, the disease has been found in an increasing number of farms, so that 211 are now known to be infected with the disease. The UK was granted Protected Zone status for rhizomania when the Single Market Plant Health legislation was adopted in 1993, at which time only 19 outbreaks had been detected and there was still hope that the disease would not become widely established. Through the containment policy associated with Protected Zone status DEFRA has prohibited the use of outbreak fields for beet production and imposed hygiene requirements, to try to prevent further spread of the disease from those fields. Despite these measures the number of outbreaks has continued to rise. It is likely that the causative organisms for the disease were present in many locations before symptoms of the disease were detected.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the largest single payment to an individual for having land in set-aside in this financial year. [23708]

  Mr. Morley
  The payment period for land put into set-aside under the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) during 2001 began on 16 November and will end on 31 January 2002 (or 31 March 2002 where the set-aside has been used for growing non-food crops).

  The largest payment for set-aside recorded so far is £110,492.14. The DEFRA financial database does not distinguish between payments to private individuals and those to other legal entities.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was paid from 1 January to the latest available date in respect of set-aside land. [23709]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has so far issued payments totalling £56,168,779.92 during 2001 in respect of set-aside under the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS). This total includes payments for scheme years before 2001, and agrimonetary compensation.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the reasons why her Department has chosen not to
  435W
  utilise an indicative minimum area threshold for the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; [23068]

  (2) if she will make a statement on her Department's definition of (a) uncultivated land and (b) unimproved land for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; [23069]

  (3) if she will make a statement on her Department's decision to implement the uncultivated and semi-natural areas provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. [23067]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government gave a commitment in the Rural White Paper in November 2000 and to Parliament to consult on implementing the uncultivated land provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. The Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001, S.I. No. 3966, will come into force on 1 February 2002.

  In our consultations on the regulations it was agreed that to be as helpful as possible to farmers the Government should provide a working guide to key but undefined terms in the Directive. The resulting guidelines, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House, will set out the categories of land concerned, including to unimproved grassland, heath, moorland, scrubland and wetlands. Unimproved grassland would typically include meadows and grazing pasture, downland or other open or enclosed upland grassland with some tree cover.

  The European Court of Justice has established that, even with indicative thresholds, an assessment would still be needed on whether a project was likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. To provide some degree of certainty, the Government decided that each case should be screened, but only those which give rise to significant environmental effects would be considered further under the Regulations.

  National Park Authorities
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent assessment she has made of the work of(a) the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, (b) the Lake District NPA and (c) National Parks Authorities in general; [24039]

  (2) what plans her Department has to publish lists of applicants for appointment by the Secretary of State to National Parks Authorities; [24051]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the system of appointments to National Parks Authorities; [24050]

  (4) what recent projects have been undertaken by (a) the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and (b) the Lake District National Park Authority; and what role members appointed by her Department have had in supporting such projects; [24054]

  (5) what the political affiliations were of those who have been appointed to (a) the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and (b) the Lake District National Park Authority (i) between May 1997 and May 2001 and (ii) since June 2001; [24048]
  436W
  (6) what guidance is given to applicants for positions with National Parks Authorities; and what feedback is provided to those whose applications are unsuccessful; [24052]

  (7) what criteria are employed when selecting applicants for interview for positions with National Park Authorities; and what plans her Department has to review such procedures; [24049]

  (8) which members have been appointed to (a) the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and (b) the Lake District National Park Authority since June; and how many of these members were known to (i) herself and (ii) her ministerial colleagues prior to their appointment. [24053]

  Alun Michael
  We have looked recently at the work of all the National Park Authorities in order to determine the distribution of National Park Grant for 2002–03. A wider National Park Authorities review started in August and this will be completed next spring.

  We have no plans to publish lists of applicants for appointment by the Secretary of State to National Park Authorities; the effectiveness of the system of appointments is being considered as part of the review.

  Applicants for Secretary of State appointments to National Park Authorities are not required to state their political affiliation. They are asked for detail on any political activities, which may be used in the announcement of their post. Neither political activities nor political affiliation is a criterion for or against appointment.

  I will write to the hon. Member with the answers to the remaining questions.

  Dangerous Substances
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often since 1988(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) other authorities to whom responsibility for enforcement of health and safety regulations has been transferred, have instigated formal enforcement actions where exposures to substances assigned control limits and maximum exposure limits have not exceeded the relevant limit but where exposures have not been further reduced to as low as was reasonably practicable; and if he will make a statement. [23880]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive does not record information in this way. When it instigates enforcement action it does not differentiate between exposures that are within the relevant limits and those which have not been not further reduced to as low as reasonably practicable.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often since 1998 notifications with respect to work with asbestos have been lodged with the Health and Safety Executive where such work related to(a) materials containing crocidolite asbestos, (b) materials containing amosite asbestos and (c) materials containing chrysotile asbestos, but not crocidolite or amosite asbestos; and if he will make a statement. [23892]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.
  437W
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not have this information as there is no legal requirement for notifications to differentiate between the various types of asbestos. The total number of notifications to work with asbestos received by HSE since 1998 is as follows:

  Year

  Notifications

  1998–99

  9,619

  1999–2000

  20,240

  2000–01

  27,806

  Turner and Newall
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence the HSE has collected that Turner and Newall had adequate insurance coverage which complied with Government legislation; who were the insurers; what were the policy numbers; and what were the dates of the policies. [23889]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive has not collected evidence about Turner and Newall's insurance coverage.

HEALTH

  Surgical Instruments (Decontamination)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the letter from the Chairman of the CJD Incidents Panel to the Chief Medical Officer. [15298]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]The Deputy Chief Medical Officer replied to Professor Banner on 23 November.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been conducted into the adequacy of cleaning and sterilisation of dental surgical instruments(a) before and (b) after the meeting of SEAC on 17 July which analysed the risk of person-to-person transmission of CJD arising from dental surgery. [15293]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]As part of a snapshot survey of decontamination practices at some national health service hospitals and other health premises, a small number of general dental practices were visited prior to the meeting of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on 17 July 2000.

  Visits have been made to dental hospitals and dental departments of NHS trusts as part of the comprehensive review of current decontamination practices in NHS hospitals which began in October 2000.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the report by Dr. David Hurrell on hospital sterilisation procedures was made available to(a) the Economics and Operational Research Division when they compiled their report, Risk Assessment for Transmission of Variant CJD via Surgical Instruments: a modelling approach and numerical scenarios, in December 2000 and (b) the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. [15300]
  438W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]A snapshot survey of some hospitals and other health premises was undertaken last year by the NHS Estates Agency of the Department. An advisory panel, which included members of professional organisations as well as Departmental officials, was established to oversee it. Mr. David Hurrell acted as technical co-ordinator. As a result of that limited survey, a more comprehensive one was announced in October 2000.

  The findings of the snapshot survey were readily available to the Department's Economic and Operation Research Division, as they were part of the overseeing advisory panel.

  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee was not provided with results from the initial survey. But the Committee was informed at its meeting of 28 November 2000 that a major initiative had been launched to improve standards of washing, decontamination and general hygiene, earlier identified by the committee to be key steps in reducing the risk of transmission of variant CJD.

  Mr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the major research programme into instrument decontamination referred to in paragraph 2.52 of the CJD incidents panel consultation paper 'Management of Hospital Exposure to CJD through Medical Procedures'. [15291]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]In 1999, the Department inaugurated a programme of research to develop and evaluate novel decontamination reagents and processes. Ten research contracts have been issued so far and a further four will be initiated in the near future. Progress on these contracts is overseen by a co-ordinating group which meets every six months, includes advisers from the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Medical Devices Agency and the National Health Service Estates Agency.

  Over £565,000 was spent on this subject in the year April 2000/March 2001 and expenditure is expected to rise to nearly a £1 million in the current year. Details of the current research programmes can be found on the Medical Research Centre website at http: //www.mrc.ac.uk/tse_tb2c.htm.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the(a) composition, (b) work and (c) number of meetings held by the project team set up by Department and to oversee the implementation of the programme of action set out in HSC 200–032. [15292]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]The decontamination project is managed by a steering group that varies in composition depending on the aspect of the project it is considering. In its original form, it met four times. It is now led by Roger Evans, a former national health service trust chief executive, and its "core" membership contains representatives from the NHS Estates Agency, the Medical Devices Agency, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, the Department's Operations Directorate and the Department's Public Health Division. It is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day running of the project, including recommending the allocation of
  439W
  resources and co-ordinating communications with the NHS and with the providers of sterile supply equipment and services. It has met three times and meets monthly.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issued to press offices and Department of Health appointees on dealing with BBC inquiries on surgical instrument decontamination. [15419]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]The Department's communications directorate has standing instructions on how to deal with requests from the media. The media centre worked with Panorama over several months, answering a number of inquiries, arranging a briefing meeting with the Department's policy leads on CJD, blood and decontamination and ensuring Panorama was invited to a key media briefing. The press officer dealing with Panorama was provided with answers to their questions and gave Panorama a statement on behalf of Ministers, which they chose not to use.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received the(a) interim report and (b) final report by Dr. Hurrell into the adequacy of hospital decontamination of surgical instruments. [15421]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when a Minister saw a draft report from Dr. David Hurrell on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in hospitals; and if he will make a statement; [15381]

  (2) what action he is taking on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in hospitals following reports by Dr. David Hurrell; [15380]

  (3) when Dr. David Hurrell was commissioned to investigate the risk of hospital patients developing Creutzfeld-Jakob disease; what his terms of reference were; when a draft of his report was communicated to his Department; and what was his Department's response. [15378]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 December 2001]The survey, which began in September 1999, was a snapshot of decontamination practice at the time in a small number of hospitals and other health premises in England. It was commissioned by the Chief Medical Officer:"To investigate the provision and use of equipment, facilities, trained personnel, management arrangements and technical support for decontamination of re-usable medical devices within NHS hospitals, private and voluntary organisations and primary medical and dental facilities;
  To establish the extent to which these complied with current legal requirements, published standards (both European and UK) and Department of Health best practice guidance;
  To obtain information on the usefulness of existing advice and guidance."

  A presentation on the progress to date was given to regional directors of public health (RDsPH) in March 2000 and the completed report was sent to the Department in September 2000. Mr. Hurrell was employed as technical co-ordinator for the survey, acted as lead assessor for some of the visits, helped to analyse the information collected, contributed to the production of the reports and helped to give the presentation to the RDsPH. He was not responsible for writing either report. The survey was carried out for specific purposes, one of which was to set in train further work—including deciding whether a more comprehensive survey was needed.
  440W
  The results of this preliminary survey showed that there were variations in decontamination practice, including instances that fell below acceptable standards. A comprehensive survey of national health service trust decontamination facilities began when Health Service Circular 2000/032 was issued on 18 October 2000. This circular clearly stated that
  "a snapshot survey of current decontamination practices in a small number of healthcare premises in England has now been carried out. A more comprehensive review of decontamination provision across the health service now needs to take place so that plans for the future can be based on national findings."

  In tandem with the surveys of decontamination, the Department developed a risk assessment on surgical instruments, which was first considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee in May 2000 and endorsed at its meeting in September 2000. It was published in March 2001. The Department presented its risk reduction strategy to the Committee's November 2000 meeting. The key components of this strategy were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the then Minister of State, Department of Health on 4 January 2001 with £200 million to be invested in the modernisation of NHS decontamination facilities and with the introduction of single-use instruments for tonsillectomies. Since then, we have:
  Devised a self-assessment tool and collected data from every NHS trust;
  Run a series of development workshops to raise awareness of the importance of decontamination among NHS managers and technical staff;
  Visited and assessed all NHS acute hospital sites carrying out decontamination;
  Implemented a programme of work to improve standards where necessary.

  As a result of this, all NHS acute hospitals have access to a satisfactory standard of decontamination.

  The modernisation of NHS decontamination services is a long-term process, not a one-off event and we will continue to ensure that appropriate precautions, based on evidence and scientific advice, are taken to ensure patient safety.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the views of the Chairman of the CJD Incidents Committee relating to the report of Dr. Hurrell. [15422]

  Jacqui Smith
  We gave careful consideration to the views of the chairman of the CJD incidents panel but decided there was nothing to be gained from letting the panel have sight of an out-of-date and partial survey that had been overtaken by more recent work.

  The preliminary survey was a "snapshot" of decontamination practices at some national health service hospitals and other health premises. It was prepared for specific purposes, one of which was to set in train further work—including deciding whether a full survey was needed. The Department has since announced:

  i. in October 2000, that a full survey would be undertaken; and

  ii. in January 2001, that a £200 million investment programme over the next two years to address decontamination standards would be set in train.

  441W
  The Department has published the results of the full survey, including the snapshot. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Personal Medical Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost of the pilot Personal Medical Service scheme in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [16959]

  Mr. Hutton
  The costs of running personal medical services pilots were £38.2 million in 1998, £70.8 million in 1999, and £153.4 million in 2000.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners work under Personal Medical Services; and what the intended proportion is by April 2002. [20865]

  Mr. Hutton
  With the implementation of the third wave of personal medical services pilots in October 2001, some 18 per cent, of general practitioners are now working under PMS arrangements nationally. Applications for the fourth wave of pilots (starting in April 2002) are still being submitted.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the fraudulent use of birth certificates in each of the last four years. [17323]

  South Cheshire health authority out-patient waiting times

  Waiting times

  19981

  19991

  20001

  20011

  20022

  13–25 weeks

  3,309

  3,874

  3,316

  2,632

  4,437

  26+ weeks

  351

  2,056

  1,147

  1,007

  1,470

  Total 13+ weeks waiters

  3,660

  5,930

  4,463

  3,639

  5,907

  Full year GP referrals

  108,802

  112,308

  114,966

  119,443

  62,289

  Percentage year on year increase

  —

  3.2

  2.4

  3.9

  4.3

  1 As at March each year

  2 As at September—only five months' data

  Source:

  Based on FOT of 124578

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussion he has had with colleagues in other Government Departments on(a) the level of illegal meat imports into the UK and (b) the effectiveness of controls and enforcement measures at (i) ports, (ii) airports and (iii) elsewhere to tackle illegal meat imports; and what assessment he has made of the need for further action. [19305]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for public health issues relating to food safety, is taking an active role in an interdepartmental review led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs aimed at co-ordinating action across Government to ensure that rules governing imports of products of animal origin are enforced effectively.
  442W
  Mr. Hutton
  Birth certificates are the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics.

  There are no figures currently available to indicate the level of losses to the national health service as a result of the fraudulent use of birth certificates.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the South Cheshire health authority waited(a) more than three months for an in-patient operation, (b) more than six months for an in-patient operation, (c) more than one year for an in-patient operation, (d) more than three months for an out-patient appointment, (e) more than six months for an out-patient appointment and (f) more than one year for an out-patient appointment in each of the last 10 years. [18437]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures for in-patient and out-patient waiting times in south Cheshire health authority for the past six years (since the creation of the health authority) are shown in the tables.

  South Cheshire health authority in-patient waiting times

  Waiting time

  19971

  19981

  19991

  20001

  20011

  3–6 months

  3,577

  3,919

  3,271

  3,501

  3,339

  6–12 months

  3,655

  4,909

  3,396

  3,187

  2,899

  Over 12 months

  336

  239

  270

  459

  602

  Total

  7,568

  9,067

  6,937

  7,147

  6,840

  1As at March each year

  The board of the Food Standards Agency discussed the issue of food import controls on 22 October 2001. The board approved a report containing a set of proposals aimed at improving the co-ordination of controls and the effectiveness of inspection of food imports. FSA officials are exploring these proposals further and will report back to the board.

  Adoption and Children Bill
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is the intention of clause 2 of the Adoption and Children Bill for the review panel to have power to recover the(a) whole or (b) part of the costs of the review panel from the relevant adoption agency. [19762]

  Jacqui Smith
  The White Paper "Adoption—a new approach" committed the Government to provide an independent review where an adoption agency intends to turn down a prospective adopter's application. A copy of
  443W
  the White Paper has been placed in the Library. The Bill includes powers enabling the appropriate Minister to establish a mechanism, which may be run by an independent body, to review qualifying adoption agency determinations. The cost of establishing the independent review mechanism will be met centrally from the extra £66 million for adoption announced in the Adoption White Paper. We have promised to consult on the detail of how the independent review mechanism will operate, including any charges to be imposed on adoption agencies.

  Competitive Bidding
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the schemes administered by(a) his Department and (b) its agencies where funds are allocated by a competitive bidding process; and what was the amount of money allocated to each scheme. [19733]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Department does not keep central records of budgets or schemes where, specifically, competitive bidding processes are used. Officials estimate that there might be hundreds of such budgets across the Department covering administration, executive agencies and programme funding.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts he expects to create under the NHS Reform Bill. [20896]

  Mr. Hutton
  None. The National Health Service Reform Bill will not create any further primary care trusts but will enable increased functions to be devolved from health authorities in line with the principles of Shifting the Balance of Power.

  The power to create PCTs is contained in the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act, 1997. There are currently 164 PCTs in operation with a further 23 having been approved in October 2001 to become operational in April 2002. Approximately 130 further PCTs are hoping to become operational from 1 April 2002. The estimated total of PCTs operating from 1 April 2002 is expected to be over 300.

  NHS Patients (Private Health Care)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of surgical procedures on NHS patients in Worcestershire were carried out in private sector hospitals, in the most recent period of which figures are available; what plans he has to increase the use of the private sector in the county; and if he will make a statement. [23087]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information relating to surgical procedures carried out in private sector hospitals on national health service patients is not currently available. However, we have commissioned a report to assess the 444W
  scale of independent sector usage at national and regional level which is due out next year. This survey does not allow analysis at a local level and consequently data specifically on Worcestershire will not be available. However, Worcestershire health authority advises that they are investing £1.2 million on transferring 200 orthopaedic patients to the private sector.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a patient choice package which includes increasing use of the private sector. From July 2002, if a patient with coronary heart disease has been on an in-patient waiting list for over six months, they will be able to seek swifter treatment in either the private sector, in another European Union country or in a different NHS hospital.

  From October 2002, the same option of seeking treatment elsewhere at the six month in-patient waiting list stage, will also apply to anyone living in the London area. The option will be further extended to all patients across England throughout 2002–03 and beyond in the form of pilot sites. By the end of 2005, all patients in any part of the country will be able to choose where their treatment takes place, and book their appointment at a convenient time through an electronic booking system.

  Any decision to use private sector providers will be made on the basis of value for money, clinical need and all appropriate clinical standards must be maintained.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were treated in the private sector for each quarter of the last two years. [20861]

  Mr. Hutton
  Activity information collected from health authorities in the common information core includes in-patient, out-patient and residential care activity commissioned in the commercial, voluntary and non-national health service statutory sectors. This total cannot be separated into totals for the private sector only.

  London Heart Hospital
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are available in the London Heart hospital; and what have been the bed occupancy levels since 3 September. [21985]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently 65 beds available in the London Heart hospital. The acquisition of the hospital was 6 September 2001 and cardiac in-patient services were transferred from University College Hospitals NHS Trust (Middlesex hospital site) to the new facility on 1 October 2001. Occupancy for the month of November 2001 was 85.2 per cent.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the European Commission regarding the time period for submission of safety dossiers on nutrients to the EU scientific committee on foods; and if he will make a statement. [22350]
  445W
  Yvette Cooper
  The proposed European Union Directive on food supplements would require submission of dossiers supporting inclusion of additional nutrients and nutrient sources in the annexes to the Directive within 18 months of adoption.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the European Commission on how it intends to interpret Article 5 of the food supplements Directive; and if he will make a statement. [22352]

  Yvette Cooper
  Article 5 of the proposed food supplements Directive would establish the approach to setting maximum limits for vitamins and minerals. The Food Standards Agency, which is negotiating this Directive on the Government's behalf, has discussed the interpretation of this Article with the European Commission on a number of occasions. The FSA is pressing for limits to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the nutrients included in the annexes to the food supplements Directive; and if he will make a statement. [22351]

  Yvette Cooper
  The annexes of the proposed European Union Directive on food supplements list nutrients and nutrient sources which can be used in these products; many substances used in food supplements on the United Kingdom market are not, however, included in the current lists. The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total NHS staff1

  1,058,690

  1,071,560

  1,098,350

  1,118,960

  of which:

  Total NHS doctors

  89,620

  91,840

  93,980

  96,320

  GMPs (excluding GP retainers)2,3

  29,390

  29,700

  29,990

  30,250

  All HCHS medical and dental staff4

  60,230

  62,140

  63,990

  66,070

  of which:

  Total NHS nurses5

  435,960

  440,640

  450,600

  460,010

  HCHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  417,570

  421,750

  431,100

  440,810

  of which:

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  300,470

  304,560

  310,140

  316,750

  Unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  116,430

  116,580

  119,680

  123,850

  GMS practice nurses

  18,390

  18,890

  19,500

  19,200

  1This figure includes GP retainers

  2 GP retainers were collected for the first time in the 1999 census, for comparability these have been excluded from GMPs

  3.The 1999 figure excludes 972 GP retainers and the 2000 figure excludes 1,117 GP retainers

  4 Excludes medical hospital practitioners and medical clinical assistants, most of whom are also GPs working part-time in hospitals

  5 Total includes unclassifiable nursine, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Notes:

  1. National health service hospital and community health services and general medical and personal medical services: All NHS staff, including all doctors and nurses, as at 30 September each year

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  3. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  4. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  5 General and Personal Medical Services data collected at 1 October 1997–99

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Department of Health non-medical work force census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics
  446W
  for negotiating this Directive on the Government's behalf, has secured an amendment to the proposal which would allow individual member states, during a seven year transitional period, to allow sale of products containing substances which are not on the lists. The annexes would then be amended to include additional substances cleared by the EU scientific committee on foods.

  Cancer Drugs
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral answer to the Prime Minister of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 961, which new anti-cancer drugs are to be made available to the NHS by the end of the year. [22200]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]New cancer drugs come on stream continuously. Following appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, new drugs for 13 specific indications could be available by the end of 2001 (timings are of course subject to the appeals process). The national health service will be obliged to fund the implementation of any such guidance, and the extra resources that we announced recently will ensure that the NHS is well placed to do so.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were employed in the national health service in each of the last four years; and how many were(a) doctors and (b) nurses. [22521]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Mayday Hospital, Croydon
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated at the accident and emergency department at Mayday hospital, Croydon in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what the capacity is for that period. [22680]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the financial year 2000–01, Mayday health care national health service trust had a total of 95,259 accident and emergency attendances, 86,681 being first attendances. Accident and emergency capacity figures are not collected.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a full copy of the interim evaluation results from the First Wave digital hearing aid sites. [23236]

  Jacqui Smith
  The modernisation of hearing aid services project is being evaluated by the Institute for Hearing Research on an on-going basis. The Department has been, and will continue to be, looking at the information coming out of that work with the Institute, but no formal interim reports are being published. The evaluation will be completed by the end of 2002, and a full report will be published at that time.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 486W, on digital hearing aids, by what date his Department will pass on the interim evaluation results of the first 20 first wave NHS trusts that are providing digital hearing aids to (a) the Scottish Executive, (b) the National Assembly for Wales and (c) the Northern Ireland Assembly. [23554]

  Jacqui Smith
  The modernisation of hearing aid services project is being evaluated by the Institute for Hearing Research on an on-going basis. While no formal interim reports are being published, officials of the Department are in contact with officials of the devolved Administrations and are sharing information with them as the project progresses.

  We will make the full results available to the devolved Administrations when they are available.

  Nursing
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurse cadet schemes are in operation across the UK; and what plans he has to(a) continue to fund and (b) extend funding for such schemes. [23075]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 31 March 2001 there were 64 cadet schemes in operation in England.

  The operation and funding of cadet schemes is determined locally, in accordance with local needs and priorities.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further plans he has to promote careers in nursing to young people; and if he will make a statement. [23076]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2002–03 the Department will be running a national publicity campaign, a schools competition to promote careers to young people and 448W
  'nurses day'. National Health Service Careers will continue to offer information on nursing careers via revised literature, telephone and website. The Workforce Development Confederation will be co-ordinating liaison with schools in their local areas. Loughborough University have been commissioned to research the attractiveness of the NHS as an employer to potential nursing staff.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow the Isle of Wight(a) hospital trust, (b) health authority and (c) primary care group (i) to purchase operations abroad, (ii) to offer assistance with travel costs to patients being operated on abroad and (iii) to offer assistance with travel costs for relatives of patients being operated on abroad; and what financial resources he is making available for those purposes and to meet additional administrative costs. [22792]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]In the light of rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in July this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 August that national health service bodies could commission treatment for NHS patients from other member states of the European Economic Area (EEA), as part of their wider efforts to reduce waiting times. My right hon. Friend made it clear that NHS bodies would need to meet the costs of treating NHS patients elsewhere in the EEA out of their existing budgets.

  The regulations governing reimbursement of travel costs are being amended to enable NHS bodies to pay the travel costs of patients from the point of departure for their international journey (an airport, international train station or ferry port). Travel costs incurred by relatives of those being treated abroad will only be reimbursed if it is necessary on medical grounds that the patient be accompanied.

  On 15 October my right hon. Friend announced that the Department would be working with three test-bed sites in the south-east of England, East Kent, Portsmouth and West Sussex/East Surrey, on a pilot to send NHS patients to mainland Europe. The Department will produce guidance for the NHS based on the scheme. The first patients should travel in January 2002, subject to contractual discussions.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on commissioning treatment for NHS patients overseas by the NHS. [25099]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the light of recent rulings of the European Court of Justice, we announced that we would amend the National Health Service Act 1977 to enable the NHS to commission treatment within the European Economic Area (EEA). We will make regulations shortly. We will also take this opportunity to permit NHS bodies to commission care from outside the EEA, where it is in the patient's best interest to do so. We none the less expect that the overwhelming majority of referrals, where they occur, will be to countries of the EEA.

  Regulations will also be made shortly to amend the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1988 to permit NHS

  449W
  bodies to pay for the travel of NHS patients going overseas for treatment funded by the NHS. The NHS will meet the cost of the patient's travel from the point at which they begin their international journey (the airport, ferry port or international train station) to the foreign provider. Reimbursement of travel expenses between the patient's home to the airport, ferry port of international train station will be governed by the same rules that currently apply to payment of travelling expenses to hospitals in England. This change will ensure that patients treated overseas under the auspices of the NHS will not be disadvantaged by having to travel further for that treatment.

  Health Spending Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the proportion of total expenditure on health which is met by(a) private funding and (b) public funding in (i) each EU country, (ii) the USA, (iii) Australia and (iv) New Zealand in 1998. [22791]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]The latest figures for the proportion of total health expenditure that is met by(a) private funding and (b) public funding in (i) each European Union country, (ii) the USA, (iii) Australia and (iv) New Zealand are set out in the table.

  Percentage

  Private

  Public

  1998

  1999

  1998

  1999

  Austria

  28

  28

  72

  72

  Belgium

  29

  28

  71

  72

  Denmark

  18

  18

  82

  82

  Finland

  23

  25

  77

  75

  France

  24

  24

  76

  76

  Germany

  24

  —

  76

  —

  Greece

  43

  —

  57

  —

  Ireland

  24

  —

  76

  —

  Italy

  29

  28

  71

  72

  Luxembourg

  8

  7

  92

  93

  Netherlands

  31

  32

  69

  68

  Portugal

  33

  —

  67

  —

  Spain

  23

  —

  77

  —

  Sweden

  16

  —

  84

  —

  United

  Kingdom

  16

  17

  84

  83

  Australia

  30

  —

  70

  —

  New Zealand

  23

  22

  77

  78

  United States

  55

  55

  45

  45

  Source:

  OECD Health Data 2001

  Care Leavers
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned in the last five years into the experiences of young people who have left the care system. [23247]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is a growing body of research into the experiences of care leavers. There is a useful summary of most recent material in "Helping Care Leavers: Problems and Strategic Responses" by Professor Mike Stein and Dr. Jim Wade of the University of York, published in 2000 as part of the Department of Health's resource pack "Getting it Right: Good Practice in Leaving Care."
  450W
  The social services inspectorate produced a detailed inspection report in this area in 1997, "When Leaving Home is Also Leaving Care". The Department commissioned "Moving On" by Biehal et al, published in 1995. This research was built on by Professor Peter Marsh and Mark Peel at the University of Sheffield, in their Department of Health funded study "Leaving Care in Partnership: Family Involvement with Care Leavers" published in 1999. Other research commissioned recently by the Department includes the "Audit and Assessment of Leaving Care Services in London" by Jenni Vernon of the National Children's Bureau (September 2000).

  The Department also has research in progress. In April this year it commissioned Dr. Jim Wade to investigate the costs and outcomes of transitional support for care leavers. The study will consider a range of outcomes achieved by young people and evaluate the costs of different packages of support in different local authorities. Earlier this year the Department also called for proposals for a study of barriers to further education and training for care leavers under its Quality Protects Research Initiative.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people who left the care system went into(a) full-time education, (b) further education, (c) higher education and (d) Government training schemes in the last five years broken down by regions and nations; and what support is given to young people with multiple disadvantages to access job opportunities. [23200]

  Jacqui Smith
  Statistical information concerning the educational or employment status of care leavers in England over the last five years is not available. A new statistical collection which will provide this information for care leavers aged 19 has recently been introduced by the Department, and the first year of data will cover 12 months ending 31 March 2002. The Department plans to publish this information in autumn 2002.

  Matters relating to Wales and Scotland are for the devolved Administrations.

  The Department for Education and Skills is currently rolling out the Connexions service across England. This will offer all young people aged 13 to 19 support and advice to help them fulfil their potential by giving them access to a personal adviser. For those with multiple issues to address, the role of the personal adviser will be to help the young person identify their needs and aspirations, supporting them in overcoming difficulties. This will include working with and supporting education and training institutions, and employers, in meeting these needs.

  NHS Staff Shortages
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the shortages in the NHS of(a) nurses, (b) GPs, (c) consultants and (d) therapists and other specialist staff. [23253]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan acknowledges that a shortage of human resources is the biggest constraint faced by the National Health Service today. Targets for increasing the number of doctors and nurses were set in the NHS Plan and rolled forward in the manifesto before the last election.
  451W
  The NHS Plan targets are for 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more general practitioners, 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals and 20,000 more nurses by 2004. In September 2000 there were 1,100 more consultants, 126 more GPs, 1,400 more therapists and other health professionals and 6,300 more nurses than in September 1999, the NHS Plan baseline. Provisional data from the 2001 census indicate that 10,000 more nurses were employed in the NHS in 2001 than in 2000.

  The manifesto targets are for 10,000 more doctors and 20,000 more nurses by 2005 over the 2000 baseline.

  The September 2001 census, giving the latest position against these targets, will be available in January 2002.

  NHS Spending
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority area NHS spending per head of population. [23403]

  Mr. Hutton
  The expenditure by weighted head of population for each English health authority area for 2000–01 is shown in the table.

  Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts

  £

  Health authority

  Expenditure by weighted head

  Avon

  856.75

  Barking and Havering

  773.42

  Barnet

  959.87

  Barnsley

  766.50

  Bedfordshire

  779.74

  Berkshire

  804.46

  Bexley and Greenwich

  886.09

  Birmingham

  823.71

  Bradford

  769.58

  Brent and Harrow

  823.29

  Bromley

  971.74

  Buckinghamshire

  755.09

  Bury and Rochdale

  771.15

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  763.88

  Cambridgeshire

  786.94

  Camden and Islington

  1,067.88

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  796.09

  County Durham and Darlington

  738.32

  Coventry

  802.56

  Croydon

  925.44

  Doncaster

  861.88

  Dorset

  1,023.69

  Dudley

  828.09

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  826.21

  East and North Hertfordshire

  803.66

  East Kent

  810.16

  East Lancashire

  740.66

  East London and The City

  869.91

  East Riding and Hull

  787.13

  East Surrey

  958.66

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  827.74

  Enfield and Haringey

  817.53

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  784.29

  Gloucestershire

  799.79

  Herefordshire

  761.71

  Hillingdon

  753.76

  Isle of Wight

  867.61

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,011.24

  Kingston and Richmond

  829.50

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  886.88

  Leeds

  869.94

  Leicestershire

  779.71

  Lincolnshire

  808.95

  Liverpool

  887.35

  452W

  Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts

  £

  Health authority

  Expenditure by weighted head

  Manchester

  869.02

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  882.91

  Morecambe Bay

  1,346.04

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  811.10

  Norfolk

  815.11

  North and East Devon

  800.95

  North and Mid Hampshire

  835.93

  North Cheshire

  811.75

  North Cumbria

  793.52

  North Derbyshire

  744.33

  North Essex

  839.97

  North Nottinghamshire

  761.33

  North Staffordshire

  760.11

  North West Lancashire

  770.48

  North Yorkshire

  814.07

  Northamptonshire

  830.95

  Northumberland

  871.50

  Nottingham

  842.50

  Oxfordshire

  823.14

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  762.50

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  901.60

  Rotherham

  773.29

  Salford and Trafford

  839.62

  Sandwell

  777.76

  Sefton

  1,040.25

  Sheffield

  956.59

  Shropshire

  763.29

  Solihull

  756.17

  Somerset

  825.30

  South and West Devon

  800.84

  South Cheshire

  801.87

  South Essex

  806.50

  South Humber

  802.29

  South Lancashire

  779.41

  South Staffordshire

  792.06

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  781.00

  Southern Derbyshire

  759.33

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  749.06

  Stockport

  759.28

  Suffolk

  778.56

  Sunderland

  781.94

  Tees

  824.19

  Wakefield

  854.72

  Walsall

  776.48

  Warwickshire

  798.29

  West Hertfordshire

  800.40

  West Kent

  786.21

  West Pennine

  746.22

  West Surrey

  840.34

  West Sussex

  784.64

  Wigan and Bolton

  732.65

  Wiltshire

  828.57

  Wirral

  798.81

  Wolverhampton

  763.81

  Worcestershire

  827.41

  Note:

  1. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

  2. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.
  453W
  3. Some health authorities act as lead commissioners for particular specialties which inflates their figures when compared with others and also causes differences between years. Other factors may also distort the figures so the results are therefore not all directly comparable with each other and with answers to similar questions for previous years.

  source:

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 2000–01.

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01.

  Weighted population estimates for 2000–01.

  GP Waiting Times
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to GPs about reducing notified waiting times for appointments. [23433]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts have been working with practices to implement plans to achieve by March 2002 the 60 per cent, milestone for patients being able routinely to see a GP within two working days. These plans were informed by advice issued to primary care trusts and groups in June 2000.

  Further comprehensive guidance is being developed with key stakeholders for issue in the new year.

  Cancer Screening
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a prostate cancer screening programme; and if he will make a statement. [23381]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are committed to introducing a screening programme for prostate cancer if and when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently well developed. Trials for prostate cancer screening have shown that there are a number of complex issues involved. There is no conclusive evidence from any country that screening for prostate cancer would reduce the death rate from prostate cancer.

  The national health Service prostate cancer programme was launched on 6 September 2000, covering research, treatment and a risk management programme specifically around improving early detection and diagnosis.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give a breakdown of how the money for the NHS(a)breast cancer screening programme and (b) cervical cancer screening programme is allocated; [23380]

  (2) how much money has been(a) allocated and (b) spent in the national health service on (i) breast cancer screening programmes and (ii) cervical cancer screening programmes in (A) each of the financial years since 1990 and (B) future years for which budgets have been set, broken down by regional health authority. [23379]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is not available in the format requested. Funding for the national health service breast and cervical screening programmes is allocated directly to health authorities as part of their main allocations each year. It is estimated that the breast screening programme in England costs £52 million per year1 and the cervical screening programme in England costs £132 million per year2.

  As set out in the NHS Cancer Plan, the breast screening programme in England will be expanded by 2004 to include routine invitations for women aged 65 to 70. £1.5 million revenue and £2 million capital has been
  454W
  allocated in 2001–02 to begin the national roll-out of the expansion. Allocations for 2002–03 will be announced in due course.

  1 Department of Health Economics and Operational Research Division 2001
  2National Audit Office, The Performance of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme in England (22 April 1998)

  Older Homeless People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what standards and milestones have been set to ensure that the health and social care needs of older homeless people are specifically addressed in the implementation of the National Service Frameworks for Older People and Mental Health. [24190]

  Jacqui Smith
  The standards and milestones for improvements in access and delivery of health and social care services set within the National Service Framework for Older People apply equally to all older people, and where appropriate younger people, whatever their housing status. The National Service Framework for Mental Health focuses on adults of working age. Like the NSF for Older People, the standards and milestones apply to all including the homeless.

  Chief Medical Officer (Annual Report)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates in each of the past 10 years the Chief Medical Officer published his annual report. [24093]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Chief Medical Officer's annual report was published in September during the years 1991–98, and specifically in recent years, on 25 September 1996, 30 September 1997 and 9 September 1998. Since then Professor Liam Donaldson, the current Chief Medical Officer, reviewed the format of the annual report and published the first one during his term of office on 10 December 2001. No report was published in the intervening years of 1999–2000 although the Chief Medical Officer has produced five major reports on specific topics during this period.

  Cancer Networks
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) to which individual or organisation cancer networks are answerable; and what the accountability arrangements are for cancer networks; [23820]

  (2) if cancer networks will be given a budget to commission services; and if commissioning and providing functions will be separated; [23827]

  (3) what the relationship will be between strategic health authorities and cancer networks; and if he will make a statement. [23828]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan said that cancer networks would be the organisational model for cancer services to implement the Cancer Plan, bringing together commissioners, providers, the voluntary sector and local authorities. Cancer networks have been working together to develop strategic service delivery plans to develop all aspects of cancer services. The National Health Service Planning and Performance Framework published on 6 December set out the requirement that NHS organisations should work together through cancer
  455W
  networks to deliver the cancer programme in line with network's strategic plans. The role of cancer networks and their relationships with other NHS bodies will be clarified shortly in our response to the consultation on Shifting the Balance of Power in the NHS.

  Technology Appraisal Guidance
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how his Department will ensure that health authorities and primary care trusts fulfil their statutory obligation after January 2002 to implement technology appraisal guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; [23825]

  (2) if health authorities and primary care trusts will have a statutory obligation to implement technology appraisal guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence before January 2002. [23826]

  Mr. Hutton
  The statutory obligations on health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence applies to guidance issued before and after 1 January 2002.

  We expect all national health service bodies to fulfil their statutory obligations and the Department will use appropriate performance management arrangements to ensure that they do so.

  Cancer Nurses
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of specialist nurses for(a) lung cancer, (b) stomach cancer and (c) urological cancers. [23819]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out our commitment to investment in the cancer nursing work force. We expect to see an increase in all specialist cancer nurses in line with needs identified in local cancer service delivery plans.

  Long-term Care Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the reasons for the closure of nursing and residential homes. [23422]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have commissioned a study from the Personal Social Services Research Unit at the University of Kent.

  Pesticide Residues
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review safety levels of pesticide residues in food. [24014]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  DEFRA works closely with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on all matters concerning pesticide residues in food.

  The safety of pesticide residues in foodstuffs is kept under continuous review by DEFRA's Pesticide Safety Directorate with advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). Additionally checks are made that residues in food are within statutory limits
  456W
  through a wide-ranging surveillance programme overseen by the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC). The results from the PRC's surveillance programme are published quarterly on the Committee's website at www.pesticides.gov.uk.

  There has been some specific concern over the potential combined effects of pesticide residues and at the request of the FSA, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), a group of independent experts, established a Working Group for the Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Pesticides/Veterinary Medicines (WIGRAMP).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pilot Schemes (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department plans to extend the(a) Government General Practitioner and (b) Internet Learning and Access Point trials to the constituency of Buckingham. [22531]

  Mr. Alexander
  We have no plans to extend the pilots, which will finish as planned on 1 March and the results will be fully evaluated.

  We have begun the process of evaluation and are working in parallel with other Departments in order to proceed to national roll-out if the pilot proves a success and provides value for money.

  Postal Service (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many working days were lost through(a) unofficial and (b) official industrial action by the Post Office in the constituency of Buckingham in each year since 1997. [22533]

  Mr. Alexander
  Industrial relations and the resolution of disputes are matters for the management of the company and the unions. I am advised by the company that the information sought is not available on a constituency basis.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of(a) first and (b) second class mail was delivered within the target time in the constituency of Buckingham in each year since 1997. [22520]

  Mr. Alexander
  Service delivery targets are operational issues for Consignia provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by the Postal Services Commission.

  I am advised by the company that figures on service delivery targets are not held by parliamentary constituency.

  Consignia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department was informed about the proposed abolition of the second delivery of post. [21232]
  457W
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]There is no formal requirement for Consignia to inform the Department about its proposals in relation to second delivery as they are operational issues for the company provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by the Postal Services Commission. However, the Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met Consignia to discuss the franchise arrangements for Parcelforce. [23267]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. However, franchise arrangements for Parcelforce are operational issues for the management of the company which I understand is consulting with the unions on the matter.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department was informed by Consignia of the proposal to charge for post delivered before 9.30 am. [21233]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]There is no formal requirement for Consignia to inform the Department about its proposals to charge for post delivered before 9.30 am as they are operational issues for the company provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by for the Postal Services Commission. However the Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations have taken place between the Government and Consignia regarding the announcement of job cuts; when her Department was informed by Consignia that it was to make job cuts; what discussions have taken place to mitigate the effects of these job losses; what action the Government intend to take to save as many jobs as possible; whether the various post services where these cuts may take place have been identified; how many job losses there will be in Coventry; what discussions took place between Consignia and the postal unions prior to the announcement of job cuts; and whether there are any meetings planned with the postal unions regarding the announcement of job cuts. [23656]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. How this company intends to make the £1.2 billion cost savings it has announced is an operational issue for the company in consultation with the unions. The company does not yet have a proposal on what impact the £1.2 billion cost savings will have on employment levels and has not informed the Government of specific plans of how it intends to achieve these savings.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost of the name change to Consignia. [23654]

  Mr. Alexander
  The choice of name of the Post Office company and the cost of its implementation were essentially commercial matters for the company and are not areas in which Government would have sought to intervene.
  458W
  I am informed by the company that, by the time the name effectively came into use on the day on which the property, rights and liabilities of the Post Office were transferred to the new company, the total costs were less than £2 million, much of which I am informed would have been incurred in any event in respect of signage, stationery and financial documentation because of the transformation to a plc.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she intends to waive dividend payments from Consignia for the current financial year. [22762]

  Mr. Alexander
  No decision has been taken.

  Post Offices (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been granted to help sustain and improve post offices in the constituency of Buckingham in the last 12 months. [22519]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since 1999, £480 million has been invested by the Government in the Horizon programme to automate the post office network. It is not possible to give a figure for the benefit of this initiative specifically for the Buckingham constituency. Development work is continuing on the other funding proposals to implement the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report to help sustain and improve the post office network.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been granted to assist with one-off capital costs associated with the refurbishment or relocation of rural post offices in the constituency of Buckingham in the last 12 months. [22507]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Sub-Post Office Start-up Capital Subsidy Scheme came into operation in September and is being administered by Post Office Ltd. on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I understand that no applications have yet been received in respect of rural sub-post offices in the Buckingham constituency.

  Fireworks
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made regarding the effectiveness of legislation controlling the(a) sale and (b) use of fireworks. [23239]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 943W.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of persons injured by fireworks in each of the last five years were injured by fireworks in (1)(a) category 3 and (b) category 4 of BS 7114; [23655]

  (2) (a) Category 1 and (b) Category 2 of BS 7114. [23673]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We do not collect information on the BS7114 technical category of fireworks involved in injuries. Our annual data collection exercise provides details of the place of accident, such as public display or private party, and the type of firework involved, based on the patient's description. Category 4 fireworks are
  459W
  prohibited from general sale by the Fireworks (Safety) regulations 1997. We also know that the majority of injuries are caused in some way by misuse. We have no evidence of any correlation between the technical category of fireworks and the levels of injury.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she has received since 1 October from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public concerning the use, misuse and sale of fireworks. [24140]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has received 348 representations from hon. Members and 653 directly from members of the public, concerning a wide range of issues relating to fireworks.

  Internet Shopping
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to protect consumers from unscrupulous traders on the internet. [22297]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are providing protection through codes of practice, dispute resolution and clear information for on-line shoppers.

  In November I launched a Safe Internet Shopping Campaign together with the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness. The campaign aimed to raise awareness about e-shopping and demonstrate that it is safe as long as shoppers follow basic, common-sense guidelines.

  Existing consumer protection legislation (the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and distance selling regulations) do protect consumers from credit card fraud and give them a cooling-off period in respect of most contracts.

  DTI is working with business and consumer organisations to deliver straightforward guidance, and to provide access to more comprehensive information about the full range of concerns through DTI's Consumer Gateway website.

  Postal Delivery
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which areas the Royal Mail has withdrawn the second daily postal delivery in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [17141]

  Mr. Alexander
  Proposals in relation to second delivery are operational issues for the company, provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by the Postal Services Commission.

  'Your Guide' Pilot Project
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the 'Your Guide' pilot project in Leicestershire; and if she will make a statement. [22763]

  Mr. Alexander
  The 'Your Guide' pilot of post offices as "Government General Practitioners" was launched in September and will finish as planned on 1 March.

  We have began the process of evaluation and are working in parallel with other Departments in order to proceed to national roll-out if the pilot proves a success and provides value for money.
  460W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to promote the 'Your Guide', initiative; and if she will make a statement. [23592]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The Department has provided £25 million funding for the Leicestershire and Rutland pilot and is engaging other central and local government departments and the devolved Administrations in the project. Consignia, which is running the pilot in Leicestershire and Rutland, is actively promoting the service locally within the pilot area. The future of 'Your Guide' nationally depends on a full evaluation of the pilot which ends on 1 March.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by her Department in each of the last five years; and what was their value. [17547]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department's contracted caterer supplies fairly traded coffee. Directorates are free to purchase catering supplies from other sources and reliable information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Broadband Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the population of(a) Wales and (b) the UK have access to broadband servers by means of (i) ADSL, (ii) cable, (iii) wireless and (iv) satellite. [23949]

  Mr. Alexander
  A map showing availability of technologies is contained in the second annual UK Online report (http: //www.e-envoy.gov.uk/ukonline/progress/anrep2001/default.htm).

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the population of(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom have access to broadband services by means of (i) ADSL, (ii) cable, (iii) wireless and (iv) satellite. [20650]

  Mr. Alexander
  A map showing geographical availability of technologies is contained in the second annual UK Online report (http: //www.e-envoy.gov.uk/ ukonline/progress/anrep2001/default.htm). This report also contains links to the report "Connecting Scotland: Our Broadband Future", which sets out the availability of broadband in Scotland.

  Regional Selective Assistance (Cornwall)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much regional selective assistance funding has been granted to Cornwall since 1997. [24158]

  Alan Johnson
  This Department has made 56 offers of regional selective assistance to businesses in Cornwall since May 1997, totalling £15.2 million in grant, to support projects with a total capital expenditure of £99.9 million, and to create and safeguard a total of 2,852 jobs.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the reviews that commenced in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of non-departmental public bodies. [22567]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following is the information requested relating to quinquennial reviews of the Department's executive NDPBs:

  1999–2000

  The Design Council—completed

  The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—completed

  National Consumer Council—completed.

  2000–01

  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—completed

  The six grant awarding Research Councils—completed

  The Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils—Stage 1 completed.

  The Coal Authority—Stage 1 completed.

  Following is the information requested relating to quinquennial reviews of the Department's advisory and tribunal NDPBs:

  1999–2000;

  Central Arbitration Committee—completed

  International Oil and Gas Business Advisory Board (previously the OSO Industry Board)—completed

  Measurement Advisory Committee—completed.

  2000–01

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee—completed

  Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property—completed

  Insolvency Practitioners'Tribunal—completed.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, 'Winning the Generation Game',(a) what progress her Department has made and (b) what future plans her Department has for acting on them; and if she will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24206]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, at column 335W.

  South West of England Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the projects(a) being undertaken and (b) completed by the South West of England Regional Development Agency. [23752]

  Alan Johnson
  In most cases the projects supported by the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) are undertaken on a partnership basis. Projects for which the SWRDA provided more than £25,000 in 2000–01 are listed in the RDA Annual Report 2000–01 which is available in the Libraries of the House or can be obtained direct from the SWRDA.

