Sitting of 19 July 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the climate change levy. [3320]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government received many representations over the two years of development of the climate change levy, and many of the ideas that businesses suggested are reflected in its final design.
    Mr. Amess: I wholeheartedly congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his splendid news, although he has some way to go before he catches up with my wife and me.
    How does the Financial Secretary intend to deal with the European Commission's ruling that dual fuel exemptions in the climate change levy constitute state aid, and the doubts that it has cast on the exemptions compatibility with environmental aid guidelines?
    Mr. Boateng: Robustly. We are negotiating with the Commission, and the industry is involved in those negotiations, which are going well. We have a strong case, and we believe that our representations will be successful.
    Mr. Tony Colman: Has my right hon. Friend held any discussions on the climate change levy with United States Senator James Jefford, who is the new chairman of the Senate Environment Committee? He wants the United States Government to re-engage with the Kyoto protocol negotiations. He is interested in the success of the implementation of the climate change levy by US businesses in the United Kingdom in improving energy use, increasing investment and reducing costs. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Senator Jefford that, although emissions trading may be a long-term answer, we need a regulatory regime, such as the climate change levy, and to work with business to deal with greenhouse gases in the short and medium term?
    Mr. Boateng: I have had no discussions with the Senator, although I would like to. There is good news
    412
    from the United States, where there is strong and growing support for Kyoto. There is every sign that President Bush understands the importance of the issue, although we have some disagreements about his approach to the Kyoto targets.
    In introducing a package of measures on the climate change levy, we make the point that it is part of the answer, but that trading emissions also has a role to play. Our approach is balanced and retains a competitive edge for our industry while bearing down on carbon emissions.
    Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate the Chancellor on his good news. Should his lot be the same as mine, with four children to bring up, it will have a profound impact on his tax thinking in future.
    Hon. Members know that there will be a windfall VAT gain of at least £30 million from the VAT levied on the total amount of energy bills, including the misguided climate change levy element. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that the wind fill will not be recycled to business through the cut to employers national insurance?
    Mr. Boateng: Windfall. The hon. Gentleman knows that Customs and Excise is considering the points that he made. When it has reached a decision on the advice it will tender to Ministers, I shall write to him about it. He makes an important point, but I stress that the climate change levy improves the competitiveness of industry because we have introduced a generous system of rebates and we are also providing support through national insurance employers contributions. That is good news, which is widely welcomed by industry, if not by Conservative Members.

    International Development
    Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on progress in recent G7 and G8 meetings on international development issues. [3321]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): At our meeting on 7 July, G7 Finance Ministers approved proposals which will be published tomorrow. They advance our commitment not only to debt relief but to halving global poverty by 2015.
    A new global health fund to finance commodities and treatments has $1 million, with the United Kingdom pledging $200 million to a successful fund. By the end of the Genoa summit, we expect the figure to be £1.5 billion.
    Britain has also proposed a research and development tax credit for pharmaceutical company research into diseases such as TB, malaria and AIDS to end the position whereby 10 per cent. of research currently goes on diseases that affect 90 per cent. of the people. We expect pharmaceutical companies to develop clear, comprehensive, global, two-tier pricing, and give the global health fund and other legitimate purchasers deep discounts on the full range of drugs, treatments and vaccines for HIV-AIDS, malaria, TB and other killer diseases.
    Kali Mountford: The House is aware of my right hon. Friend's long-standing commitment to reducing child poverty both in the United Kingdom and world wide. I am sure that we are all very happy to hear of his new

    413
    personal interest in the well-being of all children, and I am sure that everyone extends congratulations to him and his wife on their happy announcement.
    Will he take the opportunity of the Genoa summit to build on the progress that has already been made in tackling child poverty? Does he also accept that, in addition to debt reduction, we really have to do more for children born with HIV-AIDS and for those who have very little access to education and a decent future? Will he take this opportunity to prepare for the United Nations September summit, a special session on children, and press our partners in the G7/G8 to prepare for it so that we can all do much more and increase our commitment to reducing child poverty?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for their congratulations. I am pleased that, this morning at least, I am not answering questions on the children's tax credit or baby bonds; otherwise, I might have to declare an interest.
    The message that must be sent out this weekend and running up to the 15 September children's conference, involving the United Nations and other agencies, is that we can tackle those huge problems only by global economic and social co-operation. Each year, 6 million people die unnecessarily from avoidable diseases—2 million from TB, 1 million from malaria, 3 million from HIV-AIDS—although it is possible to tackle those very major problems by using available pharmaceutical research and encouraging more research.
    We intend not simply to push forward the global health fund, but, in 2002, to work with Canada, the G7 president, to make the education of children in the Commonwealth and elsewhere a central issue and to ensure that more resources, particularly to stop the charging for education, are made available. I also believe that we can make progress on reaching our other 2015 target, which is that every child has primary education in every country of the world.
    Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): I congratulate the Chancellor on his news of the past few days; perhaps it will mean a speedy policy on the baby bond.
    I commiserate with the shadow Chancellor on his bad news during the past few days. Conservative Members showed a remarkable lack of courage in not adopting a social liberal agenda, for which at least Liberal Democrat Members will be arguing.
    Will the Chancellor take the opportunity of President Bush's visit to the United Kingdom today to ensure that although Bush may be moving away on Kyoto and on helping developing countries with alternative energy development, he will at least not renege on the commitment made by the previous President on international debt relief? Will the Chancellor, on his own account, also examine the tax relief that this country gives on bribes paid by British companies to foreign countries in the developing world? Will he bring that relief to an end?
    Mr. Brown: We continue to push forward the agenda on debt relief and 23 countries are now receiving that. I believe that there is a common purpose among all the
    414
    G7 countries, including those that were initially doubtful about the debt relief programme, to move the programme forward.
    The global health fund will stand at $1 billion as we go into the Genoa summit. My own view is that it could increase to $1.5 billion. Although that money has been got together in only a few months, it must be the case that we should do more, particularly with countries outside the G7, so that we can have a wider and bigger fund with which to purchase commodities, help with the provision of treatments and make a difference in the attitude that will be taken by the pharmaceutical companies.
    On the other questions of globalization—
    Matthew Taylor: Bribery.
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we entered government we inherited a provision whereby tax relief was provided for bribes paid by British firms to gain contracts. We are tackling that and it will be removed. Equally, the codes of conduct that we are proposing within the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are designed to ensure that countries cannot expect to enjoy all the resources that come from participating in the global economy if they remain immune to action against corruption.
    Therefore, in addition to the paper that we are producing this weekend, "Debt Relief and Beyond", I expect that progress will be made on all those fronts. However, a more important message has to go out from Genoa: only by co-operation among the nations of the world can we make the progress for social justice that is necessary.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the recent election campaign some of the biggest cheers that we received when we travelled around many constituencies were for third world debt relief? Long may the policy continue of helping those starving kids and relieving AIDS in South Africa. Is that not in sharp distinction to one of those Tory grandees, a putative new leader of the Tory party, selling fags and spreading cancer around the third world?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend rightly points to the need to devote resources to tackling the problems of AIDS, TB and malaria, and that is exactly what we plan to do. We are introducing legislation on advertising of cigarettes and so on. On the question of third world debt, as I said, 23 countries are now receiving debt relief through an initiative that was benefiting only one country when we came to power. Many more countries could benefit from debt relief. However, seven of them are currently engaged in civil wars or conflict, mostly in Africa. What we want out of Genoa is another initiative that will help post-conflict countries, so that as soon as they are out of conflict and restructuring their economies we can make available the debt relief that they should have.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: I add my congratulations to the Chancellor and his wife Sarah. I must say that this news has brought great pleasure to me and also, I believe, to Lord Tebbit.