  Sub-regional projects the RDA supported in 2000–01 by providing more than £25,000:
  462W

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole:

  A Model for a 'Virtual' Centre of Excellence in Coastal Zone

  Management Training

  Agri-connexion, Kingston Maurward

  Allendale Heritage and Community Centre, Wimborne

  Awareness, Advice and Action for Skills Development, Bournemouth

  Bournemouth and Poole Learning Network

  Bournemouth Incubator Centre

  Developing Fast-Track Training for ICT Technicians

  Development Manager for Lyme Regis Development Trust

  Higher Barn, Melbury Osmond, Dorchester

  Higher Education South West Business Net (HESWBusNet), Bournemouth

  Honeybrook Farm Visitors Centre, Wimborne

  Kimmeridge Marine Education Centre

  Norden Park and Ride, Corfe, Wareham

  Poole Arts Centre

  Shaftesbury Advice Centre Weymouth Skate Park

  Cornwall and the Isles of Stilly:

  Business Information Service (Enterprise Edge)

  Celtic Film and Television Festival

  Chacewater Village Hall

  Cornwall Objective One Technical Assistance

  Combined Universities in Cornwall

  Coverack Space 2000

  Developing Fast-Track Training for ICT Technicians

  Digital Peninsula Network

  Eden Institute Centre

  Eden Public Realm Works, St. Austell

  Gaia Centre, Delabole

  Geevor Tin Mine Emergency Works, St. Just

  463W

  Great Onslow, Bodmin Moor

  Green Park Feasibility

  Helston Business Park

  Ladock Parish Hall

  Let's do IT

  Long Rock, Penzance

  Lower Pengegon

  Mylor Yacht Harbour

  Plot F, Saltash Parkway (Habit Diamond)

  Spanning the Century, Camel Trail, Padstow

  St. Austell Town Centre

  Tolvaddon Energy Park

  Towednack and Nancledra Community Hall

  Train Net

  UFP Camborne, Pool, Redruth

  Youth Link—Penwith and Kerrier

  Devon, Plymouth and Torbay:

  181 Rendell Street, Plymouth

  Achievement Plus, Plymouth

  Agri-BIP Rural Business Support

  Basic Employability Skills

  Bovey Tracey Youth Café

  Derriton Viaduct, Holsworthy

  Devon and West Somerset Key Fund

  East Devon Business Centre, Honiton

  Exeter Advanced Technologies

  Exeter Innovation Centre

  High Street and Peel Street Redevelopment, Plymouth

  Honicknowle Employment Project, Plymouth

  Infrastructure Improvements, Sowton, Exeter

  Jersey Farm, Sampford Peverell

  Kingsbridge Age Concern and Rest Centre

  Marine Projects, Plymouth

  Millbay Laundry, Plymouth

  ORBIT, Ottery St. Mary

  Pall Cycleway, Ilfracombe

  Pitts Cleave, Tavistock

  Plymouth Job to Job Subsidy

  Rural Counselling Programme

  Sourton—Lake Cycleway

  Springboard to Learning, Plymouth

  St. Sidwells Centre, Exeter

  Stonehouse Creek Community Centre, Plymouth

  Tamar Science Park, Plymouth

  The Soundhouse, Plymouth

  Theatre Royal Production and Education Centre, Plymouth

  Wallabrook Viaduct

  Yeo Bridge, Barnstaple

  464W

  Gloucestershire:

  Bream Community Centre Refurbishment Scheme

  Coney Hill Neighbourhood College Centre

  Cranfield Medical Research Centre

  CREATE Training, Lydney

  Developing Fast-Track Training for ICT Technicians

  Fixing the Future—Solution for IT Services Skills

  Forest of Dean Radio Project

  Gloucestershire Development Agency—Support for SRP

  Gloucestershire Innovation Centre

  Gloucestershire Network Neighbourhoods Projects Network on behalf of the Gloucestershire Training Group Centre for Engineering Excellence

  Hesters Way Community Resource Centre

  Lister Petter mixed-use regeneration site, Dursley

  Matson Lane Community College Health and ICT Resource Centre

  Skill Joy

  The Link Group

  Somerset:

  Baird Clothing

  Bowdens Farm, Langport

  Bussman Cooper

  Computer-based, Internet-linked Heavy Goods Vehicle Provision in the South West Peninsula

  E-Business Skills Development Programme

  Filton Econet Partnership for Sustainable Business Development in the South West region

  Morlands Factory Site, Glastonbury

  Somerset Skills Support Project

  South West Marine Sector Training and Development

  The Western Colleges Consortium for On-Line Learning

  Tourism Task Force—Bristol, Bath, South Gloucestershire, North Somerset

  Watchet Youth Centre

  Watchet Marina

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  Berwick St. John Community Resource Centre

  Charlton Park Farms, Office Development, Malmesbury

  Easton Farm, Tourist Facility, Berwick St. John

  Hoechst Trespaphan

  Little Durnford Farms, Business and Workspace, Salisbury

  Multimedia in Wiltshire

  Oakley Business Park, Workspace Units, Dinton

  Purton Down Biotech Incubator Centre

  R&K Wise

  Skills at Work in Wiltshire and Swindon

  St. Martins Farm, Tourist Facility, Warminster

  Swindon Pressings Ltd.

  The Beeches Court Farm, Tourist Facility, Calne

  The Western Colleges Consortium for On-Line Learning

  Ushers

  465W

  Bristol and West of England:

  Cabot Community Sports Centre, Bristol

  E-Business Skills Development Programme

  Emersons Innovation

  Engineering for Avon

  Harbourside Project, Bristol

  Nailey Farm, St. Catherine's, Bath

  Old Town Quarry, Weston-super-Mare

  Safe and Warm Phase 2, Bristol

  Targets

  Land and property—Partnership Investment Programme(PIP)—outputs

  Private Investment generated (£000)

  61,964,750

  Area of brownfield land reclaimed/brought back into use (differentiated by soft and hard end use) (hectares)

  39 SE

  Woodland created (trees planted or hectares)

  0

  Treatment of contaminated land (hectares)

  0

  Jobs—number created and safeguarded

  1,140

  New industrial commercial floorspace created (square metres)

  27,701

  Accessibility improved between homes and workplaces (length of footpath/cycleway created)

  0

  Housing units facilitated on brownfield land (number of housing units)

  250

  Spend (£000)

  6,000,000

  Land and property—non PIP outputs

  Jobs—number created and safeguarded

  1,790

  Private investment generated (£)

  20,500,000

  Area of brownfield land reclaimed/brought back into use

  84.9 ha (55 SE)

  Woodland created (trees planted or hectares)

  0

  Treatment of contaminated land

  29.9 HE

  New industrial/refurbished floorspace created

  51,800

  Accessibility improved between homes and workplaces

  10

  Housing units facilitated on brownfield land

  340

  Spend (£000)

  27,642,000

  Single Regeneration Budget1

  Jobs created/safeguarded1

  2,410/180

  Homes and buildings with improved security

  4,125

  Voluntary organisations and community groups supported1

  4,205/184

  New business start-ups1

  572

  140

  Hectares of land improved/reclaimed for open space and improved/reclaimed/serviced for development (of perhaps a combination of these)

  17

  Private finance attracted (£000)

  214,080

  Spend (£000)

  26,726,000

  Rural Programme

  Number of grants made or projects supported

  429

  Area of work space created/safeguarded (square metres)

  33,686

  Match funding attracted as a percentage of RDA's direct cash input (£ million)

  26.4

  Number of child care places created

  100

  Spend (£)

  9,388,000

  Jobs created/safeguarded

  2,167

  Business started up and surviving at least one year

  283

  Number/areas of redundant buildings converted to commercial use

  260

  Number of training places created

  1,593

  Number of new improved facilities

  404

  Number of additional visitors

  99,649

  1 Figures for ethnic minorities

  2 Million

  Innovation Funding
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a regional breakdown of innovation funding in the UK. [23975]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's innovation programme expenditure is primarily providing support to industry UK-wide. In the financial year 2001–02, £340 million was allocated to this support. It would be a disproportionate
  466W

  Temple Quay, Bristol

  The Western Colleges Consortium for On-Line Learning

  Towards the Radstock Community Vision

  Working Together for Southmead, Bristol.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the regeneration targets to be met by the South West Regional Development Agency. [23750]

  Alan Johnson
  The following are the agreed targets for the South West of England Regional Development Agency's regeneration programmes in 2001–02.

  cost to ascertain the regional breakdown of this expenditure. Moreover in many instances mapping the immediate recipient of the support would not give a reliable guide to the ultimate distribution of the benefit.

  The only funding currently allocated by my Department on a regional basis that contributes to the DTI's innovation agenda is the Regional Innovation Fund (RIF), which was established on 1 April 2001.
  467W
  RIF provides a funding stream to the nine English Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to enable them to support regional competitiveness, innovation and enterprise, and to support cluster development and business incubation in their regions. A breakdown of my Department's 2001–02 RIF allocation of £54.1 million to the RDAs is as follows:

  2001–02 RIF allocation

  RDA

  £ million

  One North East

  8.9

  North West Development Agency

  7.4

  Yorkshire Forward

  10.0

  East Midlands Development Agency (emda)

  4.3

  Advantage West Midlands

  6.3

  East of England Development Agency

  3.5

  SEEDA

  3.2

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  4.7

  London Development Agency

  5.8

  Female Entrepreneurs
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking(a) to promote female entrepreneurs and (b) to create an enterprise environment that supports both men and women. [23973]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's priority on coming to office in 1997 was economic stability and employment. The economic challenge for the second term is enterprise and productivity.

  The Government are promoting enterprise through:
  stable macroeconomic conditions, sound public finances and low inflation
  improving the tax regime, by introducing new measures to help small businesses grow, including simplifying VAT for half a million small firms and extension of the 10p corporation tax rate
  radical rethink of the UK competition regime.

  The Small Business Service (SBS) aims to build an enterprise society in which small businesses of all kinds thrive and achieve their potential. Last year it published "Think Small First"—a national strategy to create the right environment for SMEs. SBS is holding meetings across Whitehall to ensure all Government Departments consider the impact their actions have on them.

  SBS's services are available to both male and female entrepreneurs in England, through the Business Link network, which provides local advice and support to all entrepreneurs on everything needed to start and grow a business. Business Connect delivers a similar service in Wales.

  Women who are thinking of setting up or who are already running their own businesses are able to make use of the full range of services provided by SBS through the Business Link operators.

  In addition, SBS has set up the Phoenix Fund to encourage entrepreneurship in disadvantaged areas and within groups which are currently under-represented in terms of business ownership (including women). The Phoenix Fund as a whole is worth £100 million over the four financial years from 2000–04. 16 projects specifically target the needs of women. The National Assembly for Wales has a separate budget to promote female entrepreneurs.
  468W
  The SBS is working to research and better understand the needs of women entrepreneurs and tackle any specific barriers that they may face in starting and running then-own businesses.

  Anti-competitive Behaviour
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many anti-competitive behaviour cases are being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading. [10136]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under UK competition legislation, responsibility for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I have asked the Director General to write to the hon. Member directly.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Small Business Service in assisting the establishment of new companies. [11849]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The SBS delivers a range of support to start-up businesses through the Business Link network and manages a number of specific initiatives. All SBS services are subject to regular and rigorous evaluation.

  In Quarter One (April-June) this year, the Business Link network helped around 30,000 individuals and start-up businesses including 2,000 high-growth start-ups.

  An early assessment of the high-growth start-up initiative was completed in December 2000. This showed that:
  the initiative had already had a positive effect in developing a targeted approach to working with high-growth start-ups;
  considerable progress had been made in developing understanding of local markets and developing local/regional service offers;
  funding should be rolled forward to enable more detailed evaluation;
  support is being provided, across a variety of business sectors, to people who are traditionally considered to face barriers in starting and growing a business including women, ethnic minorities and young entrepreneurs. A full evaluation of this initiative has just commenced.

  An assessment of the Business Volunteer Mentors Association (BVMA) initiative was completed in March 2001. This showed that, despite the early stage of the programme:
  business mentoring plays an important role within the business support process. It provides the client with an on-going business relationship and a route to identifying and progressing entrepreneurial development needs. This is essential to SME development, especially at the pre and early start-up phase;
  clients were impressed with the quality of the volunteers and that mentoring could make a difference to their business;
  mentors were confident that they could make a difference to the businesses they were supporting;
  the National Federation of Enterprise Agencies, who co-ordinate the delivery of the BVMA initiative, were confident that the scheme could make a significant contribution to support services for pre and early start businesses.
  469W
  The Small Business Service is currently consulting on the development of a comprehensive strategy for supporting business start-ups. The consultation phase of developing the comprehensive strategy is to be completed by March 2002.

  A full evaluation of all Business Link services, including those for start-ups, is planned for 2002.

  The SBS is also monitoring the wider environment in which businesses start through its "Think Small First" indicators which will be published annually.

  Business Links
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the funding of Business Links by area in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. [11848]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Links exist and operate only in England. There are 45 Business Link operators, appointed by the Small Business Service (SBS), operating in 45 designated areas throughout England.

  Business Link operators receive a grant from SBS in the form of a Core Services allocation, which funds the core business support services that the BL operator is obliged to deliver under the terms of their agreement. Other funding is provided by the SBS to deliver specialist services like the UK Online for Business, Local Partnership Fund and High Growth Start-ups programmes, these funds are allocated at regional level.

  The table provides a breakdown of Core Services allocations to BL operators by SBS area for the 2001–02 financial year.

  Core Services allocations 2001–02

  Allocation (£)

  Percentage

  Total

  130,000,000

  100

  South East (6)

  Berkshire

  2,322,684

  1.8

  Sussex

  4,165,051

  3.2

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  4,660,054

  3.6

  Kent

  3,967,756

  3.1

  Oxfordshire, Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire

  3,772,524

  2.9

  Surrey

  3,386,962

  2.6

  Total

  22,275,032

  17.1

  London (1)

  London

  22,537,065

  17.3

  East (6)

  Bedfordshire

  1,438,456

  1.1

  Cambridgeshire

  1,888,331

  1.5

  Essex

  4,194,360

  3.2

  Hertfordshire

  2,982,289

  2.3

  Norfolk

  2,144,482

  1.6

  Suffolk

  1,829,953

  1.4

  Total

  14,477,870

  11.1

  South West (6)

  Dorset

  1,938,794

  1.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,161,670

  3.2

  Gloucestershire

  1,595,518

  1.2

  Somerset

  1,371,800

  1.1

  West

  2,528,148

  1.9

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  1,577,421

  1.2

  Total

  13,173,352

  10.1

  470W

  Core services allocations 2001–02

  Allocation (£)

  Percentage

  West Midlands (6)

  Birmingham and Solihull

  2,789,038

  2.1

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,029,638

  1.6

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  1,970,340

  1.5

  Shropshire

  1,159,965

  0.9

  Staffordshire

  2,502,982

  1.9

  The Black Country

  2,600,619

  2.0

  Total

  13,052,581

  10.0

  East Midlands (5)

  Derbyshire

  2,298,793

  1.8

  Leicestershire

  2,323,081

  1.8

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  1,813,842

  1.4

  Northamptonshire

  1,562,786

  1.2

  Nottinghamshire

  2,388,656

  1.8

  Total

  10,387,158

  8.0

  Yorkshire and The Humber (4)

  Humber

  2,186,000

  1.7

  North Yorkshire

  2,144,061

  1.6

  South Yorkshire

  2,784,477

  2.1

  West Yorkshire

  4,893,163

  3.8

  Total

  12,007,701

  9.2

  North West (7)

  Cheshire and Warrington

  2,316,044

  1.8

  Manchester CBS

  3,509,113

  2.7

  Cumbria

  1,356,861

  1.0

  East Lancashire

  1,230,138

  0.9

  North Manchester CBS

  2,661,103

  2.0

  Merseyside

  3,264,255

  2.5

  North and West Lancashire

  2,315,636

  1.8

  Total

  16,653,150

  12.8

  North East (4)

  County Durham

  1,038,692

  0.8

  Northumberland

  754,893

  0.6

  Tees Valley

  1,355,003

  1.0

  Tyne and Wear

  2,287,504

  1.8

  Total

  5,436,092

  4.2

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, with dates, the engineering companies(a) she and (b) her Ministers have visited since June. [21503]

  Mr. Wilson
  My colleagues and I regularly meet representatives from engineering companies and engineering trade bodies, both in visits and at other times. I list the visits made by myself and my ministerial colleagues to engineering companies since June 2001.

  (a)Visits by the Secretary of State

  5 November—MG Rover

  10 December—IBC Vehicles Ltd.

  10 December—Astrium Ltd.

  10 December—Matra BAE Dynamics

  (b)Visits by other DTI Ministers

  23 July—Optima International—Nigel Griffiths

  30 August—AGM Batteries—Brian Wilson

  21 September—Aireshelta Ltd.—Lord Sainsbury

  5 October—Fibrin (Humberside) Ltd.—Alan Johnson

  9 October—Gorham and Bateson Ltd.—Nigel Griffiths;

  471W

  9 November—Textron Power Transmission—Alan Johnson

  9 November—The Marshall Group of Companies—Lord Sainsbury

  14 November—Rolls-Royce plc—Brian Wilson

  17 December—Thales Optronics—Brian Wilson.

  Business Receiverships (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have gone into receivership in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [22647]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Statistics of business receiverships are not available by year of receivership at the constituency level.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the public service agreement target on levels of energy, security, diversity, sustainability and competitive energy prices. [23168]

  Mr. Wilson
  The public service agreement target to maintain or improve levels of energy security, diversity, sustainability and competitive prices has been updated for 2001–04:"To develop strong, competitive markets within a regulatory framework which promotes fairness and sustainability".
  This was set out in HM Treasury's Public Service Agreements 2001–04 www.hm_treasury_gov.uk/Documents/Public Spending and Services/Public_Service_Agreements_2001–04

  The energy targets relating to this objective and the progress towards these targets are as follows:

  Targets

  1. Ensure competitive gas and electricity prices in the lower half of the EU/G7 basket, while achieving security of supply and social and environmental objectives.

  2. Improve the environment and sustainable use of natural resources, including by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent, from 1990 levels over the period 2008–12and moving towards a 20 per cent, reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010 (Joint target with DEFRA).

  Progress

  Competitive energy prices:

  Overall, in 2000, based on the data available from the International Energy Agency, UK industrial and domestic gas prices, both including and excluding taxes, were in the lower half of the EU/G7 basket. UK domestic electricity prices, including taxes, were also in the lower half of the EU/G7 basket during 2000. However, industrial electricity and domestic, excluding taxes, electricity prices were not in the lower half of the EU/G7 basket. But figures for the UK show that electricity prices have fallen in 2001.

  Security:

  The Department monitors electricity supply through supply interruptions and lost time. Between 1996–97 and 1999–2000 both the number of interruptions and average time lost have declined. Oil stocks are also monitored, with a target to maintain national emergency oil stocks at, or above, levels required by international obligations. At
  472W
  the end of the third quarter of 2001 the UK held stocks equal to 70 days of consumption, compared with an obligation of 67.5 days.

  Diversity:

  The Department has a target to achieve 10 per cent, of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2010, subject to the costs to consumers being acceptable. In 2000, renewables accounted for 2.8 per cent, of electricity generated in the UK.

  Social:

  The Department has introduced a social target of fuel expenditure as a percentage of income (including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) for the lowest three income deciles to be reducing and below 5 per cent, by 2003–04. Over the last three years fuel expenditure as a percentage of income has been reducing and in 1999–2000 was 7 per cent.

  Sustainability/environment:

  Projections suggest that the UK is on course to meet its Kyoto commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent, by 2008–2012 from 1990 level. The Department is also on course to meet the sulphur dioxide emissions target of 80 per cent, below 1980 levels by 2010.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on the unit cost of investigating bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases between 1999 and 2002. [23163]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  At the end of the last financial year, 31 March 2001, the unit cost of case investigation by the Insolvency Service had been reduced by 10.6 per cent.

  Citizens Advice Line
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on funding for the Citizens Advice Line for London beyond March 2002. [22880]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not provide funding for the Citizens Advice Line for London (CALL) general advice line. It has however provided time-limited funding support for a consumer helpline pilot run by CALL as one of three such pilots across England, each using different approaches. The pilot funding has always been time limited to March 2002.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations were made to her by(a) her Irish counterpart and (b) the Irish Energy Minister, in respect of Sellafield, at the recent EU Energy Council; and what response was given. [23191]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessments she has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01 as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for Vote IX Trade
  473W
  and Industry and Export Credit Guarantees Department subcategories (a) 1 Department of Trade and Industry: programmes and administration and (b) 2 Department of Trade and Industry: science; and if she will make a statement. [24105]

  Ms Hewitt
  The difference between the provisional and final voted outturn for financial year 2000–01 for Vote IX is within a reasonable margin of estimating error allowing for the uncertainties of export credit business.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the reasons for the difference between the initial voted annually managed expenditure and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for the Export Credit Guarantees Department and the self-financing public corporations categories; and if she will make a statement. [24108]

  Ms Hewitt
  Annually managed expenditure mainly comprises the refinancing of bank export finance loans made by commercial banks under ECGD's guarantee. Such refinancing produces worthwhile savings to the taxpayer. The refinancing programme has been significantly increased during 2000–01. Some of the rise in AME is due to costs associated with refinancing, but these are more than offset by the savings.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) interim and (b) final payments were made between (i) 1 January and 1 July and (ii) 2 July and 1 December to vibration white finger claimants in St. Helens, South. [22956]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, made 31 interim payments and 20 full and final payments amounting to £278,674 between 1 January and 1 July 2001 in the constituency of St. Helens, South for vibration white finger (VWF). Between 2 July and 1 December 2001, 34 interim payments and 28 full and final settlements were made, amounting to £342,762. There are 431 VWF claimants in total in this constituency.

  Consumer Credit Act
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government plans to publish the summary of responses to its consultation document "Modernising the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; and what plans it has to take the review of the Act forward. [22785]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]DTI is currently analysing the many responses we received to our consultation paper "Tackling loan sharks—and more!"

  Miners' Compensation
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average final settlement figure in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema has been in(a) Nottinghamshire and (b) the United Kingdom via (i) the expedited route and (ii) the medical assessment process. [23332]
  474W
  Mr. Wilson
  To date, the average expedited payment in Nottinghamshire is £2,804 and £4,107 nationally. The average settlement following the full medical assessment is £4,973 in Nottinghamshire and £5,416 nationally. The discrepancies between the regional and national figures reflect the variances of compensatable disabilities among claimants.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the(a) volume and (b) value of depleted uranium and products containing depleted uranium, imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1985; and if she will make a statement. [22312]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]Data on imports of depleted uranium and depleted uranium products since 1985 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations there are to control the importation of(a) depleted uranium, (b) munitions containing depleted uranium and (c) other products containing depleted uranium; and if she will make a statement. [22313]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 587.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on whether new initiatives to support the sub-post office network are expected to be delivered within the planned timetable. [23593]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The £2 million Government fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas came into operation in September. Development of funding proposals to implement the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's report to help sustain and improve the Post Office network is continuing. The pilot of the Government Practitioner 'Your Guide' started in August. Work on other measures is well advanced. We have now received advice from the Postal Services commission on transitional financial assistance to rural post offices from 2003.

  Small Print
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will investigate the size of the print used in setting out the terms and conditions of offers made by firms to the general public. [20177]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]We have no plans for such an investigation. Where an advertisement for an offer for goods or services is rendered misleading because relevant terms and conditions are illegible, it may breach the advertising industry's British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion. In that case the Advertising Standards Authority could direct the advertiser to amend or remove
  475W
  the advertisement. Furthermore, any price indicated to consumers which is rendered misleading as a result of illegible terms and conditions could be the subject of a criminal prosecution under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In relation to standard consumer contracts, the Director General of Fair Trading has used his powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 to ensure that these are presented in print of acceptable size. In relation to offers for credit, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in order for the terms of a consumer credit agreement to be enforceable they must be readily legible.

  SMART Awards
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is consulted in allocating SMART awards; who oversees their administration; and what measures are in place to ensure that SMART moneys are spent appropriately. [23818]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In allocating SMART awards for research and development in England the Department of Trade and Industry seeks advice from its own staff with knowledge of particular sectors of industry, from qualified accountants, from the Patent Office, which carries out patent searches, from other Government Departments and from the following external sources of technical expertise:

  AEA Technology plc

  BRE

  Capenhurst.tech Ltd.

  Chimaeron Ltd.

  EA Technology

  Health and Safety Laboratory

  The Institute of Materials

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Materials Engineering Research Laboratory Ltd.

  Medical Devices Agency

  National Computing Centre (NCC Services Ltd.)

  National Engineering Laboratory

  National Physical Laboratory

  Pera Innovation Ltd.

  PIRA International Ltd.

  QinetiQ

  TRL Ltd.

  SMART Feasibility Study and Development Project applications are administered and allocated by Government Offices for the Regions. Some SMART Micro Project applications are also administered by Government Offices for the Regions and others by the Small Business Service headquarters in London. By April 2002 all Micro Project applications will be administered by Government Offices for the Regions. SMART Technology Review and Technology Study applications are administered and allocated by the Small Business Service headquarters.

  All SMART projects and associated expenditure are carefully monitored by staff from Government Offices for the Regions or the Small Business Service against the project proposals for which the grants are awarded. Grant moneys are paid only in respect of eligible expenditure and only if the project makes satisfactory progress towards its objectives. Additionally, full payment of grant
  476W
  is withheld until the project is completed and an independent accountant has reported the total expenditure on the project and confirmed it was incurred for the purpose intended.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what guidance her Department has issued to regional development agencies on supporting seaside and coastal towns; [24151]

  (2)which officials in her Department she has nominated as resort champions; [24142]

  (3)what action her Department is taking to support the implementation of the English Tourism Council's "Sea Changes" report. [24146]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have welcomed the publication of "Sea Changes". The Department is very much aware of the regeneration and economic development needs of seaside resorts, given its responsibility for the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and for co-ordination of policy on the assisted areas and structural funds maps.

  We look to the RDAs to continue to develop and implement economic and regeneration strategies on a regional basis, working closely with other regional and local partners. In its guidance to the RDAs on preparing their Corporate Plans for 2002–04, the Department has specifically asked them to explain how they intend to work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, local Regional Tourist Boards, and other regional, sub-regional and local authority bodies in the development and implementation of sustainable tourism strategies. The guidance makes clear that these strategies will need to include the promotion of coastal resort regeneration.

  The DTI has not nominated specific resort champions.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regional development agencies have nominated a board member to be a resort champion for that region; and if she will list(a) the regional development agencies which have done so and (b) the board members nominated. [24152]

  Alan Johnson
  The Regional Development Agencies have not nominated specific board members as resort champions. The DTI is not in a position to instruct RDAs in such detail as to how they should achieve their objectives. However, RDAs will continue to play an important role in the regeneration of seaside resorts.

  New Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received in respect of the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements; what have been the concerns raised most frequently by these representations; and what plans she has for assessing the operation of the new electricity trading arrangements after a specified period of time. [21453]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]My officials and I have met with a large number of industry representatives on the impact of the new electricity
  477W
  trading arrangements (NETA). On the whole, NETA is seen to have been successful. Ofgem produced a report of the first three months of NETA and found that:
  Wholesale electricity prices are 20 to 25 per cent, below prices that would have been produced under the Pool.
  Market liquidity is established with a threefold increase in the volume of trades, and a doubling of the number of contracts struck compared to this time last year under the Pool.
  National Grid Company is working well to keep the electricity system in balance. Its daily costs of balancing the system have halved, which will also benefit customers.

  Ofgem will be conducting a full review of the first year's operation of NETA:

  A frequent concern that has been raised has been around the impact of the changes on smaller generators. At the request of DTI, Ofgem produced a report entitled a 'Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators' on 31 August 2001. In response, DTI issued a consultation paper. I have received 41 responses to the Government's consultation. These responses are from a wide cross-section of industry, including representatives of the renewables and CHP sectors, suppliers of electricity and industry and environment associations. The responses to the consultation have raised a wide range of issues which Government will need to consider carefully. We will be publishing a full Government response to our consultation and a summary of responses.

  In the meantime, DTI and Ofgem have formed a working group to look urgently at the obstacles to consolidation services under NETA. The working group comprises a wide cross-section of industry.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1049W, on the aluminium industry, what assessment he has made of the extent to which the UK will be affected by the downturn in world aluminium markets. [22992]

  Mr. Wilson
  Alcan and Alcoa, the two largest employers in the UK aluminium industry, recently announced detailed proposals for restructuring their global operations as a result of recent falls in world demand for aluminium. This would result in a reduction of around 7 per cent, in the combined UK work forces of these two companies. Under these proposals two sites, Alcoa's Dolgarrog rolling mill and Alcan's Glasgow foil plant, would close completely with employee reductions at Alcan's Rogerstone mill. However Alcan's Bridgnorth plant would gain an extra 60 jobs and £13 million in investment. Industry assessments suggest that overall UK aluminium companies currently face low prices and profit margins, and that the market is likely to remain weak in the short to medium term.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Advertising (£)

  6,471.80

  5,127.70

  7,572.60

  11,275.60

  27,321.90

  Percentage of departmental running costs

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.6

  1.3

  Expressed in real terms at 2000–01 level (£)

  7,133.00

  5,495.70

  7,890.80

  11,487.70

  27,321.90

  Publication Production (£)

  1,998.80

  2,314.00

  2,159.40

  5,768.40

  6,556.70

  Percentage of departmental running costs

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.3

  0.3

  Expressed in real terms at 2000–01 levels (£)

  2,203.00

  2,480.10

  2,250.10

  5,876.90

  6,556.70

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to run an advertising campaign to reduce packaging waste; and if she will make a statement. [23817]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) and The Packaging (Essential Requirements) 1998 Regulations provide the regulatory framework aimed at encouraging a reduction in packaging and packaging waste in England and Wales. These, and similar regulations in Northern Ireland and Scotland, are designed to allow the United Kingdom to fulfil the European Union obligations of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.

  These regulations encourage a reduction in packaging and packaging waste by setting demanding recovery and recycling targets along with requirements to discourage over-packaging. They also place financial burdens on business in relation to the weight of packaging they place on the market. Awareness of these regulations is already promoted by the Government and the enforcement agencies. This month the Commission has published a proposal to revise Directive 94/62/EC. The need for any future advertising campaign will be considered as part of the future implementation of the revised Directive.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Spending
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6926]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government are committed to using only whatever channel is judged to be the most cost-effective way to deliver the publicity necessary to support the implementation of policy.

  The following table sets out the Department's expenditure on advertising, caterers and production of departmental publications from 1996–97 to 2000–01. Expenditure for 1995–96 is not available.

  Expenditure on polling, focus groups, design consultants and photographs/photographers is not readily identifiable and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.
  479W

  1996–97

  7997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Caterers (£)

  2,909.10

  2,738.50

  2,888.00

  3,146.60

  2,823.70

  Percentage of departmental running costs

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  Expressed in real terms at 2000–01 levels (£)

  3,206.30

  2,935.00

  3,009.30

  3,205.80

  2,823.70

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the principles determining which local authority an asylum seeker will be referred to for housing assistance if they are recognised as a refugee or granted exceptional leave to remain. [22452]

  Angela Eagle
  Former asylum seekers who have received a positive decision on their application for asylum or who have been granted exceptional leave to remain are free to live where they choose within the United Kingdom. They can apply for housing assistance to any local authority.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers living in the UK first entered the country in(a) 1990, (b) 1992, (c) 1994, (d) 1996, (e) 1998 and (f) 2000 and made application for asylum, and have yet to have their cases resolved. [22479]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available, and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom lodged in the years above are shown in the table. However, it is not possible to determine in what year these applicants first entered the United Kingdom, or whether they are currently living in the United Kingdom.

  Applications for asylum in the UK, principal applicants

  Year

  Asylum Applications 1

  1990

  26,205

  19922

  24,605

  1994

  32,830

  1996

  29,640

  1998

  46,015

  20003,4

  80,315

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Figures do not include overseas applications

  3 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January and March 2000

  4 Provisional figures

  The number of asylum cases awaiting initial decision as at 30 September was 43,000 (provisional, to the nearest 100). However, it is not possible to determine in what year these applicants were made. Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and applications awaiting initial decision is published regularly in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the RDS website http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Police Medical Retirements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by police authority area, the number of officers who have retired on medical grounds in(a)1990, (b)1995, (c)1996, (d)1997,
  480W
  (e) 1998, (f) 1999 and (g) 2000; indicating in each case, and in each police authority area, the percentage this represents of total retirement. [11807]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested data are given in the tables which have been placed in the Library.

  Many forces have made considerable reductions in the level of medical retirements in the last five years. However, as the tables show, the position varies considerably between forces.

  The Home Office has asked the Police Negotiating Board to explore and agree ways to deliver a fair and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health, so that forces, can match the performance of the best quartile by 2005. We will be introducing a national occupational health strategy for the police service, which should assist forces to manage cases of ill-health more effectively at the outset.

  Neighbourhood Warden Scheme (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been awarded for neighbourhood warden schemes in the Buckingham constituency in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what targets have been set to reduce crime under the schemes. [22626]

  Mr. Denham
  The neighbourhood and street wardens programme have funded a pilot programme of 85 neighbourhood warden schemes across England and Wales. These schemes can help to reduce crime and the fear of crime and deter anti-social behaviour. No applications were submitted from Buckingham and there are no schemes funded in the area. There is one neighbourhood warden scheme funded in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire.

  Police (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit the Buckingham constituency to meet police officers. [22658]

  Mr. Denham
  I have no current plans to visit the Buckingham constituency.

  Ministerial Visits (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times since November 2000 Ministers from his Department have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet locally based businesses. [19056]

  Mr. Blunkett
  While the Home Office does have a clear remit in relation to security for businesses and the contribution they can make to the civil and social agenda being pursued by the Department, this is organised on a regional or sub-regional basis as well as nationally. It is therefore not possible to disaggregate those businesses
  481W
  that have been invited from the area to take part in such ventures. A number of Ministers did undertake visits on a political, as opposed to ministerial basis, in the early part of 2001.

  Police Spending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of spending on police resources on an average per capita basis is(a) nationally and (b) in the Buckingham constituency for the current financial year. [22629]

  Mr. Denham
  The gross cost of policing on an average per capita basis in England and Wales in 2001–02 is estimated at £165.5. A figure at Buckingham constituency level is not available.

  source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics (Estimates) 2001–02

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was to his Department of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [21263]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The available information held by my Department on cost for the use of external consultants over the last four financial years is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  7,627,016

  1998–99

  4,588,445

  1999–2000

  10,302,672

  2000–01

  27,877,286

  The increase in expenditure on consultancy in 2000–01 is primarily due to a major investment programme in the modernisation of the Home Office and in particular on IT related modernisation. This breakdown on expenditure is as follows:

  2000–01

  £

  IT related consultancy

  12,550,540

  Non-IT related consultancy

  15,326,746

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers serving in prisons in England and Wales have been suspended from duty for more than 18 months owing to allegations as to their conduct for more than 18 months. [22486]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are currently eight prison officers suspended from duty for more than 18 months.

  Criminal Courts Review
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that the views of students and young people are taken into account in the Government review of the criminal courts. [22603]
  482W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In the new year I shall be attending events at various university law schools with the aim of giving young people an opportunity to express their views on these issues. They can also participate by visiting the review website at: www.criminal-courts-review-org.uk.

  Social Exclusion
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the competitive grant schemes, administered by the Home Office and its agencies, open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; and, for each scheme in each year(a) the number of applicants, (b) the number of successful applicants, (c) the total of grants awarded, (d) the number of pages in the application form and (e) if the grant can be used to fund the core costs of the applicant organisation; [22428]

  (2) how many competitive grant schemes, administered by his Department and its agencies, were open in each of the last 10 years to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22386]

  (3) if he will publish a list of the grants made under the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22417]

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the application form for each of the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22410]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 December 2001]This information is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The hon. Member may, however, wish to note that information about grants from central Government is currently available in two recent publications, funded by the Home Office:
  Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000: ISBN 1 84082 636–3; and
  A Guide to Funding from Government Departments and Agencies—Second Edition: ISBN 1 900360 79, nine copies of which are available in the Library.

  Crime Clear-up Rate
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average crime clear-up rate was in England and Wales in 2000–01, broken down by force; what assessment he has made of the reasons for the differences in crime clear-up rates between forces; and if he will make a statement. [21624]

  Mr. Denham
  The proportion of crime detected was 24 per cent, in England and Wales in 2000–01. The following table shows the detection rate in each force and is taken from Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000.
  483W

  Police force area

  Percentages

  Avon and Somerset

  22

  Bedfordshire

  27

  Cambridgeshire

  24

  Cheshire

  30

  Cleveland

  21

  Cumbria

  34

  Derbyshire

  26

  Devon and Cornwall

  34

  Dorset

  25

  Durham

  34

  Essex

  26

  Gloucestershire

  31

  Greater Manchester

  22

  Hampshire

  29

  Hertfordshire

  24

  Humberside

  21

  Kent

  28

  Lancashire

  27

  Leicestershire

  28

  Lincolnshire

  25

  London, City of

  27

  Merseyside

  28

  Metropolitan police

  15

  Norfolk

  26

  Northamptonshire

  33

  Northumbria

  31

  North Yorkshire

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  South Yorkshire

  25

  Staffordshire

  23

  Suffolk

  35

  Surrey

  28

  Sussex

  23

  Thames Valley

  22

  Warwickshire

  22

  West Mercia

  27

  West Midlands

  28

  West Yorkshire

  23

  Wiltshire

  30

  England average

  24

  Dyfed-Powys

  63

  Gwent

  57

  North Wales

  31

  South Wales

  32

  Wales average

  41

  As Policing a New Century: a Blueprint for Reform makes clear, these variations are unacceptable. The Standards Unit will identify the variations and the causes of those variations in order to identify and spread best practice in crime detection.

  There are marked differences in detection rates for different types of offence. This is, in part, owing to the level of investigation that an offence merits although other factors will also play a part. For example, there are offences (such as harassment) where the victim may know the offender, which will increase probability of a detection. In general violent offences have a higher detection rate than crimes against property.

  Comparisons of detection rates for individual police forces may reflect differences in the circumstances of offences between areas and variations in recording practice.

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he appointed an 484W
  independent reviewer for the operation of anti-terrorism legislation; in what manner the announcement was made; and what are the terms of reference for this post. [21117]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Lord Carlile of Berriew was appointed on 15 November in respect of the Terrorism Act 2000. The appointment was announced in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford).

  The reviewer's terms of reference are to review the working of the Terrorism Act 2000 considering whether (a) the Act has been used fairly and properly during the reporting period, taking into account the need to ensure that there are both effective powers to deal with terrorism and adequate safeguards for the individual; and consider whether any of the temporary powers in Part VII of the Act can safely be allowed to lapse, and
  "report to the Secretary of State in order that he can lay a report before both Houses of Parliament at least once every 12 months in accordance with section 126 of the Act".
  Some sections of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 amend the Terrorism Act 2000 and will be subject the same review provisions as that Act. It was announced during debate at Second Reading that the provisions relating to the detention of international terrorists would also be reviewed by the Terrorism Act reviewer.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the use of powers under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [25156]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Earlier today, on the basis of certificates I signed under part 4 of the Act, following careful and detailed consideration, the Immigration Service detained eight foreign nationals whom I suspect to be international terrorists. They were detained earlier today and will be held in secure prison accommodation. I shall not disclose their names unless they themselves first do so.

  Part 4 of the Act gives me powers to issue a certificate in respect of someone whom I believe to be a risk to national security and suspect to be an international terrorist. The Act also gives powers for his deportation and, where his removal or departure from the United Kingdom is prevented (whether temporarily or indefinitely) for his detention.

  A person detained has the right to apply for bail to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which is a superior court of record under the Act. He may also appeal to the Commission to have the certificate cancelled. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. A person detained is free to leave the United Kingdom at any time.

  I shall continue to keep the exercise of the powers in Part 4 of the Act under close review.

  Custody Suites
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many boroughs in the United Kingdom with a population of between 40,000 and 60,000 do not have a police station with a full custody suite; [20935]
  485W
  (2) what estimates he has made of the availability of custody suites in south-east England; [20932]

  (3) what his policy is on the retention of custody suites in police stations; [20931]

  (4) how many custody suites have been closed (a) completely and (b) in part in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years; [20930]

  (5) what research his Department has carried out into the need for the provision of custody suites in urban areas. [20933]

  Beverley Hughes
  No information is collected centrally on either the number of boroughs in the United Kingdom with a population of between 40,000 and 60,000 who do not have a police station with a full custody suite, or the number of custody suites that have been closed in each of the last five years. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There has been no research carried out by the Home Office into the need for the provision of custody suites in urban areas and there have been no estimates as to the availability of custody suites in south-east England.

  Forces have restructured over the last few years. Many have centralised to either basic command unit level or geographically based custody suites. This is in order to ensure consistency in the quality of custody suites both in terms of facilities and the skill levels of staff. It can also produce resource savings by reducing the number of locations at which custody facilities and support services need to be provided.

  It is an operational decision for chief officers of police to determine the number and location of custody facilities/police cells required by his/her force.

  Criminal Justice
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Justice Cabinet Committee met to discuss the recommendations of the Halliday review of sentencing and the Auld review of the criminal courts; when he intends to publish his proposals based on the reviews; whether it is the intention to publish draft legislation based on the review; and if he will make a statement. [21642]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Justice System Cabinet Committee meets from time to time to discuss the delivery of the Government's policies for management and reform of the criminal justice system.

  As I announced in a written answer on 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 356W, the level of interest in the Halliday review of sentencing has been considerable and a significant number of comments have been received in response to the public consultation exercise. Officials are now analysing the responses and a summary will be published, with copies in the Library, at the end of January. A Government response will be published at the same time.

  Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts is subject to a period of comment until 31 January 2002. The Government intend to publish their response to this and to publish legislation in draft later that year.

  Operation Shield
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the progress of Operation Shield in the Newark and Retford area. [20928]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made no formal assessment of Operation Shield, Nottinghamshire police's initiative to reduce violent crime, in the Newark and Retford area. But we applaud the determination of Nottinghamshire police, as evidenced by Operation Shield, to tackle violent and hate crime vigorously.

  Police Officers (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers where available for ordinary duty on 30 November in the London borough of Havering. [21399]

  Mr. Denham
  I am told by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that on 31 October, the latest date for which information is available, there were 323 police officers available for duty in the Havering Division.

  Havering Division also had 83 civilian support staff at the end of October.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for reducing the economic costs of crime. [17047]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are a wide range of economic and social costs associated with crime, not all of which are easy to measure, but the Criminal Justice Departments have jointly developed an indicator of the economic and social costs of crime as part of the Public Service Agreement commitment. The methodology used to measure the economic and social cost of crime were published in a report in December 2000, "The economic and social costs of crime" (Home Office Research Study 217).

  Crime (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the level of street robbery in Romford. [21013]

  Mr. Denham
  We are determined to reduce the number of robberies across the country as a whole. That is why we have given the five metropolitan forces, including the Metropolitan police, an additional £20 million specifically to assist their efforts in tackling robbery, and have set them the challenging target of a 14 per cent, reduction of robbery in our principal cities by March 2005. We are working with those forces, as well as progressing an extensive robbery research programme, to enable us to identify good practice in tackling robbery which we will ensure is disseminated to all forces.

  We have launched a national initiative with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the mobile phone industry to crack down on robbery of mobile phones. We have also published a Robbery Toolkit which is available

  487W
  to all forces and those involved in crime reduction and community safety and will help them to work as effectively as possible in tackling robbery.

  "Safe From Harm"
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to update the "Safe from Harm" guidance booklet published by his Department. [23047]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no such plans. Separate guidance has already been issued about the recent legislation which I believe my hon. Friend has in mind.

  UK Citizenship
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the norms of acceptability those from ethnic minorities seeking citizenship of the UK should be expected to adopt. [22913]

  Angela Eagle
  The requirements for British nationality are currently under review and the Government will announce their conclusions in a forthcoming asylum, immigration and nationality White Paper.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance relating to the penalties imposed upon cyclists who ride through red traffic lights. [21838]

  Mr. Denham
  No. There are guidelines in the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines, published by the Magistrates Association in September 2000, covering the penalty for failing to comply with red traffic lights. These apply to cyclists as to all other vehicles covered by the relevant offence.

  Parenting Orders
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers have(a) the police and (b) local authorities to issue parenting orders; and if she will make a statement. [21782]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no powers for the police or local authorities to impose a parenting order. It is a civil order available to family proceedings courts and criminal courts including youth courts. It can be imposed if a child has offended, or following a conviction of their parents for failure to secure their child's regular attendance at school.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last reviewed the operation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if it met its target in respect of applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [22140]

  Angela Eagle
  The work of Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) is under constant review to ensure that it meets the priorities which we have set for it. In the year 2000–01 the Integrated Casework Directorate 488W
  made 281,000 general casework decisions which exceeded its numerical targets. This year it is again on course to exceed its numerical target. However, in the light of very heavy intake it is not currently meeting targets on turnaround times. We are looking at ways of improving the latter performance.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the application from Ms Tetyana Vasylchenko, a constituent, of Southern Road, Cheltenham, for an extension to her visa to study in the United Kingdom, will be logged on the system of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and when he expects a decision to be made on her application. [22142]

  Angela Eagle
  Ms Vasylchenko's application was received on 13 November and registered on the General Settlement Case Information Database on 16 November. She was granted a further extension of stay in the United Kingdom as a student on 3 December.

  Council of Ministers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long in advance he receives agendas for meetings of the EU Council of Ministers. [21962]

  Angela Eagle
  The Council Rules of Procedure state that provisional agendas for meetings of the European Union Council of Ministers, which are drawn up by the Presidency, must be sent to other members of the Council and the Commission at least 14 days before meetings take place. A statement attached to the rules of procedure provides that, for Councils dealing with Justice and Home Affairs issues, the President shall endeavour to ensure that the provisional agenda and any documents reach members of the Council at least 21 days before the beginning of the meeting. Provisional agendas are divided into two parts, part A, where items are adopted without discussion, and part B, items for substantive discussion.

  For recent Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meetings, part A of the agenda, crucial to the domestic parliamentary scrutiny process, has not recently been provided within the 14 days stipulated by the Council Rules of Procedure. For example, prior to the JHA Council on 6 and 7 December, my officials did not receive part A of the agenda until three days before the meeting took place. Delays such as this, which are outside our control, have made it impossible for the Department to provide more timely information to the Scrutiny Committees.

  Despite this, there were no scrutiny overrides at the recent JHA Council on 6–7 December.

  Blantyre House
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug tests have been undertaken on inmates at Blantyre house in the last 12 months; and how many were undertaken in the preceding 12 months. [21845]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of drug tests carried out at Blantyre house for the period requested, is set out in the table.
  489W

  1 November 1999 to 30 October 2000

  1 November 2000 to 30 October 2001

  Number of:

  Mandatory tests

  149

  152

  Voluntary tests

  989

  2,150

  Of the total tests conducted in 1999–2000, five tests (0.44 per cent) and in 2000–01 eight tests (0.35 per cent) were positive. The random testing programme for the same period reported levels of 1.5 per cent, and 2.2 per cent, respectively.

  Metropolitan Police
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Metropolitan Police Authority's oversight of the work of the Metropolitan Police Service since June 2000. [22298]

  Mr. Denham
  As with any other police authority, it is the statutory responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Service provides efficient and effective policing within the metropolitan police district. All police authorities are subject to inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission in respect of their responsibilities under the Best Value provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, and police authorities are ultimately accountable to me for the way in which they meet these duties.

  Criminal Justice Units
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the levels of staffing and IT provision in the Police Services' Criminal Justice Units on a regional basis. [22300]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no plans to develop criminal justice units on a regional basis. The staffing levels and other resources provided for criminal justice units by police forces are matters for the professional judgment of chief officers of police. The overall resourcing for criminal justice units is a matter for local agreement.

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer the letters from the right hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East of 9 July and 19 November about Mr. Fuat Altunyurt. [21756]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 18 December 2001. I am sorry I did not send an earlier reply.

  Police Vehicles
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is given to police forces for purchasing(a) cars and (b) vans. [21983]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 648W.

  Photocard Passports
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the findings of the technical feasibility study into photocard passports. [21987]

  Angela Eagle
  The results of the United Kingdom's Passport Service's studies into the planned introduction of a passport card will be published in due course.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the running of HMP Blakenhurst since it was taken back into public sector control. [22260]

  Beverley Hughes
  The management of Blakenhurst prison was handed over to the Prison Service on 19 August 2001. None of the formal inspections or assessments of performance have been made of the prison's management since that date. However, the prison has operated smoothly.

  Assessments of HMP Blakenhurst

  All prisons, whether privately managed or directly managed, are subject to the following ongoing assessments:

  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP)

  HMCIP inspected Blakenhurst under UKDS management three times: in May 1984, October 1998 and January 2001. Blakenhurst is not scheduled for inspection in 2001–02 and the new schedule for 2002–03 will not be finalised till May 2002. However, the Inspectorate also carry out unannounced inspections.

  Standards and Security Audits

  The Area Manager is currently negotiating with the Standards Audit Unit with a view to arranging an audit in late summer or early autumn 2002. The last such audit was in May 1999.

  Board of Visitors (BoV)

  BoVs report annually. The Blakenhurst BoV cycle is to report on the year ending in June.

  Additional Service Level Agreement (SLA) Assessment

  Monthly reports on compliance with the SLA are issued by the on-site Compliance Monitor; and

  Regular SLA audits carried out at the prison by members of Contracts and Competition Group. The next audit at Blakenhurst is scheduled for August 2002.

  Extradition Arrangements (Spain)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Spanish authorities concerning the extradition of UK nationals. [22282]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There have been no recent discussions with the Spanish authorities concerning the extradition of United Kingdom nationals specifically. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the Spanish Minister of Justice on 23 November to sign a bilateral treaty on fast-track judicial surrender, which would apply to all nationals.

  Prisons (Performance)
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for identifying and improving poorly performing prisons. [24433]
  491W
  Beverley Hughes
  On 12 January the then Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), announced the intention to develop a "performance testing" scheme, under which poorly performing prisons would be identified and required to develop a plan for improvement within a fixed period; if the plan was acceptable, the prison would operate under a Service Level Agreement with strict monitoring of delivery against its proposals; if unacceptable, the prison would face closure or contracting out to the private sector.

  The Director General has selected two establishments, Her Majesty's Prison Leicester and Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre Reading, for performance testing. They will be given six months to produce proposals for a much improved level of service.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on projects planned under section 7 of the Ghent Statement on Terrorism. [22885]

  Peter Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  The objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law as part of the EU's common foreign and security policy is set out in Article 11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Both prior to and post-11 September, the EU has been active in projects restoring and maintaining the rule of law.

  For example, the EU is conducting a police training mission to bolster the rule of law and management of state borders in Albania. Other examples include EU projects in Georgia (together with OSCE) and Bosnia. Following 11 September, other projects are currently under consideration.

  The Gothenburg European Council in June 2001 identified four areas of work for civilian crisis management including rule of law, policing and civil administration. Under the Belgian presidency, the Police Capabilities Commitment Conference in November 2001 confirmed that the EU had met its target of up to 5,000 police officers deplorable for peacekeeping operations on international missions by 2003. The Laeken European Council in December 2001 also noted progress on the other areas of work and mandated the incoming Spanish presidency with taking them forward in order to meet the 2003 targets established at Gothenburg.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a new appointment to the Police Complaints Authority. [24502]

  Mr. Denham
  I have appointed a new full-time member to the Police Complaints Authority. The appointment will be for three years. The new member is:

  Name: Marcus Williams

  Start date: 3 December 2001

  Previous position: Department of Trade and Industry.

  Security Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the position is on certificates, under section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 concerning the Security Service; and if he will make a statement. [25158]

  Mr. Blunkett
  On 10 December, I signed a new certificate describing in general terms the personal data that the Security Service may process that requires exemption under the Data Protection Act 1998 on the grounds of safeguarding national security. I have placed a copy of that certificate together with the public reasons for my signing it in the Library.

  The new certificate takes account of the comments made by the National Security panel of the Information Tribunal in their determination on 1 October in respect of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The new certificate supersedes the one quashed by the Tribunal in that appeal.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the Charity Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit and administration costs for 2001–02. [25157]

  Angela Eagle
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Charity Commission Department Expenditure Limit will be increased by £631,000 from £22,161,000 to £22,792,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £631,000 from £20,852,000 to £21,483,000. Within the Department Expenditure Limit change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  £

  Resources

  Change

  631,000

  New DEL

  21,463,000

  Of which:

  Voted

  21,463,000

  Non-voted

  0

  Capital

  Change

  0

  New DEL

  1,329,000

  Of which:

  Voted

  1,329,000

  Non-voted

  0

  The change in the resource element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit arises from the take-up of £631,000 in respect of administration costs end year flexibility arrangements. The total increase in administration costs is £631,000.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Criminal Incidents (London Buses)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) criminal incidents were reported as occurring on London buses and (b) arrests have been made in (i) Havering and (ii) Greater London as a whole, in the past 12 months. [22938]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since January 2001 6,887 criminal incidents have been reported to London Buses, including assaults on staff and passengers. However, many incidents go unreported. There are also a number of incidents reported to the police which London Buses are unaware of.

  Figures for criminal incidents on buses for individual boroughs are not currently available.

  Within the Greater London area there were 1,202 arrests at the end of October for arrests for criminal incidents on the transport network as a whole.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Kirkham and Wesham Station
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reasons for Railtrack's inability to honour the commitment made in September 2000 to co-fund with Lancashire county council the building of a lift at Kirkham and Wesham station. [17377]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack's decision, taken before it went into administration, followed the conclusion of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of the company's access charges. The Rail Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority have subsequently confirmed that Railtrack is only funded to provide "like for like" replacement under its repair and maintenance obligation at franchised stations.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish statistics on the delays attributed to Railtrack over the last four weeks, compared with the four weeks before 5 October. [19961]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack have provided the following data for the four weeks before and after 5 October.

  Week ending

  Railtrack direct delay minutes

  15 September 2001

  163,048

  22 September 2001

  148,205

  29 September 2001

  172,638

  06 October 2001

  183,157

  13 October 2001

  227,163

  20 October 2001

  203,454

  27 October 2001

  204,175

  03 November

  215,649

  494W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff have left Railtrack, broken down by grade since Railtrack was put into administration; what changes there have been in the number of delayed trains in each of the five weeks(a) prior to and (b) since administration; and what estimate has been made of the amount of funding to be allocated to Railtrack during the administration period, indicating how much capital investment has been allocated for each project. [19803]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The management of Railtrack plc during administration is a matter for the administrator. The Government have provided adequate funding to enable the administrator to discharge his responsibilities and has stressed to him the importance of retaining and motivating key staff.

  My Department does not receive regular reports on the number of train delays. Information on total delay minutes attributable to Railtrack was provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in his reply given today to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) (PQ 19961), at column 493W.

  As the length of the administration is unknown, it is not possible to estimate the amount that will be required to fund Railtrack plc in administration.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which aspects of Railtrack Group plc's(a) operations and (b) assets he considers to be core business; and which aspects of its operations have been classified as public interest. [21044]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The core business of Railtrack Group plc is the provision of railway network services. It is for the administrator to consider what assets are required for the management of the network. It is in the public interest for the network to be managed safely, efficiently and effectively.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what applications he has made for state aid approvals as outlined in section 8.1.10 of the commercial loan agreement with the Railtrack administrator; and for what amounts. [21483]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State submitted an application for state aid approval on 28 November 2001. The premature release of the figures may prejudice the administrator's orderly release of commercially sensitive information in detailed discussions with potential bidders for Railtrack plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the weekly rates of remuneration of the administrator of Railtrack are. [22872]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 383W.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much Railtrack has incurred in penalty charges for delays and cancellations since being placed into administration; and what the figure was for the same period in 1997. [22917]
  495W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a commercial matter between Railtrack and train operating companies.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 558W, on Railtrack, what estimates the Railtrack administrator has given him of the amounts likely to be drawn down under the working capital facility by 1 April 2002; [23217]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001, Official Report, column 558W, on Railtrack, what representations he has received from the Railtrack administrator about likely draw downs under this facility before 15 April 2002; and from which departmental and Government budgets the sum has been drawn. [23211]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that £211 million will be required to 31 March 2002, but this figure is under constant review. The facility is part of the loan agreement and is not a call upon the departmental budgets.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guarantees he has received from the Railtrack administration that funds will be available at the end of the administration period to repay the loans drawn down under the commercial loan agreement. [23152]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None have as yet been asked for.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 11 December 2001, ref 18945 and 18957,Official Report, column 782W when he expects the administrator to complete this review and make detailed representations to the SRA and the Department. [23222]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The nature and timing of the review of Railtrack's expenditure needs is a matter for the administrator, acting in accordance with his duties to the High Court.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001, ref 21485, if the management accounts revealed major variances between the budget and actual results. [23221]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am informed that this information is market sensitive.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 556W, on what dates his Department had discussions with the Treasury about Railtrack administration between 1 October and 30 October. [23155]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer to which he refers.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 438W, on Railtrack, for what reason the provision of a drafting date is exempt from disclosure. [23210]
  496W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information makes clear that information on internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation is exempt from disclosure.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001, ref 21487, what requirement the management accounts reveal for further draw downs of the facility. [23220]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Draw down requirements are covered in 8.1.6 (h) of the Loan Agreement.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 558W, on Railtrack, if he will list the consents applied for by the administrator. [23213]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The train protection and warning system; the Leeds First project; and the Thameslink Advanced Signal Works.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the sources from which funds could be obtained to secure the repayment of loans drawn down under the commercial agreement. [23154]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the administrator.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 558W, for what reason a repayment has been made. [23669]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Repayments have been as a result of the working capital cash sweep.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the decision not to create RenewCo led to Railtrack entering administration; and for what reason his Department did not implement the Renewco agreement. [23611]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No, Railtrack plc entered into administration because it was, or shortly would be, unable to meet its debt liabilities. The decision not to proceed with RenewCo was taken following advice from the ONS that the proposed RenewCo structure would classify in the public sector and as a result did not satisfy the conditions agreed on 2 April and in light of Railtrack's directors being informed of the decision on 5 October to reject their 'Project Rainbow' proposal for additional funds.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the funding requirement for Railtrack in the period to 31 March 2002 will come from sources other than funds covered by the commercial loan agreement; and if he will list these alternative sources. [24125]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack plc in administration continues to receive funding to the level and profile determined in the regulator's October 2000 periodic review and the 2 April agreement. This incorporates income from track access charges, network grants and 'single-till' sources. It is not possible at this stage to speculate what proportion of overall income this constitutes.
  497W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1015W, in what circumstances he will increase the funding provided for in the commercial loan agreement, as provided for in sections 9.1, 2.1 and 2.2. [24253]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Any request by the administrator for increased funding would be considered on its merits, taking into account the circumstances pertaining at the time of the request.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority (i) has taken and (ii) plans to take to change the nature and level of constraints placed upon the sale of strategic land and property by Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [23148]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the modification to Condition 26 of its network licence, which came into effect on 15 November, Railtrack plc must now seek the rail regulator's specific consent in important cases of the disposal of land that may be used for railway purposes. The purpose of the new licence condition is to ensure that those parts of the Railtrack property portfolio which may be required for the future development of the railway are retained for that purpose.

  Road Spending
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, columns 386–87W, on roads (Surrey), if he will provide similar figures for each (a) county, (b) unitary authority and (c) metropolitan area in England and Wales. [19270]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The provision made for capital expenditure on local major road schemes and maintenance of local roads and bridges, and revenue funding for structural and routine maintenance of non-principal roads and routine maintenance of principal roads in each local authority in England in the period 1996–97 to 2001–02 is set out in the tables which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on expenditure on roads in each local authority in England in 1995–96 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The tables exclude provision for expenditure in 2001–02 on roads and road related schemes in London, the responsibility for which has transferred to the Mayor for London. Expenditure on roads and road related schemes in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he is planning changes to the amount allocated to roads under the 10-year plan. [22900]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 9W.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many new carriages will be ordered by London Underground by 2006 under PPP; [21941]

  (2) how many new carriages were ordered by London Underground between (a) 1992 and 1997 and (b) 1997 and 2001. [21966]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU) who inform me that since 1992 carriages have been ordered and brought into service as follows.

  New carriages ordered

  New carriages brought into service

  1993

  354

  —

  1995

  636

  —

  1997

  —

  First Jubilee line stock

  1998

  —

  First Northern line stock

  2001

  —

  Last Jubilee and Northern line stock

  1 59 Jubilee line trains

  2106 Northern line trains

  Under the modernisation plans, three infrastructure companies will work under contract to London Underground and will be required to deliver a comprehensive programme of investment to improve track, signals and stations as well as trains. The infrastructure companies will be responsible for ordering new carriages required for them to achieve the standards set by London Underground. I understand that details of the infrastructure companies' plans will be made public once the competitions have been completed.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice his Department has received from the Treasury about the phasing of infrastructure projects on London Underground under PPP. [21948]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Treasury and DTLR officials are in regular contact about various aspects of the PPP. London Underground are responsible for negotiating the PPP contracts, including the phasing of infrastructure projects.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains are running per hour on the Jubilee line at peak times. [21848]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, who inform me that, in peak hours, 24 trains per hour are running on the Jubilee line.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Jubilee Line is operating at the service levels originally envisaged; and if he will make a statement. [21967]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The original contract between London Underground and Westinghouse Signals Ltd. was to deliver a signalling system with a long term operating capacity of 36 trains per hour (tph) and a fallback capacity of 27 tph in the event that the development of the advanced signalling system failed to meet the contract programme. It was necessary to implement fallback arrangements utilising existing technology to deliver a system capable of supporting 24 tph.
  499W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of additional rail inspectors under the PPP arrangements for London Underground. [21960]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the underground modernisation plans, the infrastructure companies will be required to bring all assets up to a satisfactory standard, including rails. London Underground will be responsible for managing the contracts with the infrastructure companies. The Health and Safety Executive will be responsible for

  London Underground—scheduled journey time (minutes) and excess journey time (minutes), by line

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Schedule

  Excess

  Schedule

  Excess

  Schedule

  Excess

  Schedule

  Excess

  Bakerloo

  24.08

  5.17

  24.24

  5.77

  27.09

  7.28

  27.15

  7.36

  Central

  33.58

  6.98

  33.50

  6.35

  32.56

  5.53

  32.55

  4.42

  District

  27.88

  3.74

  27.60

  4.58

  27.73

  5.67

  27.72

  5.35

  East London

  22.78

  3.09

  24.89

  3.91

  20.93

  2.83

  20.83

  1.83

  Jubilee

  24.30

  3.26

  23.77

  4.64

  25.40

  6.04

  25.43

  6.17

  Metropolitan, Circle and Hammersmith and City

  31.17

  5.49

  31.67

  6.71

  31.18

  7.91

  30.85

  8.48

  Northern

  29.01

  5.47

  29.03

  4.68

  28.83

  4.76

  28.83

  5.14

  Piccadilly

  30.72

  6.50

  30.47

  5.89

  30.54

  6.22

  30.89

  6.51

  Victoria

  22.17

  4.77

  22.40

  5.13

  22.38

  6.48

  22.38

  5.56

  Waterloo and City

  9.81

  0.48

  9.41

  0.52

  9.40

  0.73

  9.41

  0.95

  1 From 1 April to 10 November

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 623W, on London Underground, for what reason his Department allowed London Underground to give a waiver to senior LU managers in regard to a legal challenge by infrastructure companies and bidders; and if the waiver will extend to such a challenge by a member of the public. [22740]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competitions for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure.

  I understand that, as is common in such transactions, the legal documents for effecting the transfer of the infrastructure companies to the bidders contain various limitations on the bidders' ability to make claims against London Underground, including in relation to information disclosed by London Underground as part of the bid process. Although considered unlikely, it is possible that a bidder could seek to make a claim against an employee of London Underground rather than the company itself. Since employees are insured against such claims by London Underground, the effect would be to circumvent the intended cap on London Underground's liability. London Underground therefore intends to include a waiver in relation to claims by a bidder against employees of London Transport, London Underground or the infrastructure companies.
  500W
  safety regulation and enforcement, through HM Railway Inspectorate. The Secretary of State has therefore made no assessment of the cost of rail inspectors.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 37–38W, on London Underground, if he will publish line-by-line figures for London Underground (a) predicted average passenger journey time and (b) passenger excess journey time for (i) each year since 1998–99 and (ii) the whole of 2001–02 to date. [22750]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information in the table showing scheduled journey time and excess journey time for each full financial year from 1998–99, and for the period 1 April to 10 November 2001.

  As stated in my answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 623W, the wavier will not prevent legal action by London Transport or London Underground against their own employees. Nor will it extend to potential claims by a member of the public.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 38W, on London Underground, if he will publish the average annual percentage of peak hour trains that ran on each line of the London Underground for the whole of 2001–02 to date. [22746]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the table, showing the percentage of trains in peak service for the period 1 April to 10 November 2001. The figures take account of all cancellations including those due to factors beyond LUL's control, such as security alerts and passenger action.

  Percentage of trains in peak service (1 April to 10 November 2001)

  Line

  Percentage

  Bakerloo

  93.0

  Central

  96.0

  Circle

  91.3

  District

  93.0

  East London

  96.8

  Hammersmith and City

  93.8

  Jubilee

  96.0

  Metropolitan

  93.7

  Northern

  98.7

  Piccadilly

  91.8

  Victoria

  98.5

  501W

  Percentage of trains in peak service (1 April to 10 November 2001)

  Line

  Percentage

  Waterloo and City

  97.8

  Total LUL

  95.0

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the merits of establishing a not-for-profit company to run London Underground. [22821]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government considered all of the options for the future of the tube prior to the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of the way forward in March 1998— including the possibility of a not-for-profit private sector trust.

  There is no need for a not-for-profit solution for the underground. Public sector London Underground will continue to be responsible for running the railway. The operation of track, signals, trains and stations will remain in public hands. The public sector will also be responsible for managing the contracts to maintain and improve the tube.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many potential bidders for the London Underground PPP(a) asked for documents to consider bidding and (b) sent in a bid. [22704]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the Tube infrastructure. I understand that six applications to pre-qualify were received for the BCV and JNP contracts, and that four bidders submitted bids (two for both contracts). Four applications to pre-qualify were received for the SSL contract and three bids were submitted.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will be responsible for safety in the PPP plan for London Underground. [22818]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. London Underground, in the public sector, will remain responsible for safety across the single unified system. As the operator of the trains and the infrastructure controller, London Underground is required to have a statutory safety case in accordance with the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 2000. In addition to general health and safety law, the infrastructure companies will be required to comply with a contractual safety case. The independent Health and Safety Executive will remain responsible for safety regulation and enforcement.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the costs incurred by the bidders for the London Underground PPP in preparing the bids. [22711]

  Mr. Spellar
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to build new underground lines. [22822]
  502W
  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Mayor for London to consider in the context of his transport strategy. He will need to liaise closely with the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that plans for London Underground effectively complement the development of the national rail network.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what public money the Government are promising in each of the first three years to each of the planned infracos for London Underground. [22816]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 11 May 2001,Official Report, column 379W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the costs of preparing bids for the London Underground PPP are an allowable cost against corporation tax. [22707]

  Mr. Spellar
  The costs of preparing bids are treated for taxation purposes in the same way as any other cost.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what alternative to a PPP the Government are evaluating for London Underground. [22824]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 33W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many firms of consultants(a) the Government and (b) London Underground has used on London Underground matters in the last two years. [22703]

  Mr. Spellar
  As to part(a) of the question the Department has used Ove Arup (advice in respect of Jubilee Line extension project), Herbert Smith (legal advice), Maggie Leates (pensions advice) and Ernst & Young (currently reviewing London Underground's value for money evaluation of the tube modernisation plans).

  As to part (b) this is an operational matter for London Underground.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who has overall responsibility for(a) policy, (b) performance and (c) funding of London Underground. [22694]

  Mr. Spellar
  The London Regional Transport Act 1984 sets out the framework for the current operation of London Regional Transport, the parent company of London Underground Ltd., and its subsidiaries.

  Responsibility for London Underground Ltd. policy lies with the board of London Regional Transport, which is appointed by the Secretary of State. The board's policies must accord with principles from time-to-time approved by the Secretary of State.

  Responsibility for performance also lies with the board of London Regional Transport, and is encapsulated in its general duty to provide a rail service for Greater London with due regard to transport needs, efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
  503W
  In respect of funding, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of Treasury, make grants to London Regional Transport (for any purpose and on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit). It is the duty of London Regional Transport to apply those sums to aid capital investment or operating costs in respect of the public passenger transport services it provides (including its subsidiary— London Underground Ltd.).

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is in the Public Expenditure budget for London Underground in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and how much of the total is provision for capital spending. [22823]

  Mr. Spellar
  Parliament has approved provision of £520 million for London Underground in 2001–02.

  The financial requirements of London Underground in 2002–03 will not finally be known until negotiations with bidders for the Tube modernisation plans have been completed. The Government have made it clear that, as long as the final bids represent value for money, Transport for London will receive the appropriate level of central Government grant to allow for London Underground's need to make payments to the contractors.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements the Government have requested of bidders for London Underground with respect to new capital investment. [22819]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the Tube infrastructure. The contracts will require the infrastructure companies to deliver increased capacity, improved reliability and higher quality infrastructure.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government will reimburse part of the costs of(a) unsuccessful and (b) successful bidders for the London Underground PPP. [22706]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government will not reimburse the costs of either unsuccessful or successful bidders. However, the successful bidder on each competition will reimburse 90 per cent, of the eligible costs of unsuccessful bidders, up to a maximum of £7 million. In addition, London Underground has agreed to compensate bidders if the competition should be terminated for reasons other than bids not representing value for money. On the two deep Tube competitions, the preferred bidder will receive up to £12 million, with up to £7 million available for the reserve bidder. On the sub-surface line competition, where three bidders were short-listed, they will receive up to £7 million each.

  In the event of the competitions being terminated because no bid is adjudged to represent value for money, then no compensation is payable.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much has been spent to date by the Government on advisory fees for the PPP for London Underground. [22696]
  504W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Department has employed Ernst and Young to carry out a review of London Underground's value for money evaluation of the Tube modernisation plans. No payments have yet been made under the contract.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what are the respective roles of(a) the Secretary of State, (b) the Mayor's Office, (c) Transport for London, (d) the Government Office for London and (e) London Underground Ltd. in the creation of policy and management of the London Underground. [22695]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the role of the Secretary of State is to set principles from time to time, with which London Regional Transport's general duty— to provide rail services— must accord. In addition, the Secretary of State has other roles including specific purposes such as issuing approvals, consents, determinations and directions to London Regional Transport. The Secretary of State may also with the consent of Treasury, make grants to London Regional Transport, which in turn can be applied to aid capital investment and operating costs in respect of its subsidiary, London Underground Ltd. The Government Office for London is part of the Government.

  Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, in the transitional period until London Underground Ltd. is transferred to Transport for London, the Mayor of London, Transport for London and London Underground Ltd. are required to consult and co-operate with each other.

  The role of London Underground Ltd. is to provide such railway services as London Regional Transport requires in pursuance of its statutory duty under section 2(1) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984,
  "to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London by railway".

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the length in pages of an infraco franchise agreement for London Underground. [22708]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. I understand that the core contract for each of the three infrastructure companies is approximately 100 pages long. In addition there are a number of detailed supporting and related documents.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial guarantees the Government will seek from bidders for the London Underground infracos. [22817]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground has carried out a thorough evaluation of the bidding consortia to ensure that they are financially robust and capable of meeting their obligations under the tube modernisation contracts.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the deadline was for submitting bids for the London Underground PPP; and what the Government's estimate is of when a decision on the bids will be announced. [22710]
  505W
  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. Bidders are required to submit final pricing early in January and London Transport will take a decision in principle whether to proceed with the modernisation plans, subject to consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London, in February.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements the Government have placed on bidders for London Underground with respect to safety. [22820]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. In addition to general health and safety law, the infrastructure companies will be required to comply with a contractual safety case.

  The independent Health and Safety Executive will be examining these contractual safety cases as part of the assessment process for the next revision to London Underground's statutory Railway Safety Case. The Government have always made it clear that the plans for modernising the tube will only go ahead if the Health and Safety Executive are satisfied that London Underground has made an acceptable case for safety.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many criminal incidents were reported as occurring on the London Underground in the past 12 months; and how many arrests there have been. [22940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport police (BTP) have provided the following information. During the period December 2000 to November 2001, 12,787 notifiable and 5,013 non-notifiable offences were recorded by the BTP area responsible for the London Underground. The term "notifiable" refers to those offences that police forces in England and Wales are required to report to the Home Office. The term "non-notifiable" refers to those offences that are not reportable, and are generally of a less serious nature. The number of arrests is not recorded by the BTP.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library correspondence he has had with the(a) Health and Safety Commission and (b) Health and Safety Executive on the London Underground PPP. [14481]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has not personally written to the Health and Safety Commission or Health and Safety Executive in relation to the plans for the modernisation of London Underground.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains per hour are timetabled to run on each section of each London Underground line during peak hours; and what the maximum number of trains per hour to have run on each equivalent section in peak hours was in the past. [22699]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the table showing scheduled trains per hour for 506W
  the trunk sections of each line. Trunk sections are the busiest core sections of each individual line which carry the heaviest peak hour traffic.

  London underground-trains per hour in morning peak hour on trunk sections of lines

  Line/section

  1980

  1990

  2001

  Bakerloo

  Elephant and Castle to Queens Park

  18

  21

  22

  Queens Park to Elephant and Castle

  20

  22

  22

  Central

  White City to Leytonstone

  24

  24

  22

  Leytonstone to White City

  29

  29

  29

  District and Circle

  Gloucester Road to Tower Hill

  25

  30

  29.5

  Tower Hill to Gloucester Road

  26

  29

  29.5

  East London Line

  Surrey Quays to Whitechapel

  1—

  1—

  10

  Whitechapel to Surrey Quays

  1—

  1—

  10

  Jubilee

  West Hampstead to Charing Cross

  22

  23

  224

  Charing Cross to West Hampstead

  20

  20

  320

  Metropolitan

  Baker Street to Harrow-on-the-Hill

  17

  16

  23

  Harrow-on-the-Hill to Baker Street

  23

  23

  25

  Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City and Circle

  Liverpool Street to Baker Street

  22

  25

  29

  Baker Street to Liverpool Street

  29

  30

  30

  Northern

  Kennington to Camden Town (via Charing Cross)

  18

  20

  19

  Kennington to Camden Town (via Bank)

  18

  20

  19

  Camden Town to Kennington (via Charing Cross)

  18

  19

  18

  Camden Town to Kennington (via Bank)

  18

  19

  18

  Piccadilly

  Acton Town to Amos Grove

  28

  27

  27

  Arnos Grove to Acton Town

  30

  24

  27

  Victoria

  Brixton to Seven Sisters

  26

  27

  28

  Seven Sisters to Brixton

  27

  29

  28

  Waterloo & City

  Waterloo to Bank

  1—

  1—

  18

  Bank to Waterloo

  1—

  1—

  18

  1 Data not available

  2 Figure for 2001 relates to Willesden Green to North Greenwich

  3 Figure for 2001 relates to North Greenwich to Willesden Green

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 623W, on London Underground, what discussions took place between his Department and London Underground about the (a) recent and (b) continuing advertising campaigns to promote the public-private partnership for the underground, giving details of which (i) Ministers and (ii) officials were involved. [22722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DTLR officials have regular contract with London Underground on a wide range of issues. DTLR Ministers have occasional meetings with London Transport and London Underground directors, but have not specifically discussed London Underground's advertising campaign.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if(a) the companies and (b) their subsidiaries, including ones that have subsequently been taken over by other companies, that make up the consortia that are the preferred bidder

  507W
  infracos for London Underground, have at any time in the past 10 years provided London Underground with (i) trains, (ii) signalling equipment and (iii) other (A) infrastructure and (B) service that has failed to achieve the level of performance required by the contract originally signed. [22697]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. I understand that each of the bidders has previous experience of supplying goods or services to London Underground and that such experience was considered by London Underground. Detailed information on performance of its contractors is a matter for London Underground.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 37–38W, on London Underground, if he will publish the (a) predicted average passenger journey time and (b) passenger excess journey time for the whole of 2001–02 to date. [22749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU) who inform me that the weighted scheduled journey time and weighted excess journey time for the period 1 April to 10 November 2001 were 35.4 minutes and 7.30 minutes respectively.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish(a) in which year new escalators were most recently installed at Angel station, (b) on how many occasions since these new escalators were installed the station has had to be closed because of escalator problems, (c) the length of time of each closure and (d) the name of the manufacturer of the escalators. [22698]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me that:

  (a)new escalators were installed at Angel station in August and September 1992;

  (b)and (c) they do not collect information in the form requested;

  (d) the escalators at the Angel were manufactured by CNIM.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the private companies, consultancies and partnerships that have provided(a) his Department, (b) London Transport and (c) London Underground with consultancy advice concerning the public-private partnership for London Underground since the PPP negotiations began. [22752]

  Mr.Jamieson
  The principal firms employed by London Transport and London Underground are:

  PricewaterhouseCoopers (financial)

  Freshfields (legal)

  Ove Arup (engineering)

  Arthur Anderson (restructuring)

  PA Consulting (infraco structuring)

  Marsh (insurance)

  Pugh Roberts (modelling)

  Bacon & Woodrow (pensions)

  KPMG (review of public sector comparator).

  The Department is currently employing Ernst & Young to carry out a review of London Underground's value for money evaluation of the tube modernisation plans.
  508W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will give details of the improvements that will occur for passengers using the Northern line between Morden and Kennington as a result of the public private partnership for London Underground in the first five years of the PPP, giving output targets to be achieved for(a) stations, (b) track and (c) trains; [22718]

  (2) if he will give details of the improvements that will occur for passengers using the Jubilee line between Wembley Park and Baker Street as a result of the public-private partnership for London Underground in the first five years of the PPP, giving output targets to be achieved for (a) stations, (b) track and (c) trains; [22716]

  (3) if he will give details of the improvements that will occur for passengers using the Central line between Marble Arch and Liverpool Street as a result of the public-private partnership for London Underground in the first five years of the PPP, giving output targets to be achieved for (a) stations, (b) track and (c) trains. [22717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 622W.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 831W, on London Underground, if he will publish the annual change in the gross operating costs of London Underground for each year since 1997–98. [22742]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The gross operating costs of London Underground are set out in London Transport's annual report documents, which incorporate their audited annual accounts.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 622W, on London Underground, whether his Department has undertaken a consultation exercise specifically to discover what (a) outputs and (b) outcomes the London public wishes to see achieved as a result of the public-private partnership for London Underground; and if he will place the results in the Library. [22756]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competitions for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. London Underground regularly undertakes consultation exercises and surveys of customers attitudes. I understand that the performance requirements in the modernisation contracts have been developed to deliver the improvements customers want, in particular increased capacity, improved reliability and higher quality (including safety and security).

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 622W, on London Underground, which year will be used as the base-line against which performance by PPP Infracos will be measured; and what penalties will be incurred if an Infraco achieves a performance 5 per cent, (a) above or (b) below this base-year starting-point. [22759]
  509W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The reliability, capacity and quality of travelling environment delivered by the infrastructure companies will be measured against benchmarks that are based on performance in the current year.

  On reliability, an infrastructure company that performs 5 per cent, better than current performance will be penalised at a rate of £3 per lost customer hour for any deterioration in that performance level. If it performs 5 per cent, worse than current performance, then the penalty rate doubles so that a further deterioration in performance is penalised at a rate of £6 per lost customer hour.

  A similar mechanism is used to incentivise improvements in capacity and the quality of the travelling environment. On these measures, the payment rate varies according to the line in question, but in every case the benchmark is set so that the marginal payment rate doubles if performance deteriorates below the current level. I understand that London Underground intends to make details of the contracts available once they have been signed.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the annual service performance targets set for London Underground by his Department and its predecessors(a)for each year since1996–97, showing the actual performance achieved in each and (b) for 2001–02, showing actual performance achieved so far. [22700]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The annual service performance targets set for London Underground, and their actual performance, are set out in London Transport's Annual Reports. The performance targets set at the start of 1999–2000 were, however, two-year targets to be achieved by the end of March 2001.

  The Government targets for 2001–02 were announced to the House on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 367W. London Underground's actual performance will be published as soon as possible after the end of March 2002.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 622W, on London Underground, if he will state, for each London Underground line, the last year in which it carried (a) 10 per cent, and (b) 25 per cent, fewer passengers than it does today. [22741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, who inform me that they do not hold the information requested in a readily available form and that it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 36W, on London Underground, in which months since they were introduced the trains on the (a) Central, (b)Jubilee and (c) Northern lines have failed to achieve their original contractual requirements; and what the mean distance between failure figure for the most recent month available was. [22754]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground inform me that they do not hold readily available information on the months when contractual requirements were not met and 510W
  that this could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Detailed in-year operational information such as monthly figures for mean distance between train failures is a matter for London Underground.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions Ministers have had with the Mayor of London and the Transport Commission for London about the London Underground in the last month. [22712]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers have frequent meetings with the Mayor and Commissioner of Transport for London. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions most recently met the Mayor on 12 December to discuss a range of issues, including London Underground, and I last met him on 13 December.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 560W, on London Underground, (1) if he will provide comparable information on signal failure for the remaining underground lines; [23212]

  (2) if he will provide comparable information for the remaining parts of the lines. [23658]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the following table showing the number of signal failures causing delays to services for each underground line. The data relate to the period 1 January to 10 November 2001 unless otherwise stated.

  Service delays arising from signal failures (by line)

  Underground line

  Number

  Bakerloo

  133

  Central

  402

  Circle

  125

  District

  343

  East London

  54

  Hammersmith and City

  106

  Jubilee1

  232

  Metropolitan

  372

  Northern1

  166

  Piccadilly1

  94

  Victoria

  256

  Waterloo and City

  9

  1 Data for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines relates to the period 9 December 2000 to 8 December 2001.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 443W, on the Underground environment, what are the relative weights ascribed to the passenger ambience factors by the PPP contracts for London Underground in respect of (a) graffiti, (b) litter, (c) scratched windows, (d) broken lights and (e) dirt; [24249]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001, Official Report, column 443W, if he will publish each weight applied to each attribute covered in the PPP contracts. [24251]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground. I understand that London Underground intend to make details of the contracts available once they have been signed.
  511W
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 443W, how many mystery shoppers are employed on the London Underground; and how the findings are reported. [24250]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground and for NOP who conduct the mystery shopper survey on their behalf.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the Ernst & Young report into the value for money review of PPP. [23940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]Ernst & Young's report will be published as part of the consultation process and before decisions are taken on whether to sign contracts for the Government's tube modernisation plans.

  Train Protection and Warning System
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made by Railtrack in fitting train protection and warning system to the rail network; how many miles of track have been fitted with TPWS in(a) Railtrack's southern zone, (b) the south eastern network and (c) Kent and Sussex; how many miles of track have been fitted with TPWS since 7 October; and how many miles of track were fitted with TPWS in the same period last year. [22926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Structural Faults (Railways)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many structural defects have been(a) identified and (b) repaired since Railtrack plc was placed into administration; and what the figure is for the same period in 1997. [22925]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many motorists did not qualify for a VED rebate because they bought a licence for the year starting July 2000 with a single payment. [21802]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of annual licences taken out during the period between July and October 2000 and thus were not eligible for a VED rebate was some 1.2 million.

  Public Transport Projects (London)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the major public transport projects being built in London, with starting dates. [22462]
  512W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The following major public transport projects are currently being built in London:the East London Line Northern Extension— work commenced on 3 December 2001,
  the channel tunnel rail link stage 2— work commenced on 2 July 2001,
  the upgrade of Kings Cross/St. Pancras London Underground Ltd. station—work commenced 6 August 2001, and
  the west coast main line upgrade, Euston approaches—work commenced spring 1997.

  Speed Cameras (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed cameras are located in the Buckingham constituency. [22654]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are six fixed speed camera sites and up to three mobile units operating in the Buckingham constituency.

  Aston Clinton Bypass
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many people are employed in the construction of the Aston Clinton Bypass; [22558]

  (2) what his most recent estimate is of the cost of construction of the Aston Clinton Bypass in the Buckingham constituency. [22566]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. John Bercow, dated 19 December 2001:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Aston Clinton bypass.
  The contract price for the by-pass was £21.7 million. I am afraid it is not possible to disaggregate a value for the part of the by-pass that is in the Buckingham constituency. During November, 51 people were employed on the contract but numbers fluctuate from month to month depending on the nature of the work.
  If you would like any further information please, contact Andy Finch the Project Sponsor in our Dorking office, who will be pleased to help you. He can be contacted on 01306–878343.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to revise and re-issue the consultation document for the 2002–03 Local Government Finance Settlement published on 4 December 2002, taking into account errors subsequently identified; and if he will make a statement. [22709]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In line with practice in previous years, the Department will shortly be issuing further information to local authorities, which include such data as are available now but were not available in time for inclusion in the data sent out on 4 December 2001. A copy of this information will be placed in the House Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137, his intention to meet the concern raised by shire districts

  513W
  during the consultation on the settlement, in relation to the way in which their grant floor has been calculated. We will announce the full details of how we will do this at the time of the final settlement, around the end of January 2002.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the content of the letter dated 6 December to himself from Sir Jeremy Beecham, with particular reference to the points relating to the local government settlement for Lewes district council; [22950]

  (2) for what reasons certain district councils will not benefit from the minimum increase of 2.3 per cent,provided to councils as part of his recent statement on the local government settlement. [23190]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Essex)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement summarising the changes in the responsibilities of local councils which led him to adjust the figures for the SSA and general grants for Essex county council and the Rochford district council for the current financial year. [21774]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage increase in local rates will be required to be imposed by Essex county council and Rochford district council if they spend the full SSAs allocated to them for 2002–03 and receive the full general grant for that year announced on 4 December. [21775]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The responsibility for setting council tax levels lies with local authorities. The provisional local government finance settlement, announced in the House on 4 December, does not require any local authorities to set council tax at any particular level.

  South Eastern Rail Network
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many trains have been cancelled since 7 October in(a) the southern zone, (b) the south eastern network and (c) Kent and Sussex; and what the figures are for the same period in 1997; [22916]

  (2) how many trains running in November were late in reaching their destination within (a) Railtrack's southern zone, (b) the south eastern network and (c) Kent and Sussex; and what the figures were for November 1997. [22919]
  514W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps have been taken by Railtrack to improve the power supply for the south eastern rail network, with particular reference to Kent and Sussex; how much money was spent on the required upgrading(a) before and (b) since Railtrack plc was placed into administration; and how much is required before all new rolling stock can be utilised together. [22927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Connex Transport UK Ltd., in conjunction with Railtrack, are seeking to find a means of ensuring that the power supply is adequate for the operation of these trains. Until these means are identified the investment required to solve the problem will not be known.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money Railtrack plc has spent on maintenance and repair of the south eastern rail network, with particular reference to Kent and Sussex, since being placed into administration; and what the comparative figures are for the same period in 1997. [22922]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the Administrator.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many newly commissioned trains and carriages are unutilized within the south eastern rail network with particular reference to Kent and Sussex as a result of the power supply in the southern zone. [22918]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are currently no commissioned units stabled in Kent or Sussex which are not in use. There are units stabled at these locations while undergoing a rigorous process to gain acceptance for use on the network. There are no units out of use due to any issues concerning power supply.

  National Rail Timetable
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps have been taken by(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority to monitor the performance of the public timetable information service provided by Railtrack by (i) telephone and (ii) the internet; and if he will make a statement. [23193]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The National Rail Enquiry Service (NRES) is provided collectively by the train operating companies, not Railtrack. The Strategic Rail Authority monitor call handling performance. No less than 90 per cent, of calls must be answered in any one four-week period, and 92.5 per cent, of calls must be answered in the year to 31 March 2002. NRES is currently meeting these targets. Qualitative performance is monitored by independent researchers every six months through mystery shopping surveys. There are no requirement on train operators or Railtrack to provide an internet based system. Where they do so it is done as a commercial initiative and is not subject to performance monitoring.
  515W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what process the national rail timetable is created; what steps his Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to modify the process by which the national rail travel timetable is created; and if he will make a statement. [23146]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack convene an annual timetable conference at which train operators submit their aspirations for the following years' timetables (summer and winter). Following the conference Railtrack work with each company to produce a draft timetable offer, taking into account the comments of local authorities and Rail Passengers Committees. Each company then has a short period to review the offer and re-bid for any changes that they may wish to see made. Once this re-bidding is completed Railtrack will produce a final version of the timetable, normally 12 weeks before the date of the timetable change. There are no plans to change this process.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) representations his Department has received from and (b) discussions his Department has had with (i) train operating companies,(ii)Railtrack,(iii)the Rail Passenger Council, (iv) rail passenger committees, (v) the Strategic Rail Authority and (vi) others on the process by which the national rail travel timetable is created; and if he will make a statement. [23147]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have received no representations on this issue, but discussed it with train operators, Railtrack, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Passenger Council in the context of broader considerations about making the best use of the railway network.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the monthly performance figures are for the Railtrack public timetable information service since it became operational according to the criteria for performance as defined by(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority. [23194]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics on the performance of the National Rail Enquiry Scheme (operated by the Association of Train Operating Companies) are contained in National Rail Trends, which is published quarterly by the Strategic Rail Authority, most recently on 13 December. A copy is placed in the Library of the House.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has received a proposal for the Ford Motor Company to construct a rail link between the Land Rover plant at Solihull and the west coast main line; if the link has passenger potential; and if he will make a statement on road to rail. [22911]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has been in discussions with Ford Motor Company about this proposal but they have not received a formal application for support. The scheme has potential to transfer freight traffic from road to rail which is in line with the objectives 516W
  of our 10-year plan. No assessment has been made as to whether this rail link, if built, would have potential passenger use.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial commitment the Government have made to(a) the West Coast Phase 1 upgrade, (b) the West Coast Phase 2 upgrade and (c) the Virgin Cross Country Franchise upgrade. [22773]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Virgin Trains have so far been paid some £300 million under the West Coast Trains franchise since it commenced on 9 March 1997. In addition to making payments under that franchise, the SRA is discussing, with my Department, Railtrack and Virgin Trains, various options for the outputs to be delivered under the west coast modernisation programme. Until the final outputs are agreed it is not possible to say what the costs involved will be. Value for money is one of the considerations under discussion.

  Virgin Trains have so far been paid over £400 million under the cross country franchise since it commenced on 5 January 1997. The upgrade to cross country services, including the lease of new trains and infrastructure enhancements, are a commercial venture by Virgin Trains.

  Subsidy levels decline year on year. The company will be paying premiums under the West Coast Trains franchise from 2002–03 and under the cross country franchise from 2010–11.

  Trains (Criminal Incidents)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many criminal incidents have been reported as occurring on trains in(a) the south-east, (b) East Anglia, (c) the south-west, (d) the midlands, (e) the north-west and (f) the north-east in the last 12 months. [22939]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information regarding the number of notifiable and non-notifiable on-train offences recorded by all BTP areas, except London Underground, during the period from December 2000 to November 2001.

  Area

  Notifiable offences

  Non-notifiable offences

  All offences

  London North

  3,447

  212

  3,659

  North-east

  939

  251

  1,190

  Scotland

  992

  484

  1,476

  North-west

  2,240

  977

  3,217

  Midlands

  1,183

  643

  1,826

  South-west

  1,058

  450

  1,508

  London South

  4,998

  327

  5,325

  Total

  14,857

  3,344

  18,201

  Planning Obligations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his consultation document on planning obligations. [24260]
  517W
  Mr. Byers
  I am publishing today a consultation document entitled "Planning obligations: delivering a fundamental change" which is one of a series of consultation papers that together propose a radical reform of the planning system.

  Planning obligations (also known as section 106 agreements) are typically agreements between developers and local authorities negotiated in the context of granting a planning consent. They have been criticised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Nolan Committee) for being insufficiently transparent. Business finds them slow to negotiate, unpredictable and, in some cases, unfair. They are then a disincentive to developers who may find themselves with long, expensive planning delays.

  I am proposing to replace the present system of negotiated planning obligations with a tariff that will be set by local authorities in their local development plans. The tariff will apply in principle to all development that receives a planning consent. It will therefore give business much more certainty about what cost, in terms of planning obligations, it faces if it chooses to buy and develop a particular piece of land or property. I am also proposing that some development should be exempt because it is too small, it is financially marginal—such as development of an urban brownfield site—or serves a clear purpose in promoting sustainable development.

  The tariff would be spent in line with the priorities set out in local development plans. I would expect the provision of affordable housing to be a high priority in most plans.

  My proposals will create an open, accountable and predictable system that will enable business to see, at the outset of a development, what level of planning obligation is likely to be incurred. The tariff will, so far as possible, require no negotiation. It will be much easier for local authorities to administer and should allow planning permissions to be issued much faster.

  I propose in the consultation document to allow planning obligations to be used to enable communities to share in the benefits of sustainable growth. Development pressures in some areas are placing heavy burdens on the existing infrastucture and especially on the supply of affordable housing for nurses, teachers, police officers and other keyworkers. We need to ensure that new development supports the investment required in new facilities to help improve the quality of life for local communities.

  Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rail Franchising Policy
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on rail franchising policy. [24405]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today laid before the House a policy statement, "Passenger Rail Franchising". The statement sets out the benefits that I wish the Strategic Rail Authority to seek to achieve through rail franchising and requires it to explore the full range of options for securing 518W
  them. It also incorporates the statement of policy referred to in section 26(10) of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000.

  Ports (Appraisal Framework)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on an appraisal framework for ports in the United Kingdom. [23387]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is issuing today a consultation document concerned with the development of an appraisal framework for port projects in the UK.

  The development of an appraisal framework for ports was identified in "Modern Ports: A UK Policy" as an important plank in the application of a sustainable transport policy to ports. The intention of the appraisal framework is to put ports on a similar footing to other modes, to make the appraisals more consistent with each other and to take full account of the role of ports in promoting sustainable transport. We believe that the use of a common framework assists promoters, objectors, local authorities, other public bodies and all those involved in planning inquiries to consider whether all relevant factors have been covered. The framework is also a contribution to the package of measures designed to speed up planning decisions on major infrastructure projects announced by the Department in July 2001.

  The consultation will assist the Department in drawing up a guidance note for all those involved with port developments requiring some form of official approval. It is intended that the guidance note will be issued later in 2002.

  We are inviting comments from all those with an interest in port related matters, including ports, port users, environmental interests, other Government Departments, local authorities, and other public and private bodies.

  The document outlines an appraisal framework derived from the guidance for multi-modal studies, but taking account of the particular effect of port developments. The document invites comments and suggestions on a number of topics, such as the content and format of strategic appraisal, scheme description, coverage and measurement of detailed effects and the appropriate level of detail required.

  The consultation is being conducted in accordance with the criteria contained in the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on Written Consultation. Responses are requested to be sent to my Department by 5 April 2002. Copies of the consultation document are in the Library, and it is also available from my Department (EAMI Division, Zone 1/34, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR) and on the Department's website.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the Quinquennial Review of Ordnance Survey. [24994]

  Ms Keeble
  I am pleased to announce today the outcome of the first Stage of the Quinquennial Review of Ordnance Survey. I have placed copies of the Stage 1 Report in the Libraries.
  519W
  Stage 1 of the Review of Ordnance Survey, announced on 15 February 2001 was managed by a Steering Group chaired by my Department. It also included representatives from Ordnance Survey, HM Treasury, Cabinet Office and two external members from the Association of Geographic Information (AGI) and the London borough of Lewisham. Consultation took place with a wide range of stakeholders and customers in the geographic information business in Great Britain.

  Ordnance Survey is a Government Department and Executive Agency operating within a Trading Fund regime. The main recommendation of the review is that it should further strengthen its business focus by becoming a Government-owned plc on 1 April 2003, with Government owning 100 per cent, of the shares. This would provide Ordnance Survey with additional commercial freedoms that are considered to be essential if it is to use its full potential to develop the geographic information and e-business marketplace.

  The Stage 1 Review rejected the options of abolition, merger, contracting out and market testing. It considered privatisation carefully, but stated that this was not a real option at present because there is much for Ordnance Survey to do to increase its value as a business through increasing market presence and decreasing cost through operational efficiencies. Additionally, the reviewers concluded that privatisation could endanger Ordnance Survey's existing partnerships, both within the Government and the private sector. Government-owned plc status would balance the requirement of the national interest in maintaining consistent, up-to-date, and fit-for-purpose geographic information, with the commercial imperatives of an efficient organisation.

  I have carefully considered the Stage 1 Report and its argument that there is a need for a further step change from the current Trading Fund status to enable Ordnance Survey to respond effectively to the requirements of the marketplace. I have accepted that the change in status will enable the further development and expansion of their business of providing geographic data for others to add value and generate commercial products, but I wish to have this confirmed by means of a clear business case.

  The report's recommendation is in line with the wider Government policy of increasing accountability for Government organisations and increases the potential for high quality managers to raise the return to Government from the efficient and effective use of Ordnance Survey assets and investment.

  I am minded to accept the Review's recommendation and have authorised the Steering Group to proceed to a Stage 2 Review which will be asked to undertake a detailed analysis of the best structure for a company, confirm the benefits and costs compared to the current Trading Fund status, consider the right operating framework, and propose means of removing any obstacles which will influence the establishment of Ordnance Survey as a Government-owned company by 1 April 2003. Stage 2 will also investigate how further public-private partnerships might benefit Ordnance Survey.

  I will make a further statement when the Stage 2 Review is complete and I have assessed its findings.
  520W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 279W, on the Ordnance Survey, what further stages in the Quinquennial Review of the Ordnance Survey will follow stage one; what the timetable will be for completion of such stages; and whether a staged timetable was envisaged when the Government announced the Quinquennial Review on 15 February. [22757]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Earing, North (Mr. Pound) regarding Stage 1 of the Quinquennial Review of Ordnance Survey, at columns 518–19W.

  Cabinet Office guidelines stipulate a two-stage approach to Quinquennial Reviews. The content of the second stage of Quinquennial Reviews is dependent on decisions made following the first stage. The first stage of the review has considered and made recommendations regarding the most appropriate organisation for delivering the functions currently carried out by Ordnance Survey.

  Work will begin on the second stage of the review early in the new year, which will consider further the issues raised within Stage 1, and on how Ordnance Survey can improve its performance. Cabinet Office guidelines recommend that the second stage of a review should be completed within three months.