    415
    Will the Chancellor ensure that the resources that he has committed to relieving world poverty are used to the best effect? It seems to me that charities have the lowest running costs and that, typically, they work with the grain of local communities in poorer countries producing projects that local people support. In that context, is the Chancellor happy that only about one tenth of what the Government commit actually goes through charities? The Secretary of State for International Development has rightly imposed some conditions on the money that is going through the United Nations global health fund. Can the Chancellor say whether any of the other organisations through which we are putting money raise the same issues—that we want to bureaucracy to be cut and money to be delivered more effectively to poor people?
    Mr. Brown: On behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members, I thank the shadow Chancellor for his contributions to the debates of this House over the past year as shadow Chancellor, but also over many years when he spoke from the Front Bench for the Conservative party, and for the contribution that he has made from the Front Bench to national life. While he knows better than anyone else in the House, I suspect, the vicissitudes of political life, all hon. Members have been struck by the dignified manner in which he accepted the events of this week and we all wish him well in whatever he seeks to do in the years ahead. During the past year he has made many controversial speeches as shadow Chancellor—almost none of them on economic policy.
    I am grateful that he has concentrated on the issue of third world international development recently. I understand exactly what he is saying about ensuring that the money that is provided in international development aid and through other sources goes straight to the cause for which it is intended. He may note that the new fund dealing with vaccines, the GAVI fund, which is financed partly publicly and partly privately, has a very small administration and is getting the vaccines to the countries that need them. Modelled on that, the new global health fund that we are setting up this weekend will provide both vaccines and treatment, not just for HIV-AIDS but for TB and malaria. I hope that there will be an all-party consensus that we have to do more to tackle the problems of global ill-health and illiteracy.
    I believe that it is possible that the United Kingdom can continue what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, to her credit, has done and maintain Britain's lead in persuading other countries that they should contribute to the global health fund and set their sights on meeting the 2015 targets. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, particularly on this issue.
    Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to the Chancellor for his personal remarks, as well as for that answer. Does he agree that, over many decades, one of the problems with international poverty relief has been that so much money from the international community has found its way into the sticky hands of dictators and some of their megalomaniac projects? Should not that money get through to building schools and hospitals, which are what people need? Does he share my shock at the fact that, over the past 30 years, people in Africa have been getting poorer, in contrast with the progress made in the rest of the world? Does he accept that there is a vicious circle of
    416
    ignorance, poverty and disease? Will he use the opportunity of the Genoa summit to show the international community that, if we are to succeed in tackling poverty, education and health will be critical to people in developing countries?
    Mr. Brown: I agree that we must do far more to root out corruption and to ensure that the money provided in international relief goes to the causes for which it is intended. To put the positive side, however, in contrast to the negative, when debt relief is provided, for example, to Uganda, it is on condition that the money goes into education and health. Uganda is now able to reduce its pupil-teacher ratio from 100:1 to 50:1, which is a considerable advance, and every primary school child will benefit from education in a classroom with a roof over their head.
    Equally, in other countries, debt relief is now being provided only on condition that there is reform and that the money goes to health and education. The latest figures show that 40 per cent. is going to education and 25 per cent. to health. Considerable advances are being made. In Uganda, Malawi and other countries we have insisted that the additional money that we have provided for education is used to ensure that there is no charging. The fact that there are no charges for education has meant that the number of people enjoying primary schooling in Uganda and Malawi has gone up by 3 million. It is possible, by applying conditions to debt relief, to ensure that reforms are made.
    I hope that the shadow Chancellor will continue to take an interest in these matters from the Back Benches. We all understood the difficulties that the Conservative party had in choosing between its three candidates. I suppose that he can say that he appealed to all thinking Conservatives, but there were just not enough of them.
    Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor and I are slightly out of sync today, as I am now coming to the nice bit. I congratulate him on building on the work that was begun by John Major as Prime Minister. I hope that he will continue that work on behalf of all the parties in the House. We all recognise that Britain, as a relatively prosperous country, has special responsibilities to the world, and indeed a special privilege, because it is in a position to provide effective help. Even if it were merely a matter of national self-interest, which it is not, we should strive to reduce the poverty and eliminate the corruption that together are the causes of conflict, of untold misery and of the huge flows of refugees that we all then have to deal with.
    There may be some Conservatives who say that charity begins at home, but even if that is so, it certainly should not end there. I congratulate the Chancellor on his work in this field, because I know that being able to do some good is the highest privilege that attaches to holding office, and if we are not here to do good, what, after all, is politics about?
    Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor will be able to speak on these issues in the House over the next few years.
    The pressure for action on debt and on illiteracy and ill-health has come not only from Members of Parliament—I acknowledge the work that hon. Members

    417
    of all parties have done—but from the general public. We all know that our churches, community groups and non-governmental organisations have been a powerful and constructive voice in pushing not only for debt relief but for action on the 2015 targets.
    We have a unique situation in which the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations have agreed that it is their purpose to meet the targets of a two-thirds cut in infant mortality, the halving of poverty and having every child in primary education by 2015. This is a major statement of purpose by the world community, and I hope that we can continue to work with the churches and community organisations to make a reality of these bold, challenging, yet utterly necessary targets.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Was my right hon. Friend able to break away from his welcome celebrations last night to see John Pilger's programme on Carlton television on the subject of globalisation? Whatever our views on Mr. Pilger's individual style, does my right hon. Friend accept that the programme produced compelling evidence that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation have not yet moved towards the transparency and accountability that we all want? Given my right hon. Friend's authority because of his achievements on debt, will he continue to push forward with the Government's demand for reforms in those areas?
    Mr. Brown: If I say that I saw Mr. Pilger's programme, my right hon. Friend may think that I was not celebrating last night. However, I did see the end of it and I disagreed with much of what I saw. The argument that the institutions that were set up in 1945 to maximise prosperity—of all people, not just some—are somehow the cause of our problems is completely wrong.
    The World Bank, the IMF, the United Nations and the various institutions such as Unicef associated with the UN should be supported in what they do. In some cases, they need additional resources and, in many cases, they need to modernise, but by working through those institutions we can maximise prosperity and extend it into the poorest countries, in co-operation with their Governments.
    We must not lose sight of the bold idea from 1945 that it is only through international co-operation that we can solve many of the problems of poverty in the world. I disagree with Mr. Pilger's main thesis that the institutions are somehow responsible for the problem. The challenge in the years ahead is to modernise and strengthen the institutions so that we can tackle ill-health, illiteracy and poverty.

    Business Tax Burden
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the tax burden on businesses. [3323]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Information on receipts from different taxes and changes are included in the relevant issues of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Chief Secretary for that singularly uninformative reply. Does he accept that the
    418
    Confederation of British Industry has estimated that the tax burden on business has increased by £5 billion a year, and could that be the explanation for the fact that Britain has slipped in the ranking of most competitive countries in the World Economic Forum's league from fourth to ninth position?
    Mr. Smith: The truth is that the Government have cut taxes on business, including a cut of 3 percentage points in the large and small companies rate of corporation tax and the introduction of the 10p starting rate, which—as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said—will be expanded in the Budget next year to give more help to small businesses. The result is that corporation tax as a share of the gross domestic product has fallen under this Government from the 3.6 per cent. we inherited to 3.4 per cent. last year.
    As for the CBI, Digby Jones, its director general, said in response to my right hon. Friend's enterprise statement on 18 June:
    "We are really encouraged by the commitment to make Capital Gains Tax more favourable to enterprise than in the United States. Together with the commitment to improve tax treatment for share options, this is a clear indication the Government understands the importance of business competitiveness in the global marketplace."
    David Taylor: While I accept my right hon. Friend's point about the level of corporate taxes, does he accept that small and medium enterprises face a serious problem in relation to the level of business rates? I received today a letter from a small firm in my constituency that has moved to new premises and provided 150 new jobs. Its space requirements have not quite doubled but its rate bill has quintupled. Can my right hon. Friend work with other Ministers to examine the effect of that tax, which is long overdue for reform?
    Mr. Smith: I shall of course examine carefully the points that my hon. Friend makes. There is always more we can do for small firms and we are looking at what that might be, but we have cut their average corporate tax bill by nearly a quarter. We have raised the threshold for mandatory audit, we have introduced the Small Business Service and we are simplifying the VAT regime. We also allow businesses to calculate their tax liability on the same basis that they need to provide figures for their company reports. As a consequence, there are now 170,000 more small businesses than when the Government came into office. We shall look at what we can do to give them more help, but the progress that has been made already should be recognised.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Chief Secretary will appreciate my total commitment over many years to manufacturing industry, but I want to bring to his attention the plight of a textile company in the north-west. It is involved in a very competitive sector of manufacturing, and has spent more than £1 million on reducing the emissions into the environment that result from its manufacturing processes. Under the climate change levy, the firm will have to pay £85,000 a year. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is extremely unfair? Before he tells me about rebates, I must add that, unfortunately, the company is not eligible for a

    419
    rebate. It will therefore have to accept an additional tax burden of £85,000 a year. How would he explain that to the company?
    Mr. Smith: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's commitment over many years to manufacturing industry, and the consistency and passion with which he has spoken on the subject under successive Administrations. The answer to his question regarding the firm in the north-west that he described is that we can build success for the future only through investment, by developing skills and by creating a generally low-tax environment for business that recognises the tough global competitive circumstances faced by such firms. No Government can guarantee the success of individual firms or sectors; we can only do our level best to create the best conditions for them to succeed against tough global competition. Opposition Members accept the Kyoto targets, but it is no good them willing the ends with regard to climate change if they are not prepared to grasp the means.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What steps he is taking on debt relief in developing countries. [3324]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since Chad was accepted as the 23rd country on 22 May, 23 countries have now entered the debt reduction process, with debt cancellation now totalling $53 billion. Four more countries are expected to achieve debt cancellation in the next few months. Seven countries are prevented from doing so by internal conflicts.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I add my personal congratulations to the others that my right hon. Friend has received from his Scottish friends, and from Sarah's personal friends in Scotland?
    Does my right hon. Friend think that what he has achieved in debt cancellation is undermined by the fact that many countries are burdened with commercial debts, rather than debts to Governments, with the result that a level playing field does not exist? Is any effort being made to try to stop the repatriation of so much money to commercial companies in the advanced part of the world? That would create a more level playing field in commercial terms for the countries that we, through the Government, are trying to help, and thus make it easier for them to escape indebtedness and poverty.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend, and I acknowledge the work done in his area and throughout Britain by the churches and the non-governmental organisations to raise the issue of debt relief. There is an arrangement in the Paris Club for dealing with commercial debt, but most debt owed in Africa is owed to official sources. That is why our decision—which has been followed by most other major countries—to give 100 per cent. debt relief to those countries moving through the debt reduction process is of particular benefit to Africa.
    Many of the countries involved wish to be able to borrow money in the future to pay for the infrastructure projects and the work in health and education that they want to undertake. They must be in a position to be able to do so. We do not want to put them in a position that means that they can never borrow again.
    420
    I share my hon. Friend's worries about the speed of the process, and the Government are to put forward new proposals at Genoa. We cannot deal only with the conflict countries; we must ensure that the debt relief being given at the moment is sustainable. That means that we have to look at the particular position of a few more countries. A number of countries are not applying for debt relief. Most of those that do apply will get it either this year or next, subject to the civil wars in those countries coming to an end.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I hate to dispel the warm glow in which I am sure the Chancellor is basking this morning, but does he agree that the debate about debt relief has clouded the point that if this country carries on increasing its aid budget in the way that it does at the moment, it will take 50 years to reach the United Nations recommended target of 0.7 per cent? What is he going to do about that, as it is so much more important?
    Mr. Brown: First, the percentage is increasing and has increased over the last few years. It is rising to 0.31 per cent. and will then rise to 0.33 per cent and we will look at the matter again in the spending round. In our manifesto, we committed ourselves to substantial increases in international development aid, and we will look at that matter in the spending round decisions next year. I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. We are increasing the amount of aid, both in real terms—by about 50 per cent. over the last few years—and in terms of the percentage of national income.
    There are many more things that have to be done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has not only set up a Department that leads the world, but one that has led the way in untying aid, which I hope that the hon. Lady agrees is important. My right hon. Friend has also called for an end to export credits involving arms and other unproductive expenditure being financed by the Exchequers of Britain and other countries. Equally, she led the way last week in the removal of subsidies for small arms. On all the issues, she and the Government are trying to lead the way.
    On the 2015 targets—which I hope that the hon. Lady will also address when she looks at the issues—the global health fund and the initiatives next year on education are our means of moving matters forward so that we can meet those targets. We are increasing resources for overseas aid, and we are doing so sustainably. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats all the time make new spending promises that they know perfectly well they cannot afford.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his personal commitment to the work that has been done over the last few years, but does he accept that, unfortunately, some of the devil is in the detail? Has he seen the report from Jubilee Plus this week, which shows that, under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, it is possible that some of the countries may not reach their growth targets, which would cause particular problems for those that try to exit the HIPC initiative over the next few years? Will he use his influence on the G7 and G8 to ensure that the details of the HIPC initiative deliver the poverty reduction that all of us in this House want?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for taking a long-term interest in the issues and the all-party work that has been done. There are six countries—Burkina Faso, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda and Tanzania—in respect of which we are now working with the World Bank and the IMF because of the central issue of the sustainability of debt relief. HIPC must offer a sustainable exit from debt, and we will ensure that that takes place. That is why we are prepared to look at all means of doing that, and we will work with the international institutions to secure it.
    I do not think that the reports published this week should get away from the central argument. It is only if we co-operate with other countries and work to strengthen the international institutions that we will make progress on the issue. The idea of some—that we could make any difference by abandoning the international institutions and retreating into isolationism or protectionism—is absolutely wrong. I believe that reform of international institutions is the agenda on which all those who believe in social justice should focus their attention.