  I can confirm that a staged timetable was envisaged when Stage 1 of the Ordnance Survey Quinquennial Review was announced.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hatton case on night flights issued on 2 October. [25095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Hatton judgment raises serious questions about the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are therefore submitting a request for the case to be referred for consideration by the Grand Chamber of the Court. The grounds for this request are set out in a letter to the Court, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned in the last five years and (b) plans to commission into the causes of older homelessness. [24188]

  Ms Keeble
  There has been a proliferation of research into the causes of homelessness over the past decade, including recent studies on older people. The Government have announced that they are establishing a new homelessness directorate to bring together existing work to help homeless people as well as to develop new work to prevent homelessness and investigate its causes, as part of this consideration will be given to further research in this area.
  521W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the number of specialist hostel places available for single homeless women, broken down by region. [24187]

  Ms Keeble
  Information about hostel provision is not collected centrally and no estimates of specialist provision for women have been made. However, the hon. Member might be interested to know that information gathered on 3,387 people contacted by the contact and assessment teams in London during 2000–01 show that around 10 per cent, of rough sleepers are women, with around a fifth of this group being aged under 25.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of the number of people made homeless as a result of administrative errors and failures by housing benefit units. [24192]

  Ms Keeble
  Information reported to the Department relates to the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need. Cases that are the result of rent arrears are identified, although the number of these attributable to delays or errors in housing benefit administration are not separately distinguished.

  The Department's housing policy statement "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—The way forward for housing" (December 2000) recognised that the fundamental challenge facing housing benefit is its administration. Problems with administering housing benefit can result in unacceptable levels of fraud and error, as well as backlogs of delayed claims. Our immediate priority has therefore been to work in partnership with local authorities to improve standards of administration. We have also set up a help fund to enable local authorities to formulate and implement improvement plans. In addition, we will introduce national performance standards to support the better administration of housing benefit from spring 2002.

  The best value regime is also helping to drive up standards of delivery across all local authority services. Best value performance indicators in place since April 2000 include a measure of the average speed of processing housing benefit claims. Provisional and unaudited best value performance information published by the Department suggests that about a quarter of English local authorities took on average 60 days or longer to process new housing benefit claims in 2000–01. Final performance figures for 2000–01 will be published early in 2002.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what baseline figures his Department has for the number of(a) officially recorded and (b) unofficial estimates of older homeless people (i) sleeping rough, (ii) in hostel accommodation, (iii) in move-on accommodation, (iv) in bed and breakfast accommodation and (v) in special needs accommodation. [24186]

  Ms Keeble
  The most recent street count showed that there were 532 people sleeping rough across England on any one night. We estimate that between 15 and 20 per cent, of those will be aged over 50. Information 522W
  gathered by Housing Services Agency (HSA) shows that in London during 2000–01 the contact and assessment teams (CATs) contacted some 609 (17 per cent.) rough sleepers or former rough sleepers who are over 50-years-old.

  Information gathered by Housing Services Agency shows that in London during 2000–01 there were 26 moves into permanent accommodation and 319 moves into temporary accommodation, including 180 moves into hostel accommodation by rough sleepers aged over 50 years. Due to the nature of rough sleeping some people will be recorded more than once in these figures as they may have been moved into a hostel, or other temporary accommodation, more than once during the year.

  Due to the way the information is collected and the fluctuating pattern of rough sleeping by some people, it is not possible to provide exact figures on the number of older rough sleepers and former rough sleepers currently sleeping rough, in hostel accommodation, in move-on accommodation, in bed and breakfast or in special needs accommodation.

  On 30 September 2001, the total number of households being accommodated by local housing authorities in bed-and-breakfast hotels under existing homelessness legislation was 12,290 and a further 9,480 households were being accommodated in hostels. Information is not held centrally on the proportion of these that are older homeless people.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of older homeless people in special needs accommodation.

  Emergency Landing (Newcastle Airport)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Air Accidents Investigation Branch's report into the emergency landing at Newcastle Airport on 3 February involving the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan police will be published; and what the cause of the delay is. [24085]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The AAIB report on the circumstances of the emergency landing at Newcastle airport on 3 February 2001 involving the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan police will be published on 7 February 2002. The emergency landing was caused by the incorrect assembly of the nose landing gear retraction mechanism on the American manufactured Piper PA 34 aircraft. The sequence of events had occurred before on other aircraft of the type and the examination of the maintenance standards issues raised by this emergency landing has led to the delay in publishing the report.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) which officials in his Department he has nominated as resort champions; [24147]

  (2) what action his Department is taking to support the implementation of the English Tourism Council's "Sea Changes" report. [24145]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government have welcomed the publication of the English Tourism Council's "Sea Changes" report. The report contains a number of
  523W
  recommendations, some of which are relevant to DTLR, including one that Government Departments should nominate a senior official as a resort champion. It also explains that to take its recommendations forward with relevant key partners, the ETC intends to broker individual meetings with them to discuss plans for implementation.

  Although my Department has not yet been approached by the ETC for a meeting, it is already actively supporting the regeneration of resorts through various programmes, including the single regeneration budget. In addition, Regional Development Agencies have been asked to explain in their 2002–04 Corporate Plans how they will be involved with developing regional tourism strategies, including the promotion of coastal resort regeneration.

  Party Affiliation
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to vacate the seats of Members who have changed party affiliation. [23947]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The basis of elections to this House is that the electorate is invited to vote for candidates and not the political party they may represent. We have no plans to seek amending legislation to require Members who change their political affiliation to vacate their seats. It is for the representative to determine whether they wish to test the strength of their position by vacating their seat and re-submitting themselves for election.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action has been taken on implementing the recommendations arising from Part 1 of Lord Cullen's public inquiry report; and when the Health and Safety commission plans to publish the six month progress report which Lord Cullen recommended. [25155]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lord Cullen's final recommendation was"that a review of compliance with his recommendations be conducted on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission within six months of this report".

  I am informed that this review has been completed and that the Health and Safety Executive officials will be reporting on progress to the Commission in February and that they intend to publish a progress report in March. I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many safety visits were conducted by the senior management of Railtrack in each month from January 2000 to November 2001. [21034]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack have advised that in April 2000 the company initiated an internal programme of visits for senior managers to assist the promotion of safety tours across the business. Railtrack report that good progress has been made since initiation although monthly figures are not readily available.
  524W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason he amended the Cullen Declaration on rail safety; and if he will make a statement. [23613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The declaration by the Paddington Survivors Group was agreed in advance by all parties before signing.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the administrator is running Railtrack to ensure that(a) routine signal, track and other maintenance is carried out and (b) the safety standards previously required of Railtrack are maintained. [23986]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]During the period of administration, the Government will continue to provide the administrator with sufficient funding to ensure the operation of the network. The terms of Railtrack's licence require it to ensure the safe operation of the network. The Health and Safety Executive is working closely with both Railtrack plc and the administrator to ensure that safety is maintained.

  Planning
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions further to the European Commission Regional Policy Directorate-General's proposals on spatial planning in the EU, if he will make a statement on the involvement of the European Union in local, regional and national planning matters. [12575]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]The European Union is not directly involved in local, regional and national planning in the UK. However, account is taken of jointly agreed policy objectives in the preparation of land-use plans in the UK.

  Bob Kiley
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the document about Mr. Kiley which had been shown to journalists referred to by Sir Richard Wilson on 1 November. [13268]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Rents
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what he estimates will be the average(a) council and (b) registered social landlord rent in (i) each region in England and (ii) each London borough in 2011–12 in constant prices, after adjusting for the effects of the Government's rent restructuring proposals. [19817]

  Ms Keeble
  Individual councils and registered social landlords (RSLs) retain responsibility for rent-setting. Rents in 2011–12 are therefore a matter for individual social landlords. The rate of increase of actual council and RSL rents over the next 10 years will depend, among
  525W
  other things, on the outcome of future Spending Reviews (for council rents) and periodic reviews by the Housing Corporation (for RSL rents).

  Train Delays/Cancellations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many trains of each train operating company arrived late by(a) more than five minutes and (b) more than 10 minutes in each month from January 2000 to November 2001; in each case, what proportion of these delays were due to (i) train breakdowns, (ii) signal failures, (iii) track/points failures, (iv) leaves on the line, (v) staff shortages, (vi) adverse weather conditions and (vii) other factors; and what were the same figures for peak hours; [21032]

  (2) how many trains in each train operating company were cancelled for each month from January 2000 to November 2001; in each case what proportion of these cancellations were due to (a) train breakdowns, (b) signal failures, (c) track/points failures, (d) staff shortages, (e) adverse weather conditions and (f) other factors; and what were the same figures for peak hours. [21033]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information on causes of delay by period is not readily available. The information distinguishing between peak and off-peak is available only for London commuter train operating companies. The latest information available on delays and cancellations which goes up until 16 September 2001 is being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on changes to the number of cancellations on the railways between September and December [23128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority maintain performance records by four week period, not by calendar month. The figures represent the percentage of trains which either did not run or did not operate for more than half their scheduled mileage shown in the timetable.

  2.1 per cent, between 19 August 2001 and 15 September 2001

  2.0 per cent, between 16 September 2001 and 13 October 2001

  1.8 per cent, between 14 October 2001 and 10 November 2001.

  Speed Restrictions Railway
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed restrictions were in force on the railways during(a) August and (b) September. [22871]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 12 December 2001,Official Report, columns 869–70W.

  Airline Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the Commission authorising EU Governments(a) to pay compensation for the four-day shutdown of US airspace in the absence of insurance cover and (b) to pay for additional security to meet public policy objectives; and if he will make a statement. [22780]
  526W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received various representations from the air transport industry on these issues. Having had regard to these views, we have accepted that the circumstances are exceptional and therefore merit exceptional assistance. We announced on 13 December that we had decided to provide up to £40 million of financial assistance to compensate airlines for losses arising directly from the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States. Qualifying airlines have been invited to submit claims under this scheme and a copy of the scheme conditions has been placed in the Library. Assistance under this package is in conformity with Commission guidelines on state aid, and we have notified the Commission of our intention accordingly.

  In addition, the Government continue to underwrite, on a temporary basis, third party war risk insurance for UK airlines and service providers to the airline industry. The initiative has been extended until 23 January 2002.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what representations his Department has received from(a)airline companies, (b) providers to the airline industry, (c) hon. and right hon. Members and (d) others requesting financial support other than the underwriting of third party war insurance to be given to airline companies; [22965]

  (2) what financial support the Government plan for UK airline companies following the events of 11 September; [23083]

  (3) what discussions he has had with airline companies regarding Government financial support since 11 September. [23084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1013W.

  Rail Passenger Surveys
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to take account of the results from national passenger surveys in developing policies for the rail network; what conclusions have been reached by his Department on the findings on national passenger surveys; if he will place copies of documentation related to the national passenger survey published by(a) the Strategic Rail Authority and (b) his Department in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23144]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The national passenger survey has shown that the key issue for passengers is performance. The Strategic Rail Authority plans to include targets for passenger satisfaction in new franchises. The results of the NPS are published in the Authority's "On Track" publication, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) carried out, (b)commissioned and (c) consulted upon into the future rail freight demand (i) for Great Britain as a whole,

  527W
  (ii) between different train operating companies, (iii) in relation to temporal variations and (iv) according to geographical variations; if he will place copies of published research reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23149]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department commissioned research into future demand to move deep-sea containers by rail to inform consideration of Freightliner's recent application for track access grant. There is no published research report.

  My Department has commissioned a review of freight modelling techniques across all modes. This will inform the future development of the Department's national transport model for Great Britain as a whole. There is no published research report.

  My Department had regard to advice from the Strategic Rail Authority into future rail freight demand to inform the development of the 10-Year Plan and the last Spending Review. Details of the model and its results are reported in 'The Background Analysis' paper of 'Transport 2010: The 10-Year Plan', copies of which were placed in the Library in July 2000.

  Rail Passenger Projections
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) carried out, (b) commissioned and (c) consulted upon into future rail passenger demand (i) for Great Britain as a whole, (ii) between different train operating companies, (iii) in relation to temporal variations and (iv) according to geographical variations; if he will place copies of published research reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23143]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department developed a model of future rail passenger demand for Great Britain to inform the development of the 10-Year Plan and the last Spending Review. Details of the model and its results are reported in 'The Background Analysis' paper of 'Transport 2010: The 10-Year Plan', copies of which were placed in the Library in July 2000.

  My Department commissioned research into future rail passenger demand on Eurostar. These forecasts were used to inform commercial negotiations undertaken earlier this year with Railtrack Group plc and London and Continental Railways concerning section 2 of the channel tunnel rail link. There is no published research report.

  My Department has commissioned research to develop a model of rail passenger demand. This will be a component of the Department's national transport model to be used to inform decisions taken in the current spending review. The model will consider Great Britain as a whole, temporal variations in so far as they affect crowding in the peak period, and broad geographical corridors. There is no published research report.

  My Department receives advice from the Strategic Rail Authority in relation to passenger rail franchises. When awarding new franchises the SRA makes assessments of bidders' passenger forecasts.

  Transport Ticketing and Information
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to improve (i) through ticketing between different modes of transport and (ii) a public timetable information service for all modes of transport; and if he will make a statement. [23145]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) (i) Bus and train operators already offer a number of number of multi-modal ticketing products on a commercial basis, under the auspices of Journey Solutions, an initiative of the UK transport industry to promote and improve integration between transport modes. We support this initiative.

  (a)(ii) Traveline, a telephone-based national public transport information system, is available throughout Great Britain and provides route and timetable information for all modes from a single national rate telephone number (0870 608 2 608). Traveline is run by local authorities and transport operators. The start-up costs were paid by central Government.

  (b)(i) We are developing Transport Direct, a fully integrated internet travel service. By 2003, we expect that Transport Direct will offer internet booking of long distance journeys involving different forms of transport. In the longer term it will be possible to book and pay for travel at the time the inquiry is made, and obtain the travel authority/ticket(s).

  The Department is also working with local authorities and transport operators to increase the use of Smartcards, which will make the retailing of multi-modal ticketing products much easier.

  (b) (ii) Transport Direct will also provide a full multi-modal travel information service via the internet to allow people to plan their journeys and to compare routes and prices.

  Transport Infrastructure (London)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the expected investment in London's transport infrastructure is projected to come from(a) central Government, (b) the Mayor and (c) the private sector between 2001 and 2010. [22904]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's 10-Year Plan for Transport assumes that London's transport infrastructure will benefit from £17.8 billion of capital investment over the period 2001–02 to 2010–11. Of this around 40 per cent, will be funded by central Government and 60 per cent, will be funded by the private sector. The plan does not assume that the Mayor will use income from council tax to increase transport investment in London, although it is open to him to do so.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much central Government funding will be allocated to transport improvements in London as part of the 10-Year Plan. [22894]
  529W
  Mr. Jamieson
  £15.2 billion of central Government funding is allocated for transport improvements in London as part of the 10-Year Plan for Transport.

  Channel Tunnel Freight Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has made to the French Government concerning the reduction of channel tunnel freight services since 7 November. [22895]

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport,Local Government and the Regions what representations have been made to the Government of France to remove SNCF's restrictions on the number of freight trains travelling from France to the United Kingdom through the channel tunnel; what reduction in freight traffic through the channel tunnel has taken place as a result of SNCF's decision; and what estimate he has made of the financial loss to UK operators. [23209]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 225W.

  Merchant Ships
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many merchant ships are registered in the UK; and how many were registered in(a) 1991 and (b) 1996. [22901]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At the end of September 2001, 423 merchant trading vessels were registered in the UK. The equivalent figures for the end of September in 1991 and 1996 were 519 and 384, respectively.

  Rail Track Access Charges
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations have been made by train operating companies to(a) him, (b) the SRA and (c) the Rail Regulator to secure reduced access charges as a result of under-performance of Railtrack since administration. [23153]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. Train operating companies are compensated for poor Railtrack operational performance through their track access agreements, which are approved by the Rail Regulator. After approval, they are enforceable by the parties to them and not by the Regulator.

  Heathrow
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will issue an interim report on the trial to establish the feasibility of extending the runway alternation at Heathrow to include the hour from 6.00 am to 7.00 am. [22942]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) explained on 23 November 1999,Official Report, column 64W, that the trial was expected to continue for up to two years. It commenced in August 2000 but has been subject to interruptions which make it difficult to draw any
  530W
  preliminary conclusions. During 2001 the trial was disrupted by resurfacing of the northern runway and replacement of the instrument landing systems (ILS); essential work which will continue next year when the southern runway is resurfaced and other ILS equipment is replaced. There are no plans to issue an interim report.

  Traffic Calming (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much has been spent in the constituency of Buckingham on(a) installing road humps on established roads, (b) installing mini- roundabouts on established roads and (c) other traffic calming measures in each year since 1999; and what effect these measures have had on the number of road accidents. [23738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics on expenditure on road safety schemes are not held centrally but are a matter for each local authority.

  Train Punctuality Statistics
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance has been given to the Strategic Rail Authority with reference to the publication of monthly train punctuality statistics; if he will place copies of such guidance submitted by his Department to the Strategic Rail Authority in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23524]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority which are currently in force and the draft issued for consultation on 29 June require the authority to publish a regular bulletin describing the performance of franchise operators.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give details of the means through which(a) the Strategic Rail Authority, (b) Railtrack, (c) train operating companies and (d) other organisations and companies within the rail industry disseminate statistics on train punctuality to the travelling public; what steps his Department is taking to improve the dissemination of information on train punctuality to the travelling public; and if he will make a statement. [23523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority publishes a regular bulletin describing the performance of franchise operators, which is available on its website www.sra.gov.uk. Train operating companies are required to publish Passenger's Charter statistics every four weeks at major stations. Details of the stations at which the figures are displayed can be obtained from the individual train operating company.

  Railway Staff
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff were employed by(a) Railtrack plc and (b) Railtrack Group plc in each month since September, broken down by category of employee, including (i) senior management, (ii) electrical engineers, (iii) mechanical engineers, (iv) administration and (v) others. [23525]
  531W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from Railtrack that there has been no significant change in staff turnover since September in the categories listed.

  Mark 1 Passenger Carriages
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) collisions, (b) derailments and (c) SPADs involving mark 1 passenger carriages in the last four years, broken down by (i) vehicle stock and (ii) train operating company. [23528]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate have advised that this information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the date by which all Mark 1 passenger carriages will be replaced, broken down by(a) vehicle stock and (b) train operating company. [23527]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All Mark 1 stock must be removed from the network by 1 January 2005.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many railway rolling stock leases involving mark 1 passenger carriages are in existence; and in respect of each lease, what is(a) the name of the rolling stock company owning the vehicles and (b) the name of the train operating company leasing them; and how many mark one vehicles are covered by that lease; and what is the date to which the train operating company is committed to leasing the vehicles. [23529]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Mark one rolling stock operated by UK train operating companies

  Train operating company/type1,2/lessor

  Number of vehicles

  Lease expires

  c2c1

  Angel Trains1

  92

  31 March 2002

  Angel Trains1

  16

  31 January 2002

  HSBC1

  4

  31 March 2002

  Total

  112

  Connex South Eastern

  Angel Trains1

  12

  31 December 2002

  Angel Trains1

  264

  31 March 2004

  HSBC1

  80

  31 December 2002

  Porterbrook1

  170

  31 October 2002

  Porterbrook1

  32

  31 March 2004

  Total

  558

  First Great Eastern

  Angel Trains1

  96

  31 October 2002

  Angel Trains1

  4

  31 March 2003

  Total

  100

  First North Western

  Angel Trains2

  16

  20 June 2002

  Angel Trains2

  16

  6 May 2002

  Total

  32

  Scotrail

  Angel Trains1

  51

  31 December 2001

  Angel Trains1

  10

  31 December 2001

  532W

  Mark one rolling stock operated by UK train operating companies

  Train operating company/type1,2/lessor

  Number of vehicles

  Lease expires

  Total

  61

  South Central

  Angel Trains1

  292

  31 March 2002

  HSBC1

  28

  25 May 2003

  Porterbrook2

  27

  31 March 2002

  Porterbrook1

  33

  25 May 2003

  Porterbrook1

  156

  31 March 2002

  Total

  536

  South West Trains

  HSBC1

  384

  3 February 2003

  Porterbrook1

  2

  5 February 2003

  Porterbrook1

  116

  31 December 2002

  Porterbrook1

  77

  3 February 2003

  Total

  579

  Total

  1,978

  1EMU

  2DEMU

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) each meeting held between his Department's Ministers or civil servants and the Strategic Rail Authority since 1 September, (b) those meetings at which the subject of current franchise performance was discussed and (c) those meetings at which the subject of specialist manpower shortages in the railway industry was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [21767]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are frequent contacts between my Department, both Ministers and officials, and the Strategic Rail Authority. Franchise performance and specialist manpower shortages have been among the matters discussed.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will provide details of changes in the responsibilities of(a) himself, (b) other departmental ministers and (c) the Department in terms of day to day (i) direction and (ii) control of the activities of the Strategic Rail Authority; what plans he has further to change the nature of these relationships; and if he will make a statement; [23514]

  (2) what (a) directions and (b) guidance was given to the Strategic Rail Authority in July; and if he will make a statement. [23516]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is subject to directions and guidance issued to it by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under sections 206(3) and 207(5) of the Transport Act 2000. Draft directions and guidance were issued for consultation on 29 June and a final version will be issued early in the new year. Interim directions and guidance were issued on 31 January 2001 and a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide details of the conclusions of research his Department has(a) carried out, (b) commissioned and (c) consulted upon, into rail passenger (i) demands and (ii) requirements for information on (A) reliability and frequency of services, (B) fares and (C) real-time

  533W
  information; if he will place copies of the research reports published as a result of such research conducted in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23522]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA are working on a number of initiatives to improve information for passengers. These include a feasibility study into a proposed national real-time information database, a proposal for a National Rail Enquiry Service (NRES) on the internet and encouraging NRES to develop closer links with telesales.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a)representations his Department has received from and (b)discussions his Department has had with (i) train operating companies, (ii) Railtrack, (iii) the Rail Passenger Council, (iv) rail passenger committees and (v) others in relation to the update of directions and guidance given by his Department to the Strategic Rail Authority in September 1999 (A) between September 1999 and July 2001 and (B) since July; if he will outline what plans he has further to update his Department's directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority; and if he will make a statement. [23515]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Draft directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority were published for consultation on 29 June. We intend to publish a final version, together with a summary of comments received during consultation and the Government's response to them, early in the new year.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what targets the Strategic Rail Authority has set for the regulation of fare levels on passenger rail services; what progress has been made towards meeting the targets; what steps are planned to meet the targets; and if he will make a statement. [23499]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since January 1999, increases in regulated fares have been limited to RPI-1 per cent., with performance-related arrangements also applying to London commuter operators. The Strategic Rail Authority monitor fares increases to ensure that the train operating companies keep within the permitted level. The authority has recently commissioned an independent evaluation of the success of Fares Regulation since it commenced in 1995. The study will consider how regulation has performed in practice compared to the expectations of the policy at the time. The results to this study are expected to be published in spring 2002.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what targets the Strategic Rail Authority has set for improving the reliability of passenger rail services; what progress has been made towards meeting the targets; what steps are planned to meet the targets; and if he will make a statement. [23500]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All train operating companies have performance targets in their franchise agreements which can lead to enforcement action being taken if not met. There are also targets for performance in train operating companies' Passenger's Charters which, if not met, trigger discounts to passengers renewing season tickets. In his draft franchising policy statement of 16 July the Secretary of State asked the Strategic Rail Authority to look at what could be done within existing franchise agreements, or by 534W
  negotiating short extensions, to drive up the reliability and punctuality of services. The authority have revised their franchise replacement programme and will make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to ensure that the needs of disabled passengers are taken into account in the awarding of train operating company franchises; and if he will make a statement. [23512]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority, issued for consultation on 29 June, address this issue. The SRA will publish a revised code of practice early next year. Train operating companies will be required to revise their Disabled Peoples Protection Policies to take account of it.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide details of research his Department has(a) carried out, (b) commissioned and (c) consulted upon on (i) the reliability of and (ii) regulation of fare levels on passenger rail services as measured by the Strategic Rail Authority; if he will place copies of reports published as a result of such research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has recently commissioned an independent study to evaluate fares regulation since it commenced in 1995. The study will consider how regulation has performed in practice compared to the expectations of the policy at the time, and will involve formal consultation with train operators, passenger groups and other interested parties. The results are expected to be published in spring 2002, and will help to determine future fares strategy.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what deadline was imposed on the Strategic Rail Authority for delivery of its strategic plan within his Department's direction and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority of(a) September 1999, and (b) July 2001; if he will outline what action (i) has been and (ii) is planned to be taken, as a consequence of the failure to meet a deadline; and if he will make a statement. [23513]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Current Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority do not impose any deadline for completion of its strategic plan. The draft Directions and Guidance published on 29 June proposed a deadline of November but this has been extended by agreement with the new Chairman of the Authority, who took up office on 1 December. The strategic plan will now be published on 14 January.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role(a) the Rail Passenger Council, (b) rail passenger committees and (c) other rail passenger interest groups play within (i) the Strategic Rail Authority and (ii) the Rail Regulator; what plans he has to alter the nature of the relationship between these groups; and if he will make a statement. [23510]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Passenger Council and rail passenger committees are funded through the Strategic Rail Authority, which also appoints members to the
  535W
  committees. They are otherwise independent of the authority and of the Rail Regulator, as are other passenger interest groups. We have no plans to make any change.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with and what representations his Department has received from(a)Railtrack Group, (b) the Railway Administrator and (c) First Group, with regard to the operation of totaljourney.com; and if he will make a statement. [23509]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Totaljourney.com was a private commercial initiative implemented by Railtrack and FirstGroup. The decision to cease operation of the site was taken by those parties.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) carried out,(b)commissioned and (c) consulted upon into timetable information provided by Railtrack; what plans he has to assist in the improvement of timetable information systems in the railway industry; if he will place copies of reports published as a result of such research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23508]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Standards of provision of timetable information by Railtrack, Train Operators and the National Rail Enquiry Service are monitored constantly by the Strategic Rail Authority. The National Passenger Survey monitors passengers satisfaction with the provision of information. Improvement in customer satisfaction ratings will be required in new franchise agreements.

  Rail Services (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give details of the measure of overcrowding being used by the Strategic Rail Authority; and if he will make a statement. [23504]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Passenger in Excess of Capacity (PIXC) standard states that"in respect of all trains operated by the Franchise Operator on the specified routes and services, (i) the PIXC in the morning peak shall not exceed 4.5 per cent., (ii) the PIXC in the evening peak shall not exceed 4.5 per cent., (iii) the PIXC on the morning and the evening peak shall not exceed 3 per cent, and (iv) the PIXC shall not be unduly concentrated on any particular route or service".

  PIXC is applied to the 10 train operators running services in and out of London as well as Scotrail's services across the Fife Bridge.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made by(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority of the levels of overcrowding (i) for each train operating company, (ii) temporally and (iii) geographically; and if he will make a statement. [23503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is a strong commercial incentive on train operators to supply sufficient levels of comfort for passengers on the services they provide. The SRA 536W
  measures commuter overcrowding using the "Passengers in Excess of Capacity" mechanism, for which the results are published annually.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) carried out, (b) commissioned and (c) consulted upon on the measure of overcrowding levels of rail passenger services as used by the Strategic Rail Authority; if he will place copies of reports published as a result of such research conducted in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23506]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA expect commuter Train Operating Companies to undertake impartial passenger counts up to twice per annum for peak commuter services. Where PTEs specify limits for peak overcrowding they use a similar approach.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps(a) have been and (b) are planned to be taken by (i) his Department and (ii) the Strategic Rail Authority to improve the measure of overcrowding used by the Strategic Rail Authority to take account of variations (A) between train operating companies, (B) temporally and (C) geographically; and if he will make a statement. [23502]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is developing a new process for a consistent method of calculating overcrowding in commuter areas across the network. It will be based upon the existing Passengers In Excess of Capacity (PIXC) mechanism used for London commuter operators and for services from Fife into Edinburgh.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made by(a) his Department and (b)the Strategic Rail Authority in reducing levels of overcrowding on the rail network; and if he will make a statement. [23501]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of measures have been introduced to reduce overcrowding including: the introduction of new trains that are designed to accommodate high loading levels; additional rolling stock to increase the number of vehicles available; and franchise commitments to improve services.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide details of the measure of overcrowding levels of rail passenger services outlined(a) in "A New Deal for Transport", (b) in "Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan", (c) within his Department's direction and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority of September 1999 and (d) within his Department's direction and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority of July 2001; and if he will make a statement. [23507]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is a requirement in the draft Directions and Guidance provided by the Secretary of State in July to reduce overcrowding to meet Strategic Rail Authority standards—no passengers standing for journeys of more than 20 minutes, no more than 30 per cent, standing for shorter journeys—by 2010.

  Integrated Transport Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) carried out, (b) commissioned and (c) consulted upon on the progress his Department has made towards developing an integrated transport policy as outlined in (i) "A New Deal for Transport" and (ii) "Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan"; if he will place copies of the documentation in relation to this research which is not publicly available in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23520]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DTLR Science and Innovation Strategy covers all research commissioned by the Department and states the general policy of open publication of research requirements and results. It is available at http: //www.research.dtlr.gov.uk/sis2001/index.htm

  The draft Strategy for Integrated Transport Research was published for consultation in March 2001 and is available on the web at http: //www.dtlr.gov.uk/itwp/consult/research/index.htm.

  It highlights those areas where research is already being carried out in support of the Government's integrated transport objectives and outlines the key strategic research issues arising from "A New Deal for Transport" and "Transport 2010—The Ten Year Plan".

  Details of the Department's transport research programmes are published annually, and are also available on DTLR's website at the following address: http: //www.research.dtlr.gov.uk/research/03.htm. These documents set out the objectives and priorities of the individual research programmes, summarise latest research findings and provide details of new projects.

  Copies of these documents are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) carried out, (b) commissioned and (c) consulted upon in relation to progress made towards the development of (i) a real time travel information service, (ii) Transport Direct and (iii) a comprehensive travel information and retailing service; if he will place copies of documentation in relation to this research which is not publicly available in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [23519]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following research is currently under way on real time information:a wide ranging market research programme is in the process of being let. This will include the extent to which the public seek real time information and the manner in which they wish to see it delivered.
  We are also seeking the creation of common standards for bus real time information systems, and are currently preparing a specification to outline common standards and compatibility for real time information systems. A consultation document will be released in the new year.
  On the railway network, the Strategic Rail Authority has funded a feasibility study on Real Time Train Movements (RTTM) and this is due to report in March 2002.

  On Transport Direct, which will be a comprehensive travel information and retailing service, the following major items of research have been commissioned or
  538W
  conducted. For a full list, please refer to the annual Departmental Research Compendium, "Roads and Local Transport Research Programme: Compendium of Research Projects 2000–2001", a copy of which is already in the House of Commons Library.
  The Transportation Research Group (TRG) at Southampton University has recently carried out a review of previous, current and planned research in areas relevant to Transport Direct. Their report is available on my Department's website and the report will be placed in the Library.
  We have commissioned a data management framework study, to define the way in which data may be input, exchanged, transferred, retrieved and manipulated. This study will allow us to assess the data management task that Transport Direct will need to tackle.
  We have some research under way looking at the standards which will be necessary for Transport Direct and seeing whether further standards should be developed.
  We envisage further technological work being commissioned to underpin Transport Direct.
  Work has begun on the development of a Business Plan for Transport Direct. This will be published next summer.
  Further research may also be necessary to support traveline.

  Transport Direct
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide details of progress which has been made by his Department with the delivery of Transport Direct against the timetable originally outlined; what further steps he plans to take to implement these plans according to the original timetable; what amendments to the original timetable(a) have been made and (b) are planned; and if he will make a statement. [23518]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-Year Plan, published in July 2000, said that by 2003 we expect Transport Direct to include:real-time train operating information;
  real-time information on many local bus services;
  internet travel information, covering road journeys as well as all forms of public transport at a single point of contact;
  internet booking of long-distance journeys involving different forms of transport; and
  development of internet based maps that allow travellers to examine public transport options both for visiting a specific venue and for general travel around an area.

  We are on course to deliver these targets.

  Since the publication of the "10-Year Plan", we have made considerable progress:
  Traveline is up and running;
  Traveline has a website and an increasing number of areas should be added to this during 2002;
  Journey Solutions is expecting to launch the work it is doing in spring 2002 and has added several new schemes;
  a feasibility study for rail real time has started and should report in March 2002;
  we are investing heavily—£20 million—in bus real time systems next year as part of the local transport plan arrangements;
  Sir Malcolm Field has been appointed as Transport Direct's external adviser.

  Rail Regulator
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report,column 789W, what form this contact takes. [23657]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend maintains oral and written contact with the Rail Regulator.

  Central Railway
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about Central Railway. [23411]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are considering carefully Central Railway's proposals for a hybrid Bill. We will take a view on the issues raised by proposals, including the conclusions of the SRA's high level review, and respond to Central Railway in due course.

  Government Offices (Access)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what(a) procedure and (b) consultation took place in respect of the closure of the access to Ambassadors entrance to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and how long he expects it to be closed; [23595]

  (2) when and under what authority an order was placed to close Downing street to public access; what discussions were held with interested parties; and if he will make a statement on (a) the public right of way and (b) the Highways designation in Downing street; [23649]

  (3) what public right of way there is to the Ambassadors entrance to the Foreign Office. [23674]

  Mr. Spellar
  Downing street is a public highway for which Westminster city council is the highway authority. The road at the Ambassador's entrance is owned by the Royal Parks Agency, and is not a public right of way.

  Access to both roads is controlled by the police under common law powers which allow them to take reasonable steps to preserve the peace and prevent threats to it. The level of restriction by the police is constantly under review.

  Local Authorities (Best Value Regime)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will abolish the best value regime. [23366]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No. It is clear that many authorities have used best value to make substantial improvements in services and savings. We want to make it even better which is why my right hon. Friend initiated a three month review of best value in October. The review has brought

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  East Devon district council

  Revenue Support Grant1

  2.510

  2.173

  2.086

  1.742

  2.063

  21.541

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates 1

  3.924

  3.949

  4.272

  4.738

  4.738

  25.385

  Housing Investment Programme

  50.518

  0.671

  1.007

  61.715

  73.220

  81.204

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  111.383

  n/k

  540W
  in expertise and experience from a wide range of bodies with an interest in improving public services. We aim to produce new guidance in early 2002.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans NATS has to increase its prices to customers in line with other European countries following the events of 11 September. [23563]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS has published its en-route charges for 2002 and in line with its regulatory requirements its element of the UK Unit Rate is to decrease by RPI—3 per cent, with effect from 1 January 2002. Any review of the price cap relating to NATS' charges is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which centralised functions will go to Scotland as a result of the NATS facilities review. [23562]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS is currently reviewing its accommodation requirements. No firm decisions have yet been taken. NATS is consulting widely on its Business Plan which assumes that the Manchester Area Control Centre is to be moved to Prestwick.

  Jumbo Water Tower, Colchester
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will call in for determination the appeals lodged in respect of the Jumbo Water Tower in Colchester; and if he will make a statement. [23287]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]The Inspector's decision on these appeals has now been issued and the Secretary of State therefore has no further jurisdiction in this matter.

  Departmental Policies (East Devon)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the East Devon constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [23751]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to East Devon district council and Devon county council in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is shown in the tables. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on East Devon constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.
  541W

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.162

  0.495

  0.000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Single Capital Pot3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.477

  Devon county council

  Revenue Support Grant1

  4266.389

  155.634

  158.924

  150.930

  166.866

  2153.390

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  4205.912

  138.460

  151.558

  173.050

  170.054

  2187.755

  Local Government Reorganisation Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.812

  0.765

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  1.738

  1.238

  1.861

  0

  0

  0

  Transport Supplementary Credit Approvals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1.350

  1.000

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  1.738

  1.238

  1.861

  0

  0

  10n/a

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  2.560

  1.214

  2.842

  10.281

  20.703

  10n/k

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant9

  0

  0

  0.640

  0.300

  n/k

  n/k

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  1.409

  1.409

  1.409

  1.799

  2.059

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  2.694

  2.257

  1.554

  0

  0

  —

  Single Capital Pot3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40.498

  1 The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Amending Report 2000" respectively.

  2 The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 2002–03 are provisional and are subject to change. Final figures will be available in February 2002.

  3 2002–03 is the first year of the Single Capital Pot. It is a cross-service capital allocation mechanism incorporating funding for Transport, Housing, Education and Social Services. The funding is not ring-fenced for any particular service so Councils have flexibility to take national and local priorities into account in determining their investment plans. Education and Social Services allocations do not appear in the table for earlier years.

  4 Devon was subject to a Structural Change Order on 1 April 1998. The figures for Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates quoted for Devon county council for 1997–98 include an amount for the areas covered by The City of Plymouth and The Borough of Torbay. The figures for 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 exclude the amount for the areas covered by The City of Plymouth and The Borough of Torbay.

  5 1997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98

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

  7 Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. East Devon's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £2.274 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above.

  8 HIP allocation only, MRA and Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) allocations for 2002–03 not yet announced. DFG included within HIP figures shown for all years 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  9 Rural Bus Challenge figures represent awards—actual spend profiles for schemes may cover more than one year. Awards for 2001–02 and 2002–03 not yet announced.

  10Transport Annual Capital Guidelines are included in the Single Capital pot for 2002–03. Prior to 2002–03 and the introduction of the Single Capital Pot, the transport block was allocated through Supplementary Credit Approvals.

  11Provisional

  Parts of the Constituency were included in the areas covered by one SRB scheme. Funding provided for the scheme since 1997–98 is included in the table.

  SRB scheme

  Unlocking potential

  1997–98

  128,000

  1998–99

  134,000

  1999–2000

  128,000

  Railway Line Closures
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans his Department and the SRA have made for line closures. [23941]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]There are statutory procedures prescribed in the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, which must be followed before a full line closure can take place. There are currently no plans to take forward any new closure proposals.

  Road Accident Blackspots
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions where the top six predicted road accident blackspots are; and what estimate he has made of the predicted number of deaths in each one in the next 30 year period. [24059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not possible to predict where specific accident blackspots will be in the future. Casualties at different sites vary from year to year and the numbers can be affected in particular years by major incidents which are not typical.

  Operation Stack (Working Party)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the recommendations contained in the report of the working party into alternatives to Operation Stack. [23939]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]My officials have scrutinised the report of the working party into the provision of an alternative to Operation Stack. It is important that we find the right way forward and further consideration is being given as to the way ahead in liaison with Kent CC. Decisions will be made in due course.

  Air Safety
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Civil Aviation Authority Economic Regulator and Safety Regulator, with particular reference to the means by which they communicate to ensure air safety. [23561]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directors of the Consumer Protection Group (which issues airline licences), Economic Regulation Group (ERG) and Safety Regulation Group (SRG) are all members of the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). They all sit on the Executive Committee, which has responsibility for corporate governance, the approval of strategy and ensuring the development and execution of policy.
  544W
  In the event of there being concerns about the financial viability of an air operator or an air traffic service provider, particularly where the safety of operations may be affected, arrangements are in place for this to be brought to the immediate attention of the Group Director Safety Regulation. The Safety Regulator, based on the information before him, would in turn instigate appropriate action to ensure the continued maintenance of air safety.

  Section 2(1) of the Transport Act 2000 enshrines the paramountcy of safety by placing it ahead of other regulatory considerations for the CAA. Furthermore the CAA has set up an internal committee comprising representatives of SRG, ERG and the Directorate of Airspace Policy to exercise oversight of the air traffic services licence.

  The primary objective of the Chairman of the CAA is to ensure that the CAA continues to promote, in an efficient and cost-effective way, high standards of safety in all aspects of civil aviation.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Children: Protection from Physical Abuse
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a voluntary association with the NSPCC.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for protecting children from physical abuse by adults.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, physical abuse covers a spectrum of violent behaviour against children. We recognise in the Working together to safeguard children inter-agency child protection guidelines that such behaviour could include hitting, shaking, throwing, poisoning, burning or scalding, drowning, suffocating or otherwise causing physical harm to a child.
As with all other forms of child abuse and neglect the Government are highly committed to protecting children from physical abuse through encouraging, resourcing and monitoring the operation of effective child protection procedures across the country.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he tell the House why the Government have chosen to ignore the advice of nearly all child protection professionals who say that a ban on hitting children is necessary in order to protect them from abuse? Does he recognise that there is a good deal of public support for such a ban since MORI found that nearly eight out of 10 parents would support a ban on hitting children provided that caring parents would not be criminalised for trivial smacks? Does he accept that such a ban working in that commonsense way exists already in nine other European countries and that it protects vulnerable children as well as caring parents?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. Physical punishment by parents is best left to the judgment of parents with the protection of the law against violent assault. The defence of reasonable chastisement provides a proper balance. As far as concerns public consultation, the noble Baroness will know of the omnibus survey by the Office for National Statistics in 1998. It stated that 88 per cent of respondents were of the view that it was sometimes necessary to smack a naughty child, while only 8 per cent disagreed. At the end of the day it is surely better
240
to leave the matter to the judgment of parents, alongside offering support to parents in the job that they do in bringing up children, within the safeguards of the current law.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Government have accepted "zero tolerance" as their target for domestic violence against women in the home. Why do they still persist in giving children less protection than adults and sending a "carry on smacking" message to parents? Surely the Government should give a lead on this matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to the physical punishment of children, surely the views of parents need to play a major part in this consideration. The consultation undertaken by the Government shows that the great majority of parents wish to retain the possibility of a reasonable use of physical punishment in bringing up their children. For the law to intervene and actually say to parents that they could under no circumstances use physical punishment would be extremely counterproductive. It would criminalise many people and it is not a sensible route down which to go.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what has happened to the idea, which has been much trailed in recent times, of a reviewable sentence? I have raised the issue over the past 10 years or so. It has been raised by a number of recent reports. It was first suggested—I am sure the Minister will appreciate—by the Home Secretary, Mr R A Butler, who had a committee dealing particularly with the mentally affected prisoner. Has anything been done to put a reviewable sentence in place and thereby achieve an indeterminate sentence, which has many advantages over the life sentence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that question was somewhat wide of the Starred Question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the experience of Victoria Climbié shows that something much more fundamental needs to be addressed than whether or not parents can tap their children if they misbehave? Should we not be directing our attention at the failure of all the systems designed to note and react to the evident signs of physical abuse which she was showing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. That is why the Government have toughened up the guidance on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. We must learn the lessons of these tragic cases. At the same we should not underestimate the general improvements that have been made in child protection procedures nor the fact that the great majority of social workers do a difficult job sometimes under pressurised circumstances. The way through is to ensure that child protection procedures are operated effectively and that we continue to increase resources to personal

241
social services. The establishment of a general social care council to regulate social workers will ensure a higher degree of professionalism and support within the social work profession.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned that nine other countries have laws against physical abuse towards children. Can the Minister say what the impact of those laws has been?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that the evidence is not altogether clear. Certainly it is not enough on its own to justify a total ban. After the consultation that we have undertaken we have reached a sensible conclusion. It allows parents who wish to to use reasonable chastisement but retains the full protection of the law for children when violent assaults take place.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in the vast majority of cases where parents use physical punishment it is either because they have been severely provoked by their children or, much more commonly, because they do not know how to discipline their children in any other way? Would it not be better to put the cart before the horse and help parents to understand and to know the ways in which it is possible to guide children and to set boundaries for them before introducing a law?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord. The Government have taken a number of steps to ensure that people are supported in their role as parents, including establishing a national parent helpline and the National Family and Parenting Institute. In addition, the Sure Start schemes in local communities have also provided a number of interesting and valid programmes to support parents in what can often be a challenging and difficult role.

Animal Tissue Research
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures have been put in place to ensure that animal brains or any other tissue used for research are correctly labelled and stored.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I presume that the Question relates to the department's transmissible spongiform encephalopathy research programme. Most of that research programme is conducted by the department's Veterinary Laboratories Agency or by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's Institute for Animal Health. Both have quality systems for the storage and labelling of tissues. Following the discovery of mislabelled samples
242
originally collected for an entirely different purpose and involved in one particular experiment at the institute, urgent reviews of the assurance system are now in progress. We, together with others, will implement all the lessons learnt. There is, however, no indication that that rare lapse in one particular and unusual experiment has compromised other parts of our TSE work.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and appreciate that the Government are considering the mistakes made. I remind the House of my family's farming interest. Further to his response, is not the Minister concerned that, as recently as 17th December, mistakes were still being made—although, it is true, not within that programme? The department sent the wrong genotype results to five farmers. Will he join me in condemning the comments of his honourable friend Mr Morley when he said that he was glad that the quality control arrangements had been robust enough to pick up those wrong results at an early enough stage? That is not good enough.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not quite follow why I should condemn my colleague Mr Morley. He rightly said that the mistakes made in the genotyping of sheep for scrapie were made at the initial stage and immediately identified by the quality control system. Those five farmers were therefore immediately notified. That is part of the system. The problem with the other experiment on sheep's brains, to which I thought that the initial Question related, was that the mislabelling was not picked up early enough. In the case of genotyping, the system worked.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we on these Benches are relieved that he, at least, knows the difference between a cow and a sheep? Is any additional work now being carried out to make up for the research effectively lost through the invalidation of the earlier work?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend recognises my vastly improving agricultural knowledge in this job. The experiment was a small part of a major programme. It has therefore not been necessary to replace that work. The total programme consists of £17 million of research by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, another £3 million of research by the Food Standards Agency and more research financed by the research councils.
A substantial amount of effort is under way to establish the truth about BSE in sheep and other species. That particular experiment, based on out-of-date material collected for an entirely different purpose, was only a minor part of the programme. The rest of the programme is beginning to yield results, although some of the experiments are inevitably long term.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that cutting corners by commissioning research on the cheap on samples that were, as he said, collected

243
for other purposes and with a real risk of contamination from the beginning, was, at the least, foolhardy? Was that the best way to protect the national sheep flock or, more importantly, to safeguard public health?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the initial experiment was one of many commissioned. It was an experiment that required an assay in mice that runs for a long time. The intention was to use the brain material originally collected for a rendering experiment. It was originally intended to establish whether BSE was in scrapie-infested sheep in the early 1990s, when there was clearly a problem with BSE in cattle. It was therefore related to an historic situation, not the current one.
The only material available was that collected at the time for different purposes. There was therefore not much option but to use old material. Regrettably, at some point between the early 1990s and 1997, when the experiment began, there now appears from our audits to have been serious mislabelling. However, when the experiment was changed to consider the possibility of BSE being in those scrapie-infected sheep, there was no alternative.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what is the Minister's position on what I can only describe as pseudo-science—the "what if?" syndrome? On "Farming Today" this morning, there was a discussion about what if sheep had BSE and how much of such sheep we would be able to eat. As a consumer, I would be extremely confused about whether I should eat lamb and how much, and what parts of the lamb I should eat. The same thing happened with the microbacterium avium para tuberculosis in milk. Should I drink milk? Should I drink pasteurised milk? Should I drink milk that is ultra-heat treated or what? Could the Minister play a part in ensuring that proper science is given to the public and not the "what if?" science?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Countess raised two separate issues which she calls "pseudo science". I am sure that it is not correct to call them "pseudo science", although they are based on a hypothesis. The person she heard this morning on "Farming Today" was the chair of SEAC and he was addressing the question: if there were BSE or any TSE in sheep, what parts of the sheep would be affected? That is solid science, but, as we have indicated, there is no proof that there is BSE in sheep. He made it clear, as has the Food Standards Agency, that there is no change in advice to consumers on eating lamb. Indeed, perhaps I may put in a plug and say that British lamb is well worth eating and I advise your Lordships to do so.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, has the Minister noted that the UCAS report on the work of the Institute of Animal Health which went wrong in the experiment was carried out using a standard called ISO 17025? That is a standard for the accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories. If the standard is to be used for all laboratories, it will place an
244
enormous burden on ordinary research laboratories. Do the Government have plans to come forward with another standard for research laboratories?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the review identified systems which might be appropriate but there has been no decision that they should be applied in bodies which the Government fund. The Institute of Animal Health is looking to its own procedures to meet an output equivalent to that standard, but there is no adoption of that standard as such.