    R and D Tax Credit
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What consultations he has had with business representatives on the proposed research and development tax credit. [3326]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In 2001, we introduced tax credits for small firms' research and development. Consultation has now closed on extending a new tax credit to larger companies and we will make our views known in the pre-Budget report. Today we are also publishing a further consultation paper on the wider reform of corporation tax, including measures for intellectual property tax relief and capital gains relief for the sale of subsidiaries. The consultation period with corporations will last until the pre-Budget report.
    Dr. Cable: Is the Chancellor aware of the strength of feeling among companies at the cutting edge of British technology that the Government's proposals as they stand—to give tax credits to new and incremental research and development—have two profound difficulties? The first is that they introduce a great deal of additional complexity into an already complex system. The second is that they introduce major distortions into business decisions by rewarding one type of research and development with tax credits and other forms not at all. Will the Chancellor say that he is still open to representations on reforming the proposals along those lines?
    Mr. Brown: We are still open to representations. We have put forward a number of proposals to business so that we can increase the share of research and development undertaken in Britain. In Japan and America, it averages about 3 per cent. of national income. In Britain, it is about 1.8 per cent. We have to do more. The research and development tax credit for small firms costs us £150 million a year, but that system allows small firms to finance their research, even before they make profits. We are consulting companies about whether we should proceed with a similar system or with what we may call a relief for additional research. The hon. Gentleman should point out to the House that the proposal that he
    422
    favours would cost several hundreds of millions of pounds more than the other proposal mooted in the document. In the Liberal Democrat manifesto, we counted 43 spending commitments that were not financed and that commitment was not in the manifesto, which brings it to 44. Somehow and sometime the Liberals will have to face up to the fact that they cannot keep promising money when they do not have it.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is crucial to assist with research and development to secure jobs in industry in towns such as Burnley if we are to tackle the sorts of problem that we faced in that town earlier this month?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend that manufacturing industry and the renewal of industry in areas such as his are crucial and part of the Government's policy. We have not only cut corporation tax and small business corporation tax—to 10p for smaller firms with profits up to £50,000—but introduced the research and development tax credit and made permanent capital allowances for manufacturing industry for small and medium-sized businesses. He will be interested to know that in the next few months, following our permission from the European Commission, we will be setting up regional venture capital funds from which businesses developing in the regions, including the north-west, can draw. That measure is in addition to the work that has to be done—I had a conversation with him yesterday about these matters—to improve the new deal and the facilities that it offers to people who are unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, in some of our poorest communities. We are determined that in this Parliament we will take the additional action that is necessary so that no young person and no long-term unemployed person will go without the offer of a job.

    Pensioner Taxation
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): If he will make a statement on the taxation of pensioners. [3327]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): As a result of our policies on tax, seven out of 10 pensioners pay either no tax or pay at the 10p rate. Our personal tax and benefit changes mean that pensioner households will be £600 a year better off on average compared with 1997.
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady's reply will be cold comfort for pensioners, as it does not reflect the reality. Will she admit that, under the Labour regime, pensioners have had more and more of their income taken in taxes? Will she also confirm that by 2003 more than half our pensioners will be subject to means-tested benefits for the minimum income guarantee and the pensioner credit? Is that Labour's way to ensure that pensioners, in the words of the Labour manifesto,
    "have much to give to society"—
    principally, it seems, through increased taxes?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am glad that the hon. Lady is now concerned about pensioner poverty, bearing in mind the Conservative Government's record in office. The tax reforms and the introduction of the 10p rate, as well as the introduction of and rise in the winter fuel allowance

    423
    and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, which puts in place a minimum income for the poorest pensioners, are assisting the Government to ensure that the resources that we have go to those in greatest need—the very poorest pensioners. I am sure that if she looks in detail at the proposals for the pensioner tax credit, she will agree that rewarding those pensioners who have saved through the credit is another way to tackle that poverty.
    Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton): I thank the Government on behalf of the poorer pensioners in my constituency for taking their incomes up from £67 for single pensioners to £92. Does my hon. Friend agree that the scandal has been that those on small occupational pensions have been paying too much tax, and that the new pensioner credit is not coming in soon enough to help such individuals? What plans do the Government have to conduct an information campaign so that those hardworking individuals can receive their just reward and the tax rebate that they deserve?
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend knows, the minimum income guarantee will be raised again next year, guaranteeing an income to those poorest pensioners. He is right that we need extensive publicity to ensure that those pensioners who will be entitled to the pensioner tax credit can receive it. The Government continue to review their tax policy on those few pensioners who pay tax so that, where possible, they can be removed from the tax system and any rebates to which they are entitled can be paid as quickly and easily as possible.
    Richard Ottaway: The biggest concern of any pensioner is the stability of their pension provider. Does the Minister recognise the concern and trauma of millions of Equitable Life policy holders and the failure of the regulatory authorities to protect their interests? In December 1998, the Treasury encouraged the Equitable to continue with its flawed strategy. Today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer declines to accept responsibility for that disastrous advice. This month, we discover that the Financial Services Authority did not even know that the Equitable was reviewing its financial position. Is it not time that the regulator started regulating and the Chancellor recognised that the buck stops with him?
    Dawn Primarolo: It would be ridiculous on such an important issue for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and give answers that were not based on information and fact. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the FSA is preparing a report on the events leading up to the closure of Equitable Life to new business. When we see the report and have the facts before us will be the time to have the discussion.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Eric Illsley: What proposals he has to relax the Inland Revenue rules regarding the amounts of money which individuals can withdraw annually from pension funds [3328]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government seek to help people to provide for their financial security and comfort in old age. Pensions should provide a secure income throughout retirement, guarding against the risk of savings running out. The Government keep the rules under review and remain open to suggestions of workable and affordable alternative methods for delivering a secure income in retirement.
    Mr. Illsley: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment that pension funds should be able to provide an income throughout retirement, but is she aware that, due to the lack of availability of gilts in this country, the fall in the value of some pension funds and the interaction of the Inland Revenue rules, the income for some pensioners who run their pensions in that way is falling year on year? Will she consider the impact of the Inland Revenue rules, which I understand were examined as recently as 1999, to see whether any adjustment can be made to prevent that fall in income?
    Ruth Kelly: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the current state of play on annuities. Annuities are specifically designed to fund a guaranteed income stream in retirement. Certain proposals have been made for their reform. The problem is that the proposals that we have received so far have severe drawbacks. They do nothing to help pensioners who have very small savings, and it is not clear that they would not be costly. However, I remain open to suggestions about how the regime could be reformed. If any hon. Members know of any proposals that are workable and affordable, of course I will listen to what they have to say.
    Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has tabled a Bill on this matter. Second Reading is not until January, so I hope that the six months available can be used constructively to look again at the proposals of Dr. Oonagh McDonald on the draw-down of annuity by the age of 75. Many constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that that rule needs to be changed and is leading to gross injustice.
    Ruth Kelly: I certainly understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised although I repeat that, at the moment, annuities are the only way of providing a secure income flow in retirement. Of course, we have to consider other proposals, and in the next six months, I hope that people will make serious proposals for reform. The hon. Gentleman proposed that we consider Dr. McDonald's suggestions, which are interesting but have cost implications. If annuities and savings funds became more flexible, it is of course possible that people would start to use them not only as savings vehicles for their future pension but also as inheritance vehicles. There is that risk, in which case the cost implications could be severe. However, as I said, I am interested in hearing sensible, efficient and workable proposals. If I can be shown that they are not costly, of course the Treasury will take them extremely seriously.

    Barnett Formula
    Joyce Quin: What plans he has to review the Barnett formula. [3329]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government's spending plans have been set down and agreed for the years until 2003–04, including spending allocations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those allocations are governed by the statements of funding policy incorporating the Barnett formula, and that remains the Government's policy.
    Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, despite the welcome increases in public spending in the regions, the Barnett formula continues to be the focus of public concern and public attention, especially in the north-east of England? Indeed, the issue was raised several times during the general election campaign. Given the Government's commitment, which I very much hope that they will honour, to hold referendums on regional government in England, does he agree that we should grasp the opportunity to devise a long-term formula, more closely related to needs, which would benefit the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend refers to remarks made during the general election campaign and she will be aware of what the Prime Minister said. I have nothing to add to his words. However, for those who have concerns about the Barnett formula, I point out, first, that it is not the formula that is responsible for the inequalities in funding about which people are worried. Those are historic matters which, of course, the Barnett formula addresses. It is a convergence formula—something on which we receive representations from other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Secondly and importantly, I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes the substantial increases in public expenditure and the benefits that they bring to the north-east and other regions. Money from, for example, the new deal, the working families tax credit and the child tax credit, the extra help for pensioners and the employment credit that will operate from 2003 give extra resources precisely to those areas that need them most, including of course the north-east.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the new honesty from the Minister about the fact that the Barnett squeeze does exist in Wales and Scotland. What is the real justification for the formula, other than as a bad habit or for the avoidance of blood on the carpet? Does he realise that Wales, Sheffield, Cornwall and Liverpool will lose out in additionality from European funding until we get a better and more equitable funding regime in these islands? Is it not time to replace the Barnett formula with a new relationship between the nations and regions of these islands? Is he not enamoured of a needs-based formula for Wales and fiscal autonomy for Scotland?
    Mr. Smith: I thought that the nationalists did not want a formula at all, but to be wholly responsible for raising and spending their own money. We have shown sensitivity to the particular needs of regions and countries.
    426
    The hon. Gentleman refers to structural funding: in the case of Wales, we specifically made additional provision in recognition of the objective 1 funding. He should be thanking us for that, not complaining about it.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What mechanism does my right hon. Friend have for relating public spending to public needs in the English regions? Will he consider spending billions of pounds of public funds through the science research councils, especially in relation to the regional implications and the development of the knowledge economy, particularly in the north-west?
    Mr. Smith: I was fortunate enough to launch our knowledge economy White Paper in the north-west, and I know how much of a contribution the investment in science is making there, building up clusters and building on the traditional strengths of industry in the region. There is innovation and new investment in pharmaceuticals and other sectors in which the north-west has a relative competitive advantage. We will build on that in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents. Long-term unemployment in the region has dropped very sharply, thanks to the Government's initiatives. She asked what mechanisms we have for relating public expenditure to need; I think that the new deal is the best example.

    Climate Change Levy
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the estimated revenue to the Treasury of the climate change levy from (a) manufacturing and (b) agricultural firms. [3330]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion in its first year, all of which will be recycled back to business through cuts in national insurance contributions and support for energy efficiency.
    Although the levy is broadly revenue-neutral, it is not possible to say at this stage what the effects on any specific sector or industry will be. That will depend on several factors, including the future energy consumption of firms in the sector and employment levels in those firms, the number of energy-intensive firms in the sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement, and what use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy-exempt new renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the Government are discriminating between sites that are covered by integrated pollution prevention and control and those that are not? Does he accept that businesses are now the principal tax collectors in this country? What would he say to Chennell and Armstrong, a firm in my constituency, which will pay out £3,562 more in tax but receive a reduction in national insurance contributions of only £78?
    Mr. Boateng: No. This is the Government who cut corporation tax and capital gains tax, and introduced generous capital allowances as part of the climate change levy. The hon. Lady should welcome all that, not criticise it.
    Mr. Colin Challen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best leader for the Conservative party would be Dr. Faustus, who believed that a short-term gain pays off with a long-term pain? What is the cost to the country of not leading in the development of new technology to combat climate change? What is the cost to the country of businesses suffering the effects of flooding and other consequences of extremely severe weather? All those costs are mounting, and if we do not deal with them, we will have a long-term pain.
    Mr. Boateng: Given the record of Conservative Members, I do not think that Dr. Faustus would have got through the first round. [Interruption.] They don't like it up 'em. The whole House recognises that combating climate change and reaching the Kyoto targets are
    428
    desirable objectives. This is a business-friendly tax, and one that the whole House welcomes, or ought to welcome, as it should welcome the good news that we are due to reach those targets, with 5 million tonnes of carbon saved by 2010.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister look carefully at the impact of the tax in those areas that have been particularly affected by foot and mouth disease? Does he accept that in many of those parts of the country, any extra burden is crippling?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We are concerned to make sure that in rural areas, particularly those affected by foot and mouth, Customs and Excise takes a sympathetic attitude to the problems experienced by farmers. We have not only made sure that energy-intensive parts of agriculture have access to the 80 per cent. reduction, but established a Customs and Excise national advice centre, which has a specific remit to give advice and help on claiming discounts, on collection arrangements, on other technical issues relating to relief and, importantly, on arrangements for deferring payment of VAT, where that will help.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the week after the recess?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for the first week after the recess will be:
MONDAY 15 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Motion to approve the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001.
WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER—Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. John Bercow: Ghastly!
Mr. Cook: I knew that I would have the hon. Gentleman's support for that.
THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject or subjects to be announced.
FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER—Debate on drugs strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 22 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Homelessness Bill.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Before we discuss the business for the week following the recess, may I say that today should have been renamed "Gardeners' Question Time" because there are no fewer than 67 Government-planted questions on the Order Paper, no doubt in the hope that the answers would not be noticed by hon. Members who are tidying their desks and waiting to depart for the recess?
While I am on the subject of unfinished business and what hon. Members might notice in the next 24 hours, will the Leader of the House confirm that before the House rises tomorrow, the Government will have placed in the Vote Office the promised new ministerial code of conduct designed to prevent a repetition of the controversies that surrounded the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)? As we understand it, it is to be accompanied by an inaugural code of conduct to govern Ministers' special advisers and spin doctors to stop the bullying of civil servants. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure me that that document will be made available and not just slipped on to the shelves once the House has risen.
I also wonder whether the Leader of the House will arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House in the week after the recess. The Prime Minister appointed Mr. Kiley during the election when there was no opportunity for us to discuss his decision. Yesterday, the Secretary of State sacked Mr. Kiley by press release.
430
Again, the House has had no opportunity to become acquainted with the background and the reasoning behind that.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will deal with another matter when he comes to the House, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised with the Prime Minister yesterday. My hon. Friend expressed concern that the GNER east coast main line contract might be a short-term contract. In reply, the Prime Minister said:
"Some franchises may be short, while others may be longer. That is sensible, because it gives us the flexibility that we require. As for GNER and the east coast main line, that decision will be taken shortly." [0fficial Report, 18 July 2001; Vol. 372, c. 286.]
So shortly was the decision taken that, no sooner had the right hon. Gentleman uttered those words than the Secretary of State announced—again, by press release—that the contract had been renewed for only two years.
Despite what the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is obvious that the Government have torn up their rail policy and delivered a slap in the face for the Strategic Rail Authority. Given that there are so many pressing issues for which the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has responsibility, he should come to the House not just to make a statement, but for a whole afternoon.
Mr. Cook: First, on my hon. Friends' skills in gardening, I am repeatedly pressed in business questions to provide assurances that statements will be made while the House is sitting, not after it has risen. It is to my hon. Friends' credit that they have worked hard to ensure that their questions are answered while we are sitting.
On the ministerial code and special advisers, I am advised that the answer is yes; it will be published and be available to the House before we rise, and I shall seek to ensure that that takes place.
Mr. Kiley was appointed in the spring on the basis that he agreed that he would carry out discussions with the bidders on the public-private partnership plan and that he would try to seek agreement. That was the basis of his appointment, but three weeks ago, he said that he could not carry it out and could not deliver what he had agreed to deliver—an agreement with the contractors. It is well known that, this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions received an approach from the former chairman of London Transport and a majority of the board, saying that they thought it impossible to work with Mr. Kiley. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend had the choice of sacking the majority of the board or sacking Mr. Kiley, and I would not like to think what the House would have done if he had sacked the majority of the board.
On GNER, it is the case that because of the very substantial infrastructure works required following the Hatfield incident, it is not presently possible to agree with the bidders a long-term franchise of 20 years. That is still the aspiration of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but in the meantime, to provide continuity, he has extended the present franchise by two years to 2005, but I stress that the agreement to extend it is not simply a matter of the time in that agreement; there is also provision to upgrade the London-Leeds service, so that people can travel every