Blood Substitutes
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest having had my life saved by a blood transfusion.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether sufficient use is being made of artificial blood substitutes and alternative treatments for anaemia in cancer patients to help combat any shortage in blood supplies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the National Blood Service currently meets all NHS demands for blood. There are a number of erythropoietin, or EPO, drugs licensed to shorten the period of anaemia in patients receiving platinum-containing chemotherapy. These are available for clinicians to prescribe when it is clinically beneficial.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that next year or the year after a test may be available for CJD, in which case there may be a serious shortage of blood as donors may be worried about coming forward because of the effect on life insurance and mortgages?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, we are indebted to the 1.9 people million who come forward every year to give blood. Currently blood stocks are in a healthy state. The noble Baroness is right because potentially there is the introduction of a test perhaps within the next three to five years for vCJD. The National Blood Service has carried out a scenario of testing to examine the impact of that test in reducing the number of blood donors. What was quoted in the media was the worst-case scenario when there might be a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of donors. That is very much a worse-case scenario.
The chief medical officers of the UK held a Better Blood Transfusion Conference which led to the establishment of a national transfusion committee to examine these matters. In particular, it will examine alternatives to blood supplies and whether they are feasible.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that his first reply sounded as though

245
everything was fine? However, does he further agree that, because it is impossible to guarantee the adequacy of future blood supplies and because we tend to identify viruses such as CJD, AIDS and Hepatitis C too late for some people, in the interests of security and safety it is imperative that we intensify our search for non-blood products and that this is an area in which cost-cutting will be indefensible?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. It is correct to say that the National Blood Service, with the help of many members of the public, has put to right previous problems in relation to the holding of adequate blood supplies. In the past three to four years a tremendous amount of work has been undertaken.
I agree with my noble friend about the urgency of investigating the appropriate use of alternatives. The National Blood Service set up an appropriate use of blood working group which is looking at ways of minimising exposure to the unknown risk of transmission of vCJD by transfusing blood only when absolutely necessary. It is also—and this is very important—ensuring the most effective and efficient use of blood as an increasingly scarce resource. That group is also examining alternatives to blood transfusion. In addition, the National Blood Service is undertaking another campaign to encourage more people to give blood in the current circumstances.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that continental countries widely use the alternatives to blood products in cancer treatment? Is it not time that we were ahead of continental countries both in terms of patient outcomes and treatments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are many ways in which the National Health Service can he proud of its achievements. There are many examples of innovative services and high quality teaching and research. We can be pleased with the way in which the National Blood Service responded to a very big problem in blood supplies some years ago. Of course we need to examine alternatives and we will look at the experience of countries abroad. That is why the chief medical officers of the UK held a conference; why a working group has been set up; and why the National Blood Service will be taking that work forward.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I, too, declare a non-financial interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is my noble friend aware that there is concern among clinicians about the availability for patient care of funds earmarked for cancer treatments under the national cancer plan? Furthermore, can he assure the House that the Government will monitor rigorously and transparently those fund allocations and their use?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I want to congratulate my noble friend on her appointment as
246
chairman of Cancer Research UK, which brings together the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign, both of which have done sterling jobs over the years.
As regards funding, I can confirm to my noble friend that cancer services remain a key priority for the Government and that the cancer plan projects that in the next financial year there will be an extra £407 million of funding for services. Of that, £76 million will be earmarked within NHS budgets. I can also confirm to her that we will performance-manage the NHS overall in order to ensure that the money is spent wisely and that cancer receives the priority it deserves.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that erythropoietin may be of more benefit to cancer patients than blood transfusions? Would he go to the United States to see what it is doing and how it has monitored the process?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am afraid that the Chief Whip has said I am not allowed to go. The current state of knowledge of the drug, which we considered as a potential referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the guidance we have used so far indicates that there simply is not enough evidence on which to make a judgment.
A number of randomised controlled trials are being undertaken both within the US and Europe. When the results of those trials are known, and when we have more evidence concerning the effectiveness of the drug, we will again consider whether it will be worth referring the drug to NICE.

Foot and Mouth Disease
3 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm Lord Monro of Langholm asked Her Majesty's Government:
What lessons they have learnt from the International Convention on Prevention and Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease held in Brussels on 12th and 13th December.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Brussels conference usefully highlighted some of the key areas the European Union needs to address and we shall be working with our European partners in carrying the work forward. The conference identified the need to develop a broad range of disease control options, based on science and including emergency vaccination, to meet particular circumstances. It was agreed that there was a need for flexibility in the choice of methods for controlling and eradicating the disease, improved communications and an urgent need for tests to differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals. The conference also considered ways of preventing future outbreaks, including tightening up on import controls at the European border.

247
A copy of the final report of the conference will be placed in the Library when it becomes available.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. In declaring an interest as a farmer and in view of conflicting media reports, can he confirm, first, that the Government will not take the route of vaccination unless a complete veterinary test becomes available? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to enforce import controls on food?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the conference identified that vaccination may be useful as a tool for dealing with the disease. It did not pursue the route of declaring that pre-emptive or prophylactic vaccination was a sensible strategy. If we were to use vaccination as a method to control the spread of disease, it would be of great benefit if the tests were sufficiently developed and validated. To that end, some progress has been made; that is, to differentiate between vaccination and the presence of the virus in diseased animals.
As regards the question of food imports, through co-ordination of the various agencies we have undertaken several spot checks. We are presently considering whether we need to change our system of administering import controls. We have also requested that the present European regulations on import controls of food be examined in greater detail.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I declare an interest in a family farm. Does the Minister agree that in any future outbreak—let us hope that there will not be any such occurrence—communications will be absolutely vital? Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government are keen to ensure that all farms are on-line? In areas such as the uplands of northern England and Scotland, does the Minister realise that it can take five days to repair a broken telephone line? Does he further appreciate that there is no access to broadband communications in those areas? What are the Government doing, first, to improve telephonic communications, which will make on-line farming at least a possibility? Secondly, and in my view more importantly, in order for farmers to diversify, are the Government addressing the issue of access to broadband communications via the Internet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as my responsibilities are concerned as regards improving the management of farms, along with streamlining and reducing the burden of regulation, it would be helpful for all farmers to have access to the Internet. It is clear that some difficulties persist in the remoter areas. My colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry are addressing the issue of ensuring that the whole country is able to engage with current Internet facilities, as well as looking at the strategy for broadband access. However, the immediate benefits of access to the Internet are already recognised by many farmers—probably a higher proportion than most Members of the House would have guessed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister understands that his
248
European colleagues are keen to learn the lessons of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak in the UK. Given that, do the Government welcome the intention of the EU to hold a public inquiry into the matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that there is any intention on the part of the EU to hold a public inquiry. The Commission will consider all reports of the disease outbreak and will make a full report to the Council. The European Parliament is to establish a temporary committee. However, the European Parliament deliberately did not set up a committee of inquiry. I think that the noble Baroness is misinformed.
Earl Peel: My Lords, given that the Government have agreed the International Convention regulation imposing a 21-day restriction on the movement of livestock, can the Minister tell the House to what extent he thinks that the regulation will impact on the financial well-being of small farmers in the hills?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as yet the European Commission has not proposed any change to the existing regulations covering foot and mouth disease. It is a matter that it will consider in the light of the Brussels conference and in the light of our own inquiries into control of the disease. Yesterday I announced an interim regime which will apply to movements from around mid-February. That regime is without prejudice to any long-term regime. It will continue to include the 20-day standstill period as a default measure, but in a significant number of cases, alternative arrangements where the 20-day rule will not apply will form a part of that regime. However, it is important that we take a precautionary approach. I believe that most farmers appreciate that.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the question of food imports. I believe that this matter was discussed by the conference in the light of both legal and illegal imports of meat. From what the Minister has told the House recently, I understand that this is a European matter. Equally, however, I understand that each member state is responsible for its own import controls. Can the Minister clarify the question of exactly who is responsible? If it is the responsibility of the Government, what extra measures have been put in place since the outbreak was first reported?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the overall regulations on imports into Europe of meat and meat products from third countries is a European matter. Member states keep under their own authority certain aspects of the control regime. The regulations in Britain are slightly tighter than those in many other EU countries, in particular as regards personal food imports. Implementation of the controls is a matter for individual member states. We have been addressing the issue of whether the present range of authorities involved could co-ordinate more effectively, what powers might need to be adjusted and whether any regulatory change may be required on enforcement.

249
In my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, I indicated that the method of implementing regulations was also a concern at the European level.

Millennium Dome
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government what binding undertakings have been given by Meridian Delta Limited in return for exclusive partnership arrangements and the leasing of the Millennium Dome, and whether the sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company will explain to Parliament the final report and financial statements of that company.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we agreed yesterday with Meridian Delta Limited to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations which it is intended will lead to the conclusion of a legally binding agreement which will provide for £200 million of investment in the Dome and facilitate £4 billion of investment in the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. Ownership of the Dome will not pass to MDL until that deal is concluded. The terms of the exclusivity involve an end date and provision for the Government to be able to bring the exercise to an end if reasonable progress is not being made.
MDL has already spent substantial sums on putting its bid together and, in agreeing to enter into exclusive negotiations with us, has committed itself to spending further substantial sums on the legal and consultancy work that will be necessary to reach final agreement. These are serious people and we chose not to announce the proposed deal until we were confident that it was deliverable.
Following the orderly winding down of operations by the New Millennium Experience Company, the company's directors yesterday took steps to commence a members' voluntary solvent liquidation and I, as NMEC's sole shareholder, have formally appointed Richard Heis and Stephen Treharne, two partners of KPMG, as liquidators.
NMEC's final annual report and financial statements for the period 1st January 2001 to 18th December 2001, produced for completeness to reflect the state of affairs when the liquidators were appointed, will be available in the Libraries of both Houses later today.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is immensely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. While I do not in any way underestimate the virtue of the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula, does the Minister agree that the Dome has had an uncanny habit of mocking
250
expectation? Can he therefore confirm that a contingency plan is in place—the noble and learned Lord vaguely touched on this point in his Answer—in case the arrangement with Meridian Delta Limited goes pear shaped? Moreover, how much will maintenance of the Dome cost, and who will pay, in the intervening period before any deal is eventually finalised?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the implication of the noble Earl's question is that there is not yet a concluded deal with Meridian Delta Limited. That is entirely correct. As I indicated, the announcement was made only when the parties to the arrangement—the Government, Anschutz, Lend Lease and Quintain—were all convinced that it was deliverable. But there is work to do. The concentration at the moment is on that work, which has to be completed by 1st May 2002. Until that work is completed, English Partnerships will be responsible for the maintenance of the Dome. I shall provide in writing the precise figure, on a monthly basis, of the maintenance costs. The maintenance costs will be recouped from the sale proceeds.
As to whether there is a contingency plan, the current focus is on ensuring that the deal goes through. That is the right place for the concentration of effort to be.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one could be forgiven for being amazed at what appears to be a U-turn? The understanding was that the Government had moved away from the concept of the Dome being an entertainment centre towards other usage. In fact, an offer was placed before the noble and learned Lord. As I understand it from the newspapers—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—we are now moving back towards entertainment and sport. As it is sketched out, the deal does not look to be a good one. As I understand it—again the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong-there will be a long, 999-year lease, for no consideration, to a major entertainment company which will build, over a period of years, an entertainment centre which may or may not be successful. Are we not moving back to one of the overriding problems of the concept originally—that is, content. Are the Government now relying again on content for recouping what has already been lost? One cannot call it short-termism because there will be a period of 25 years, but is there not a better way for the Government to recoup costs than again relying on paying customers coming to an area of London which may or may not attract them? Would it not be better to rely on the site's development, with warehouses, housing and so on?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would not be right to say that it involves a U-turn. In February this year the Government withdrew from the discussions they were having with Legacy plc. The Government believed that the deal was not deliverable and therefore withdrew. Thereafter, through their

251
agents, the Government engaged with those in the market who would be capable of delivering a longterm future for the Dome and the peninsula. There are probably only a small number of players able to deliver the complex arrangements necessary. The market has come forward with Anschutz, which is a very substantial entertainment organisation with experience of building and operating arenas of the kind proposed for the inside of the Dome. Anschutz believes that it is a deliverable venture. It is much better able than governments or the public sector to make judgments of that kind and it is entirely committed to the proposal. It is Anschutz's judgment that it is deliverable.
Having shortened to three the number of companies with which we were negotiating, we decided and announced yesterday that we would now reduce it to one, Meridian Delta Limited, because it offered the most deliverable future for the peninsula and the Dome. I do not think that that is going backwards or making a U-turn. It provides the possibility of an exciting future for the peninsula and the Dome, in particular because it ensures public access to the Dome in the long-term future.
As to whether this is a bad deal, the noble Viscount is absolutely right to say that there is no up-front payment. However, it is a standard property deal where you go into partnership to ensure that, as the value of the land goes up after development, the seller benefits as well. There is one particular aspect that I should like to emphasise: there can be no recourse for further expenditure in relation to the Dome.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, did my noble and learned friend have the opportunity this morning to listen to one of the founding fathers of the Dome project, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on the "Today" programme? Does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that these proposed arrangements seem to offer a real basis for a fundamental regeneration of the south-east area of London? On the radio, the noble Lord went on to compare this with the Canary Wharf project and what that had meant in terms of regeneration.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not have an opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on the radio. My noble friend will know that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was one of the original millennium commissioners who made the decision to have the Dome at Greenwich. He has always been personally committed to the proposition that one of the purposes for it being put there was the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. Lend Lease, one of the developers and part of Meridian Delta Limited partnership, said yesterday that it expected there to be a £4 billion investment over 25 years in the Greenwich peninsula. Surely one of the things we should have been aiming for in looking for a future for the Dome and the peninsula was something which involved longterm investment in Greenwich.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, although the noble and learned Lord said that this is not a U-turn, it is
252
certainly a major change in policy. It is unfortunate that the announcement had to be dragged out of the noble and learned Lord by way of a Private Notice Question, rather than in a Statement yesterday as opposed to a Written Answer. Noble Lords wish to enter into this debate, which shows that a Statement was necessary.
I am not sure whether or not to congratulate the noble and learned Lord. It remains to be seen whether or not he has pulled off a conjuring trick for Christmas. He has certainly tried to produce a white rabbit from a hat, but we do not know whether he will succeed—we have to wait until May.
The Minister must have looked at the alternatives. What would have been the value of the site if the Dome were to be demolished? How much money would he receive if the site were sold without this building? A large event is to be held in the Dome at New Year. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Dome has been let on an arm's-length basis and will generate a net profit to its operators and not a cost? I understand that a substantial sum of money has been paid to refurbish the Dome to get it ready for New Year.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the first point, it was made absolutely clear that the details were to be given first to Parliament, and that is how the matter was dealt with; namely, by a Written Answer in this place and another place. Secondly, the precedent followed in regard to the Written Answer was exactly the same as that for the announcement in respect of Nomura and Legacy. Thirdly, I very much welcomed the opportunity to have an oral discussion with the House today and I readily agreed to the PNQ when it was tabled.
The noble Viscount said he did not know whether or not to welcome the announcement—unlike the Shadow Culture Secretary, Mr Tim Yeo, who rightly said that the kinds of proposals included here are the ones that one would wish to see in the Dome. I entirely agree with that.
The noble Viscount asked about the arrangements for the party on 31st December. The Ministry of Sound has entered into an arm's-length contract with EP for the use of the Dome. It is paying a rental of £75,000. There is a profit-sharing arrangement between EP and the Ministry of Sound in relation to the party which will produce a profit to EP should significant numbers attend. The expenses for EP consist of providing a number of people on the site that night. Other than that, no additional expense has been incurred by EP. The expenses for the party will be incurred by the Ministry of Sound. In the context that the party will be profitable, it will produce a return for EP.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two short debates this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bach

253
will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the International Security Assistance Force for Kabul. Following that, my noble friend Lady Blackstone will repeat as a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the siting, the purpose and funding of a national stadium.
When I announced the dates of the Christmas Recess a few weeks ago, I said that subject to the progress of business the House would rise at the end of business tomorrow, Thursday 20th December, and return on Monday 7th January. I am delighted to say that since I made that announcement co-operation through the usual channels has been constructive and productive-as always—and, as a result, it will be possible to return from our Christmas break a day later. The House will therefore reassemble at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 8th January, not on Monday 7th January as previously announced.
The Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, which was to have been taken on Monday 7th, will now be taken as first business on Tuesday 8th. I hope that your Lordships and the staff of the House will look on this extra day of rest as an early Christmas present from the usual channels. Of course, if your Lordships would prefer it if the House sat on Monday 7th January, I shall be happy to arrange a third day's debate on House of Lords reform!
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I happen to have tabled the first Question for Monday 7th January, relating to Railtrack, which I am sure the Government are anxious to answer. What will happen to that Question?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that it will not be taken on Monday 7th January as the House will not sit. Perhaps I may say to the House that I did point out to the usual channels that all four Questions on the first day back were from the Opposition, and the usual channels agreed that the day should be lost.

Child Poverty
3.21 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison rose to call attention to Government policy on child poverty; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, children are at the cutting edge of poverty. Whenever a family, a neighbourhood or a country falls into poverty, it is children who feel it most. It is children, voiceless and voteless, who suffer in silence and bewilderment. In a world in which we can transmit in a trice pictures round the world of malnourished, pot-bellied poverty-stricken children and watch them on our TV sets at home, we have failed to use that same cutting edge of technology to eradicate the poverty that debilitates and kills millions of children world-wide each year.
It is time to act. Altruism alone should propel us towards action to defeat child poverty. But if altruism is insufficient, our own self-interest, if not famine,
254
should provide the spur. I believe that the events of 11th September provide a clear link between poverty world-wide and the rootlessness and restlessness that poverty spawns and which evil men exploit. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but the lack of money runs a close second.
Poverty begins at home. I have seen child poverty in Britain, even in some of our wealthiest cities. As a local councillor 20 years ago, I paid home visits to children being brought up in jobless households, housed in accommodation where condensation dripped off the walls of rooms where schoolchildren were expected to live, study and grow up. Poor housing led to fitful education and compromised health. Poverty can grind down even the best of us.
I have seen child poverty in Europe, both inside and outside the European Union. However, I am heartened by the economic progress of countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, and the benefits that such wealth has brought to the children of those countries. I hope that the applicant countries of eastern and central Europe will likewise, under the umbrella of the European Union, improve their economies—the key to tackling poverty—and thereby help their children to satisfy the hunger of both brain and belly. We do not say it often enough: the European Union can be, and is, a force for good.
In the light of that, it is salutary to learn, according to the Government's excellent publication Tackling Child Poverty, issued last week in conjunction with the Pre-Budget Report, that, on some measures at least. United Kingdom levels of child poverty are poorer than those of our partners in the rest of the European Union.
I have seen child poverty world-wide: the street children in the favelas of Rio, the estranged children in the refugee camps of Jordan; and in Indo-China, by the banks of the Mekong river, I have sat down and wept at our inability in a modern world to provide for all our children, not the least the limbless children of Cambodia and Laos.
But in the aftermath of the events of 11th September, I sense a renewed enthusiasm to tackle global problems, signalled by the Prime Minister's determination never again to neglect impoverished countries such as Afghanistan. The war on poverty must be waged with the same despatch as the war on terror.
In the political combination of Gordon Brown and Clare Short, is it not legitimate to hope for real progress in the fight against child poverty both at home and abroad? While I pay tribute to the sterling work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, who can remember a Chancellor and a development Minister working so closely and efficiently together as the present incumbents do? We must not squander the conjunction of competence and conviction which is to be found in Short and Brown. Indeed, we must build on the fresh domestic, European and international consensus on child poverty that is emerging. I am proud that Britain is leading the charge.

255
At home, the Government have pledged to abolish child poverty in a generation and halve it in 10 years. Save the Children acknowledges that 1.2 million children in the United Kingdom will be lifted out of relative poverty because of the policies pursued by the Labour Government. Examples are the 26 per cent real terms increase in child benefit and the introduction of the child tax credit and the working families' tax credit.
Redistribution in favour of poorer families has been a feature of the Chancellor's many Budgets. But the stealth tax credits do not always get the same billing as the so-called stealth taxes. But still, one in three children in modern Britain is classed as poor—that is, living in a household with an income below half the national average. This compares unfavourably with the one in 10 children deemed poor when Labour left office in 1979—a sorry legacy of the Rip Van Winkle years of neglect, when others who were responsible nodded off on their childcare watch. One in six children in modern Britain live in workless households and, together with some 10,000 children in lone parent families, have slipped into the statistics of poverty.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: what more can the Government do to fulfil their laudable aim of eliminating child poverty? Can additional support for the severely poor—especially for children of lone parent families—be identified as a priority of the new Government? Can income support for families with children, especially those in larger families, be further substantially lifted? Can families with younger children be particularly helped? Will the integrated child credit, when it is introduced in 2003, be set at a level consistent with a healthy minimum income standard? More precisely, should not the child tax credit legislation be extended to cover all children up to the age of 18? Those children in non-advanced education and training must not be discriminated against.
Will the Government tackle some of the lacunae and anomalies associated with the housing benefits system, the position of children in care, disabled children and those families who currently fall outside the benefits system? These measures, alongside the outstanding achievements of the 1997–2001 Parliament, will put us on the path of eliminating child poverty—poverty which my own children have seen even in the schools of leafy Cheshire. My son tells me of a school lad whose family were too poor to buy him sports kit, so he turned up in pyjama bottoms instead, to the ridicule of his peers. My daughter notes how, on non-uniform Fridays, some poorer children used to stay away, loath to pay the 50p privilege penalty. Others turned up in school uniform, reluctant to show off their sad rags against others' glad rags. Too often, such outward signs of poverty went hand in hand with academic weakness.
To the ranks of those who are concerned with children's issues, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, whose maiden speeches we await with great interest.
256
Will the Government ensure that the development of the single European market, of which I am a passionate advocate, is fashioned in a way to benefit all the citizens of the European Union in the distribution of the wealth that it creates? The pitfalls of the free movement of goods, services and people—which means workers, their families and their children—should be anticipated. As Commissioner Mario Monti once reminded me, tomorrow's single market is being created for today's children, but only if we create it with children in mind.
Will the Government continue to support Clare Short in her drive to ensure that the overseas aid spent through the EU by the 15 member states is spent wisely and rationally? I hope that the Government can be represented at January's Brussels conference mounted by the splendid EURONET group, entitled "Developing a Coherent Approach to Child Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe". Will the Government also remind the Commission to be careful of its language? When the Commission talks of "forgiving" debts in the developing world, it should be reminded that the poor have no reason to ask for forgiveness.
World-wide, one child in four is brought up in absolute poverty, with all the ills that attend such a poor start in life. As War on Want points out in its whole picture campaign, an evil such as child labour is a symptom, not a cause, of child poverty. That poverty must be addressed to eliminate the attendant ills. I am therefore exhilarated that in February this year, Ministers Brown and Short launched an international child poverty initiative, with the triple goals of halving absolute poverty, achieving universal primary education and reducing infant deaths by two-thirds by 2015.
Chancellor Brown's November speech to the Federal Reserve in New York took up the impetus of September 11th. He demanded that rich countries increase their development assistance budget by 50 billion dollars each year. That is achievable, but it needs real political will. We can match the will-o'-the-wisp aspiration, which seems to have been around all my lifetime, that the developed nations should set aside 0.7 per cent of their GDP for overseas development assistance. Come that clay, we will have provided the world with a cutting edge to defeat poverty and help poverty's deepest victims—children—to welcome a brave new world and a brand new day of hope. I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us an opportunity this afternoon to debate this important arid timely subject. As your Lordships are aware, the Chancellor's efforts to make further inroads into world poverty and to gather £50 billion internationally to at tack it have been in the news this week. I look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Adebowale, who has been good enough to open the doors of Centrepoint for me over the past three years. I am grateful to him for that.

257
I shall concentrate on poverty—not especially income poverty, but poverty as it applies to those people who do not have the means to procure the necessaries of life. I shall consider the stress that poverty puts on families and its consequential impact on children and their development. I emphasise that many poor families do an excellent job of rearing their children and many well balanced people come out of poverty.
Among the young people whom I meet at Centrepoint, I often notice a clear distinction between the asylum seekers and the other young people. One asylum seeker with whom I have played chess for several months was always impeccably turned out and took great care about his personal appearance. He was always courteous and thoughtful. When I occasionally beat him at chess, he would say how much he enjoyed playing with me and what a pleasure it was. He had clear ambitions for the future. He wished to have a family and to establish himself as a computer programmer—and all that despite living in an emergency hostel in difficult circumstances and not being able to sleep well at night.
I contrast him with another young man whom I met, who had grime beneath his fingernails every time I saw him. He had been taken into care at the age of eight and subsequently been involved in the criminal justice system before becoming homeless. He had difficulty forming relationships of any depth with others, although he could easily converse about subjects such as films. His ambition was to visit Thailand and to experiment with drugs.
Another young woman whom I knew would attack her wrists with a razor blade from time to time. She was successful in art and had a commission to produce artwork for a City company, but even so I would see her after an exhibition and find that she had recently cut her wrists again.
I remember another woman who was talking to a hostel worker about her trip to Ibiza and the delights of the drugs there and the opportunities to make love with people. At the same time, she would be touching the leg of this man whom she had not met before.
I stress that those people represent only part of the group that I come across. Another young man was at a hostel for the long-term homeless during the winter time and was expelled for breaking the rules. When I knew him he was taciturn and clearly had great difficulty relating to people. When he was expelled—for quite reasonable causes, as far as I can understand—he held a deep grievance against those who had expelled him. That grievance against authority, adults and institutions is quite common among young people who have not had an adequate start in life.
Those experiences make me wonder what is at the roots of such behaviour. I remind your Lordships about the Calecott family who, when I visited them, had been living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for 12 months. The mother was on sticks and had an infection to her pelvis. The father spoke no English. They had three children, aged 11, five and one. There
258
were no cooking facilities, so they had to live on a take-away meal each day and snacks in between. The mother was unable to provide formula milk for her child because there were no cooking facilities. She was therefore unable to take medication for her ailment, because she did not want to pass on the drug to her child by breast feeding. There was nowhere for the children to play as the bed and breakfast was on a busy main road, and the courtyard at the back was open to the children for three or so hours only on Sundays.
The conditions had immediate impacts on the children. The five-year-old was having nightmares, waking in the night and showing other symptoms of anxiety. The mother, clearly an anxious person, had bitten her fingernails to the quick. Many factors were interfering with the mother's ability to nurture her children. Those factors were caused by poverty; they were not of the mother's own making.
All the child psychotherapists and experts to whom I have spoken about child development emphasise the importance of a child's early attachment to its primary carer. The first two years of a child's life are absolutely critical in that process. Many of your Lordships will be aware of the work of Bowlby, in the 1960s, the more recent work of Rutter, and the continuing research into attachment. That work shows that some infants and young children are simply constitutionally stronger than others and can adjust to quite bad neglect and attachment difficulties. Although it is possible to form attachments in later life, which can do much to mitigate earlier deprivation, serious problems may remain.
Young people who have grown up in such conditions are often very impulsive, self-destructive and hostile to others. They may also foster a grievance because they never received the care that they so desperately needed. They may also show a lack of resilience so that the usual hurdles facing all adolescents—exams and problems with parents or in obtaining a job—are higher for them. They are also more likely to fall at those hurdles.
In the 1998 Office for National Statistics report entitled Psychiatric Morbidity Among Prisoners, the researcher found that 64 per cent of the 505 male prisoners chosen at random and clinically interviewed had personality disorders. That research demonstrates the very strong association between poor early parenting and personality disorders. I have tried to paint a picture illustrating the fact that children are put at greater risk for the rest of their lives if parents and families are kept in poverty and forced to face the consequent pressures.
I praise the Government for their prudence and consideration. They have maintained the public's confidence and are now beginning to invest in public services, including the National Health Service and education. They are also legislating for those in need, as demonstrated by their Homelessness Bill. They are attempting to tackle income poverty with tax credits, and to introduce earlier interventions such as Sure Start for children up to four.

259
I warmly welcome the Government's achievements on those issues. It is essential to provide structures that enable all families to thrive. In its recent report, Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2001, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports:
"For the first time"—
in the four years in which the report has been published—
"the number of indicators which improved over the latest year clearly exceeds the number which got worse."
That is very good news.
One of my concerns about tax credits is that, although I recognise the value of work for families in poverty, many families are not in work and the children in those families are at greater risk. A child's early years are crucial. In those years, children need a parent nearby to make them the centre of attention. Do the Government recognise that need, and what are they doing to free parents as far as possible to provide that attention? I should be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions either in her reply or in writing.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate on child poverty. As he pointed out in his powerful survey, the problem is both great and urgent in countries all around the world. He also made it clear that we shall only be storing problems for ourselves if we do not tackle the issue now.
I shall, in a fairly brief speech, concentrate on child poverty in the United Kingdom. At the conclusion of his speech, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked how we can best tackle child poverty given our urgent desire and commitment to do so. In his Budgets since 1997, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced innovative policies to reshape the notion of redistribution. While we usually think of redistribution as a transfer from those in high-income deciles to those in lower ones, the Chancellor has specifically distinguished those with children from those without children. He has therefore indirectly made the Government's redistribution policy more needs-based.
Such redistribution has occurred in measures such as the working families' tax credit and the new child benefit, which have made considerable improvements in child poverty levels. Nevertheless, problems remain—despite the fact that we are the ninth richest country in the world and that, in the past five or six years, we have had very high employment levels. We therefore have to ask ourselves why, despite relatively good economic growth and the Government's commitment to tackle child poverty, the problem has proved so persistent.
There are two aspects to the problem. First, child poverty is essentially a by-product or adjunct to parental poverty, especially in lone-parent families which are usually headed by women. Moreover, women's ability to work depends very much on the age and number of their children. Although we have tried
260
to encourage single mothers to go to work, there is a clear conflict between that objective and the need to care for small children. We therefore have to address the issue of women's poverty, especially in the case of single women, and its consequences for children. We tend to think of dealing with child poverty in terms of provision for children, but perhaps we should think of it more in terms of provision for parents while their children are young.
Secondly, many of those who have poor children are out of the "economically active" category. Consequently, those parents are not helped by provision made in the tax system. Regardless of how cleverly we devise tax incentives in measures such as the working families' tax credit, the core poverty of economically inactive families and their children will not be tackled. That in a sense again throws us back to thinking of other kinds of issues, especially how to introduce income entitlements for people who are not in the economically active category.
On previous occasions I have spoken about citizens' income or basic income. That is a distant ideal but when we think of income support or any other income entitlement, we ought to think creatively about allowing the payment of an extra dollar, as it were, for smaller children. I know that much is being done. I do not deny that we have in place a child benefit system, an income support system and various other measures. But somehow they are not working at the lowest end. The question I have, not for the Minister as such but for all of us, is the following. How do we in this day and age make it possible for people who cannot work for one reason or another—there are many reasons why they cannot work—to receive a temporary increase in income support or some entitlement which will at least protect children from suffering the long-term problems of growing up in poverty? We are talking about the education, health and housing of small children. The way we tackle that matter is a problem which still troubles us all.
In other contexts, for the elderly, for example, there is the minimum income guarantee and other such measures. For people in work there is income supplement through the tax system. If we could, for specific time periods for families with children, think of an extra temporary increase in income and devise a shadow basic income scheme for such families, that may be the way to tackle child poverty. I am sure that there is commitment on this question; what we lack are instruments. I hope that debates such as this will make us think about those instruments.
3.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I share, I am sure, the gratitude of the whole House to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter.
For a number of years I served on the team of a parish in Nottingham where Coates and Silburn did some important research which led to the publication of an epoch making book, Poverty: the Forgotten Englishmen. That book blew a hole in the "You have

261
never had it so good" generation's understanding of our country's life. The face of poverty in our children is especially offensive. However, as the debate bears witness, child poverty is alive and well in Britain, as well as in the wider world, as we get into the 21st century. The fact that Her Majesty's Government have made this a target of their policy both here and overseas is evidence that in the highest places of politics that fact is accepted.
This country has one of the highest rates of child poverty in Europe. That must prompt a sense of shame about our performance given that we reckon ourselves to be on the leading edge of economic development in our time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's invitation last week to a number of people to attend a conference to examine some of those issues is evidence of their importance. It was timely and welcome. The fact that the invitation was extended to the Archbishop and to leaders of the other faith communities is recognition of the important role that the Churches and faith communities play in our communities in tackling some of those questions.
Clergy and leaders of faith communities do not move into some of the stressed communities in our country; they live there. In living there, they seek to bring ministry to bear to families and to children through the schools and through the networks of the community. They seek to see and then to tackle some of the extraordinary experience of poverty about which we have heard in today's debate.
Government cannot achieve their aims, either internationally or in this country, on their own. They will need to harness the deepest and finest resources on the ground in our communities, rooted in the most profound of moral values and, if I dare say so, even of spiritual life if we are to succeed in this task. If I am right, the gurdwaras, the mosques, the pentecostal churches and the parish churches of our stressed communities will be key elements of the partnership. Together with government, we shall have to challenge the corporate sector to provide some resources for tackling the task.
What do children need? Clearly, they need secure, loving homes where they are safe and can grow up into adult life in a context of consistent loving relationships and values. If we are to say to parents, "Children are a trust who give you inescapable responsibilities", then we, as a caring community, must ensure that parents have the skills, the material resources and their place in society to enable them to meet that trust.
Family breakdown is a cause of emotional and material poverty among children. Unemployment is a cause of stress and material poverty among children. Some 80 per cent of child poverty has an association with unemployment. Bad and inadequate housing is a cause of stigma, embarrassment, ill health and deprivation to children. But how are we to see our children? Not, I suggest, in this season of the year with a kind of romantic slush that overwhelms them with kindness for a brief period of the year and then effectively abandons them for the rest—seen at Christmas, not heard for the rest of the year.
262
Children carry the full dignity and sacred worth of every single human being. They have a right to be treated as such by us all. Indeed, listening to the Starred Question on children today, a strong moral case can be made that we should treat children with the same respect and value with which we expect to treat one another as adults. This full humanity, bodily, social, material, emotional and spiritual, is to be provided for in meeting the needs of children today.
As many noble Lords will know, I chair the board of Christian Aid. We know of the tens of thousands of children in our world who are effectively slaves at work and of the millions—dare I say it?—who are threatened with growing up as orphans because of AIDS. I should be interested to hear from the Government something of the work they are doing to support communities deeply affected by AIDS. I refer to the multitudes of children who live in places—I have seen some of these places on visits to Africa in particular—where there is no schooling, or what schooling there is has no resources because the country concerned is in economic chaos or weighed down with unacceptable levels of debt.
But I also know that at this time of the year on the streets of our own cities children are being driven to prostitution. Larger numbers than we care to think live with physical and emotional abuse in their own homes, or, especially at the season of Christmas, will be in terror as they watch their own parents fight it out in domestic violence.
It is especially good to be present to hear the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. They will have huge contributions to make on these matters.
We lock up children in secure units because we do not know what to do with them in terms of their violent behaviour. And we take children away from their homes because their parents are either violent to them or do not have the emotional resources to cope with parenting. In Britain at the end of 2001, at Christmas, these things will be happening in our own country.
In his Dimbleby lecture, Bill Clinton spoke of the war in Afghanistan costing over 1 billion dollars per month. He went on to make the telling point that the war against poverty costs much less and achieves much more. We are well served by the policies the Government are pursuing; and now we are at a moment of great opportunity with the leadership shown in these matters by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development. We must support and press our Government to achieve these aims so that our own house is put in order.
That is what we are meant to be doing in this season of Advent, if noble Lords will forgive a Christian theme. As we approach the season of Christmas, when we believe that the face of God meets us in the face of a vulnerable child, for God's sake, and for the sake of our children in and out of season, let us rid our nation and our world of poverty in our lifetime.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I have three good reasons for thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. The first is for the opportunity to make this speech. I thought that I should end this term having listened to much about terrorism—necessary but interminable—but never having had the opportunity to talk on the subject about which I care most: that is, children. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord for reminding us about children across the world. I shall talk mainly about children in this country. However, earlier this year I visited India and saw street children. I hope that in this country we never see a child in the state in which I saw some children there. Having said that, I have seen children in doorways; I have seen them carried on the shoulders of their mothers, begging in trains. When we look abroad, we should remind ourselves that much of that happens on our own doorsteps, shocking as that may be.
I think that a maiden speech is a time for noble Lords to learn something about the person speaking as well as the issue. I have a vivid memory of being a small girl in Sheffield, in my primary school, and of a classmate prodding me in the back, saying, "Valerie Howarth, your socks are all darned". We were not poor in comparison with the other people on the large Parson Cross housing estate where I was raised, but I have spent most of my life close to those who have experienced poverty at a significant level. Being poor does not predestine people to failure or make them violent, abusive, drug addicts or criminals. But grinding hardship, the struggle to keep out of debt, homelessness, inadequate housing and the constant fight against ever-increasing odds leading to mental illness and low physical care are the breeding ground for social ills.
I begin this way because many will say that social exclusion—the hygienic word for poverty—is no excuse for anti-social behaviour; and, indeed, it is not. But we know that there is a correlation between these issues and if by well thought out policies such as those on which the Government are at present engaged we could reduce violence, abuse and illness in our society, we should surely make every effort to do so.
The Government have many innovative programmes to tackle poverty. Increases in universal child benefit, the working families' tax credit and income support were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. They are complemented by new projects such as Sure Start which makes a real difference for young children, as I have seen in local communities, and Connexions which links personal advisers to young people to keep them in education. Both are essential—the latter in particular because education is the one sure way of getting out of the poverty trap.
Not all families manage their way around these benefit schemes. I have a friend—her mother was a client of mine in the past so social work is sometimes pretty consistent—a single mother who is attempting to take herself off benefit and into work and training. She has ended up in such a muddle that she now has
264
huge rent arrears. Some families find it very difficult to sort their way through the maze of benefits. But she is a good mother and I shall do all in my power to help her.
As a social worker, a previous director of social services and Chief Executive of ChildLine, I have worked with dozens of families in difficulties and listened to hundreds of children. I have talked with men and women in prison and mental hospitals. Poverty was part of many of their stories. Poverty breeds violence. Through stress it brings depression, resentment and the attendant anti-social behaviour which we all abhor. Family breakdown, including serious violent outbursts, can often be the outcome of financial strain with disastrous consequences for children. Of course, poverty is not the only reason for violence and violence is far from being a feature in every low income family. But children talking to ChildLine about their experience of family conflict often link rows to lack of money. When I talk of rows, I am not talking about the polite argument that some may have over the dinner table. One child called and talked to me, having prised the hands of her father from the throat of her mother.
Violence is a factor in total family breakdown adding to deprivation in a child's life. Seventeen thousand children a year pass through the hectic and often emotionally fraught environment of women's refuges. Those refuges will provide a safe haven from violence but, at a stroke, a child will have education, friendships and extended kinships disrupted and sometimes lost forever.
Violence is also a key feature in the development of sex offenders, as I know as the Vice Chair of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. Recent studies have confirmed this connection; and while not all violent men are abusers nor from poor homes, many sex offenders have both those features in their history.
A poor income usually also means a poor diet; and here I declare an interest as a board member of the Food Standards Agency. The FSA is shortly to launch a major new low income diet and nutrition survey which will make a contribution to the Government's wider strategy on health issues. There is a particular concern for young people with evidence that eating patterns established in adolescence are likely to remain through adult life. Low income is a crucial factor in poor diet and a barrier to dietary change. A child's eating habits will play a major part in their physical development, general health, capacity to concentrate, and thus their successful passage through education. It is also vital for their emotional health that they do not experience their mother's failure to eat properly in order to ensure that they do; nor that she finds herself in prostitution in order to provide for them.
For many children coming from poor backgrounds, the breakdown of their family will result in them becoming looked-after children—children in care. Over 58,000 children are currently in local authority care. The Quality Protects programme has many measures intended to give this most vulnerable group of children and young people a decent start in life. However, they are not targeted specifically in the

265
present nutritional policy and it would be good to hear from the Minister how that will be taken forward in future plans.
As noble Lords will know, in most circumstances it would be best for the child to stay with his or her family. Many new programmes have been mentioned earlier but not all families are able to use them. Voluntary organisations like NCH are doing much to help by providing family centres and community support groups. These can give a new sense of hope, self-worth and dignity to mothers who had almost given up, and consequently a lift to their children. But for some families the steady support of a local authority social worker will make all the difference. Whatever the public perception of social workers, day after day in communities throughout the country they are helping families with the most complex personal and social difficulties, while at the same time watching over the care, development and protection of their children. Sometimes they will make mistakes and occasionally, as in all professions, they will not be of the calibre that we would hope to see. At the moment there is a serious shortage of social workers in many local authorities. They undertake the work that many would rather not see. If poverty was a real issue, would our Benches here not be fuller this afternoon? It would be helpful to know about plans to attract more people into social work and to know how they can be better sustained and developed.
I began with the story of my darned socks. Why do I remember it so long after? Is it the slight, the shame? Not at all. When I reached home, indignant at the insult, I recounted the story to my mother. "Never mind, love", she said, "your classmate probably has holes in her socks. She might not have anyone who loves her enough to do all that darning".
The problems of poverty are complex. The solutions are difficult and need to be sustained over a long period of time to gain results, but the end aim is simple. These programmes need to be long-term sustained in order that every child has someone who loves her enough to ensure a successful move to the adult world; and, who knows, they might just end up in your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the truly excellent and moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, to congratulate her, and to welcome her to your Lordships' House. Her speech is enlightened by her own vast experience of working with children and families. She is best known, of course, for building up Childline, of which she was the chief executive. She has also been a director of social services and involved with child care, women's refuges and charities for the homeless and the disabled. She is currently a member of the new National Care Standards Commission. Since her arrival in your Lordships' House, I have
266
come to know her as a sincere, enlightened and hard-working professional. She is a welcome addition to that seat of all truth and wisdom, the Women Peers' Room.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate and introducing it with such knowledge and conviction. I enjoyed the speech preceding mine and I look forward to that which is to follow.
One of my interests is as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. Several noble Lords here today are also connected in significant ways with that group. We shall take note of the issues raised in this debate and continue to press for positive action on the rights of children.
Today I shall focus on child poverty in the UK and ask the Minister how the many initiatives for alleviating child poverty are linked, how they support each other and how initiatives developed across government will be monitored and evaluated. I shall make reference, if necessarily briefly, to the need to improve education and health for children and young people, which is crucial in tackling poverty. I shall also refer to the need to consult with children and their communities to solve problems.
In this country we have clearly come a long way in eliminating some of the more extreme horrors of deprivation during the last century and before. Improvements in public health and education are well known. Children are now usually educated beyond the age of nine and by teachers who are literate, which sometimes was not the case in the 1840s. Improvements in living conditions, healthcare and nutrition have been spectacular for many, but not all. However, the negative physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioural outcomes of poverty are still with us.
The Family Policy Studies Centre's report on children and poverty, published recently, shows how child morbidity and mortality, childhood accidents, child abuse, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, alcohol and drug use, crime, suicide, child labour and mental health can all be related, though not exclusively, to childhood poverty. If we, as a society, want to address those topics, we must primarily address the overarching issue of poverty as well as focusing on the topics themselves.
In this country we are fortunate to have a number of large and small dynamic voluntary organisations which focus on child welfare. As was mentioned earlier, we also have government strategies and structures, which seek to both initiate and co-ordinate efforts to improve the lot of children. Many Bills before Parliament in this Session will impinge on child poverty. We must take care to relate them to each other, for example, in education, social and health matters. They cannot stand apart.
A report from Barnardo's asks three questions. What are the human costs in the lives of children and young people growing up in poverty? What are the material costs? What investments might have led to a more positive and hopeful present and future? Examples and projections are given. For example, it is

267
calculated that early investment in the case of one child would have cost £12,782 and that failure to invest has cost £33,266. We cannot, for economic reasons, afford not to take child poverty seriously. Equally, and perhaps more importantly, children now and in the future depend on us to take it seriously.
I was particularly encouraged by the setting up last year of the Children and Young People's Unit, which will look at how best to improve service provision and work closely with the voluntary, community, faith and statutory sectors to develop effective systems and structures for children. Its strategy document, now out for consultation, contains the following key statement:
"A substantial body of evidence shows that children and young people who grow up in poverty experience disadvantage and lack of opportunity that affects not only their own current and future experience as adults, but their life chances as children".
We must seek to improve those life chances. To succeed in doing so, we cannot address problems in isolation. Individuals usually belong to families and communities, which need support. That support must start early—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Desai and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
The Sure Start programme enables disadvantaged families to use family support, health services and education to try to break the cycle of poverty and deprivation. That programme includes antenatal support, which will address poor nutrition, low birth weight and smoking.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, education can provide a way out of poverty. However, it has to start early, working with families to ensure that children are taught literacy, numeracy and social skills from an early age. We still have problems with truancy and exclusion, though the situation has improved. A good example of how schools can support children and their families can be seen in the primary school of which I am a governor. That school is in an inner city deprived area of London. It has worked wonders in developing and maintaining high literacy and numeracy standards, good behaviour and self-esteem among the children—all through a commitment from the headteacher and staff to respect children and their backgrounds and to hold high expectations that children, from whatever background, can improve their life chances. The school is also a recipient of the National Healthy Schools Standard award, which encourages education and health partnerships and links with personal, social and health education and citizenship education.
As I said, good health in families and children is an essential component to lifting people out of poverty. Strides have been made in that direction through new ways of working for school nurses and health visitors, and through the welfare food scheme and the new national fruit scheme, which will provide every four to six year-old with free fruit every day. The Children's Taskforce seeks to ensure that children's requirements are part of all aspects of the NHS Plan.
I emphasise the need to involve communities in solving their own problems. That includes consultation with young people. Recent initiatives
268
have highlighted the importance of such consultation. One report, from the National Youth Agency, emphasised the benefit to those concerned. Local authorities can acquire better and more accurate information about needs, barriers and opportunities to access, thereby making them better able to improve services and gain credibility with young people and their communities. Young people have the chance to learn about themselves and their communities; their self-esteem is increased because they are taken seriously; and their ability to influence policy and practice and their capacity in the community are enhanced.
There is no reason why, with determination and imagination, young people who have suffered—or are suffering—deprivation should not be involved in such consultations. I suggest that if they were, realistic and dynamic interventions would be more likely.
Involving people in services that affect them is one way of monitoring what works and adapting where necessary. We need to know what works at the individual and community levels. I repeat my question to the Minister: how will services link successfully in order to deliver what families and communities need, and how will we know what works in eliminating poverty?
4.22 p.m.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, I rise to make my maiden speech on an issue to which I and many other noble Lords attach great importance—child poverty.
Before continuing, I pause to thank noble Lords for the kindness that they have shown to me in my very short time in the House. I thank my noble friend Lord Listowel in particular, who has helped me through the many strange and interesting facilities of parliamentary language. I also thank the Doorkeepers and staff of the House, who will be glad to know that I have memorised quite well their instructions about finding my way around. "Continue to turn tight, then left at the stairs, past Black Rod's office and then straight on till morning". I also take this opportunity to thank my family, friends and colleagues for their patience while I readjust priorities in order to cope with the new responsibilities that being a Peer brings.
The matter of child poverty is at the heart of the judgment about whether we live in a civilised society. It is only by measuring our success in extending the opportunities that are afforded to many in this House to the poorest in society that we can judge the impact of our endeavours as policy makers and policy scrutinisers.
I shall restrict my comments to what is happening in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford covered the international aspects of child poverty. I believe the Government are right to focus on child poverty, to set clear targets and to show leadership in that area. To do so makes sense in every respect because those who grow up in childhood surrounded by poverty are likely to remain so. The examples and personal observations of my noble friend Lord Listowel and the noble

269
Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, contained much evidence of that. It is clear that much has been done by the Government but it is important that we understand that child poverty is not just a moral issue but a matter of sound economic sense and self-interest. We need to tackle child poverty. Failure to resolve the issues surrounding child poverty will be a failure to provide the necessary skills for this country's economic growth; it will also do irreparable damage to our moral health.
Child poverty in a broad sense is not just about money; it is also about the provision of decent services and ensuring that there is access to them by those who need them most. It is of great concern to me that for too long we appear to have been suffering from the inverse care law—the more you need, the less you are likely to get.
Despite the many Herculean efforts of this Government, the vast majority of schools with the poorest performance educationally are in areas where child poverty is greatest. Access to healthcare is poorest where child poverty is most prevalent. Our poorest children are growing up in neighbourhoods with the highest crime.
It is critical to recognise the scale of the challenge facing us. When I was a teenager, which is not that long ago, one in 10 children grew up in poverty. By the end of the 1990s, the figure was one in three. That has huge implications for the future of society, in that poverty is no longer an isolated experience. It is now increasingly the norm in many parts of the country. For too many members of minority ethnic communities, that is disproportionately the case.
Those facts present us with a massive challenge for social cohesion and economic prosperity. It is critical that our responses are at the right scale. It is not simply the case that the poor need more resources; adequate scrutiny needs to be given to policies that will affect the poor. The devil is often in the detail. Public services are the route to giving people access to opportunities and skills that are essential to pull themselves out of poverty, not just for a single generation but for many generations.
My own background has given me many opportunities, both professionally and personally, to witness the way in which public policy has impacted upon the poorest children. That is often unintentional but it happens as a result of a lack of scrutiny, which is focused on the effects of such policies on our poorest citizens and the children of our poorest citizens. It is with that in mind that I draw the attention of noble Lords to an article by Ben Summerskill in last Sunday's Observer, in which he recounted the plight of Mary Smith. She was evicted from her council accommodation as a result of failure to pay rent. That was mainly due to poor housing benefit administration and over-payments. That led Mrs Smith into a situation in which her family was evicted and social services, in doing their duty, placed the children at risk and put them in care. That situation, in the 21st century, was not uncommon in 1966 in "Cathy Come Home".
270
This House has a track record of ensuring through its scrutiny of policy that the effects on the poor are taken into account. Mrs Smith and her family tell a tale that can be told by up to 400,000 families in bed and breakfast accommodation. It can be told by thousands of children who will be brought up in neighbourhoods that are bereft of opportunities—and access to opportunities—that are necessary for children not just to survive but to thrive and become economically active and socially independent.
It is correct that we focus on child poverty with some urgency. We need to focus on the need to ensure that child poverty is not only reduced but eradicated. In so doing, we should improve the public services on which we all rely.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it is with huge pleasure that I rise on behalf of the whole House to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, on a speech which was characteristically excellent and challenging. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord: well done and welcome.
The noble Lord should know that his formidable reputation goes before him. He has long been an effective campaigner for the homeless, and Centrepoint—one of the country's leading youth homelessness charities, of which he was chief executive—put the issues of the most disadvantaged young people firmly on the public's and the Government's agenda. His outspoken and passionate campaigning work has probably not always been a comfortable experience for government.
The noble Lord has also played a leading role in many public initiatives concerning the training and employment of young people; for example, as a member of the Government's New Deal task force. On behalf of your Lordships' House perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord and say how much I look forward to working with him in the years to come.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate, enhanced, indeed, by the two contributions that we have heard in maiden speeches. Poverty and social exclusion work in combination to damage children's lives. Poverty refers to a lack of material resources, in particular money, while social exclusion means an inability to take part in activities that others take for granted.
The two work together to damage children. For example, many poor children in the UK live in disadvantaged city neighbourhoods. Minority ethnic communities, lone-parent households and pensioners are often over-represented there. Each area has a different set of problems, but there is often high unemployment, poor health, high crime, run-down housing and inadequate public services. As a result, the people in our society with the fewest resources face some of the most severe problems. That is where many projects, such as those of NCH—the charity with which I am closely associated—work. Like many voluntary and community organisations, they work at the sharp end, fighting the effects of poverty and the effects of poverty on children and their families.