431
30 minutes, and for early placement of orders for a new fleet of inter-city trains and early investment in station improvements. All of those will be real gains for passengers and are a welcome result of the announcement that my right hon. Friend made the other day.
Finally, the hon. Lady will have noticed that the last Bill that I mentioned in the business statement was the Homelessness Bill, to which we shall return on the Monday of the second week after our return. She will also recall that I gave an undertaking to the House that we would not programme that Bill, to find out whether we could make progress by agreement. I am pleased to say that proceedings on the Homelessness Bill have been completed in Committee in advance of the date agreed. I welcome that, and provided that we continue to get that co-operation, we will be able, on a case-by-case basis, to consider whether programming motions are required.
Harry Cohen: When we return after the recess, can we have an early debate about the London underground because one of Mr. Bob Kiley's persistent criticisms has been that the Government's PPP scheme obfuscates management? I should like to know what the role of London Transport is. Is it just a dog that barks to the Government's tune? What is its future? The infrastructure companies are very secretive. Transport for London, under Mr. Bob Kiley. will eventually control the underground, but only partially. The Government have a primary responsibility for the whole system, but are keeping it at arm's length. So can we have a debate to sort out who does manage the London underground?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways; he cannot insist that we listen to the voice of London Underground and then complain when we listen to the majority of the London Underground board, who clearly told the Secretary of State that they could not continue to work with Mr. Kiley and did not think he could find a way forward. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is clear: at the end of the public-private partnership, London Underground and London Transport will manage the service; they will determine the service; and they will be responsible for safety.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): That is waffle.
Mr. Cook: No, I am not waffling at all. The reality is that there will be a public service, publicly run by London Underground.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In the light of this week's events, does the Leader of the House accept that Select Committees are only one way in which the House exerts its authority over the Executive and holds them to account, and undertakes proper scrutiny on behalf of the public? Does he accept that the Home Secretary's announcement of the crime figures today to the media and not directly to the House is not acceptable, as it does not give us an opportunity to question him on what is clearly a deplorable situation, especially in relation to violent crime and the clear-up rate? Does he also accept that for Members to be given a spinny document by the new Home Secretary entitled "Time to Deliver" today is totally inappropriate? With street crime as bad as it is, it should surely be "Time to Stand and Deliver".
432
Does the Leader of the House accept that there really should not be 50 different mini-statements by way of written answer on the last day before the summer recess?
The Leader of the House will be aware that the House has on the whole been able to maintain an all-party approach to events in Northern Ireland. Does he accept that the situation is very fragile at the moment and that peace in Northern Ireland is extremely delicately balanced? Will he give an assurance that, if the House is faced with a major change in the situation in Northern Ireland, it will be recalled?
Mr. Cook: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's comments on the publication of crime statistics. Annual crime figures have repeatedly been produced in public when they are ready and are available for debate by the public as well as by Parliament. They have not been released in a statement to the House. As Leader of the House, I do not think that it would be possible to manage business if we had to have a statement for every annual publication of statistics.
On the substantive issue, let us not lose sight of the fact that the figures show that overall crime is down by 2.5 per cent., burglary is down by 8 per cent and vehicle crime is down by 7 per cent. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that violent crime is up. It is up by 3 per cent., which is a lot less than the trend over previous years. Although any increase is too much, the trend is down. I hope that our efforts to reduce violent crime will achieve a decline, as there is in other crimes at the present time.
Obviously, if there is a serious situation in Northern Ireland, the recall of Parliament is an option for the Government, and Members can call for it. However, it would be a very unusual Leader of the House who gave a guarantee that the House would be recalled before it even adjourned.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is rather disappointing to see on today's Order Paper that the Science and Technology Committee is not to be constituted prior to the summer recess, especially given the Government's commitment to a knowledge-based economy, in which matters to do with science, engineering and technology should feature prominently? Is it his view that that Committee is not as important as others—or can he give some other reason?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have set up every other departmental Select Committee and, indeed, pretty well every other Select Committee of the House. Seventeen of them met yesterday. The sole reason why we have not been able to set up the Science and Technology Committee is that we do not have a satisfactory number of nominations to it. That matter is beyond the powers of the Leader of the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: Why on earth have we not had a statement from the Prime Minister about Northern Ireland? Does it not seem odd, even to the Leader of the House, that there were protracted crisis talks last week but the House of Commons has not been informed of where we are, where we are going, what is going on, who said what and what the Government expect to happen? How can we possibly contemplate a summer

433
recess when we have all been left in complete ignorance of what is going on and what the future holds? Please will the Leader of the House get the Prime Minister here tomorrow for an emergency statement?
Mr. Cook: Since the Prime Minister is due to attend the G8 summit tomorrow, I should have thought that most Members, if not the right hon. Gentleman, would attach greater importance to the agenda of reducing world poverty, launching a trade round—
Mr. Forth: No.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman speaks for himself and says that he does not attach importance to poverty reduction, the world trade round or tackling the AIDS epidemic in Africa, with which my right hon. Friend will be dealing on Friday—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman asking the Leader of the House a question and then shouting him down. What is the point of that?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman perfectly illustrated why a statement on Northern Ireland at the present time might not help. He demanded to know who said what to whom. I cannot imagine a statement detailing that as anything other than disastrous in the context of talks that are continuing and will continue during the recess.
Mr. Tom Harris: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the increasing number of personal injuries resulting from the use of air rifles and air pistols? Is he aware that such attacks can often result not only in blindness and partial blindness but in permanent brain damage? Will he give Members an early opportunity to debate measures to regulate, if not prohibit, the use of those weapons?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has raised a serious issue and I fully understand his concern, which he has expressed to me privately as well as publicly. I can assure him that there will he many opportunities after we return from the recess to debate crime and criminal justice. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to make his comment in that context.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In March, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us that foot and mouth was under control. Yesterday, there were 10 confirmed cases. Will the Leader of the House review the information and advice given to farmers by the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and her Department about what they have to do in the course of this outbreak? Public footpaths are open, some through farmyards, yet farmers are told in a pamphlet and video issued by the Department to wash their wellies and change their overalls between every task. Public footpaths through farmers' own farmyards are open, yet if their children visit neighbouring
434
farms, they are told to change their clothes. What is the point of giving that kind of information and still saying that public footpaths have to be open?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the statement made yesterday about footpaths provides that some of the counties most affected, such as Cumbria and Devon, can retain blanket bans. In other counties where blanket bans have been removed, it remains open to local authorities to close individual footpaths; indeed, they would be expected to close footpaths within 3 km of any affected farm. It is important that farmers and others involved in the livestock industry observe every possible biosecurity measure because they handle animals and are therefore at greater risk than people walking across the land.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 23, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge)?
[That this House expresses concern at President Bush's intention to move beyond the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in developing missile defence; and endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which recommended that the Government voice the grave doubts about NMD in the UK, questioned whether US plans to deploy NMD represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced by the international community and recommended that the Government encourage the USA to explore all ways of reducing the threat it perceives.]
To date, 264 Members of Parliament have expressed deep concern about the United States proposals to tear up the anti-ballistic missile treaty and deploy the national missile defence system. Given that the Prime Minister is today meeting President Bush and that the matter will no doubt be discussed, does he have any intention of coming to the House and making a statement about our position before we go into recess?
Mr. Cook: I have no doubt whatever that that matter will be on the agenda when the Prime Minister meets President Bush and that they will be asked about it when they conclude their discussions. The American Administration are not proposing, as my hon. Friend put it, to tear up the anti-ballistic missile treaty. What they are doing, and what we have encouraged them to do, is have a dialogue with Russia to see if they can find an alternative strategic framework. We should encourage the United States and Russia to reach that agreement; I would not rule out the possibility that it can be reached.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Could the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House and explain why there is such discrimination against small livestock farmers? When they are taking small loads of animals to slaughter they have to have them inspected twice by vets, whereas large farmers can take their animals straight to slaughter and are subject to only one inspection.
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the hon. Gentleman's