271
The fact that the Government have committed themselves to ending child poverty within a generation—by the year 2019—is fantastic. No other policy aim has such capacity to transform children's lives. The Government deserve huge credit for the boldness of their ambition and deserve much support from all sectors of society in pursuing it. They acknowledge, as I believe we must, that this is not something that government alone can achieve.
Last week the Chancellor published a position statement on ending child poverty. He made the statement at a meeting attended by the leaders of all the faith communities in the UK—unusual and significant in itself—and the charities that have banded together to create the End Child Poverty Coalition. That degree of solidarity is promising. Over the next few years it must be consolidated and extended to other sectors, including business and the public as a whole and, it is hoped, across politics. Certainly, believe that the goal of ending child poverty should transcend ideology.
In the meantime, there is much that the Government can do to progress the goal of ending child poverty, and I want to raise several issues. I believe that in the spring Budget the Chancellor should set the rate of the child tax credit sufficiently high—at least as generous as that of the working families' tax credit—so that the worst-off families see a real rise in their living standards. In many ways, this will probably be the single most important financial decision that the Government make in 2002 in that it will have the greatest effect on child poverty.
I also want to ask the Minister about the minimum wage and the working families' tax credit. Those are complex issues but I want to ask a simple question. What is the current implication for a lone parent of two young children who goes to work? How do the two measures combine to affect that single parent with two young children?
In recognition of the fact that child poverty is about more than simply money, the Government must also continue their drive to improve public services, in particular those that benefit poor and excluded children. The spending review that reports in summer 2002 offers a further opportunity to do so. Priorities should include the needs of families who require support. For example, perhaps there should be a family support service in every neighbourhood, more resources—staff and services—for children with mental health problems, and more provision to help children in the countryside as well as those in urban areas.
The isolation of children and families in rural communities presents particular challenges. Last year the Countryside Agency and NCH published a report, Challenging the Rural Idyll. It described graphically the problems of poverty for children in some of the most beautiful parts of our country. I want to refer to one story in that report, which I commend to your Lordships. It concerns a single parent called Eva, who lives in a small market town in Cornwall. She has two children, Julia and James. She is divorced and her
272
family does not live nearby. Julia has epilepsy and is often off school because of her illness. Although Eva wants to work, she cannot find a job in the town in which she lives which will fit around the children's school hours and around her need to look after Julia.
Eva's home has stunning views over the nearby moors, but that also means that the prevailing wind and rain blow directly into her house. It was her story about holidays that struck me. Of course, we are now approaching Christmas. Those of us who are parents will by buying presents for our children and making plans for our holidays, just as I have done. Eva said:
"Summer holidays are just an utter and complete nightmare. I feel I'm mean [to my children], I feel terrible. Julia's not too bad, but James has started to notice that he goes without. It's really heartbreaking. They miss out on a lot, just things that other [children] take for granted … They get to the point that they don't ask anymore. For instance, James never asks for anything for Christmas. I mean most children his age would have a list, they learn quick. James never asks for anything. He just says, 'Get what you can, Mum'. It's things like that make me sad".
She is right.
I also ask the Minister to give some thought to the abolition of the severe hardship system for 16 and 17 year-olds who cannot live with their families. I ask them to consider replacing it with a fairer and more adequate safety net, following the example of other countries. Evidence exists to show that the current system leaves some young people at risk of exploitation. That is clearly not acceptable. Sixteen and 17 year-olds are still children in legal and moral terms, and such a step would make a real difference in alleviating their poverty.
In conclusion, I feel optimistic about the fight to end child poverty. The reason that we must win this battle is not because it is the right thing to do, which clearly it is. Our society needs to be ambitious for all its children. We need all our children to take the opportunities before them and to reach their full potential.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing this debate. We have heard some deeply impressive speeches from people who know a great deal about the subject, not least our two maiden speakers. I believe that they represent a marvellous resource of knowledge and experience which should be powerfully useful in helping to solve the problem of poverty.
I am a little uncomfortable about the total focus on child poverty. It tends to imply that the issue is simply one of money. Child poverty is a symptom of family poverty. Child poverty which damages the child is a symptom of the disease which is child poverty. Nearly all parents want, if they can, to do their best for their child.
In a moment, I shall look at some of the aspects of child poverty which have not been discussed today. In doing so, I refer to the excellent brief which many noble Lords will have received from Barnardo's—a powerful and well documented statement about the problem. I thought that its suggested solutions were

273
singularly depressing. All it seemed to be able to suggest was that the Government should dosh out more money. I believe that that solution has been tried before and has not worked. Of course, more money will be needed, but we must ask ourselves what should go with that money.
In my view a partnership between parents, communities and the Government is required. Although I have great pleasure in seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at the Dispatch Box, it is an enormous pity that we do not have a Minister for families replying to the debate rather than a Minister who is primarily concerned with doshing out money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I do not believe that is the verb that I would use when talking about money.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, my knowledge of the enormous ability of the noble Baroness gives me confidence that she will be able to deal skilfully with all the issues raised in the debate.
Poverty creates a cycle in that it leads to certain outcomes; those outcomes lead to more poverty; and more poverty leads to the same outcomes in the next generation. We have to address not merely the issue of inadequate funding, but also some of the underlying causes of poverty.
The Barnardo's study that I mentioned identifies some of the causes and identifies certain categories of the population that are more likely to live in poverty compared with others. One or two of the categories are obvious; for example, families with chronic illness and families with one or more members who are disabled. Perhaps other categories need to be reconsidered: lone parents, families with many siblings, non-white households, care leavers and families without work. I shall consider each of those in turn.
The reasons why lone parents are poorer are so obvious that I do not believe that it would be sensible to waste time talking about them. The Government want to get lone parents into work. Subject to that applying only to lone parents of children over three or four years of age, they are absolutely right. I wonder whether other matters should be considered as well. I hope I shall not be considered to be politically incorrect or unreasonable, but in this country we have by far the highest percentage of lone parents compared with the whole of Europe. Is it not worth asking ourselves whether there is anything that can be done to help to reduce that percentage and to help more people to live happily in two-parent families? I believe that many things could be done.
For families with many siblings—it is not a dissimilar problem—there must be opportunities to spend more money and effort on helping—I must be careful how I say this—to persuade parents to plan their families more effectively and rationally without in any way intruding on their right to decide how they want to live.
274
I turn to non-white households, which could be an even more politically sensitive issue. Unless we face these real issues honestly, we shall never solve them and if we do not solve them, we shall never achieve the equality of opportunity that we seek for all the citizens of our country. In the case of ethnic-minority employment, trainers and employers have a responsibility, but it may be worth considering and exploring the possibility that certain non-white communities themselves should join together to develop better access to work and employability for their members, with the help of government resources where necessary.
The most obvious answer in certain communities is English language classes. The inability to speak English can be a cause of unemployability. English language courses were provided and a considerable amount of money was made available in districts like Tower Hamlets, which I know well, for the teaching of English. Unfortunately, the previous government decided to withdraw that grant.
The case of care leavers is different. That care leavers should have a higher risk of living in poverty when they leave care is nothing short of a scandal. I recognise that children who are taken into care are already damaged children. But as a society, do we have the right to take children into care and not provide them with the care and the healing that they require? Do we have a right to put them into children's homes where fewer than 10 per cent of the staff have any relevant training? As a trustee of the Caldecott Community, I know what a difficult and expensive job it is to heal children who have been damaged while living with their families. If the job is done properly, as a community we would save an enormous amount of money in terms of unemployability, exclusion, juvenile crime, ill health and drug use. In the end it would pay to do the job correctly.
I shall not speak about unemployment as other noble Lords have spoken on that subject with great wisdom. It is a difficult subject and could be the subject of a debate on its own. The Barnardo's brief does not address some categories: families plagued by alcohol addiction, families with a parent with mental health problems, families in poor housing or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and families where parents constantly quarrel. Many noble Lords have referred to those points.
I do not have time to talk about all those points, but I want to speak about debt. Some people who work with very poor families say that debt is the worst of all the problems that they have to face. Last year more than 2 million people approached the citizens advice bureaux about problems related to debt. For families who live on benefits or on equivalent low incomes, it is just possible to manage if they are very careful until a special demand for expenditure arises. It may be a birth, a marriage, a death, a fire or the need to buy the children new clothes because they have grown. Those matters tend to lead families into debt. Catalogues also are a major source of debt for families as they offer tempting goods on credit.

275
I know of a mother whose son came home from school in tears every day because he did not have a Puffa jacket or the trainers that all his fellow pupils had. She was so harrowed by that that she borrowed the money and bought the items but the debt was so oppressive that she prostituted herself until she could pay it off. That story links in with what other noble Lords have said about the problems of young people coping with poverty and prostitution.
On the street the cost of borrowing is as much as 10 per cent per week—about 500 per cent APR. Again there are things that can be done. The Government are conscious of that problem. There is the problem of poor financial literacy. The Government are considering teaching financial literacy in schools. Do schools actually engage the attention of the target people who need to have better literacy skills? I wonder whether they do.
Financial services in this country are geared to the needs of the rich and not to the poor. Poor families suffer from a lack of the tools, as well as the skills, with which to manage their money. The Government have announced a bold initiative to address these problems through the Child Trust Fund and the Saving Gateway. I ask the Minister whether these services will be provided through the banks because the banks are very bad at reaching out to "hard to work with" groups.
Credit unions do a marvellous job. There are 1,000 credit unions in this country and they cater for only I per cent of the population. Could not the Government do much more to encourage mutual self help organisations of that kind? The citizens advice bureaux do a marvellous job but they cannot give long term help. At Toynbee Hall we are developing a new service which combines services to meet immediate needs with those to help people to cope better for the future, to develop workable credit strategies and to avoid financial exclusion.
Finally, at this season, and following other noble Lords, I draw attention to the fact that child poverty is not only about money and services. It is about—many of these other kinds of poverty are not by any means exclusive to poor families in the financial sense of the word—poverty of parental time and attention; poverty of parental guidance and discipline; lack of parental encouragement and example, especially in relation to education; and, simply, parental love. With that thought, I wish your Lordships a very happy Christmas.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for the opportunity of this debate today. I compliment him on his very fine speech. I also compliment our two maiden speakers on their equally fine speeches.
I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, her enthusiasm and delight in the dying art of darning, a skill which I learnt at my grandmother's knee. My late husband would proudly show around the office the darned elbows of his sweaters because to him it proved that he had a loving wife.
276
At this time of year, when those of us who have children and grandchildren have particular opportunities to show how much we love and appreciate them, it is appropriate that we consider those who are not so fortunate. We have heard about the scale of the problem from the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. In 1979, 14 per cent of British children lived below the poverty line. By 1997 the figure was 34 per cent. One of the most surprising and worrying statistics I have read recently is that it has only fallen to 32 per cent under the Government, despite their efforts. If that is all that the Government can achieve when the country is strong economically, what can we expect as the economy slows down?
The Chancellor claims to have taken 1 million children out of poverty since Labour came to power, but DSS figures show that only 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty since 1997. Is the 1 million figure just the end of a graph on the Treasury wall and therefore pure speculation? The Government will know that over-claiming the number undermines their considerable credibility in their efforts to reduce child poverty.
The Government will realise that not everyone who is entitled to a benefit actually receives it. Perhaps that is the explanation for the discrepancy. Does the Minister have any figures on the take-up of benefits for families with children? If it is not 100 per cent, and it probably is not, what are the Government planning to do about that? The benefits system is enormously complicated. Are there plans to simplify it and make benefits more accessible?
The Government have admittedly reduced the poverty statistics to some extent, but they have done so by top-slicing the poor through tax credits for those who are working. But the very deep levels of poverty lie among the unemployed, those living on benefits and with children to bring up. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that children are poor because their mothers are poor. Benefits are inadequate and many families have high levels of debt. That is partly because there are not enough grants for essential equipment such as cookers and cots, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. There is, however, the Social Fund. That has survived five years longer than the Conservative government, much to everyone's surprise. It badly needs reviewing. It has several major flaws.
First, it has an emphasis on loans, the repayment of which can take claimant's income some 15 per cent below the already inadequate official poverty line. Many applicants are refused loans because they are too poor even to afford the repayments. Applicants refused the money to buy a cooker on that basis have been told to buy sandwiches. Is that the way to ensure that children in poor families are properly nourished? I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, about the poor levels of nutrition of children in poorer families. I was pleased to hear from her about the FSA's low income diet initiative. Diseases which were uncommon axe becoming common again and children's resistance to

277
everyday childhood illnesses is reduced when they are not fed properly. Perhaps the Minister can tell us more about what the Government are doing about that.
Secondly, the Social Fund has the problem of annual caps on expenditure. That causes officers sometimes to juggle budgets and produce a postcode lottery unrelated to real need. One of the main principles of social security support should be equal access for those who need it. The structures in place at the moment do not always ensure that.
Finally, many of those in need are reluctant to approach the fund because they do not believe that they can afford to pay back a loan or because they have a cultural predisposition against borrowing, such as those in the Muslim community.
We have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford how the faith community and the charity sector sometimes pick up the pieces, but they often want to know that an applicant has been refused by the Social Fund before considering an application for help. Alternatively, a desperate family may be pushed into the private loan sector with all the potential for exploitation from loan sharks that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Those who are employed fare a little better. But the need to give tax credits and family income supplements to the low paid shows only that wage structures in this country are profoundly dysfunctional. Large numbers of people work for long hours on wages they cannot live on; and employers get away with it. As the national wealth has risen by 30 per cent over the past 10 years, the gap between rich and poor in this country has widened and is the widest in Europe.
But I do not propose to emphasise "relative" poverty and the difference between rich and poor, even though that difference is the highest in Europe. My main concern is "absolute" poverty, leaving aside how well other people live. There are too many families in the UK in the new millennium where two or three generations have never worked. They receive inadequate benefits, have a high level of debt and are inadequately trained in how to manage money. As the Government reconsider the 14 to 19 curriculum, I ask the Minister whether there are any plans to encourage schools to spend more time teaching practical family budgeting to young people. After all, everyone needs that skill, whether they earn £5,000 or £50,000 per year.
The only way to eradicate child poverty is to guarantee a minimum income standard and to ensure security for those who cannot work as well as those who can. Tax credits should be set at a level that guarantees that all children are lifted above poverty levels. Some families need a little more than others; for example, those with disabled children and those with only one parent at home. Sadly, despite recent policy changes, many working families remain close to or below the poverty line; 44 per cent of children in working families remain below median income; and 7 per cent remain below the poverty line. Research has shown that paid work may boost income but there is no guarantee of an escape from poverty.
278
However, if parents are to work, there must be more focus on adequate, good quality and affordable child care. Although I welcome the national childcare strategy, there is still a long way to go. The strategy provided 140,000 new places last year, but 66,000 places were lost, so the net gain was only 74,000. That contrasts with the Government's target of 85,000 new places.
Affordability of childcare is a major issue in parents' decision to go to work, especially if the pay offered is at about the minimum wage. Currently, almost all childcare places for children under three years old are fee paying. According to the Daycare Trust, about 600,000 under-threes are living in poverty in England. Of these, only about 43,000 receive free or subsidised services. That is clearly not enough to allow parents to work and improve their family's income. The Sure Start initiative is excellent, but it still has a long way to go. It plans to reach a third of children under four in poverty by 2004, but I must ask the Minister: what about the other two-thirds?
The Government should put more resources into their child care strategy. That will empower parents, help children and add to the workforce, so improving the country's economy in the long term. We must take the long view and see good childcare as an investment in the future of both our children and our economy.
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, poverty manifestly affects educational attainment. According to research carried out by the Liberal Democrats, most failing schools have a large number of children receiving free school meals. If we are to provide equality of access to a good education—the key to economic independence—we must address the issue of deprivation.
I encourage the Government to reconsider the recommendation of the Social Security Select Committee in another place that they should conduct research into the levels of income necessary to avoid poverty and provide ways to achieve that, for both those who can work and those who cannot. Given the political will and a thorough review of the considerable research that already exists, that could be done quickly. Without that work, British children could die in poverty this winter.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join all those who have expressed appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this debate. His opening remarks set the tone for the debate, as they put child poverty in this country in the context of that in the rest of the world. It is important to remember that most other parts of the world are dealing with absolute poverty: in this country, on the whole, we are dealing with relative poverty.
The noble Lord referred to the United Nations target for aid of 0.7 per cent of gross national product. Alas, that has been an aspiration in politics for as long as I can remember. That must be put in the context of provision made by private assistance to the third

279
world, and, in particular, of debt repayment. Under all parties, we have made considerable progress. However, having at one time been involved in that process, I am always worried about giving debt relief to the third world, because the original money may not have been well spent. We may be giving further relief to a country when we could devote the resources to another country in greater need. None the less, we have made important progress and debt relief is certainly of great value to many third world countries.
In that context, I shall make one purely personal point. I am worried about how the present situation in Afghanistan may distort the allocation of resources in the aid programme as a whole. Not only is there the military expenditure; there is clearly enormous poverty in Afghanistan. Once the immediate crisis is over, it will he important to ensure that the overall sense of priorities that the departments concerned must establish are not distorted.
This debate has been remarkable for two maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, brings to the House great experience as chief executive of Childline and made many important points. She will present something of a problem for those of us on the Front Bench, because I began to make a note of each of her points and rapidly ran out of paper. Despite having covered so many points, she in no way dealt with them superficially. She made an important contribution to the debate.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, comes with great experience from Centrepoint, and so on, and made several important points, stressing that it makes economic sense and is in our self-interest to seek to solve the problem of child poverty. He made another important point by arguing that resources often go not to the areas most in need but to those that are relatively well off. Consequently, we often find that educational and sports facilities, and so on, are least good in the most deprived areas. He brings great experience of such issues and we look forward to hearing both from him and from the noble Baroness on many future occasions.
Many of the speeches that we have heard derive from front-line experience of dealing with the problem. I should like to make some specific points. Yesterday, speaking before me, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, anticipated what I was going to say and produced some arguments that I had not even thought of. Perhaps I may do the same, as the Minister will no doubt refer to the Government's record on the matter.
In a speech on 25th September, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"With already 1.2 million children lifted out of poverty, we can aim higher. We will seek a simple and fundamental mandate to eradicate child poverty in our generation and give every child the best possible start in life."
We all share that aspiration, although his statement was not correct. It was not the case that the Government had already lifted 1.2 million children out
280
of poverty; that was what they anticipated would happen because of measures announced by the Chancellor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall expand on this point when I wind up the debate, but if I may, I shall put on record that that is not a correct reading of what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. It is important to correct that misapprehension.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was quoting from the party press release; it may well not be accurate.
It is important to establish the facts about that claim. Strangely, the figure is derived from two entirely separate sources: first, a study by POLIMOD at the University of Cambridge; secondly, a separate government study. Both studies produced the figure of 1.2 million. That is surprising, because they deal differently with housing benefit and the first study makes an allowance for take-up, whereas the government study assumes 100 per cent take-up. Yet both produce the figure of 1.2 million.
When I used to mark exam papers, I found that if two people got the right answer they were probably both right, but if two of them got the wrong answer one of them was cribbing. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain how that strange situation arose. Neither the Child Poverty Action Group nor Barnardo's thinks that the Government's claim is borne out by the facts. That is worrying because we would all like to see that kind of performance.
Part of the problem relates to the complexity of the system when people make claims, as referred to in the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland. Undoubtedly, take-up is most important and perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
There are many different measures of poverty and today I shall not bore your Lordships by describing all the alternatives. Some are more quantitive than others. However, I want to make an important point. The measures most usually quoted—certainly those relating to the issue I have just discussed—depend on a certain level above the mean or the median income level and the extent to which children in families, for example, fall below the particular average. We must recognise that that target is constantly moving. The average constantly rises as incomes generally rise. Therefore, to some extent, we are talking not about poverty but about equality.
One of the stranger events of recent years is that, far from decreasing, the disparity between the rich and the poor families with children seems to have widened. There appears to be a conflict of view between the Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as to whether that widening is to be regarded as disadvantageous. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comments.
I want to raise another important issue. Among all the measures about which we hear, little attention is paid to secondary poverty. That poverty arises not

281
necessarily from an absolute or relative level of income but from the way in which those receiving the assistance operate. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, referred to smoking. Research undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute shows that an incredibly depressing amount of money is being spent on tobacco and cigarettes by low income families, including those with children. That subject needs examination but it is often neglected.
Finally, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her comments about the Social Fund. I am sure that the Minister will point out that that was introduced by a Conservative government and has various deficiencies. I say merely that as a constituency Member of Parliament I entirely agree that the system worked badly. Indeed, my majority fell massively to about 18,500! Be that as it may, there are real concerns about the Social Fund. Barnardo's, which has already been quoted, stresses that too many families across the country in receipt of income support are having to pay back money. Furthermore, across the services, the majority of hard-pressed families are struggling to pay Social Fund loans. That means that they are living £10 or more below the rock-bottom poverty line.
The Social Security Select Committee in another place similarly expressed concern about the way in which the Social Fund system is working against the Government's key aim of reducing poverty. Its inquiries show that the discretionary fund in its present form is adding to poverty and the social exclusion of families and children by, in many cases, denying them access to the basic necessities and increasing their indebtedness.
That brings together the two themes; the international and the national. Indebtedness is a problem in the third world. As has rightly been pointed out, it is equally a problem in this country among the poor, in particular the poor with children. It would be helpful if in the generally constructive approach to the problem we looked at the interest rates which are being paid by many such families. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, commented on that matter.
The debate has been interesting and it could not have been better informed. All noble Lords who have spoken have great experience in the area and it is with considerable diffidence that I congratulate them. The debate has been most helpful and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison not only on his success in the ballot today but on his powerful opening speech. The debate was wonderfully enhanced by the magnificent maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale.
I share my noble friend's commitment to the issue. I remember—I was young at the time—George Brown being asked as an MP why he was a socialist. He said that in the 1930s when he was travelling back
282
to London from North Wales he stopped at a roadside café. A young couple, who were trying to get to London to find work, came in and changed the baby's nappy—and they changed the nappy from one set of newspapers to another. He said that that was why he was a socialist.
As your Lordships have identified, that was absolute poverty. In the first decade of this millennium we are talking about child poverty, but it is a relative poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was right in saying that because earnings rise incomes grow and so it is that much harder for those who are not in work to keep pace or to catch up. The perversity of that is that one way of overcoming relative poverty is to see the national wealth shrink and unemployment grow. As a result, more incomes would fall towards the mean. I would not wish to see that happen, but none the less it would explain the problem when we are talking about the concepts of relative poverty.
It has been made clear in our debate that if we ask who are the poor in our society the answer is not pensioners—although some undoubtedly are poor—and it is not disabled people—although some undoubtedly are poor. The answer is children. The face of poverty in our society today is the face of a child.
As many noble Lords said, it matters because whereas in 1979 2 million children were living in low income families, by 1997 that figure had risen to 4 million. One child in three is growing up in a low-income family. If we had done nothing, another generation would have inherited that poverty and deprivation.
The recently published report, Outcomes for Children, informs us what the risks may be. Children who grow up in poverty are less likely to do well at school; they have fewer qualifications; they leave school sooner; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, they are likely to truant and they may well run away. In later life, such children are three times more likely to be unemployed or in low-paid work; they are more likely to suffer ill health; and they are more likely to retire without an adequate income. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, so movingly said, at worst, that may lead to violence, conflict and even abuse. It may lead to a deprivation and a degradation which may be passed on to their children in turn. It is a deformed dowry of experience.
The noble Baroness was right in saying that we need to value all the social workers who may make all the difference. That is why the Government are spending £1.5 million extra on advertising to expand the number of those in social work. It is also why, incidentally, Quality Protects is so important to ensure that those children who are the most vulnerable and damaged are given the most help possible to make a successful transition to independence and adult life. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made that point.
I am sure that I shall be supported by my noble friend Lady Massey in saying on behalf of social workers that I sometimes resent the extent to which they are scapegoated for the failing in today's

283
parenting society. They are pivotal figures and most of them do a heroic and noble job. Without their work, so many other children would be having even more deprived and degraded lives.
Who are these children? The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, identified most of the children at risk. We know that four groups of children are especially likely to be poor. Many of the poorest will be the children of lone parents who are two-and-a-half times more likely to suffer prolonged poverty than are other children. And prolonged poverty is the poverty which scars.
They are particularly likely to be poor for two reasons. First, usually their mothers—the parent with care—are unlikely to be in work, and hence our welfare to work strategy. They are also likely to be poor because they are in a fractured family and thus unlikely to be receiving child support, and hence our child support reforms. Those two factors are connected. Women on income support who receive maintenance are twice as likely then to move into work. Child maintenance serves as a form of privatised family credit to springboard those families out of poverty. That is why I believe that our child support reforms are so important because they will benefit a further 1 million children.
The second group of children likely to experience poverty are those in larger families. In the period 1991–97, one-third of children in large families, compared with 15 per cent of children in smaller families, were classified as having persistently low incomes. Often that group overlaps with another; namely, ethnic minority families. Again, that problem was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Although Britain is a multi-racial society, we know that some of our ethnic communities are far more likely than others to suffer severe disadvantage. In 1996–97, for example, seven out of 10 families with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi head were in the poorest fifth of income distribution. Proportionately, they should have comprised two in 10 families, but in fact the figure was seven in 10. The result of that is clear and noble Lords have already pointed out that it is parental poverty which produces child poverty. Whereas 30 per cent of white children live in poverty, 60 per cent of Pakistani/Bangladeshi children do so.
I turn to the final group, about which I am slightly surprised not to have heard mention during the debate. I refer here to families where either an adult or a child suffers from a disability or a long-term illness. A disabled child, however much richness it brings to family life, at the same time creates financially a disabled family. Whereas 28 per cent of all children are in the bottom quintile of incomes, that percentage rises to 44 per cent of children where either they or their parents are disabled.
What are we doing about the problem? We are determined to reverse the growth of the numbers of children living in poverty through our policies to tackle worklessness, to increase financial support and to improve public services in the form of the
284
environment and in particular education services for such children. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, emphasised that latter point.
The best route—probably the only long-term and sustainable route out of poverty—is work. In 1979, 10 per cent of children lived in workless households. In 1997, that figure has risen to almost 20 per cent. At the same time, the number of children living in poverty had tripled. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the statistics in play—which is why earlier I intervened in the debate.
Nowadays, some 300,000 children are in poverty than was the case when the Government took office. But there would have been 1.2 million more children in poverty had the policies we inherited in 1997 continued. That is why the two statistics vary. It is important to point that out; otherwise there appears to be a crossing of wires.
We are providing help and advice to families wishing to return to work through programmes like the New Deal. At the core of that scheme is the personal adviser, the work-focused interview and Jobcentre Plus. I too respect the right of parents, in particular those with young children, to reach a decision about what is best for their child as regards whether they do or do not move into work. However, it is interesting to note that half of the lone parents coming on to the New Deal have children under the age of five. Why are they doing that? They are the parents who were most recently in work and they want to return to work. That is their choice.
One lone parent of a young child told me, "I don't want my child growing up thinking that grown-ups do not work". Another lone parent of one child of two years and another of five years said that, "Work for me is not the second-best way of supporting and looking after my children; it is the best way I have of being a parent". That is why the strategies that we have put in place are so important.
However, we must also ensure that when parents do move into work, that work must pay. As a result of the working families' tax credit and our proposals for the new integrated child credit which I shall have the pleasure of bringing before the House in a few months' time, I believe that we shall be able to achieve what was called for by my noble friend Lord Desai; that is, to introduce effectively a portable citizen's income for children. The statistics are important here.
My noble friend Lady Thornton pressed me on the implications of the working families' tax credit for children living in poverty. We know that what matters is the entry wage, because it is that which brings a lone parent into work. We know also that most lone parents work part-time, on average between 16 and 22 to 24 hours per week. Quite rightly, those parents need to balance childcare against the hours of work. In other words, unlike most men, lone parents cannot extend their incomes by working longer hours to compensate. For someone working for only 16 hours per week and receiving the minimum wage of £4.10 an hour, that hourly pay is raised by working families' tax credit to

285
£11 per hour. Adding in child benefit and taking off average housing costs results in net pay for working 16 hours per week of a sum in the order of £10 per hour. The result of our interventions means that such a parent can more than double her hourly rate of pay. That is before child maintenance is added, which on average is worth £35 per week.
Obviously for someone in full-time work—over 30 to 35 hours per week—there is far less need for working families' tax credit and therefore that help tapers out. But whereas the minimum income for a family working part-time would be in the order of £160 per week, for a family working full-time they would have at least £202 per week before any question of maintenance would come into play.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that she has just cited a perfect example of the complexity of the benefits system? Would not a minimum income be a great deal simpler?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have put in place the minimum wage. That is what people can earn. What I seek to suggest is that because a minimum wage applies to everyone, it can take no account of personal circumstances because that wage would be paid to a single person of 25, as it would to the 35 year-old lone parent caring for two or three children, as well as it would to the Bangladeshi family who may have six children. The point of working families' tax credit is that it builds on the minimum wage and adds to that an income which is tailored to a family's particular needs, thus ensuring that work pays in comparison with the benefits entitlement—also tailored to individual need—that they would otherwise receive. I hope that, as a result of that explanation, the noble Baroness will endorse the policies and strategies that the Government are seeking to achieve.
Over the past few years I think that we have acted appropriately. I do not suggest that the schemes are not without complexity. Social security is a complicated matter. But the structure is simple and I believe that we are helping to take children and their families out of poverty. For example, in cash terms since 1997, we have doubled the allowance on income support for children under the age of 11. By 2003, we will have virtually doubled the additional premia for a disabled child in a household on income support, in cash terms.
Furthermore, we have delivered record increases in child benefit. We have increased the Sure Start maternity grant from £100 when we inherited the scheme to £500 next April. That enormous increase, together with the payment of the child tax credit, may go some way to meet what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was calling for; namely, extra support for parents during their child's early years.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised the issue of debt and queried whether the social fund was adequate to meet the debt burden faced by families living in poverty. I absolutely
286
agree that debt is a major problem for such families. However, I think that noble Lords were unjust in their approach to the purpose of the social fund. The interest-free budgetary loans of the social fund have been designed to even out lumpy expenditure and to do so in ways that are interest-free, compared with the problems—rightly identified by the noble Baroness—of the pawn shop, loan sharks, brokers and the like. Of course we support the credit unions, but experience has demonstrated that they work only when the majority of those belonging to the credit union are employed and thus have moneys available to make savings. The problems of budgeting for loans are largely borne by those living on benefits. Once people have been in work for a time, they begin to accrue sufficient income to meet their debt problems.
My noble friend Lady Thornton asked about the situation in regard to 16 to 17 year-olds. We want and expect children of 16 and 17 to be in work, education or training, but 36,000 are on income support and JSA, many of whom would otherwise experience severe hardship. We are not expecting to return to the days when such children were treated as adults and given benefit. We believe that they are entitled to the protection, support and opportunities of children—and that means help into work and, above all, help into education and training.
I am sorry to talk about money, benefit levels and so on, but poverty is about money and the lack of it. But, as many noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale—have said, it is not only about income; it is about public services, education, health and poor housing. I am delighted that the Rowntree report, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, acknowledged, identified that we have moved forward on almost all of these criteria.
Initiatives such as Sure Start, the Children's Fund and the Healthy Schools programme—which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Massey and covers a range of subjects from apples to speech therapy—are only three in a number of programmes that we have introduced to ensure that children have the best start in life and to break the cycle of deprivation between generations.
My noble friend asked me how, despite that, we will co-ordinate initiatives. We have a new Cabinet Committee for children and young people, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we have a new children and young persons unit, which has an advisory forum of young people to feed into and enrich its proceedings; and we have a series of interlocking sub-committees on children. I serve on a children and young persons at risk committee; on the Sure Start advisory committee; on the childcare review committee; and on the family and communities Committee. I have, obviously, a particular concern for child poverty and the parents affected by it.
I think, I hope, I believe, I trust that we will—I know that we must—deliver on child poverty. But before I finish, I should like to touch on our obligations to the

287
international community, so movingly spoken to by my noble friend Lord Harrison and other noble Lords. One in five of the world's population lives on less than one US dollar per day. Child poverty causes appalling suffering and jeopardises well being. Poverty reduction through sustainable development and the improved welfare of people cannot be achieved without bringing children out of deprivation.
The best way of tackling child poverty is to address the causes of community poverty. Each year, more than 10 million children still die before the age of five, with 95 per cent of those deaths occurring in developing countries. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford raised this point and particularly mentioned the children orphaned by AIDS. We have made significant progress in establishing the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which was announced at the G8 meeting in Genoa in July 2001 and which will be up and running in the new year. The UK has pledged more than 200 million US dollars and the pledges overall amount already to more than 1 billion US dollars, which I hope will go some way to addressing the problems identified.
We must protect the health of women; we must intervene on children's education; we must seek to challenge the concept of child labour which, at its worst and in its most abusive forms, puts children in physical and moral danger.
We know that children are terribly affected by conflict, which perpetuates poverty and reverses development. Of the 34 countries farthest from meeting the poverty eradication targets, 20 are in the midst of armed conflict or have only recently emerged from it. Ethnic and intra-community violence often leads to the destruction of families and brings a heavy burden of suffering on women and children. We are seeking to help displaced children and to reduce community conflict.
Next year, at the postponed United Nations Special Session on Children, the world will have the opportunity to renew and strengthen the commitment it made to children at the 1990 World Summit for Children. We expect a full range of measures to be embraced, including children's rights to health and education, and to protection from conflict, exploitation and mistreatment.
The United Kingdom will wholeheartedly join this global commitment to the children of the world. Children anywhere and everywhere, at home and elsewhere, deserve no less.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, the yarns spun by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Walmsley, about being down at heel and put out at the elbow, made for a darn good speech. It has been a darn good debate this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken—including the usual suspects and the two new prospects—for their contributions. I congratulate the Minister, who will henceforth be known as "The Minister for Joshing out money". In the spirit of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said
288
about the proximity of Christmas, perhaps I may, in offering season's greetings to the whole House, beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Kabul: International Security Assistance Force
5.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, the recent Bonn agreement on the future governance of Afghanistan called for the deployment of an international force to Afghanistan to assist the new Afghan interim authority, which formally takes office on Saturday, 22nd December, with the provision of security and stability for Kabul. Two days ago my right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the United Kingdom was willing in principle to lead such a force.
"I can now confirm that the United Kingdom is formally prepared to take on the leadership of an International Security Assistance Force for a limited period of three months. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has today written to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to inform him of our decision.
"Our decision follows further discussions with the United States, with the other nations that have indicated that they may be willing to contribute troops to the force, with the United Nations, and with the designated leaders of the interim authority in Afghanistan.
"There are a number of issues still to be finalised. We have not yet settled every detail about this force. But it is right that I should inform the House today, in particular about the letter to the UN Secretary-General. And today is the last opportunity for me to bring this before the House before the Christmas Recess.
"As the Prime Minister emphasised, the situation in Afghanistan remains fragile. The International Security Assistance Force is a vital part of the international community's efforts to assist the Afghan people in this early and difficult period of the reconstruction of their country.
"A deployment of this kind, involving troops, equipment and logistical support from several nations, is a complex undertaking. We have no illusions about Afghanistan—deploying forces there inevitably involves an element of risk. It is a challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous environment.
"The force will be charged with assisting the Afghan interim authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding area.

289
Responsibility for security will remain with the interim authority. Potential tasks could, however, include liaison with and advice and support to the interim authority as well as the UN on security issues, together with scoping future requirements for help in establishing and training the new Afghan security forces.
"The United Kingdom will provide the force commander and his headquarters. The force commander will be Major-General John McColl, who is currently serving as the General Officer Commanding 3(UK)Division based at Bulford. General McColl, as the House will be aware, led last weekend's reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul. The force headquarters will also be drawn from 3 Division, as will some of its main force and many of its essential support troops. Other elements will be drawn from the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade and key enablers and units that are maintained at very high readiness, including elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines and the Second Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
"Indicative planning to date suggests that the United Kingdom's contribution will be in the region of 1,500 troops, although the actual figure will depend on the contributions made by other nations. This will be an international force. It is too soon to say exactly how many troops it will include, or the nations from which they will come. But the force will number 3,000 to 5,000 and will include contributions from the armed forces of several nations.
"Sixteen nations were represented at last Friday's conference for potential troop contributors. Twenty-one nations are represented at today's follow-on conference at the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood. We expect to establish the detailed force composition over the next few days.
"The United States has indicated that it fully supports the deployment of the International Security Assistance Force. The United States will provide essential enabling support to deploy and sustain the force. That is a vital and a considerable task.
"The House will wish to know the arrangements for command and control of the International Security Assistance Force. The force will have a particular mission, distinct from Operation Enduring Freedom. If the United Kingdom's offer to be lead nation is accepted, the United Kingdom will exercise command of the International Security Assistance Force. As I have said, General McColl will be the force commander. The force will work very closely with the United States, as set out in the letter from the Foreign Secretary to the UN Secretary-General—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
"I would like to place on record our gratitude to the United States. The United States has led the global coalition's offensive operations against
290
international terrorism with great success. Their generosity in also finding the capacity to support the International Security Assistance Force, by providing enabling capabilities that no other country can match, should be recognised and applauded.
"I would also like to take this opportunity to record our appreciation of all the nations which have indicated that they are willing to provide troops for the International Security Assistance Force.
"The International Security Assistance Force is a reflection of the strong international support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It will go to Kabul with the backing of the wider international community. Work is under way in New York to draw up a United Nations Security Council Resolution to authorise the deployment under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. We anticipate that it will be agreed within the next few days.
"The House will have a number of proper questions about issues that have yet to be resolved. We have not yet finalised all of the details about the force. There are still major questions, both about its size and composition—including which nations will contribute. We hope to refine the answers to these questions over the coming days.
"We also need to agree with the Afghan authorities the precise tasks that the force will undertake and the modalities of its deployment. Let me be clear: the international community is sending the force to assist the Afghans, not to interfere in their affairs. Discussions with designated members of the Interim Authority, including its chairman, Defence, Interior and Foreign Ministers, indicate that they welcome our intention to lead the ISAF.
"General McColl's reconnaissance and liaison team met leading designated members of the Interim Authority to discuss how the force could best assist the Afghans and how it should relate to the Interim Authority. Further discussions are required and General McColl will be returning to Kabul later this week. These tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed military technical agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established. Once this agreement and the authorising UN Security Council Resolution are in place, the International Security Assistance Force will be able to deploy in full.
"Needless to say, British forces deploying to Afghanistan will be properly equipped for the tasks that they will undertake and they will be provided with robust rules of engagement.
"The United Kingdom has been invited to take on lead nation status because we and others believe that our forces have the capability and experience required to undertake this operation. We have the ability to get a force in and up and running very quickly. It is, therefore, right that we take on this responsibility, when so much depends on the early success of the political process that the force will support.

291
"I am absolutely satisfied that this operation is within our capacity. Our commitment is limited in numbers—up to 1,500 troops—and duration, up to three months. After three months, we will hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. There have already been indications that others may be willing to take this on.
"General McColl and his immediate team will be returning to Kabul later this week to continue detailed negotiations with the Afghan authorities on the terms of a detailed military technical agreement. They will also be present for the inauguration of the Interim Authority on 22nd December. Troops from 40 Commando Royal Marines will be available to support General McColl and, if required, the Interim Authority. A company of Marines is being sent this week to bolster the existing presence at Bagram. They will also enable the International Security Assistance Force, once it is formed, to deploy more quickly.
"The deployment of the main elements of the ISAF will be dependent on the outcome of discussions on the military technical agreement and the complexity of the task. Given the circumstances, the main body will not begin to deploy before 28th December at the earliest. It will be a matter of weeks before a substantial force can be deployed.
"I am very conscious that our decision to lead this force will mean that some of our troops will not be able to spend Christmas with their families. Some of our troops have been at Bagram for some time. Separation from friends and family is never easy, least of all at this time of year. Our troops will, however, deploy to Afghanistan knowing that they will be carrying out a vital and a worthwhile task, contributing to restoring peace and stability to a country that has been torn apart by strife and international terrorism.
"In offering to be the lead nation for the ISAF and to deploy British troops to Afghanistan, we are aware that we have taken on significant responsibilities. The war there is being won; we must now secure the peace. The United Kingdom is proud to be able to play an important role in this. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say from the outset that we shall support Her Majesty's Government on whatever decision is taken about the deployment of troops to the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan.
However, your Lordships may recall that in the excellent debate last Monday I sounded words of caution about British military involvement in any multinational peacekeeping force, as did four former Chiefs of Defence Staff and one former Secretary of State for Defence.
292
We on these Benches support the case for A1'Qaeda to be located and destroyed wherever it is; but if we had to commit many more troops, significant overstretch would occur. The Army is now at full stretch, and if this commitment should last for an indefinite period and replacements are required, and if the Army should be required to be deployed to Somalia or other areas in support of the destruction of A1'Qaeda, it would become significantly overstretched.
The Statement refers to a commitment of up to three months. How do we know that it will be for only up to three months? Who has agreed to replace us? This must be made known as soon as possible, as whoever it is should start assembling the replacement force now and start immediate training in the likely tasks once they are known. The Secretary-General of the United Nations must bring pressure to bear to nominate the replacement lead nation now.
I should like to ask why we should commit our troops to peacekeeping operations when their many military skills may be needed in further fighting. Many other nations can carry out peace-keeping duties, leaving our troops available for more serious fighting operations.
Before I ask the Minister some questions that arise from the Statement, I stress that if we are to commit troops to the operation, it is essential that they are able to meet the unexpected. It is therefore vital that the force is robust, with a secure airhead, protected air corridors and a secure forward operating base. It is essential that there are enough troops to deal with the unexpected and that reserves are on immediate call to reinforce the situation when required.
What is the exact mission for the British troops and the security force? There is mention of potential tasks of liaison and of advice and support on security issues to the interim authority, but the fact that the precise tasks to be undertaken by the force that we are about to commit still have to be agreed with the interim authority is hardly acceptable. They must be clarified in a mission statement.
There still do not seem to be answers to some of the questions that I raised in the House on Monday evening, which I shall repeat. We have not been given a reason why a Muslim force could not take the lead role and assume command of ISAF. What are the reasons for that not happening? What are the reasons for France and Germany not leading ISAF if a Muslim force is not acceptable to Afghanistan? Will the United States remain in overall command? Will they continue to provide the necessary air superiority for complete air cover?
The UK will be in command of ISAF, but to whom will the force under the command of Major-General McColl report? In other words, who and where is the superior headquarters? What will be the exact chain of command? The Statement refers to US essential enabling support to deploy and sustain the force. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that and clarify the command situation.

293
Who will provide the heavy airlift for the insertion and extraction of the force? What other support will the United States provide? What will be the precise objectives of the force? They have not yet been mentioned.
Is the Minister aware that in such situations it is impossible to know when we will be able to withdraw and hand over the commitment? Only time will tell. The operation is totally different from those in the Balkans, with extremely long lines of communication and many difficulties. The unexpected may well come about, bringing about changes and sucking in many more troops.
I am grateful to the Minister for his Statement and look forward to his reply. I repeat again that my party supports Her Majesty's Government on the deployment of troops to Afghanistan.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I echo the thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement. During the debate on Monday he did not give any details, but told us that if we waited there would probably be some movement before the end of the week. It is gratifying that he has come forward with a Statement before the House rises.
The Statement sets out the movement of troops. That fits well with the remit set out in Annex 1 of the Bonn agreement. It is worth noting, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, that the body will not have a peacekeeping role. Unless I have misunderstood the remit of the force, it will be there to support the civil authority, which we hope will assume power on 22nd December.
I am not going to ask 101 questions this afternoon, because the situation is very fluid. I said the same on Monday, because we were awaiting the assessment of Major-General McColl. Asking too many questions now might lead to no answers being given.
We are concerned that so far, although the Bonn agreement has been signed, there does not seem to be much overt support for it on the ground from many of the leaders of the different factions. Although I believe that such overt support will be forthcoming, a good deal of political persuasion will be required.
The Minister mentioned that there would be 1,500 troops on the ground. I have two questions about that. First, he mentioned that further troops would be needed for 22nd December. Will they have enough time to be on the ground by then? If they are not on the ground then, will the troops that we already have there be sufficient for the job of the handover? What is envisaged for the handover? Secondly, although 1,500 troops are envisaged, that number could be greatly reduced if other nations are prepared to take the strain. My party and most others in the House feel some pride in the fact that other nations are prepared to accept our expertise in the lead role, but if others also take the strain, will the troops that we put on the ground be made up less of infantry and more of headquarters staff and logistics staff such as engineers?
294
The Minister mentioned that Christmas is fast approaching. Although we wholeheartedly support the movement of troops, it is worth mentioning that we very much echo his sentiments that at this time of year our thoughts go to the families of those troops who are being sent out to what is still quite a dangerous situation.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their general support on behalf of their parties for the action that the Government are taking. That is much appreciated. It has been present from the beginning of the conflict and I have no doubt that it will last as long as the conflict lasts.
My second point before I deal with the questions is that ideally the Statement would not have been made today, but, as this is the last sitting day of another place before Christmas, the choice was between waiting until everything was absolutely in order—which would have meant recalling Parliament to make the Statement—or making the Statement today. A Statement was necessary, because both Houses want to know what is going on before they break up for the Christmas Recess. I apologise in advance if I cannot give as many answers as I would like.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked about the exact purpose of the mission. The tasks that will be required will no doubt emerge as a consequence of the military technical agreement that will be negotiated and announced on or just after Saturday, when the interim authority comes into being. We have said as much as we can about the sort of jobs that will be required of the international force.
Why us? I hope that the Statement makes that plain. We are committed to helping the Afghan interim authority, which is so important if we are to achieve the wider objective of breaking the link between Afghanistan and terror. We have highly capable forces with experience in rapid expeditionary deployment. Our task will be to get ISAF in and running. We will then hand over leadership to one of our partners.
As for command and control, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, to look at the letter—there is a copy in the Library, and I know that he has a copy—from the Foreign Secretary to the United Nations Secretary-General. The letter deals with the particular point as best we can at the moment, and it makes clear what the command and control structure will be.
The noble Lord's last question was on how the force would get in and then get out. Part of the American support will be an overall operational interest in how we get in and get out. However, we shall have to wait a few days for the details of the individual countries that will be involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about Afghan support. As he knows, deployment of an ISAF is included in the Bonn agreement, which was reached by all the Afghan parties and is at the root of the force. The deployment will of course be made with the agreement of the Interim Authority. As I said, we shall finalise the details of our agreement with the authority

295
later this week. However, in recent discussions, Hamid Karzai has welcomed both the United Kingdom's help in recent months and the deployment of an ISAF. He noted that the force symbolises the international community's determination to help Afghanistan and gives the Afghan people hope for the future.
I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on our troops spending Christmas away from home. The comments will be appreciated by our troops and are a view shared on all sides of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also asked about our 1,500 troops, and particularly about the ones we want to be there by 22nd December, which is the day on which the Interim Authority effectively comes into being. Those troops are not part of the ISAF; I have made it clear that the ISAF members would not begin to be in place until 28th December at the earliest. However, those troops will be there by 22nd December to assist in the inauguration which is a very important event for the new administration.
As I said, a large number of other nations want to play a part, and their very role is being discussed in today's Northwood conference to which I referred in my Statement.
Before I sit down, I should also like to echo the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we should be very proud as a country that we are taking on this role. I shall leave it there for now.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Statement. As it acknowledges that there is still much to be settled, I think that it would be quite inappropriate to bombard the Minister now with a series of questions that may be difficult to answer. It is, however, perhaps worth touching on two points.
First, although the involvement of the United States is very welcome, the command arrangements between the United States and ISAF need most careful consideration and to be formalised. The Foreign Secretary's letter to Kofi Annan states that
"the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force".
Could the Minister expand on that rather short description of command and control?
Secondly, we must welcome the fact that our service men will be given robust rules of engagement in this area. However, it is also very important that all other forces operating in ISAF work with similar rules of engagement. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the rules of engagement agreed for United Kingdom forces will be applied throughout ISAF.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his comments; his support is very welcome indeed. On command and control, the passage in the letter from the Foreign Secretary to which he referred continues:
296
"the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force to deconflict International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom activities and to ensure that International Security Assistance Force activities do not interfere with the successful completion of Operation Enduring Freedom."
Today, I cannot go further than that particular sentence.
The noble and gallant Lord's comments on the rules of engagement were very welcome. He has also not even asked what the rules of engagement will be, as he knows that such matters are not discussed in public. He can, however, be assured that the rules of engagement affecting British troops will also affect troops from other countries.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister accept that many of us on these Benches welcome the clarity and purpose of his Statement? Does he also accept that we send our best wishes to everyone involved in this difficult task and that, while we think of service men separated from their families, like others, we also think very much of wives and families separated from their husbands and fathers at such a time?
I ask my noble friend to comment on a few matters. First, I think that we all take heart from the emphasis that he placed on the very specific way in which the Government and the Prime Minister are ensuring that the action is being taken with UN authorisation.
Secondly, does my noble friend accept that many of us take great pride in the fact that British armed services are acquiring such an outstanding international reputation for such work? It is something of which we can all be proud.
Thirdly, does my noble friend accept that, as the stated objective of our activities has been a humanitarian victory as well as a military victory, it is extremely important that there should be close co-ordination between the work of this force and the work of the humanitarian agencies, whose leaders have welcomed the proposal for such a force'? Will he assure us that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that that co-operation and co-ordination are all that they might be?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. He speaks as a distinguished Peer in two spheres: as a former Defence Minister, and in the role that he has played in humanitarian organisations. I am therefore particularly grateful for his comments.
The United Nations' role is very important in this whole enterprise. Indeed, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that the letter from the Foreign Secretary effectively tells the Secretary-General that we are prepared to take such a leading role if we are asked to do so. It states:
"The International Security Assistance Force will have a particular mission authorised by a United Nations Security Council Resolution that is distinct from Operation Enduring Freedom."

297
We hope that that resolution will be forthcoming in the next 48 hours or so.
The coalition has always regarded the humanitarian aid effort as vital and as equally important to the military and diplomatic efforts. As has been said from this Dispatch Box on many occasions already, our war is not with the Afghan people but with those who harbour terrorism.
I have to make it clear to the House that ISAF's prime role is not a humanitarian one; one suspects that it will have enough on its plate without doing that very important job as well.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister saying as a definite undertaking that the Security Council will meet in the next 48 hours? If so, how does that square with his earlier comment that the military agreement will not be signed until the day on which the Interim Authority takes over? Will the Interim Authority then pass a resolution of its own giving authorisation to the troops to be present in Afghanistan pending any resolution of the Security Council if it has not been passed by then?
Perhaps I may ask also about the time scale for this interim force. The acting Defence Minister said that it would be there for only six months but as I understand the Bonn agreement, the requirement is for the Loya Jirgah to meet within six months and not necessarily for the new authority to have taken over by then. May we have an assurance that there is an agreement with the Interim Authority in Afghanistan that the force will remain there until the Loya Jirgah has completed its work and the new authority takes over?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as regards when the UN Security Council will meet to discuss any proposal, my understanding is that it will meet within the next 48 hours. I cannot confirm that but that is my understanding. That is the chronology that is intended at least, leading up to Saturday 22nd, when the new authority takes over.
I cannot give the undertaking about the ISAF and six months. It is not in my power to do that. But I say from this Dispatch Box that I should be very surprised indeed if the ISAF were not there until the time at least that the Loya Jirgah met.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for coming here today, clearly before he is really ready to do so. I have three questions which occur to me which he may or may not be able to answer.
First, I echo the surprise of my noble friend Lord Vivian that the British force will be in effective control for a period of only three months. Is that really practical? Secondly, which units—not which individual units—of what arms are likely to be sent to Afghanistan for that purpose? Thirdly, what will happen to the tasks which are at present being undertaken by 3 Div?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; I cannot answer all three questions. We believe that the
298
three-month period is sensible. There would be an outcry if there were some indefinite period for British troops to lead this force. Bearing that in mind, we think, and it is thought proper from a military point of view, that three months is a proper period.
I want to make a point about the three months in answer to the noble Lord's question. It is three months from when the force is operational. I have pointed out already to the House that it will not begin to be formed until 28th December and will take some weeks after that. So we are not, for example, saying three months from this Saturday.
On the second question, the noble Lord knows which divisions and which troops are going to Afghanistan but as to the detail of his question, I shall have to write to him. On the role of 3 Div, that role will be filled by others while elements from that division are serving in Afghanistan.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very much I welcome the Statement repeated by the Minister. As I said on Monday, it is absolutely vital that we give every necessary assistance to the Interim Authority to bring about a better life for the people of Afghanistan and better governance. If it is appropriate that that assistance is in the form of our Armed Forces, then it is a very good thing that we are sending our Armed Forces. I am extremely pleased to hear that they are taking a leading role because of their professionalism and expertise in that field.
I accept entirely that this is not the time to ask detailed questions of my noble friend. I ask only one question. Will he confirm that, in addition to the troop movements which he has announced in the Statement, British forces who are already in theatre, on land and at sea, and doing such a magnificent job, will stay in position?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her support and her question. We are discussing today those troops which are to go into Afghanistan. We know that there are some there already. We know also that in theatre, there are many British service people at sea. They will remain there because, of course, the fight against terrorism is far from over. As the Statement says, the war is being won but it is not won yet. The ships that we have there are no doubt a source of great comfort to those troops who will be going in to Afghanistan to lead the force.
Before leaving the point, it should be said from this House too that not only do we wish well those who are giving up their Christmas, as it were, to be out there, but we also appreciate those who have been out there now for some time who will also be there over Christmas and the New Year. We send them our best wishes too.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will take comfort, as we all intend, from the extent to which this mission is so widely supported as a necessary step in response to the disintegration of the former state of Afghanistan and the need to put it together again.

299
But will the Minister also derive some wisdom from the experience of not dissimilar exercises? There have been many variations over the past 20 or 30 years. I have in mind, for example, at least one in the Middle East. One draws two conclusions from that. It is extremely important for every contingency to be foreseen as far as possible. Nothing can shake such a mission more seriously than the impact of the unexpected. Will he accept that? Will he accept also that that is all the more reason for the different nations coming together in creating this multi-national force to have the closest possible political co-operation throughout at the most intimate level in order to be sure that they react nationally as well as internationally in the same kind of way to those hazards which may yet develop?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, speaking as he does with vast experience of these matters over many years. There is nothing in his contribution to which I could possibly take exception. I know that we are looking into all the matters which he raised. We do not believe that this is an easy operation. The Statement did not say that it was and no one can pretend that it will be. We must take into account the historical precedents. At the same time, it is gratifying, as the noble and learned Lord said, that we have such widespread support for what we are doing here because it is clearly the right thing to do.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my thanks too for the Statement which he has repeated and the positive decision that has been taken? Does he not agree that it is crucial that one of the very few countries (which the United Kingdom is) which can quickly deploy forces in peace operations should step forward on an occasion like this? There are not many countries around the world which can do that and if they all stand back and ask each other to do it, such operations will not be performed properly.
Will the noble Lord say something about steps which could be taken through the broadcasting, radio and television media in the vernacular languages to explain the purposes of this mission and to ensure that the people of Afghanistan know that the troops are coming there to help them to get themselves on their feet again? There have been really serious shortcomings in a number of peace operations in recent years when a lot of disinformation has been put around by people who have a vested interest in giving the impression that people are coming in to dominate them, to be colonial and so on. Therefore, it is extremely important that that dimension of this operation should be taken in hand.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, speaks with great experience of these matters. I am grateful for his comments. He is right to say that there are few countries in the world that can take the lead in a matter such as we are discussing. Dare I say from the Dispatch Box that perhaps no other country could do it as well as we can? As regards the media, the
300
noble Lord will recall from the debate the other day that praise was heaped on the BBC World Service for the part that it has already played. It was suggested that in the next spending review it should be rewarded handsomely for what it has done and continues to do. Although I do not have a direct answer on that point and nothing fresh to add, it is an important consideration. I shall make sure that it is appreciated by those who take the relevant decisions.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that out of the 1,500 British troops sent to Kabul too many will not be dispersed to police, staff and other duties and that a force which will be an influence of good for the Government will be kept intact?
Lord Bach: My Lords, so far as I can, I give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. It is not for me to say how that will work operationally on the ground. If he is concerned about the security of our forces, he can rest assured that their protection is our first consideration.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords. I join other noble Lords in supporting strongly the expressions of goodwill for our forces who now have to undertake an exceptionally difficult and dangerous task, not made easier by the singularly untidy nature of the present deployment. I do not criticise the Government for that; it probably could not be otherwise. However, it is exceptionally difficult for the forces going out.
The impression has grown—not, I think, due to the Minister—that somehow the military technical agreement is guaranteed to be signed on 22nd December when the authority will formally take office. The Minister has not said so, but the Statement makes clear that General McColl will continue discussions in a few days' time in the hope of reaching a satisfactory agreement. That emphasises how untidy the position is.
The Minister will be aware that there is some contrast between the Statement and the letter that the Foreign Secretary sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations on the term of deployment. The Statement says that after three months we shall hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. The letter asks the Secretary General to support efforts to identify a successor lead nation by asking member states to consider urgently the possibility of taking over. Perhaps that matter has already been agreed.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly paid tribute to the quality of our forces and our command. I refer not merely to their speed of deployment but also to the capability that they bring to the command and control role. For reasons of propriety some countries are obviously not suitable to take over that job in Afghanistan at the present time. Other countries do not have the capacity to do so. There is a limited number of countries which can take over the role. We have been good at getting in

301
but I have the gravest misgivings as to whether we shall be able to withdraw from that command and control role as early as the Government suggest.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments and questions. He is right to comment on the difficulty of the enterprise. However, it is certainly our intention that three months from when the force becomes operational we shall give up our lead nation status. As regards the military technical agreement, I remind the noble Lord of what the Statement says. If I have given a false impression in answering questions, I retract that. The Statement says:
"These tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed Military Technical Agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established".
I think that 22nd December will be a busy enough day, but I do not think that the MTA will be signed on that day.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are well past the 20 minutes point at this stage. I realise that this is an extremely important Statement but there is another one due immediately.

National Stadium
6.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to report in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Answer is as follows:
"I welcome the opportunity to make a Statement informing the House of the state of progress in the Government's discussions with the Football Association on the national stadium.
"I have today published the interim report of Patrick Carter's review of the English national stadium. I should like to place on record my gratitude to Patrick Carter and the rest of the review team for their considerable efforts over the past six months and for the co-operation which they have received from the Football Association, Sport England and others putting forward proposals for the stadium.
"His key recommendations are as follows. The only way forward is to invite the promoters of the World Stadium Team proposals—based on a modified version of the Foster design—to present final proposals which contain fully committed funding, final design, cost and procurement details. Should those proposals not be delivered within a reasonable timescale, Birmingham should be actively considered.
302
"No commitments should be made by any party until such time as final agreements have been reached as regards funding and procurement. The Government must be satisfied that all aspects of the stadium's procurement meet government standards of propriety and regularity.
"Patrick Carter's report recognises that the leadership of this project must rest with the FA whose final decision it will be on what stadium to build and where. Its preference, on grounds of the greater return which it will make for its investment, is to go ahead with a modified version of the Foster design stadium at Wembley. It has accepted that should that fail, the strong proposals from Birmingham should be taken forward. At the same time it accepts, as do the Government, that it remains a possible outcome that no national stadium at all will be developed.
"As the FA has made clear, it does not believe that this project can move forward without government support. But any further financial support is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium infrastructure costs and the Government's interest is also to protect the £120 million of lottery money already invested.
"There is a great deal of work to be done before there can be a final decision on the national stadium. A timetable for that must be set which is fair to all those with an interest in the outcome. Patrick Carter's report describes the many uncertainties which need to be resolved. Any government support for infrastructure would not be committed until all those uncertainties were dealt with. I must also alert the House to issues concerning the proposed procurement at Wembley which will need to be fully dealt with as part of this work.
"The House will he aware that I had intended to make an announcement on Monday 17th December about the national stadium. I should explain the reasons for the delay. It came to my attention at the end of November that concerns had been expressed that Wembley National Stadium Limited had not adhered to best procurement practices or corporate government arrangements in relation to the new Wembley stadium. I was told that those complaints did not involve suggestion of any fraud taking place but implied a lack of transparency in part of the process and a failure to deal properly with actual or potential conflicts of interest. I was told that an investigation into the complaints was under way for Wembley National Stadium Limited and that a report was expected any day.
"On 13th December I asked about progress with this report and was given oral assurances that there was no identified impropriety but that the chairman of Wembley National Stadium Limited would contact my permanent secretary the next day.
"Officials discussed the report in draft on Sunday 16th December with the FA, Wembley National Stadium Limited and its authors and asked that the report be finalised and made available to the

303
Government for our consideration before the Government made any decision on going forward with the national stadium project.
"A final version of the report was received yesterday. I have suggested to the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited that they should make it available to the public. I have also asked that they make the report available to the National Audit Office.
"The final report confirms that there have been a number of serious concerns. WNSL has today made a statement outlining the principle conclusions of the report and I quote:
'no evidence whatever had been found of any criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process; the report was critical of the procurement process up to September 2000 and recommended specific steps to be taken by WNSL for the close monitoring of the project going forward; the review addressed issues relating to value for money but found that there was a sustainable argument that best value today was likely to result by enabling WNSL to proceed through Multiplex to build a new National Stadium; the report recommended WNSL to review certain aspects of corporate governance'.
"Patrick Carter has alluded to these concerns in the covering letter to his report in which he recommends that I satisfy myself,
'as to the achievement of Government value for money in procurement standards and any associated accounting issues'.
"I have said to the FA and WNSL that should they continue with the Multiplex contract they must set in train an independent assessment of the value for money which it represents and to ensure that corporate governance and procurement arrangements hereafter represent best practice before the Government will proceed with any further support to the project, financial, moral or otherwise.
"There are in essence four points that must now be addressed by the FA and WNSL. They are these. First, an independent value for money assessment needs to be commissioned into the proposed contracts with Multiplex, conducted by an appropriate company with no previous or likely future involvement in the project.
"Secondly, I will ask WNSL to ensure that the papers relating to the matter are made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide whether he wishes to look into this matter further.
"Thirdly, confirmation will be sought that corporate governance changes will be completed to achieve a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures acceptable to the public sector.
"Fourthly, confirmation will be sought that the financial support is adequate and fully committed after taking into account all relevant factors in a process of 'due diligence'.
"Finally, I would like to explain the position with regard to athletics. Sport England and the FA will look at this during the next stage of discussions. Sport England believes that a different platform
304
solution can be developed more cheaply and without the disruption associated with the original proposals.
"I will be asking Sport England to commission a detailed technical evaluation of the proposals to ensure that they meet in full UK athletics and IAA F technical criteria. I have also asked them to prepare a proper cost benefit analysis which compares the new proposals with those made in 1999.
"In short, the Government will work with the FA to resolve these issues. The end result we all want is a national stadium. But the four fundamental points must be addressed first. Then we will have a national stadium we can all be proud of".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in another place by her right honourable friend in response to a Private Notice Question tabled by my right honourable friend Tim Yeo.
This is a serious matter. The Government seem now to distance themselves from decisions about Wembley. They talk about working with the FA but say that a decision about whether there is a national stadium and where it is built is for the FA and the FA alone. That is a somewhat different measure.
The Government seem to have a short memory. They seem to have forgotten that the Prime Minister made the following commitment after previous failures with the Wembley project. At col. 841 of the Official Report of another place of 2nd May 2001, the Prime Minister said that,
"we must now sit down and work out a way through [the problem] so that we have a proper national stadium".
It is a matter of record that at first the Government agreed 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. It was, after all, the previous Secretary of State, Chris Smith, who pulled the plug on athletics at Wembley. The Government could not then decide whether there should be a national stadium and whether athletics should be part of it. Today we seem not much further forward.
My questions are as follows. The Government sound as though they have set a deadline for the final proposals to be put forward by the World Stadium Team. Or have they? The Minister quotes the Carter report's recommendation that Birmingham should be actively considered if the World Stadium Team is unable to present its final proposals within a reasonable timescale. What is "reasonable"?
The Minister says that a timetable must be set which is fair to all those with an interest in the outcome. That is quite right; I welcome it. But what is that timetable? If we are not told now, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be unreasonable to expect the main players to work on without being given a steer as to the timetable.

305
The Minister says that further financial support for the project is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium costs. What are those costs? Has a ceiling been set by the Government? If so, on what basis? Will the Minister give an undertaking that no more public money will be committed to this project until the contracts are finalised?
The Minister says that the Government's interest is to protect the £120 million of lottery players' money—the public's money. I welcome that commitment. But how will the Government protect that money? Why should the FA continue to hold on to those funds when we still have no commitment about the position of athletics at Wembley? The noble Baroness will recall that the lottery grant was made in the first place only on the basis that athletics, alongside rugby, would have a home at Wembley—a home suitable for world class events. Will the FA hand back at least £20 million of the lottery grant until we find out whether athletics will be given more than a token presence at the national stadium—if there is one?
Noble Lords will be as disturbed today as I was to hear the Minister's statement about the failure by Wembley National Stadium Limited to adhere to best procurement practices or indeed to corporate government arrangements. I am relieved to learn that there is no evidence as to criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process. That is indeed an important matter.
However, is the Minister aware that the revelation today of this failure by the company to adhere to proper standards will do little to encourage investment in such a project? Will she accept that it is not enough for those involved in this nationally important project to be honest? They have to be competent too. The Minister says that she has suggested to the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited that they should make the report available to the public. What was their response to the suggestion?
I welcome the Minister's insistence that the FA and WNSL should commission an independent assessment of the value for money issue. That is a practical and proper way forward. Will that independent report be available to the public? The tail end of the Statement refers briefly to the vexed issue of the status of athletics at Wembley or Birmingham. Last night Members of this House were led by my noble friend Lord Glentoran in a debate on the future of athletics. The Government will have been left in no doubt of the importance which noble Lords attach to the need to ensure that athletics has a venue for international events.
In another place the Secretary of State said today in answer to a question that Wembley must be an "athletics capable stadium". I found that a curious description. How does the Minister define that—capable of doing what? What guarantee do we have that the athletics facilities at Wembley will be such that we can make a proper bid in future for the World Championships or athletics events of similar international stature?
306
I began by saying that it is a serious matter. Indeed it is. It is a matter of national interest and national pride. It is vital for the future of our sporting reputation, but particularly for the future hopes and dreams of our sportsmen and sportswomen, that the right solution is found soon.
6.40 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question of Mr Tim Yeo in the other place.
The noble Baroness read out the Answer confidently and clearly, as one would expect. However, the tone of the Statement does not reflect the confidence with which she delivered it. Rather, it is as though one had taken a number of close friends to a restaurant for an important occasion and the mâtre d'hôtel had said, "Your meal will not be delayed for very long. We will soon put out the fire in the kitchen". This has been a stop and go year—mostly stop—which has resulted in a fairly big mess. I do not believe that the Statement today will reassure many of those who have closely followed these events.
On behalf of these Benches, I have previously said that the argument about whether or not we should have a national stadium was not properly exercised by the Government. If we were to have a national stadium, surely the Government should have taken the leading role in ensuring that a national stadium project was carried out. Instead, the Government passed the buck to the Football Association, which was willing to take the lead on what we call a national stadium but was unable to do so. It was unable to raise the money in the city. Mr Ken Bates was unable to raise the £40 million or £50 million required. In due course he retired and was replaced by his successor, Sir Rodney Walker. Sir Rodney Walker also met with difficulties in raising the money. More significant was the Football Association's failure to persuade the Government—the Government were right to stand firm on this point—to fund £300 million of the estimated cost of this project. At a later stage, of course, they produced half that amount.
It seems that we now have a patching-up exercise. I shall not be so rude as to suggest, as some newspapers have, that it is a face-saving exercise. However, I believe that the Government and the Football Association have got themselves into a fair mess over this matter, and I am not sanguine about them getting out of it. If I represented a large organisation faced with the prospect of being sold this bill of goods, I do not believe that I would be confident about supporting it. That is because I do not think that it will happen. I believe that we shall again face the same problems in terms of raising the money.
We now have a contractor in place. There is a very interesting article in today's Guardian—noble Lords may not consider articles in the Guardian to be interesting, but they are from time to time—which refers to the difficulties of the Australian company, Multiplex. I do not believe everything that I read in

307
newspapers—in fact, I rather like their slogan, "Well built Australian"—but some fairly Les Patterson-type remarks were made by the chairman of that company, who, when asked whether the stadium would be finished in time for the FA Cup final in 2005, replied, "You can come and thump me if it isn't". I like that kind of direct speaking, but it does not exactly fit with the kind of tone that we expect for a national stadium. He also admitted that he has not the slightest interest in football. He said, "I haven't got a bloody clue about the offside rule", which does not inspire much confidence.
On a more serious note, we must begin to find answers to a number of questions. In my view, the question of the £120 million of lottery money has been tagged on to the Statement as a kind of appendix. Because we all read the newspapers, we know that the National Audit Office is taking a very close interest in what happened to the £20 million. Is that the reason for so many delays in recent weeks? Is that the reason the Government and the FA, apart from deciding what kind of bidding practices should be employed in the competition between Birmingham and Wembley, found themselves in difficulties?
On the subject of Wembley, as a very frequent visitor over the years, I can say that the traffic congestion is a nightmare. It was a nightmare in the 1960s, when I used to watch boxing matches there. Now it is a real nightmare. With the best will in the world, the £17 million or so that the Mayor, Mr Ken Livingstone. suggests he will contribute to improving the road access to Wembley will not be enough. In addition. we read that IMG has been awarded the contract to run the corporate side of what is called the national stadium, which apparently will raise revenue of £30 million per year. I shall believe that when I see it.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether what we are talking about is a national football stadium, not a national stadium. I am, and always have been, in favour of a national stadium located in London. However, with the crowds that it will attract, especially if corporate entertaining becomes a reality, a national football stadium will require an enormous road infrastructure around it, which will cost well in excess of £17 million.
In my opinion, we are talking about a national football stadium, not about athletics or any other sport. A national stadium is a national enterprise, for use not only for football, our national game, but also for other large sporting events, such as athletics. God forbid that we should have an event such as that in the United States when a memorial was held in a stadium for the terrible disaster that took place there. We need something of that standing—a national monument, which advertises to the rest of the world our confidence to have a national stadium. That will not happen. If this proposal goes ahead, we shall have a national football stadium, probably in the wrong place. I believe that a national football stadium should probably be in Birmingham. I am a betting man and prepared to bet that at the end of the day we shall have a national football stadium in Birmingham, but that. In
308
the interim period we shall see a lot of money go down the drain, in addition to the £50 million that has already gone.
Because I speak on these DCMS matters, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would address my concern about the £120 million that has already been passed to the Football Association. How do the Government propose to recover that money? On what has it been spent? How long will the National Audit Office take to report back on that matter? Are the Government prepared to move before the National Audit Office provides us with full details relating to the spending of the £120 million? Those are a few of my questions. I could continue asking questions all night but I do not intend to do so. In conclusion—let us not mince words—will the Minister kindly confirm that this is a national football stadium, not a national stadium?
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I start by responding to the last point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I cannot confirm that this will be a national football stadium, because it will not be. The noble Viscount has completely forgotten that it will be a stadium for rugby league, a very important sport at least in some parts of the country, if not in those parts where the noble Viscount spends his time. Moreover, the future of athletics in the stadium is still open, as the Statement made clear.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the Government have made it clear that it is for the Football Association to take the project forward and that the Government's role is to act as a facilitator.
The noble Baroness asked why my right honourable friend Chris Smith, the previous Secretary of State, decided to pull the plug on athletics. The answer is that the scheme that was proposed at that time was not viable. It would have cost £40 million to include an athletics platform in the proposed design. It would take six months to remove the platform in order to restore the stadium for other sports and six months to put it back again. That scheme clearly did not make much sense.
The noble Baroness asked about timetables and deadlines. Several complex issues still have to he resolved in that regard. In the end, it is for the FA to come up with a timetable, and I have every expectation that it will do so quite soon.
The noble Baroness also asked about further government funding and whether there was a ceiling on further government contributions. The answer is "yes". The Government have today stated that they will put a further £20 million into the project for infrastructural development—for non-stadium spending. That has to be subject to the assurances that the Government want—they were set out in the Statement—before agreeing that the present project should go forward.
The noble Baroness wanted to know whether the FA was going to hand back the £20 million if athletics was not going to go forward. The answer is a clear

309
"yes". The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked what had happened to the original £120 million. Of that sum, £106 million was spent by the FA on purchasing the freehold of Wembley, which it did not previously own, and £14 million was spent on design work for the new stadium. The £20 million is not, as it were, being handed back as unspent money; it is being provided by the FA voluntarily if it does not have to continue with athletics at the stadium. I hope that I have clearly explained the position.
The noble Baroness also asked about the publication of the report by WNSL. We have not yet had a response from WNSL about that, but the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that she believes that it should be published. However, it is not the Government's report and the matter is obviously for WNSL, which commissioned the report.
Athletics is a matter of great interest to the House, as was witnessed in our debate on an Unstarred Question last night, which was responded to by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. It is important for Sport England to carry out a full technical assessment of the feasibility of including athletics and to ensure that UK athletics and the international federation are completely satisfied with any proposals that might be pursued. We have to have an arrangement that is feasible and which makes sense. These are highly technical questions.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, also asked about Multiplex. He said that he does not believe everything that he reads in the papers; neither do I. And I am afraid that I am not an expert on the offside rule, either. However, I am not sure how far being an expert on the offside rule is a significant and important qualification in relation to the contract that Multiplex might be taking on in building the stadium.
The noble Viscount also discussed the traffic and infrastructure around Wembley. The Government entirely accept that it is important that we have proper access to the stadium and that there should be good transport links to and from it. The noble Viscount was perhaps putting too much emphasis on the roads; it is equally important to have proper rail and Tube connections to Wembley. For that reason, some extra funding is being provided by the Government—it was announced today—to go towards infrastructural costs. Other partners, besides the Mayor, are involved, including Brent and other interests.
I believe that I have answered all of the questions. If some remain unanswered, I shall write to the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, have not the FA scored a spectacular own goal by ignoring seven out of 10 fans and 55 out of 64 premier and league football clubs? They wanted the game that is at the heart of the nation to be sited at the heart of the nation, through the Birmingham Solihull bid. Will the Minister spell out precisely the extent of the Government's financial commitment and make it clear whether that would, in any circumstances, go beyond
310
the £20 million that was announced today? How does she realistically rate the chances of the FA doing in 15 weeks what it is signally failed to do in the past six years?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's big commitment to having the development in Birmingham, and I understand the disappointment of people in Birmingham and the West Midlands that both the FA and the Carter report favoured Wembley. It is for the FA to make a final decision on that matter, and it should take into account the views of the football community across England. I believe that it has done so, and I understand that there are commercial advantages in choosing Wembley.
On my noble friend's other point, I give a clear commitment that the Government are not intending to put any further funding into the project, other than the £20 million that we announced today and the £120 million that has already gone into the project from the lottery.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I contest that answer. For the first time in 25 years, I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. There will be grave disappointment in Birmingham and the West Midlands about the way in which the decision appears to be going. It is the second time in succession that the natural decision was for a project to come to Birmingham and the West Midlands, but it has gone to London and the South East. I speak as a long-standing opponent of the Dome going to Greenwich, under either government. By any definition, much public money will go into the project—lottery money, government money and development agency money. In those circumstances and with that financial influence, Ministers can surely do more than they are currently doing to ensure a better and fairer spread of such national projects around the country.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot add a great deal to what I have already said. Again, I understand the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to Birmingham and the West Midlands. He represented a constituency there for a very long time in another place. However, these issues have been examined in great depth by a completely independent commentator, Patrick Carter. He supports the position taken by the FA, which is that, on balance, there are advantages in the national stadium being sited in the capital at Wembley. At the same time, he has made it clear that, if for one reason or another that does not happen, Birmingham will be a very acceptable alternative.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Statement that she has repeated today has more holes in it than a sieve? If she examines the detail of the FA's financing, she will realise that it is not acceptable to put such a financial position before your Lordships' House. It is not adequate that this House should be given a Statement suggesting that the

311
FA will be engaged in a kind of voluntary process in returning £20 million of our money when it will have acquired the freehold of Wembley Stadium.
The Statement is a failure if it pretends that Birmingham is being treated fairly by being given a chance to bid if London fails. That shows how skewed and biased the decision-making process is. Does my noble friend accept that the Statement that she has been forced to read to your Lordships today shows a lack of fairness, equity and transparency? Certainly it shows a total lack of a level playing field when it comes to making essentially national rather than London-centric decisions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, again, my noble friend is a very forceful pursuer of the interests of Birmingham and the West Midlands. As I said in reply to the noble Lords who asked the previous two questions on this matter, I understand the disappointment. However, I believe that my noble friend has gone a little over the top in some respects. I stand by the Statement that has just been made. I do not believe that it is full of holes. In many ways I believe that we are now moving forward towards a national stadium of which we can all be proud. Of course, further issues must be resolved. But I also say to my noble friend that, if the project does not go ahead, the £120 million will have to be returned to the Government. That has always been fully understood. That was the basis on which the money was provided, and I hope that my noble friend will accept that.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that this is quite the most disappointing Statement that I have ever heard in all my parliamentary life? Is she aware that the whole country was geared up to hear an announcement today about what was going to happen? But here we are, two years later, with £50 million down the drain and with no decision having been taken. It may be another two years before a decision is made. Is she aware that the Government have scored the most awful own goal today? The announcement is totally disappointing, and everyone will want to know why it has taken so long to reach this position. Is she aware that this puts the Select Committee's condemnation of the Government entirely in its proper light?
However, can she go further in relation to the £120 million? It was given by Sport England to the FA—very foolishly, I believe—because of the involvement of athletics. But there is no involvement of athletics and nor will there be. The configuration of athletics in a 400-metre stadium is simply not on. Had the noble Baroness read the report of our debate on the subject last night, she would know that we explained that. The total £120 million should be handed back to Sport England to distribute through the lottery system to good causes in sport generally in the United Kingdom. That is absolutely essential; otherwise, the £120 million will simply sit there for the FA to make money out of when it has no right to it at all.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that there is some misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord. The £120 million is not simply sitting there. As I have already explained, that money has been used both to purchase the freehold and to undertake the extensive and expensive design work that must be carried out in relation to a major project of this type. That is why the lottery and Sport England decided to hand over the money. As I have already said, if die project does not go forward, the money will be returned.
I also believe that the noble Lord has misunderstood the situation when he says categorically that there will be no involvement of athletics in the project. I have made it absolutely clear that there are now new technical ways in which to build athletics into a stadium of this type. Because I am not an expert—nor, indeed, is anyone in this House—I cannot say whether that new approach will be viable. That is why it must be examined by all the experts, including the international federation and the UK board of athletics. That makes absolute sense. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord is being over-dismissive before it is appropriate to be so.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I start by declaring an unpaid interest as a local authority-nominated public interest director of the Cardiff Millennium Stadium. That stadium was built on time and on budget for £140 million with only £46 million of Millennium Commission grant. I have some sympathy for my noble friend and for the Secretary of State. The one aspect of the Statement which I consider to he absolutely right is that which insists that the match should go into extra time.
The concern expressed by Mr Carter over corporate governance and the procurement process as it relates to the Multiplex company seems to me to be entirely justified. The noble Viscount referred to this morning's Guardian. If he had looked at tonight's Evening Standard he would find more revelations about Multiplex—the company responsible for building the west stand at Chelsea Football Club—in relation to an investigation carried out by an Australian Royal Commission into corruption in the construction industry. I believe that those issues must be resolved. The role of Multiplex in this project and, indeed, in other football projects in this country also needs to be examined carefully before that company is allowed to take part in this new project.
I want to ask another question about the return of the £20 million of lottery funding. In tonight's press, Mr Trevor Brooking, the chairman of Sport England, is apparently quoted as saying that the Wembley scheme complies with lottery funding requirements and will be eligible for a £120 million grant; that is, with no return of the £20 million. On the other hand, there is a reference to the view of the Secretary of State. It is said that Tessa Jowell is understood to be firmly of the opinion that the money should be repaid. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport hotly disputes reports that it has already agreed that the FA should keep the £20 million. I wonder whether my

313
noble friend can clear up that matter and tell us whether the Secretary of State or Mr Trevor Brooking is right on that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the first set of issues raised by my noble friend. It is because of the concerns of Patrick Carter and, indeed, the report carried out for WNSL that the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that answers are needed to a number of questions. It is for those reasons that an independent value-for-money assessment needs to be commissioned into the proposed contracts with Multiplex. It is for those reasons that confirmation is required that corporate government changes will be completed in order to achieve a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within the procedures that are acceptable to the public sector. And it is for those reasons that confirmation is required that financial support is adequate after taking into account all the relevant factors in a process of due diligence.
However, my noble friend asked again about the return of £20 million of lottery funding. I believe that, again, I need to make it clear that the whole £120 million has already been spent. Therefore, it is not a matter of returning lottery funding in that sense; it is a matter of the Football Association fulfilling its agreement to pay £20 million for its release from a commitment to athletics in the national stadium. If athletics do not take place in the national stadium the Football Association will pay back the £20 million. If athletics do take place, that extra money will be available to put into athletics. I hope that I have made that clear.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, what lessons have the Government learned so far from the national stadium story?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little surprised by the tone of the question posed by the noble Lord. Today's announcement demonstrates that the Football Association is committed to developing a national stadium. It has indicated that Wembley is its preferred option—I know that that disappoints some, but it pleases others—and it has reaffirmed its financial commitment to the project. Today the Government have made a commitment, in principle, to put in a further £20 million towards the infrastructure. The Statement contains many positive aspects, but the noble Lord appears to see only the negative.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, along with many other noble Lords, I find the Statement particularly depressing. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said about Wales. I declare an interest as a millennium commissioner and I have been one since the conception of the commission under my noble friend Lord Brooke.
314
However, paragraph 15 of the Statement depresses me. It states that,
"confirmation that corporate governance changes will be completed to achieve a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures".
After what we went through with NMEC and the Dome—I sat on the finance committee of the Millennium Commission during a most incompetent, mismanaged major project—the Government have still not learned what they should do to look after our lottery money, and to ensure that proper corporate governance is in place. Clearly, on this point such corporate governance is not in place. The Secretary of State has said that there is no sign, at this stage, of fraud. But, judging by what happened with NMEC, there is fraud somewhere and misappropriation.
I would like confirmation from the Secretary of State in reference to the purchasing of the property by the FA. Can she assure the House that the grant, contracts and the directions associated with the grant are totally in line with the controls on the expenditure of lottery funding? I find it hard to believe that an organisation like Sport England was able to give the FA £120 million to buy a property with no ties? Where has the money gone?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that I have already explained where the lottery money has gone. The confirmation of adequate corporate governance applies to the project as it develops over the number of years taken to build it. It is extremely important that in any contract for a huge and complex project of this kind that corporate governance should be adequate. Having seen the signals from a report commissioned by WNSL, the Government are taking the right steps to ensure that that happens. If there are any lessons to be learned from the history of the Dome—I am not clear to what the noble Lord refers when he talks about fraud on a large scale as I do not believe that there is much evidence of that—the Government are doing exactly what needs to be done to ensure that all the right procedures are followed and that we have proper propriety in the pursuit of this project in the future.

Litter
7.14 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath rose to call attention to the problem of litter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the problem of litter. I first sought a debate on this subject a year ago. Since then it is clear that the problem has become even more disturbing. A decade ago I recall that in the other place we were told by the previous government that the incidence of litter was reducing. It was not and it has not.
I am aware that Her Majesty's Government are concerned that the scale of litter does not help us to defend our country against a not wholly justified charge that it is the dirty man of Europe. But our country is not clean. Although there are some areas

315
where local pride and community action have secured an impressive condition, in other areas the scale of litter is dreadful and I am sad to say that parts of my own county of South Yorkshire offer cause for disgust. Perhaps that is linked to the devastation of our economic base in the 1980s, when I recall suggesting that, although the employment effect was dire, the social corrosion that could result may be a graver consequence. That may be a factor.
However, there has been continuing economic transformation and marked advance that justifies great hope, but the litter problem is worse than ever. In the 1960s, as chairman of our local authority, I remember that we had a campaign to clear litter. Then the problem was tiny. It is widely recognised that the level of decay and litter today would have been unimaginable then. The Rotherham local authority has recently consulted the public and the result has been a clear statement and a clear expression of public opinion that the defeat of litter should command the highest local priority.
On Saturday I visited the town center in Wath Upon Dearne. The volume of litter was dreadful and worse than any I have seen before. There are many litter bins and I looked in quite a few of them. For every piece of litter in the litter bins there were at least 100 pieces scattered about near them. Many of the items of litter were strewn about in close proximity to the CCTV cameras. When the cameras were installed we had high hopes of their effect, but clearly they have not inhibited the fouling of the area.
Sooner or later common sense will suggest that, in order to defeat the problem, all available weapons will have to be deployed. Two or three years ago I recall being horrified by deliberate dumping of litter in attractive locations. I took photographs and sent some to the local authority, to the local newspapers and to the chief constable. The local authority cleared those sites that were foul and disgusting—plastic bags and bags that had burst with dreadful things oozing from them—within 24 hours. The local press published the photographs and offered supportive comment, but I had no response from the third recipient.
The public see the deliberate dumping of litter as similar to the crimes of vandalism, criminal damage and graffiti. Often they are treated as trivial offences, but their incidence today is so serious that they eat into the very heart of the public good. Such offences are expensive. There should be greater awareness of how much they cost and to what better purposes that money could be put if there were a greater degree of responsibility.
When in London I live in Pimlico, close to a local secondary school. In my years of residence there I have not encountered any litter. That is not the case elsewhere. When I was a schoolmaster there was no litter problem at my establishment because if children dropped litter they picked it up and any other pieces that lay near it. However, the situation has changed. The other day a teacher said to me that in these increasingly litigious days, teachers are hesitant to ask
316
children to pick up litter because the parents may object. Personally, I believe that that risk should be run.
The other day I was reminded of the problem when Rotherham council advised me that the recent fixed penalty orders that the council had issued were applied in some cases to children whose schools they had visited to help in the fight against litter. Perhaps the national curriculum should include rather more complementary reference to the need for social responsibility.
But I have sympathy with the teachers, just as I have with the excellent local authority officers who are at the forefront of the battle against litter. Mr Rex Carter and Mr Robert Crosby, for example, in Rotherham must feel almost daily frustration in their efforts in this direction.
I have sympathy for police officers on the front line because the present legal position seems absurd. In practice, if a police officer sees someone drop some litter, he can ask him to remove it. If that person refuses he is unlikely to be prosecuted at the present time. In the past, if he had refused and then used obscene language in response to the policeman, he would probably have been prosecuted. But a learned judge recently described the "f" word as being in common parlance. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted if he used it in response to a police officer's request to remove the litter that he had dropped. That situation is quite absurd.
The litter problem is also dangerous. We have regulations to deal specifically with dog fouling. But there are items of litter which perhaps are even more dangerous; for example, garden poisons, oil-based waste, sharp metal objects, pieces of wood with nails protruding from them and broken glass. In 1999, one of our dogs suffered quite serious and painful leg injuries. It required 30 visits to our local vet. Fortunately the dog was insured. But what would have been the consequence if a child had been injured by the same irresponsibly thrown litter?
There is the present passion of the irresponsible motorist. They may not drink and drive, but many of them drink while driving and then throw the can or the bottle from the car window. Last Sunday I walked for about 600 yards along a busy road, with fields on one side and trees on the other, and there were scores of containers of food and drink. Many of them must have been thrown from car windows. What evidence do we have of any serious response to that kind of problem? What should we do about it?
First, we need to see a determined effort to promote the case for decency, with higher priority being given to this aspect of public attention. It may have a cost, but so does the problem. Secondly, perhaps we need a specific local authority-linked national structure which can concentrate on the problem and ensure that best practices are widely known and swiftly followed and that worthwhile initiatives are nationally recognised.

317
That is not all. Urgent attention needs to be given to the official regulations and practices. As I said, the present situation does not lead to any notable increase in the number of offences. There were far fewer convictions last year and in 1999 than there were 10 years earlier. Yet far more offences have taken place. There is a case for much greater use of fixed penalties. They involve the local authorities in considerable work and cost but can be a most useful tool of common sense. Unfortunately, I understand that the receipts from those notices have to be passed on to central government. I would rather the local authorities had them and were persuaded to use them to deal with and respond to this problem.
I said earlier that in the 1960s I knew that students in schools in my area had to pick up litter from the site where they had thrown it. That leads me to suggest another change. Community service orders serve as an alternative to custodial sentences. The courts should not have the right to issue automatic custodial sentences in cases of this kind, but they should have the right and power—and exercise that power to require offenders against the environment to spend significant time and trouble clearing up the areas that they have harmed. That would greatly encourage people who give dedicated service to the communities and care for their environment. Certainly they are not encouraged by the present situation when fines are around £84 per offence, whereas in 1993 they were £115. The fines have not even kept pace with the level of inflation while the problem has intensified quite severely.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 was quite a step forward, but both that Act and the consequential orders could usefully be reviewed. I accept that the department's code of practice is excellent, but it may not provide quite as much of the answer or encourage the adequacy of response that we need.
I deal now with my two final points which are urgent and serious. I received a notice the other day—other noble Lords in London may have also—to say that if I wanted to dispose of a refrigerator it would cost me between £20 and £30. That is not unreasonable. I know that retailers will not accept old refrigerators and that local authorities have to pay at least £20 to dispose of them when they have been dumped. But already refrigerators are being dumped because of that charge. The risks associated with the recycling of old refrigerators are serious. But so is the risk of a child getting fast inside a dumped refrigerator and dying.
Last week there were four dumped cars within a mile of my home, each having notices attached to them. That was the second weekend that two of them have been there. The new regulations are very desirable and will make a difference, but, so far as concerns pre-2002 cars, not for quite a time. The present position is absurd. The cost to a local authority of disposing of a dumped car may be as much as £138.
In my metropolitan area of a quarter-of-a-million population, 39 cars were dumped in 1999-2000, 206 in 2000–2001 and we expect over 500 in the present financial year. If a dumped car is seen to be of value
318
and has a tax disc, the local authority has to wait 21 days before it can remove it from the side of the highway; it has to wait 15 days if the vehicle is on private land; and if the vehicle does not have a tax disc, it has to wait seven days before it can remove it. If the vehicle has no value and has no tax disc. it can be removed. That means that dumped cars are quite often left in vulnerable places where they are a nuisance and a hazard. I believe that more urgent action is necessary.
The principle underlying our environment policy is and must be that the polluter should pay. The public understand that; so should the polluter and the penalties should be relevant. We need to apply those penalties in order to secure the improvement needed. That effort should be maintained so that one day when we sing or recite the words, "green and pleasant land", we are not offering a mere parody. I beg to move for Papers.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for starting this debate. It is an important subject. The most interesting part of the debate will be the Government's reply. We shall listen closely to discover whether they are a government of action and joined-together policies, or whether this is one of those debates to which they merely produce a defensive brief saying that they recognise that there are problems but they are dealing with them.
Let us hope that we get some innovative thinking and specific replies to the points that we raise. If points that we raise are not answered in the Minister's speech, I hope that at least a letter will be placed in the Library in reply to each of them, which we can then use for our next debate, if necessary.
Litter is a disgrace, and an unnecessary disgrace. Life is full of disgraces that are difficult to deal with. Litter is not one of them. There are two solutions to litter: first, not to throw it down; secondly, to pick it up. Let me deal with the two in order.
First, let me deal with not throwing litter down. Let me follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about education. Teaching about litter should be specifically included in the curriculum of every school in the country—private or public. It should be a specific part of social responsibility. I would go further. All children at some stage in their time at school should go out on litter-picking parties. First, they would find out how satisfying it is to pick up litter. Secondly, it would make them more intolerant when they have left school of those who discard litter.
Secondly, I have a specific suggestion to encourage picking up litter. Many years ago, in Oregon in the United States, a law was introduced whereby most food containers—cans, bottles and cartons—were returnable. They were returnable in that when anyone who picked up a discarded food container he could get a few cents when he took it to a shop. That has meant that when the affluent discard containers, the less

319
affluent pick them up. They take them to a shop—it can be any shop—and the shops are under a legal obligation to pay so much per container.
Oregon is one of the cleanest states in the United States. I strongly recommend a visit to those of your Lordships who have not been there. The returnable container law has spread to many other states. That is why the United States is surprisingly clean—certainly in comparison to this country. I offer that as a specific suggestion, and hope that the Minister will respond—
perhaps by saying that the Government are already considering it and that it is to be contained in a future Bill to be presented to Parliament.
I admit that there is a cost to making packaging returnable. It adds to the cost of the product. However, to coin a phrase, that is a price well worth paying.
Let me turn to the question of penalties. I agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Hardy, said. Of course there should be much wider prosecution. Closed circuit television is an obvious weapon to use. Community service is the ideal solution for those convicted of littering. It is tailor-made for it.
However, let me tell the Minister a story of a friend of mine who was the chairman of a magistrates' bench in south London. She was asked—admittedly some years ago—by the chief probation officer of her court not to award so many community service orders. She was told, "Please, Mrs Stewart-Roberts, do not award so many community service orders, because there are not things for people to do". My friend said, "I find that strange. This is a pretty grubby part of London. What about picking up litter?". The probation officer drew himself up and said, "Mrs Stewart-Roberts, that would not be in accordance with the dignity of our clients". Imagine that! That is totally the wrong philosophy.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is not the sort of attitude that she would endorse. If people have discarded litter, it is absolutely the ideal thing to make them pick up litter. It is a suitable penalty to meet the crime. I had an amusing experience not long ago. I was talking to some senior police officers and suggested that community service orders be used for collecting litter from roads. One senior officer was rather worried by that. He said, "That might be dangerous because people could be sucked into the road by a heavy vehicle passing". I said, "I do not think that that would happen if they were properly chained together". There was a silence: he was not sure whether I was joking.
We must face up to the need for proper penalties. I remember that not long ago the Prime Minister made a speech about graffiti and said that people would be set to scrub it off. The speech received a lot of publicity; it was a good speech. But how many of your Lordships have seen people scrubbing off graffiti? Within a few hundred yards of the Palace of Westminster, on Lambeth Bridge, there is always graffiti on the pillars. That is unacceptable and unnecessary.
320
Let me turn to the obligations to clear litter on roads. As I understand it, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and local authorities have contractors whose responsibility it is. I am not saying that that is the best way to do it, but that is how it is done. Contracts are given to contractors to clear litter. How come, then, that the roads are filthy with litter?
Since I entered your Lordships' House, I have on several occasions tabled Questions for Written Answer listing roads that are particularly dirty. Usually, I find that I receive an Answer saying it has been drawn to someone's attention, or a letter is sent from the regional director, or whatever. A few weeks later, when I go along that road, the road is cleaner. But it should not be for a Member of Parliament to have to table a Question about a particular road—although, given that it seems to work, I encourage your Lordships to do so. Next time you are on a road and you find it filthy, table a Question for Written Answer giving details of the road. You will get an Answer and may get results.
But I go much further. There is a contractual obligation for picking up litter and public money is being spent, but the service is not being provided. The National Audit Office should investigate the terms of the contract and how the contracts are monitored and report to Parliament to do something about it. The present situation is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Finally, picking up litter is a satisfying opportunity. When my children, my wife and I go on holiday, we normally start by cleaning up wherever we are—a beach in Cornwall, Greece or wherever. It is great fun. Litter attracts litter. If one picks up litter, there will be much less litter for quite a long time. That is a fact. I do not know why it is the case, but it is.
I am chairman of my parish council—that is in the Register of Members' Interests. That is the most important position that I have ever had and ever will have. All the Marlesford parish councillors have litter pickers—which are inexpensive to buy. We each have a bit of the parish to keep clean. That is easy, fun and thoroughly satisfactory.
I got involved in the political process for one reason only: it infuriated me to see things that needed to be done and were not being done. That is why I went into politics. That is why, in a matter as simple as this, which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has rightly brought to our attention, we need action now. I should like to feel that if we have another such debate in a year's time, we shall be able to praise the Government on their progress.
7.38 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on securing this debate and express my admiration for his perseverance. I remember him telling us in great detail about litter problems when we debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and on many other occasions.