435
observation about the differential impact on smaller farmers. I can well understand the familiar problem that smaller enterprises perhaps find it more difficult to meet the burdensome requirements which are very important at this time of biosecurity measures.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the concern that has been expressed in the House about the stubborn tail-end of the disease and the failure to achieve the point, which we all want to get to, of total eradication. He has invited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at what further measures we might take to speed up the eradication of the disease.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 149, which was tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings)?
[That this House recognises that the 50 per cent. clawback by the Government of any surplus of the Mineworkers' Pension and Superannuation Scheme is grossly unfair; and invites the Government and the trustees of the Pension and superannuation Scheme to enter into negotiations and agree upon a more just appointment of the surplus and so enhance the pensions of thousands of retired mineworkers and widows.]
The early-day motion draws the attention of the House to the fact that the Treasury still receives half of all the surpluses from the mineworkers' pension scheme and the staff superannuation scheme. My right hon. Friend may well be aware that the combined value of those two schemes is about £25 billion. The average pension paid to a member of the mineworkers' pension scheme is about £36, and 28,000 beneficiaries to the scheme receive about £10. Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge the Treasury team to meet the administrators of the scheme as soon as possible to review the 50 per cent. take with a view to devising a procedure that will make more money available to those beneficiaries at the bottom of the pile?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend' s anxiety and I know that there are hardship cases such as those that he mentioned. The original bargain between the Treasury and the miners' pension scheme was that the Treasury would guarantee that pension payments would increase in line with inflation even if there was a deficit in the scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, there is currently a healthy surplus in the scheme, which means a substantial accrual rate to the fund year on year.
The other side of the bargain is that, in return for the guarantee in case of a deficit, the Treasury has the right to take up to 50 per cent. of any annual increase in the surplus. However, I full understand my hon. Friend's point. He knows that the trustees are currently reviewing the scheme. The Government are awaiting the outcome, which we are willing to discuss with trustees when we receive the review.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The Leader of the House knows that the Prime Minister is expected to complete a set of proposals with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic next week. The House will be in recess, and the right hon. Gentleman may be aware of the rumour that the information will be provided only to selected
436
individuals. Will he ensure that it is published so that all hon. Members can see the proposals as soon as they are completed?
Mr. Cook: I am confident that, in the event of the completion of talks with all parties—I hope that they will be successful—the outcome will be made publicly available. Even if we were minded otherwise, any agreement between all parties would become public knowledge quickly and loudly.
However, I cannot give a commitment that my right hon. Friend will disclose the outcome of talks with any one party, whether the Prime Minister of Ireland or one of the Northern Irish parties. Any such outcome is sensitive to trying to achieve an overall agreement. We all support that.
Ms Diane Abbott: Will the Leader of the House make time when we return for a debate on the role of Select Committees? They are Committees of the House and their chairmanship is a matter for hon. Members. It is wrong for Government Whips to insist on a named individual being Chairmen. They may make suggestions but the chairmanship should be up to Select Committee members.
Mr. Cook: We have not been short of opportunities to debate Select Committees this week. Indeed, we have another debate on them today. However, the Modernisation Committee—
Mr. Forth: Oh, no!
Mr. Cook: I stress to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no point in the House asking for proposals and then objecting to the Committee that is plainly the logical body to introduce them.—[HON. MEMBERS: "He wants morel I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants more Select Committees. However, if he wants Select Committees whose members are chosen transparently and independently, he should welcome the fact that that is the first priority for the Modernisation Committee. I hope that we can present a report shortly after the recess.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Yesterday, the Prime Minister hid behind the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and stated that rural people had not demanded a full public inquiry. Does the Leader of the House understand that so many sectors of the rural economy have been devastated by foot and mouth that the countryside will accept nothing less than a full, public inquiry under the independent, impartial chairmanship of a judge?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not hide behind the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] No, he did not. He accurately reflected its statement, in which it made it plain that it favoured an inquiry that resembled the one that followed the last outbreak of foot and mouth, rather than the protracted public inquiry into BSE.
It is worth while reflecting on the reasons for the royal college's view. It wants any lessons to be learned and any conclusions to be drawn as expeditiously as possible through a proper, full inquiry. As the House knows,

437
a public inquiry takes years. It is a matter of judgment whether we want to wait for years before learning the urgent lessons of the recent outbreak.
David Winnick: Further to his comments of a few moments ago, could my right hon. Friend give an indication of when it is likely that the Modernisation Committee will present proposals on changes in decisions on Select Committees membership? It would be useful to have a debate on that subject later this year. Is he aware that many of us are encouraged by the fact that the Government seem to have learned the lessons from Monday—unlike the last Tory Government, who never learned the lessons from 1992 when they prevented the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from being reappointed to the Health Committee?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having made the second mention of the Modernisation Committee, thereby obliging the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to leave the Chamber.
On the question of a timetable, I think that the best I can do for my hon. Friend is to give an assurance that we will bring one forward as quickly as possible. How quickly that is depends of course on how quickly we can establish agreement within the Committee. However, we have agreed to meet in September to consider the matter. If we make good progress at that meeting in September, I would hope that we can bring forward a report early in our proceedings after the recess.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for a statement or a debate on the east coast main line? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the dismay at the decision not to grant a long-term franchise? Does he realise that a two-year extension is bound to put back the date when we will see continuing investment of a substantial type, and that only the grant of a long-term franchise will really provide the basis for continuing large investment in an overcrowded line?
Mr. Cook: There is nothing between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government on whether there should be a long-term franchise; we would prefer a long-term franchise. The reality is that so much infrastructure work is required post-Hatfield that it was not practical to reach an agreement with bidders on the basis of the current state of the infrastructure and the work that is required to it. That is the reason, and the only reason, for the two-year delay.
GNER is of course one of the operating companies. It is itself, therefore, very much responsible for the rolling stock, but not for the track. A two-year period should not of itself inhibit investment in rolling stock, as any successful bidder thereafter will be obliged to take over that rolling stock.
Mr. David Clelland: Did my right hon. Friend hear the exchanges in Treasury questions on the Barnett formula? If he did, he would be aware that there are calls from both sides of the House for the system of
438
funding the regions and nations of the United Kingdom to be renewed and reviewed. May we have a debate on the matter immediately after the recess, so that the House can help the Government to take the matter forward and we can introduce a system that is based on real need and fairness?
Mr. Cook: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer of help in taking the matter forward. However, he will be aware that the Government have repeatedly said that we have no plans to review the Barnett formula.
Mr. David Heath: Will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss—it would be particularly appropriate now as President Bush is in the country—the situation of my constituent Mr. Steve Morgan of Frome, an experienced journalist who accompanied the Greenpeace demonstration against the star wars test and is now facing charges in Los Angeles, subject to a minimum five-year prison sentence for photographing a peaceful demonstration? Will there be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to say what consular support is being given to Mr. Morgan and what representations have been made at the highest level for his immediate release?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that his constituent is getting full consular support. We have been in contact with him and the other UK nationals involved since the day of their arrest. We have also been in contact with their lawyer. We will continue to do all we can to provide consular support to him. I know from my previous work at the Foreign Office that it would be counter-productive for us to intervene politically in what is a judicial matter, but all possible consular support will be given.
John McDonnell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's plans to part-privatise air traffic control are rapidly falling apart? It looks as though the income generated from the sale will not even cover the inherited debt of the National Air Traffic Services. Can we have a ministerial statement in our first week back giving us a progress report and looking at the options on how we can dig ourselves out of this fiasco?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a delay in the bid coming from the consortium. We understand that the delay reflects some financial issues which plainly have to be resolved to the satisfaction of the bidder. However, we expect the bid to proceed and the process to continue. I am sure that it is a matter on which right hon. and hon. Members will wish to table questions when we return.
Pete Wishart: Regardless of what the Leader of the House said earlier, we had an admission from the Treasury this morning that the Barnett formula is indeed a convergence formula. The Government have admitted to the existence of the Barnett squeeze. Will the Leader of the House respond to that announcement by ensuring that there is an early debate on the subject so that we can examine this admission and the effect that the Barnett squeeze will have on Scottish public services.
Mr. Cook: The Barnett formula reflects population changes. There is no way in which the Treasury or anyone