321
Wrapping in plastic has transformed our lives. When people go out nowadays, whether they are housewives or not, they no longer have to take a basket, a gunny sack or anything like that. They go to buy their goods and are given the necessary bags or whatever to take them home again. I must express an interest in the subject, first, as a resident of a scenic area who has to spend time picking up litter that has been left from people's shopping expeditions. Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend Lord Marlesford that in my area school children used to go out picking up litter but it has now been ruled as dangerous because of the risk of infection. Therefore, in my area no school children go out picking up litter, only those who do so voluntarily.
I also express an interest as a farmer who in some ways creates the litter which people accuse those in the countryside of harbouring. Plastic has transformed the lives not only of ordinary people in the street but of the farming and horticultural industries. It has the ability to keep out moisture and air. However, if I order five tonnes of feed for the sheep in the fields, I also receive 200 plastic bags. If I make silage, it is either bailed or sheeted in plastic and when travelling around the country one can now see fields covered in strips of plastic. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that as commercial enterprises are involved not all the plastic is tidied up the way it should be. Given our coastal maritime climate, a certain amount of it can be scattered around the countryside.
Thanks to research undertaken by the Library, I discovered that the National Farmers Union told a sub-committee of the other place that the industry generates 81,000 tonnes of plastic waste per annum. Agricultural wrapping used to be easily disposed of when it was either hessian bags or sisal twine—they could be buried or left to rot. But the present advice on plastic disposal is either to bury it on the farm or pay for it to be carted away and buried somewhere else. That would remove the great bulk of the waste that is difficult to keep track of.
The Government, when they saw the problem coming, tried to impose a levy on the UK manufacturers of plastic in order to finance a fund to collect and dispose of it. The problem was that as soon as the extra cost hit our plastic manufacturers, the agricultural trade found it could buy much cheaper plastic elsewhere. We were then flooded with cheap plastic from overseas. The suggested financing system fell on its face.
Currently the odd do-it-yourself scheme can be found whereby hauliers making empty return journeys will, for a donation, pick up a package of plastic and take it to a processor. The problem is that current technology for creating anything of further use is so poor that it is not economic for the processors to collect the plastic for themselves. The process available does not produce a product of any quality and therefore there is a lack of finance.
That might seem a small issue when DEFRA tells us that this country was required to dispose of 29 million tonnes of waste in 1999–2000. But the disposal of
322
plastic is also a problem as regards municipal waste. Currently we recycle only 11 per cent of municipal waste and 80 per cent of it goes into landfill. Like our farm plastic, it is merely buried in the ground.
The problem for the Government is that we are tied into the European Commission's landfill directive, 1999/31/ED, which will require us to recycle three times as much of our waste as we do at present. I was pleased to see that the Government have a proposal for a waste recycling action programme. Some public relations person has done a good job because the acronym is WRAP. However, if we are to have any chance of meeting the target, the Government must be sure that enough of the landfill tax which is presently being raised goes into research to produce the most beneficial methods of disposal.
A few weeks ago it was reported on the BBC that Downing Street advisers say we face fines from the European Union of up to £500,000 per day if we do not meet the target that is given under that directive. So it appears to be an issue which the Government cannot afford to ignore and it would greatly help the litter problem.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the problems associated with litter are familiar to everyone. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for introducing the debate today. Litter is not just unsightly; it increases the risk of accidents and can present a serious health risk. People say that they feel less comfortable in a littered area than in a clean area. There is no doubt that litter is a serious problem.
It is also an expensive problem. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it costs around £370 million a year to remove litter from our streets, waterways and open spaces. It costs £2.5 million a year to remove rubbish and litter from our beaches alone. It costs a further £5 million to remove shopping trolleys dumped in rivers and ponds.
The removal of litter is vital in ensuring that communities are clean, safe and attractive places to be. I am pleased to see that the Government have introduced a number of measures this year to help local authorities keep streets and open spaces clean, including the introduction of street wardens.
However, I must confess that I was rather concerned by the recent MORI poll, whose results suggested that the British public believe that Britain's towns and cities are dirtier than those in the rest of western Europe. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents said that litter was a contributory factor in making them feel uncomfortable in Britain's streets. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, could outline what progress has been made thus far in improving the overall cleanliness of communities around the UK as a result of the "three-pronged attack" announced in March and of other more recent measures.
In other surveys of the British public's attitude towards litter, results have suggested that tougher enforcement of higher fines would be the biggest

323
disincentive to those tempted to drop litter. Eighty-three per cent of people questioned in the MORI survey said that they had some knowledge of the law with regard to littering. Presumably the imposition of tines commands widespread support. I wonder!
I should be interested to learn whether the Government plan to increase the fine on those caught dropping litter from the current £25 fixed penalty. Fines can be doubly effective in purely economic terms. They can deter people from dropping litter and free up resources to tackle the existing problem.
The cost of the problem is set to increase markedly over the next few years, with tougher targets placing new demands on local authorities. I wonder whether the Government consider increased fines as one way of helping to meet these targets.
Ensuring that litter is collected frequently enough to keep streets and open spaces clean is the first phase of the litter problem. The second is its disposal. The Government rightly have accepted a tough challenge in the form of the EU landfill directive. We have already heard a certain amount about that today. Under the directive, Britain is required to reduce the amount of biodegradable household waste disposed of in landfill from the present level of 85 per cent to no more than 35 per cent by 2020, compared with 1995 levels. In addition, as has also been pointed out today, we have been warned that tough financial penalties could result from non-compliance.
If we consider that the amount of waste emanating from Britain is growing by 3 per cent per year, the implication is that we will have to double our waste disposal capacity by 2020. If we also consider that around 54 per cent of commercial and industrial waste and 83 per cent of municipal waste is currently managed by landfill, it is clear that the EU target is an extremely tough one to meet. The proposed reduction in waste going to landfill is most welcome, but it is far from clear how we can achieve that reduction so quickly by using other forms of waste disposal, without a radical improvement in other facilities.
The taxes imposed on those using landfill is one way in which the Government are seeking to reduce the proportion of waste being disposed of in this manner. Do the Government envisage any further increase in landfill taxes in order to help local authorities direct resources into other means of waste disposal? Use of such revenue would seem to be the only way in which recycling and composting facilities can be brought up to scratch.
We should bear in mind the targets for value recovery announced in May 2000 in the Government's waste strategy. Britain's current recycling performance does not compare favourably with that of some other European countries. We recycle only 6 per cent of household waste, compared with 18 per cent in Germany, 28 percent in the Netherlands and 42 per cent in Switzerland. Incidentally, the United States records an impressive 24 per cent. Members of the public, businesses and local authorities appear to be of one mind on the subject of recycling, but can carry out their good intentions only if they have sufficient
324
resources to do so. I should be most grateful to the noble Baroness if she would give your Lordships some idea of the Government's plans to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to help improve Britain's recycling record. Of particular interest would be the provision of an efficient doorstep service for the collection of recyclable goods. As the option of landfill becomes less viable, it seems sensible and desirable that value recovery should become the guiding principle in the future of waste disposal.
Fly-tipping presents a further problem. It is immensely frustrating for landowners and local authorities when large items are disposed of illegally on their land. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, mentioned the problem of discarded refrigerators, to which we shall return tomorrow. Landowners and local authorities have to pick up the bill for ensuring that the items are disposed of properly. There is evidence to suggest that fly-tipping is on the increase. While the Government have expressed their commitment to helping local authorities enforce the littering laws, at present it seems that the authorities are bearing the additional financial burden of fly-tipping. The DTLR Select Committee has suggested increased fines for such "environmental crimes", but of course those will be effective only if local authorities are able to enforce them.
Finally, I welcome the Government's pledge to be the "greenest government" ever. Good luck to them; they will certainly need it in order to go some way towards fulfilling that pledge if Britain is to avoid heavy financial penalties in the future. But confronting the problem of litter is not only about avoiding penalties. It is a ubiquitous problem and commands a high degree of consensus. The challenge lies in devising a suitable means of reducing the enormous amount of waste generated by Britain and removing some of the energy available from that waste. The removal of litter is one very obvious issue in the context of a much wider problem.
I look forward to hearing more about the ways in which the Government will build on the progress that has been made so far. They will have to become much swifter in order to keep up with the increasing amount of waste that is being generated by the day in Britain.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Front Bench but I am sitting on a Back Bench. That is only right and proper because almost certainly I shall say something with which the Front Bench would disagree.
This is an extremely important subject and one which has been extraordinarily well expressed by the noble Lord who moved the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. He has had a long interest in the subject. He touched on the core of it when he spoke of his experience as a schoolmaster, where it proved both necessary and effective to convince young people of the good they would do if they took the attitude that waste should be tidied up and, further, that they too have a responsibility not only for picking up rubbish

325
but also for not creating it. In many foreign countries a much better attitude is shown towards the problem. I recall seeing a group of Czech schoolchildren: they were unwrapping their sweets and then carefully tucking the wrappers into their pockets. As I have said, attitude is extremely important.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made a good point about forcing manufacturers to pay. There is no question about that. Let us take the example of milk cartons. It is far cheaper to buy plastic milk cartons because they are non-returnable and, unlike bottles, they do not need to be washed or steamed. The Government are quite right to impose a penalty to be borne by the packagers of milk, given the lower costs of production. Similarly, the noble Duke quoted remarkable figures about the amount of plastic material used on farms. He had done his homework, which I never do. It is a problem that one can see all over the countryside. A strong case can be made for the manufacturers, whether or not they are based abroad, to bear the costs of collecting such material.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, put his finger on the problem when he said that recycling is way below par in this country. We need to do something about it. When one goes into a shop, plastic materials are poured out in all directions. The situation is ludicrous. A better system of collection is needed. In my local city of Dundee the authorities have been trying hard, with some success, to arrange the separation of waste in order to do something with it. All those points are enormously important.
Another area in which we are making no progress—I should like the Minister to comment on this—is incineration. The incineration of waste can supply both heat and power and is a very economic method of dealing with the material. However, it has failed in the main because of the attitude of local citizens, who strongly oppose incineration plants because in the past the machinery was of doubtful quality. But we need to look again at the proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, rightly has been complimented on bringing forward this subject. It is only a pity that more noble Lords have not taken an interest.
Let me finish by reflecting on what led me to take part in the debate. The reason is quite simple. Earlier today I walked down Whitehall from the Farmers' Club—which has a great many distinguished residents from this House—to the Palace of Westminster. Everywhere I looked I could see discarded paper cups and lids, shreds of paper and so forth. The scene was an absolute mess. After lunch I walked along Whitehall once again and the pavement was a little better. But I was shocked beyond measure when I looked at the statues of three great men, Field Marshal Alanbrooke, Field Marshal Slim and Field Marshal Montgomery, and saw that they were surrounded by leaves, newspapers, lids and cartons. It has been that way for a long time. The Ministry of Defence could at least clean around these heroes of our time in the way that we clean up the leaves in our gardens several times before winter.
326
This is a subject of enormous importance and the Government should take it seriously. We should all follow the example of the noble Lord and raise the issue again, because obviously there will not be the progress we desire.
8 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for this timely opportunity to highlight the problem of litter. For the second time today I declare an interest—one that we all have—in that I am against litter. Fortunately for me, this is not only a farming problem but a much more general one; we are all concerned about litter. I am sure that we have all experienced the dumping of various materials other than litter along our roadsides and in our gateways. Items such as sofas and burnt-out cars get dumped on a regular basis.
The debate is timely because the problem of litter is always worse where large numbers of people congregate in holiday or festive mood. We are coming up to that time of the year again. Should anyone doubt me, I suggest that they ask some of the people who have to clear up after big events and festivals such as the Town and Country, Glastonbury or Silverstone, or those who have to bin the aftermath of any major sporting contest, be it Premiership football or a Test Match.
I cannot believe anyone would dispute my assertion that litter is a problem. As other noble Lords have suggested, it affects our safety and that of our children. It impinges on the success or otherwise of our tourist initiatives; and it costs an enormous amount of money to control.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said that even where litter bins are provided people dump litter in the street. He also reflected on the need to teach our children about the problem. I am sure he is right.
Perhaps I may remind the House about the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign, which I believe is held in April each year. If it is not, the Minister will put me right. We could probably make more of that week in highlighting the problem of litter. Certainly my family have been involved in such campaigns. My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to that issue and to the importance of encouraging schoolchildren to keep Britain tidy. He also suggested that community service orders should include a requirement for people to collect litter, particularly where they have disposed of it.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose highlighted an aspect of the problem which I suspect the Minister has not considered—that is, the greater use of plastic by farming communities. It is a problem. I know that farmers would appreciate any help the Government can give in the recycling of plastic, which is, on the whole, heavy plastic.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran spoke about the demands on local authorities and the ways in which they manage to deal with waste.

327
We applaud the European Commission's efforts to control the amount of packaging material used to cover non-perishable items and its ruling on the disposal of certain white goods, notably fridges and freezers. When, however, will the Government use their position "in the vanguard of European thinking" to persuade their continental colleagues to force manufacturers of gum products to pay for the regular cleaning of all public tarmacadamecl or concreted walkways.
I pause for a moment to reflect that if Lord Long was still in the House, he would surely have spoken in the debate. As many noble Lords will remember, he was a champion for disposing of the dreadful gum product which is deposited on our walkways.
Will the Government find a way to prohibit the production of mass produced, intentional litter? By this I mean all the loose material which is added to newspapers and magazines; pamphlets, and so on, which are delivered by the Post Office, unaddressed and unfranked; and all the advertising bumf that we get through our doors on a regular basis. Do we really need, for example, when we buy an electric appliance, a thick booklet which tells us how to use it in a dozen different languages? All we need is a booklet printed in the language of our own country. Have the Government raised that matter with the European Commission?
Moving from the roads to the railways, now that the Government have taken over from Railtrack, will they insist that whichever institution takes control in the future it will give an immediate and on-going priority to its responsibility for cleaning the tracks, the stations and marshalling yards? Having served on a transport committee, I understand that the removal of litter from marshalling yards and stations is the responsibility of Railtrack; the train operators are not allowed to move it. It is a very strange situation where the company responsible for removing litter from stations is not doing so. Yet the litter in stations gives a dreadful impression to those coming to visit a particular area, he it in a city or in the country.
As I travel around the country—which I do quite a lot—I notice that private companies such as B&Q and Tesco, to name but two, seem to help in the collection of not only paper but of clothing, shoes and textiles, whereas most municipal bodies do riot. Can the Minister explain why?
Can she also explain why, over and over again, I read of councils,
"trialling the doorstep collection of newspapers or the kerbside uplifting of garden rubbish"?
Surely there need be only one or two trials followed by universal implementation of a scheme? When will the Government ensure uniformity of uptake—or do they believe that each council should decide for itself?
Several noble Lords referred to fly tipping. We all agree that this is a disgusting, dangerous and unnecessary practice. Gateways, side roads, lay-bys, field entrances and public paths are constantly blocked by cut-down leylandii, old furniture, household rubbish and unwanted toys. I have been
328
told recently that an old greenhouse—with broken concrete and glass, rotten wood and shards of pottery—was found on a pathway used by children to reach a playground. Surely it costs far more for the council to trundle around to collect it than to concentrate on the perpetrator who is tipping illegally. Are the Government considering siting CCTV cameras in known dumping hot-spots, or perhaps considering the use of mobile speed cameras? These would all help in this regard.
A particular aspect of litter that has long concerned and puzzled me—it has not been raised by other noble Lords—is the dumping of used hypodermic needles. I believe that in Edinburgh, for example, the drug clinics operate a needle exchange system. To get a new, sharp needle, you have to hand in an old, blunt one. I also understand, however, that obtaining needles privately is relatively easy but relatively costly. These kinds of needles are then used, reused and abandoned wherever addicts congregate. The needles are dirty, rusty and covered in bugs, and they are a great danger to children. Will the Minister consult her counterparts in the Department of Health, the DTI and the Home Office to ensure that hypodermic needles are rendered unavailable to Joe Public, with severe penalties for anyone caught supplying them?
The whole issue may be likened to a system of interlocking vicious circles. Someone discovers the power of the printed word, so people and companies produce more and more of it; someone else realises that the distribution of this material will be big business, and therefore it is incorporated and companies start to offer this kind of service; and then, before you can say "Jack Rabbit", here we are going the full circle again and producing more and more.
I want to touch briefly on the Environmental Services Association. In its Annual Statement 2001–2002 the chief executive's report states:
"The UK also has the capacity to generate over 500MW of electricity from non-hazardous waste, in facilities operated to the highest standards and tightly regulated by the Environment Agencies".
Later the report comments on a speech by Mr Dirk Hazell at the Environmental Services Training and Education Trust conference:
"Noting the lack of progress in turning 'aspiration in the National Waste Strategies into practical achievement', the main body of Mr Hazell's speech dealt with the policies of the Government over the previous year: not only were the National Waste Strategies still largely unfunded, but there had also been, in a General Election year"—
sadly—
"lack of political will and focus".
The report continues:
"He was also critical of the Government's decision to exclude energy from waste from the Renewables Obligation, which was to all intents and purposes a stealth tax on incineration equivalent to £9 per tonne of waste and being 'not obviously consistent with the commitment to energy from waste in the National Waste Strategy"'.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that in her reply.

329
We have talked about several different aspects of waste, and I touch on another. Again, the noble Baroness may be surprised, but I believe that I should raise the matter. I believe that the Government have accepted that last year's outbreak of swine fever was probably caused by a waste sandwich being carelessly thrown away. That waste sandwich devastated the pig industry. The foot and mouth disease this year was brought into the country by someone, somewhere, undefined. The Government's reluctance to hold a public inquiry into the foot and mouth débâcle is beyond comprehension—even more so since the European Commission is looking into the possibility of establishing such an inquiry.
At a conference on 12th December, addressing some 450 delegates, the Food Safety Commissioner, David Byrne, said that new measures were essential. He said that more resources would be provided to stop illegal imports and contaminated meat. But on previous occasions when I have challenged the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the control of imported food, he has suggested that this is a European matter. Again, I refer the House to the item at Question Time today.
The control of legal and illegal imports of meat rests firmly with the nation state. What extra resources do the Government intend to make available at all ports of entry? Has the number of inspectors been increased since the outbreak? And has legal action been taken against anyone caught bringing unauthorised meat into this country? In answering those questions, will the Minister tell the House how many prosecutions were brought during the same period last year for clearing up areas where people have been caught dumping general rubbish, litter or heavier amounts of rubbish?
I conclude on a lighter note. It is almost Christmas. I was pleased to see a piece in the press headed:
"Are you dreaming of a green Christmas? 'Do your bit' for the environment and reduce the UK's three million tonne festive waste mountain".
The article stated that British families will enjoy their Christmas festivities and that,
"eating, drinking and giving gifts are likely to create over three million tonnes of festive rubbish …predicts the 'are you doing your bit?' campaign …Six million Christmas trees; 4,200 tonnes of aluminium foil; 125,000 tonnes of plastic packaging"—
we are back to that—
"80,000 tonnes of old clothes and other waste textiles; 83 square kilometres of wrapping paper (enough to cover an area larger than Guernsey)",
will be generated this Christmas. The mind boggles.
Much of this need not end up in the waste bin. We produce more than 29 million tonnes of general household waste each year, and more than half of that can be recycled. So this Christmas, everyone can do their bit for the environment.
For example, cans and bottles, paper and jars left over from festive celebrations can often be recycled. Many councils now offer doorstep recycling facilities. But there is more that we can do.
330
We are in the run-up to Christmas. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for introducing the debate so well and I thank my noble friends and other noble Lords who have spoken. It raises a very important issue. I hope that not only will noble Lords have a happy Christmas themselves, but that they will also remember that we, too, can "do our bit" to make this a green Christmas.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath for introducing this important debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him: as the Prime Minister noted in a speech he gave in April, in isolation a small amount of vandalism here or graffiti there may seem trivial, but the combined effect can seriously undermine the local quality of life—a point recognised by all speakers. The failure to tackle small-scale problems can lead to environmental blight and more serious crime.
I pay tribute to schools such as Pimlico School, which—as my noble friend Lord Hardy recognized—patently do a detailed job in encouraging young people not to drop litter in the community. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The only slight hesitation I have is that, during my years in local government chairing an education committee in a large authority, I did not come across a single school where this subject was not tackled in its own way, both at primary and at secondary level.
Since the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it has become the responsibility of local authorities to enforce environmental legislation with regard to antisocial behaviour and environmental crimes. The Act provides local authorities with powers to take action against those who drop litter. They may employ litter wardens who can issue a fixed penalty fine. The first point I make to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hardy, who raised the issue, is that if that money is not paid within 14 days the litterer can be prosecuted and, if convicted, face a maximum fine of £2,500.
In response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and my noble friend Lord Hardy, the Government are increasing the fixed penalties. The fixed penalties for litter and dog fouling will be increased from £25 to £50. The changes will come into force ill April 2002. Of course, under the devolution settlement, this applies in England only.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, raised the question of local authorities keeping the money. Currently, under Section 88(6)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, local authorities are required to surrender the proceeds from fixed penalty notices. Under the local public service agreement pilot initiative, the department has agreed to a pilot trial for five local authorities, in which grants will be paid equal to the fixed penalty notice fine income that they collect. The current local PSA pilot runs from April 2001 until March 2004. We intend to extend the scheme on a

331
voluntary basis to other top-tier authorities, county councils, unitary metropolitan districts and London boroughs over the next two to three years.
At this point, I want to pay tribute to the work of parish councils. Often, action by parish councils at local level and in the local environment can encourage children to see this as a local issue and part of their community—especially if the adults are, as the noble Lord was, taking great steps to improve the local environment for those children.
It is clear from the debate that the public need assurance that local authorities care about the environment. A large number of neighbourhood warden schemes are being set up by local authorities. The Home Office has recently tabled a series of reassurance outcomes papers with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation. At local level, schemes are currently being piloted in which wardens work closely with community police officers, who will act as beat managers, helping to direct and co-ordinate the operations of the many agencies working in an area to combat crime and disorder.
Under the pathfinders scheme announced by my right honourable friend Michael Meacher in March and to which the Government have committed £1 million, we are seeking to identify innovative approaches and promote existing best practice in local environmental wardening. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, agrees that the best in local government is that which develops at local level to meet local circumstances.
I understand the concern that my noble friend Lord Hardy and others have raised about the problem of dumping and fly tipping. The important issue of refrigerators was raised. The penalties for fly tipping are already potentially severe—up to live years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine if convicted in a Crown Court. I am sure that my noble friend will be gratified to know that we have just announced a £6 million support package to help local authorities provide safe storage and disposal of unwanted household fridges until the means of removing CFCs before disposal can be put in place.
Fly tipping and the dumping of items such as fridges are major problems, but the scale of the problem recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others is even greater when it comes to the cars that litter our streets, foul our environment and damage our rural lakes. With the decline in the scrap metal market and difficulties in getting rid of worn tyres, that has become a major problem. We have carried out a review of the current legislation and come up with options to reduce the notice periods used by local authorities and to improve the accuracy of the vehicle register, which is an important part of tackling the perpetrators.
A joint DEFRA and DTLR consultation exercise was launched on 31st October. I have a copy of the document for any noble Lords who wish to see it. Those who share the Government's concern on the issue will be pleased to know that the consultation
332
period does not end until the end of January 2002. Following that, we intend to produce regulations in the spring. Those who wish to write in with their views on this important issue still have time to do so.
There are other major items, such as the problem of fast food litter, which causes great unhappiness, because many such items end up in the areas that cause concern to noble Lords. In response to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I point out that in March my right honourable friend Michael Meacher called on the heads of the fast food industry to work with him to develop a voluntary code of best environmental practice. The code must be based on best practice for preventing and clearing up litter. We want a real commitment to minimising packaging and supporting the recycled and environmentally friendly use of materials. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that this is an important issue. We have made it clear that if a voluntary code does not show a marked improvement, we shall take action.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about Railtrack. Under the DTLR code of practice on litter and refuse, Railtrack has a duty to keep its land clear of litter. Areas accessible to the public should be cleaned within hours. Areas not accessible to the public are cleaned within weeks or months, depending on whether the land is trackside or depot. I shall take up the noble Baroness's point about such litter not only being an eyesore, but ending up being dispersed elsewhere. We all know about the problem of security and the difficulty of not being able to provide litter receptacles on stations.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Hardy referred to CCTV. Local authorities have the power to use CCTV. The main barrier to using this method of enforcement is the availability of the cameras and the cost of using the technology. We hope that increasing the fixed penalty notices for littering offences and allowing top-tier local authorities to retain the fines will encourage them to use new technology more effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to landfill tax. The Government have announced that landfill tax will increase by £1 a tonne every year up to 2004.
The importance of the programme involving local authorities has also been mentioned. More than 30 local authorities are working in 10 consortiums developing best environmental practice, dealing with litter, graffiti, fly tipping, fly posting and related issues. They will report back next October.
As the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Marlesford, pointed out, many acts of graffiti are carried out by young people. Successful measures are important in that area. The subject is covered by police school liaison officers during regular visits to primary and secondary schools. There are many action groups, including more than 1,201) youth action groups in England and Wales. Many of them have tackled issues such as graffiti. We support the idea of youth action groups and are looking, together

333
with the DfES, Crime Concern and Neighbourhood Watch, to develop such groups into the wider community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the issue of agricultural waste, particularly the disposal of farm waste plastics. That key area of discussion will be included in the soon to be released consultation document on agricultural waste. The publication of the paper was delayed, initially by consultation with the NFU and more recently by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The consultation paper will be released early in 2002. We wish to discuss with all concerned—the NFU, the Country Landowners' Association and a wide range of organisations—the best way to tackle this recognised problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the issue of other member states. For too long, we in the United Kingdom have lagged behind much of Europe and America in managing our waste. The waste strategy 2000 is designed to change that. We also have targets under the EC packaging directive and we are determined to meet them. They are staged—particularly the recycling targets, which are material specific—from 7 per cent, in 1998, to 18 per cent, in 2001. Local authorities have the power to require householders to place certain types of waste, such as recyclables, in different containers. Although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, believes that that power which is given to local authorities should be a duty, I believe that we have to work with local authorities as they develop their own schemes. Nevertheless we recognise the importance of the issue.
Many local authorities provide separate points to collect and exchange used needles for new ones. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be aware of the sensitivity in localities where some people feel that providing a needle exchange is encouraging drug abuse. However, I note the importance of the point.
In 1999–2000, 87 per cent of local authorities recycled cans—to the tune of 13,000 tonnes—and 97 per cent of local authorities recycled paper and card. It has been a major contribution in addressing the waste issue. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am pleased that so many local authorities are offering recycling facilities. I too dream of a green Christmas, and I am pleased to be able to tell her that more than 250 councils are offering Christmas tree recycling facilities.
I am not able to answer all the questions in detail; indeed, I have slightly over-run my time. Community service orders are used in tackling litter. The very best groups such as those running the Keep Britain Tidy campaign use community service orders as part of an overall package. They can play a valuable part in addressing the issue.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, convention does not allow me to reply in detail to noble Lords' speeches. However, I should like to thank noble Lords for their significant and supportive comments and their kind words. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Farrington, whose speech should command very careful attention. I should also like to echo the seasonally relevant words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, by wishing all noble Lords a very happy and unlittered festive time. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Union Extradition Regulations 2002
8.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th December be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it is convenient for your Lordships if I keep my remarks as brief and tightly focused as possible. These are modest regulations made under Sections 111 and 112 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which received Royal Assent last week. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that the regulations do not give effect to the European arrest warrant. That is an entirely different subject which has attracted much attention and will be dealt with in another Bill—primary legislation—to be introduced early in the new year.
The regulations give effect to two conventions: the 1995 convention, signed on 10th March 1995, and the 1996 convention, signed on 27th September 1996. It is fairly obvious that neither the government who were in office in 1995–96 nor the one in office in 1997–2001 thought the conventions sufficiently important to merit introduction in major primary legislation. That is an important point. Although the conventions are important, they are modest; that is why they have been hanging around for a while. No legislative vehicle was available to implement them and they do not in themselves merit the parliamentary time necessary for implementation. I shall not go into the details for that.
The conventions also contain nothing new. Indeed, they were the impetus for the major review of extradition law that began in 1997. That review led in turn to the consultation paper The Law on Extradition: a Review which was published earlier this year and made nine specific recommendations. The consultation period ended only in October. The responses to that consultation have been placed in the Library and will help form the basis of next year's extradition Bill. The parliamentary scrutiny process was conducted while the treaties were being negotiated. Therefore, in that respect, it is all water under the bridge.

335
I shall briefly describe the conventions. The 1995 convention provides a streamlined procedure for cases in which the fugitive and the requested state consent to extradition. That is basically what the 1995 convention is about.
The 1996 convention made various amendments to the provisions of the then treaty. Its main provisions are to reduce the extradition crime threshold from 12 months in both the requested and the requesting state to 12 months in the requesting state and six months in the requested state. It also provides for abolition of the political offence exception. The regulations deal exclusively with European Union extradition, and I think that noble Lords will agree that political offences do not play a role in the EU's 15 member states.
The 1996 convention also provides that a person who has been extradited may be proceeded against for an offence committed before surrender, other than that upon which the request for extradition was based, without obtaining the consent of the requesting member state when the offence is not punishable by imprisonment or any other form of detention or when the person will not be detained in connection with his trial, sentence or appeal. The provisions relate, in other words, to quite trivial matters.
The 1996 convention also provides for relaxation of the authentication requirements, which is particularly important for the United Kingdom as it is widely recognised that our authentication requirements are among the most onerous in Europe. The 1996 convention also makes other minor changes.
We are seeking now to implement the regulations under the 2001 Act because, although the majority of countries have ratified the treaties, a few, including the United Kingdom, have not. In late September 2001, after the events of 11th September, it was agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and a commitment was given, that all member states would ratify the treaties by 1st January 2002. That is why the legislation was introduced as it was and why we are seeking, subject to your Lordships' approval, to ratify the two treaties. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th December be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we do not intend to oppose the Motion. Having agreed to the amendment to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 specifically to allow the conventions to be incorporated into United Kingdom law by secondary legislation, it would be illogical now to oppose the regulations. Indeed, we broadly welcome them.
I think that the 1995 convention is relatively unimportant as it simply gives powers that are dependent on the consent of the subject of the extradition proceedings. The 1996 convention,
336
however, is quite important. It is a matter for some regret that neither the current Government nor their predecessors thought it fit not to find time to ratify that convention until now.
If the European Union means anything, it means a mutual respect for each other's institutions. I believe that that respect is broadly justified. All 15 of the member states are now well-established democracies; all have independent legal systems. Some legal systems are better than others but we should be unwise to conclude that ours is necessarily or obviously the best.
We welcome many provisions of the 1996 convention; for example, Article 3 which makes it easier to obtain extradition for the crime of conspiracy. Of course, that is a form of crime which has always been recognised by United Kingdom law but not by all mainland systems. We welcome Articles 5 and 6 involving removal of the ban on extradition for so-called political offences and the extension of extradition to fiscal offences. Those are both exceptions which are anachronistic in the European Union context and should not apply between countries which are working democracies.
Article 7 deals with the extradition of nationals. Of course, we have never prohibited the extradition of United Kingdom nationals but some countries do. Austria, Germany and Greece have unconditional bans on the extradition of their own nationals and Finland and Sweden allow it subject only to highly restricted conditions. I believe that those restrictions have no place in the European Union and I hope that the Government will put pressure on those countries to have those restrictions removed.
A number of other governments will extradite their own nationals only on condition that the accused will be returned, if convicted, to serve a sentence in their home country. That is something to which I see no objection and, indeed, probably should be a general principle.
I just pause for a moment to note that in Article 8, there is a typing mistake in the cross-heading which refers not to the "lapse" of time but to the "laspe" of time. We hope that that matter will be corrected before the document is actually published.
We welcome the modification of the so-called specialty rule in Articles 10 and 11 to make it easier to prosecute people for offences which were additional to those for which they are extradited and we welcome the simplification of the authentication procedure in Article 15. Undoubtedly, the United Kingdom has caused serious problems to extradition applications by other states by its excessively bureaucratic requirements for authentication.
We are happy to endorse this order but our main comment is that we very much regret having to wait so long to see these sensible provisions incorporated into United Kingdom law so that we could ratify the two conventions.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, hitherto such measures would have required primary legislation since they do not fall within Sections 2(1) or 2(2) of the European

337
Communities Act 1972. However, as your Lordships are well aware, an exception has now been made for them in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As the Minister well recalls, the legislative list of exceptions, of which this is one, was finally accepted with, I think I should say, deep misgivings by both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
In our view, there are no legitimate parallels to be drawn between implementing Part I and Part VI of the treaty. Part I measures, implemented by Sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the 1972 Act, have three characteristics which make the use of statutory instruments acceptable, if not desirable.
First, it is clear that, for such matters, EC law takes precedence over national law; and the European Court of Justice has a wide range of powers to ensure that national implementing measures conform strictly with the requirements of directives and decisions.
Secondly, all Part I measures are the subject of thorough public scrutiny and amendment by the European Parliament and usually require co-decision. Thirdly, the measures concern economic and commercial regulation and rarely touch on issues pertaining to the liberty of the subject.
None of those factors applies to matters falling within Part VI of the treaty. First, the extent to which Community law takes precedence over national law is unclear. Moreover, that lack of clarity is enhanced in Britain's case because, unlike many other states, we have not acceded to the jurisdiction of the European Court as a direct means of furnishing a source of conflict resolution.
Secondly, the measures are subject to no public scrutiny whatever. They are initially discussed at meetings of senior civil servants; outstanding differences are then considered at meetings of COREPER; and any remaining conflicts are resolved by Ministers at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. Finally, extradition touches on the liberty of the subject in the most obvious and intimate way.
Happily, the Government have recognised those differences by limiting the derogation in the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act to a period of six months. But, important though it is to preserve primary legislation as the means of implementation in that area, there is a limit to the extent to which it can compensate for any deficiencies in the Community measure itself. The only guarantee that individual rights are respected as we would wish them to be is to ensure that they are fully reflected in the Community instrument.
How do national legislatures generally, and our own Parliament in particular, achieve that objective? Our Parliament has no direct role in the European Community legislative process as a Parliament. We cannot amend draft directives or draft decisions ourselves. However, Ministers representing the Crown can influence the shape of those measures by tough negotiation and, ultimately if necessary, by refusing to agree; in other words, by using the veto.
338
I think your Lordships would accept that the saga of the European arrest warrant has been a harsh lesson for many of us to learn. Parliament needs to find a way to ensure that the negotiating mandate of Ministers is fully debated before discussions begin in earnest in the Community on third pillar matters. In that way, Ministers will have a clear view of what is acceptable to the national legislature and what is not.
Parliament also needs to devise a procedure whereby Ministers engaged in third pillar negotiations report back regularly. This is now the new battleground for your Lordships' House and I shall he most interested to hear any reflections on the matter that the Minister might have this evening.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that I have none whatever this evening.
I am grateful to noble Lords. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his team on spotting the error on page 23. I freely admit that I did not spot it myself but this is a draft instrument and that can be corrected.
A fair point is made about the 1996 convention. Only four countries have not already ratified it; namely, Italy, France, the Republic of Ireland and ourselves. All the other countries of the European Union have undertaken their Community responsibilities and it has passed through their respective parliaments by whichever processes they use.
I shall not be tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to go down the road of the European arrest warrant because I said specifically that it is not the subject of this provision. However, over the months and weeks ahead, we shall be preparing for that legislation. That will be in the form of primary legislation. I believe that we reached a settlement at the end of last week which everyone thinks is a good way forward overall. I am grateful for the response that we have had this evening to these regulations, which I commend to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2001
8.50 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the second order in my name on the Order Paper as they are interconnected.
The two draft orders for debate are to implement in the United Kingdom the provisions of the 1999 Montreal Convention. The convention consolidates and updates the 1929 Warsaw Convention relating to the liability of air carriers in the international carriage by air of passengers, baggage and cargo.

339
The principal benefit of the Montreal Convention is that it removes any limitation of liability of air carriers in relation to the amount of compensation payable in the event of death or injury to passengers. It also introduces higher limits for the loss, damage or delay to baggage.
The Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2001 amends the Carriage by Air Act 1961, introducing a new schedule setting out the convention for the purposes of international travel to which it applies and makes consequential amendment.
The Government have consulted widely with airlines and other interested parties, including the Ministry of Defence and Consignia. We have received broad support from all concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 2001
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report, from the Joint Committee].-(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Driving Licences (Disqualification until Test Passed) (Prescribed Offence) Order 2001
8.52 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order, if approved, will mean that anyone convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs will be required to pass a driving test before being allowed back on the road.
Under Section 36(3) of the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State may by order prescribe other offences involving obligatory endorsement, so that in such cases there would be obligatory disqualification until an extended driving test had been passed. The proposed order, if approved, would extend that requirement to the offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs—Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
340
Your Lordships should also be aware that there is an important consideration with regard to the timing of the order, should it be approved. Subsection (14) of Section 36 of the 1988 Act prevents the Secretary of State from making orders to prescribe further persons convicted of offences to which mandatory retesting should apply after 31st December 2001 if lie has not previously made any such orders. I can confirm that this is the first such order. It keeps open the opportunity for the Secretary of State to make further such orders in the future.
In my view the provisions of this instrument are compatible with the convention rights as defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the order to the House and hope that noble Lords will feel able to give it their support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. I have no problem with the order; in fact, I strongly support it. However, we know that a fleet driver training scheme—I refer to a commercial fleet—can reduce the accident rate by about 20 per cent.
I accept that it would be political suicide and also very expensive to introduce universal driver training schemes, for example a retraining scheme every five years for all drivers. However, we could make a start by introducing compulsory retraining for any motorist who has been convicted of careless driving or certain other motoring offences such as speeding. This issue was raised in the Government's road safety strategy paper but we do not appear to be making much progress on the matter. I should be interested to hear what action the Government propose to take.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, the North committee first introduced the concept of compulsory retesting, which implies also some compulsory retraining as part of that. The order makes compulsory retesting an obligation for two reasons: first, if one has been disqualified and off the road for some time, by definition one loses practical experience and therefore there is a case for requiring retesting and the retraining that goes with it; and, secondly, to prevent the likelihood of a further dangerous situation arising—in other words, to protect the general public from the consequences of what appears to be a dangerous or negligent driver.
The Government will want to consider whether there are other situations when such circumstances might apply. I agree with the noble Earl that it would be inappropriate to apply compulsory retesting and retraining to everyone. However, there may well be further circumstances in which it would be appropriate. I give the assurance that although primary legislation would be needed to achieve that, we shall consider that principle.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2001
8.57 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order deals with some consequential effects of the Transport Act 2000. Part I of the order simply amends the Aviation Security Act 1982 so that NATS—alongside the CAA or the manager of an aerodrome—becomes one of the authorities responsible for the security of an air navigation installation. In other words, they are responsible for the protection of their own equipment.
Parts II and III of the order amend enactments which refer to statutory and other undertakers and town and country planning legislation to bring them four square with the Transport Act. These powers are broadly commensurate with those of the CAA and are granted to NATS En Route Ltd, which is a subsidiary company of National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
The order does two other things not connected with NATS. Part IV amends certain provisions which place restrictions on the disclosure of information so as to give the CAA, in its role as economic regulator of air traffic services, access to the same sort of information as other regulators require.
I hope that your Lordships will support the broad thrust of the order and give your consent to it being made. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I wish to comment on the order as it transfers permitted developer rights to a private company. We all know, for example, that Railtrack acquired permitted development rights when it was privatised. Since then we have had misgivings as regards some of the uses of those permitted rights.
NATS has not had a good start in the private sector. I am concerned that the Government are again transferring these quite extensive rights to a private sector company and may live to regret that. It is possible that NATS could stray further from the public sector than it now is and become a different company and exercise those rights in a way which was not intended. That could cause trouble in the future. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the granting of permitted development rights to NATS or its subsidiary company as a statutory undertaker is tightly
342
circumscribed. The rights are to carry out essential development on and around operational land relevant to NATS En Route Ltd. They do not apply to the parent company in its wider position. For example, under this power NATS would not be able to create for itself a new office block on an airport site. It has permitted development rights only in relation to radar installations or air communication systems in a limited number of sites in the United Kingdom.
The natural anxiety is expressed that a company which is a private company, albeit that the Government have a golden share and the largest shareholding, might do something amiss. That cannot take place in the circumstances because the order is tightly drawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Highway Functions) (England) Order 2001
9.1 p.m.
Lord Filkinrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November he approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the order I speak also to the regulations.
The first instrument is a contracting out order made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. This simply allows a highway authority, if it wishes, to delegate the operation of certain existing functions involving utility street works to another body, for instance a private sector contractor.
The first of those specific powers involves the keeping of information which the highway authority holds on individual works. The second set of powers relates to the cost of moving utility apparatus already located in highways so as to allow major highway, bridge or transport schemes to be carried out. The final set of functions under the order relates to powers under Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act. As noble Lords will know, these powers allow highway authorities to set up schemes to levy charges on undertakers whose street works overrun an agreed deadline. Those powers were activated in April 2001 and are not connected to the regulations.
The aim of the regulations is to permit pilot schemes to be operated to test powers to allow highway authorities to levy charges on utilities when the utilities carry out works on the highway.
The Government are very aware, as I am sure the House is, of strong public concern at the level of disruption caused by street works carried out by statutory undertakers. In April of this year, we activated powers allowing highway authorities to charge undertakers whenever works overran an agreed deadline. We have appointed consultants—Halcrow—to monitor the effect of these powers. They are due to provide Ministers with a full report by May 2002.

343
We have already made clear that if these powers do not lead to a sufficient reduction in disruption, we are prepared to activate further powers. Those new powers—"lane rental" as they are commonly called—allow authorities to levy a daily charge on utilities from the start of each works, regardless of whether or not they overrun.
We intend keeping the lane rental powers in reserve for the time being as regards national application. However, we think that it would be sensible for the powers to be tested locally so that local authorities, utilities and the Government can gain experience from the operation of the pilot schemes. Were the House to approve the regulations, authorities wishing to operate pilot schemes would need to submit formal applications setting out the details of their proposed schemes. Should we be content with their proposals, then they would need to be approved by order. We would expect Camden and Middlesbrough to be ready to start operation of their schemes in the early part of the new year.
The regulations set a maximum charge of £1,000 a day for each works. But we intend that pilot authorities should not be able to set charges of more than £500 a day for initial street works, with a higher charge if they have to come back to do reinstatement work as a result of rushing the initial works. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. A few years ago there were only five utilities; now I am told that there are several hundred. Some who live in London believe that their street is dug up once a week by a different utility. If there are several hundred utilities, it will be two more years before digging comes to a halt.
The Minister introduces a new regime. I was interested to note that the National Joint Utilities Group claims that the Government's lane rental proposals would cost the sector £1.2 billion annually and would acid £55 to each household utility bill, an equivalent of 8.5 per cent increase in council tax as local authorities would retain lane rental receipts. Can the Minister assure us that during this trial period no costs borne by the utilities will be transferred to the consumers? How much do the Government estimate that the two councils will receive during this trial period? How much have local authorities claimed to date in overruns with regard to utilities digging up the streets? I idle Minister does not have the figures, I shall be delighted if he will write to me.
Having studied the issue somewhat briefly, I note that when a road is newly laid in other countries, utilities are either prevented from, or have to pay more for, digging up that road immediately. There is no doubt that the road does not last if it is continually being dug up. Are the Government considering such a policy?
344
We support the order. We agree on the policy regarding overruns. However, if we introduce these costs, charging utilities for laying cables albeit for a trial period, we need to know that the consumer will not have to pay more for those services as a result.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. I, too, am happy with the measure in principle. However, I suspect that the Minister will strike me off his Christmas card list because I believe that the order is defective. I suggest that the Minister does not move his order today.
Paragraph 5(4), on page 5, specifies the maximum charge allowable. It states:
"The charge shall, in respect of any set of street works notified in a single notice in any street specified by reference to the National Street Gazetteer, he of an amount determined by the approved authority in accordance with the formula cXd, where—c is such amount, not exceeding £1,000, as the authority decides is appropriate; and d is the duration of the works".
The problem is that no units are specified for the duration of the works. Therefore, the units could be hours, days or even weeks. The order does not state what the units are. Presumably, paragraph 5(4) should read:
"…where d is the duration of the works in days or part thereof".
I therefore suggest that the Minister does not move his order today but redrafts it to make it clearer. Alternatively, if he wishes, he can move it today and amend it at a later date.
We know that there is some concern in the utilities industry about this order. If the House approves the order today, the industry will want clarity. I intend to help by tabling suitable Questions for Written Answer to discover what the units are, unless, of course, the Minister can help me on that point. If the Minister moves the order today, I shall not oppose it. However, I do not understand what are the units for the duration of the works.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we support the order. We believe that much of the protest we have received from the utilities is quite false. Most of the work is done by contractors who work for utilities. They go about their work in a totally irresponsible way; they often put the public to great inconvenience; and it is time that something was done to stop them. I, too, have received lobbying—most of which amounts to special pleading, for which I have little time—that needs to be dismissed.
I caution the Minister about the use of the word "emergency". As your Lordships will know, I am a member of a local authority and can assure your Lordships that on many occasions the word "emergency" is invoked when local authorities try to get utilities to do works when they want them to be done rather than when the utilities want them to be done. The layman has no means of knowing whether a water, gas or electricity defect is an emergency or whether the work is being done simply for the convenience of a subcontractor of the utilities

345
involved. Though that matter needs to be addressed, it is not a reason for opposing the order. The order is otherwise supported.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its broad support. I, like other noble Lords, have received a number of representations on this matter. When the Government consulted on it, it was noticeable that virtually everyone apart from the utilities, whether the AA, the RAC, local authorities or consumer organisations, was very strongly in favour of the introduction of these powers. But, naturally, the industry to have the burden imposed on it in the first instance was opposed to them.
The question on whom the final bill, if there are such bills, will fall needs to be set against a recognition that the public already incurs very substantial bills as a consequence of the social or economic cost imposed by street works delays. The Transport Research Laboratory has estimated a cost in excess of £2 billion per year as a consequence of these works—a very substantial sum of money.
As noble Lords know, the central argument is that a financial incentive will encourage a shift in behaviour to try to make the organisations manage these functions more energetically. In view of the late hour, I shall not go into any more detail on that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked for confirmation that in the trial period there will be no transfer cost to consumers. The answer is that it is extremely unlikely, for two reasons. First, there are many complex regulations within the framework and it would not be possible in the short time of the transfer for such a payment to go through in all cases. The second, more fundamental reason is that in two local authorities the cost must be seen as de minimis, compared with the nation-wide scale of works that we are discussing. I should be surprised if the utilities or the regulator currently seriously entertained such a venture.
How much do we estimate that local authorities will receive? The short answer is that we do not know. The purpose of piloting the arrangement is not to use a blunderbuss until we know that it is necessary. We will also learn from the two local authorities—this will be highly researched—about the effects on speeding up
346
street works and on utilities, and whether we can perceive that there might ultimately be an effect on consumers. The question was excellent. The research will grapple to find guidance about the likely impact of such an approach.
How much has been claimed on overruns so far? There has been some publicity of the figures from Westminster and elsewhere, but I could give a fuller answer if I write to the noble Viscount.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked one of the most complicated questions that I have sought to answer from the Dispatch Box. I am pleased to say that the answer is relatively simple—in one word, it is, "days". I shall set that out in more detail, but that is the unit as determined by the schedule to which the noble Earl referred.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, where in the order does it say that days, not weeks or hours, are involved?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, without detaining the noble Earl further by flicking through the order for some minutes, I shall give him an authoritative response by writing to him to explain the provenance of the unit.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for his support. I note his point about the use of emergency powers in this respect. The Government are alive to the potential risks in that regard. We can look forward to some interesting debates when we begin to get evidence about the first charging systems and the two pilot trials. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, will be in his place for those debates—he is one of the House's great experts on the matter. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Street Works (Charges for Occupation of the Highway) (England) Regulations 2001
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November be approved [11th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Incitement to Hatred
  Incitement to Hatred
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill Consultation
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill Consultation
  Prisons: Chaplaincy Areas
  Prisons: Chaplaincy Areas
  Racially-aggravated Offences
  Racially-aggravated Offences
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation
  Prisons: Performance Testing
  Prisons: Performance Testing
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Powers
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Powers
  Appeals by Healthcare Professionals
  Appeals by Healthcare Professionals
  Magistrates' Courts: Closure
  Magistrates' Courts: Closure
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Gas Transportation Tariffs
  Gas Transportation Tariffs
  Nuclear Reactors: Radioactive Waste
  Nuclear Reactors: Radioactive Waste
  Scotland: Railways
  Scotland: Railways
  Trans-Pennine Express Franchise
  Trans-Pennine Express Franchise
  Driving Licence Applications
  Driving Licence Applications
  DVLA: Loss of Returned Documents
  DVLA: Loss of Returned Documents
  Planning Obligations
  Planning Obligations
  Foot and Mouth: Slaughter Appeals
  Foot and Mouth: Slaughter Appeals
  Defra: Exeter Office
  Defra: Exeter Office
  MMR Vaccine
  MMR Vaccine
  Artificial Limbs: Silicone Cosmesis
  Artificial Limbs: Silicone Cosmesis
  Health Authority Boundaries
  Health Authority Boundaries
  Disabled People and the Performing Arts
  Disabled People and the Performing Arts
  Tourism: Foot and Mouth
  Tourism: Foot and Mouth
  Tourism Forum
  Tourism Forum
  Tourists from Overseas
  Tourists from Overseas
  Seaside Resorts
  Seaside Resorts
  Youth Services and Sports Facilities
  Youth Services and Sports Facilities
  Museums: Long-term Loan of Exhibits
  Museums: Long-term Loan of Exhibits
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland: Baton Rounds
  Northern Ireland: Baton Rounds
  Northern Ireland Police Service Recruitment
  Northern Ireland Police Service Recruitment
  Administrations: Memorandum of Understanding
  Administrations: Memorandum of Understanding
  Scottish Salmon Farms
  Scottish Salmon Farms
  Wales: Children's Society Service
  Wales: Children's Society Service
  Houses of Parliament: Energy Consumption
  Houses of Parliament: Energy Consumption