439
else can protect any area from a change in the population base on which the Barnett formula is calculated. I am wearily resigned to the fact that this is an issue that we will hear much about when we return and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be repeatedly ventilated in the Chamber by people on both sides of the argument.
Joan Ruddock: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 72 on women in Parliament?
[That this House believes that a democratically elected Parliament should seek to reflect the make-up of its population; notes that while women make up 51 per cent. of the UK population, only 18 per cent. of elected honourable Members are women; considers such an imbalance to be unacceptable in the 21st century; welcomes the Government's promise in the Queen's Speech to draft legislation to enable political parties to take positive action in the selection of women as parliamentary candidates; and urges the Leader of the House to bring forward the legislation as soon as possible to ensure the selection of many more women candidates for the next general election.]
In two weeks it has attracted the signatures of more than 100 Members representing five different political parties. Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the fact that only 18 per cent. of elected Members are women and can he tell us when he might find an opportunity to introduce legislation that would enable political parties to make some attempt to tackle that democratic deficit?
Mr. Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's concern at the relatively small number of women in Parliament and the fact that it has declined rather than increased at the last election. I would like us to take measures that would give a better prospect of the increase in women in Parliament and make sure that this democratic Chamber fully represents all of Britain. In respect of the legislation to which my hon. Friend refers, I cannot introduce legislation that does not exist. I will look sympathetically at timetabling a Bill if one can be introduced soon after the recess, but at the present time we await confirmation that such a Bill is ready.
Mr. Christopher Chope: When can we have a debate about the Government's home energy efficiency scheme which has failed so miserably and has caused pensioners in my constituency to wait more than a year to get replacement boilers? Will the Leader of the House ensure that the questions that I tabled and that have received holding answers are answered extensively before the end of the week? Written questions are one of the means by which we can hold the Government to account to some extent. Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when the House returns all Departments are strongly advised to reply to them within a reasonable time scale? At the moment the standard of Departments is deteriorating badly.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall look into his question about responses to written questions. I very much hope that all Departments will seek to clear all written questions before the House concludes its work for the summer. That would be a normal standard to expect. The home energy efficiency
440
scheme is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I shall convey what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I would stress, however, that the United Kingdom has done well in making sure that energy efficiency is applied across our economy, and to our homes and transport. That is why we are well ahead of the Kyoto targets and are one of the leading nations in the world in making reductions in greenhouse gases.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): I note that the first debate after the recess will be on the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill. There is a lot of disorder and dismay in my constituency about the ownership of Carlisle United, which is owned by Michael Knighton, of whom hon. Members may have heard. Three weeks away from the beginning of the season, we do not have 11 full-time footballers, we do not have a manager and we do not have any money. The Football League and the Football Association know about the problems that Carlisle United is facing and are refusing to intervene. My only concern is that when we come back in October Carlisle United will no longer exist. However, I should like to be able to move an amendment to the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. Cook: I am humbled to say that I am unable to promise either a ministerial statement or Government legislation to save Carlisle United. My hon. Friend makes his case forcefully, and I am sure that he has ventilated an issue of deep concern to his constituents and his local press. I am very pleased that he will have an excellent platform on which to repeat his concerns when we resume, on the first day back.
Mr. John Bercow: I hope that the Leader of the House will bear up stoically and with fortitude under the burden of being deprived of our convivial company over the next three months.
Can we please have an urgent statement in Government time on the extraordinary decision of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to transport large quantities of ash hundreds of miles from Newcastle to the Shanks and McEwan landfill site at Calvert in my constituency? Ought not the Secretary of State to tell us why it was sensible to transport that ash hundreds of miles from an infected area to an area thus far, thankfully, uninfected with foot and mouth? Would it not be useful for her to tell me how it was proper and courteous of the Department to inform me of the involvement of my constituency in this worrying matter only on the day on which the first transportation took place?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for his concern about my being able to stand tall and survive the absence of his company and that of other hon. Members. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman—no, on this last occasion, I shall call him my hon. Friend—that in Italy I shall say daily to my wife, "I wonder what the hon. Member for Buckingham is getting up to in my absence."
I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and press her on the importance of providing prior notice to Members of Parliament.
Ann Clwyd: Many of us are heavily dependent on mobile phones for communicating with our friends, our offices and our constituents, particularly over the summer holidays, so can we have an early debate on the inadequacy of the service provided by mobile phone companies in large areas of Britain where it is impossible to receive a signal? Vodafone has spent millions of pounds on buying a German company and provided £800 million of share options to its chief executive yet has written to me to say that it cannot afford to spend money on increasing its coverage in parts of Wales.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks for the whole House, in that we have all had the experience, somewhere in Britain—often in our constituencies—of being unable to get the connection that we need. I am sure that her point will have been suitably logged by those at Vodafone who monitor our proceedings, and I hope that she will be hearing from them shortly.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House will be aware that by the time we return we will not have had a debate on defence procurement for almost a year. In view of the grave decisions taken recently by Her Majesty's Government, is not a debate long overdue on Bowman, on which we shall have an announcement today; on the cancellation of the future aircraft system for the Royal Air Force; on the possibility that the new aircraft carrier is to be put out to tender to foreign yards; and on the loss of 1,000 jobs on the Clyde following the type 45 order? Is it not high time that the Government faced up to their responsibilities and involved the House in those important matters?
Mr. Cook: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, he made a well-attended statement on the type 45 destroyer on which he took many questions from both sides of the House, and he is about to make a statement on Bowman. That is two discussions in the House on defence procurement in two weeks. I do not think either that the House can be accused of failing in its job of scrutiny or that my right hon. Friend can be accused of failing in his job of informing and making announcements to the House.
Andrew Mackinlay: What is the expected time of arrival of the British Overseas Territories Bill from the House of Lords? It is a welcome measure, but it is drawn very narrowly in relation to the important issue of citizenship. I am somewhat disappointed that it does not also embrace the question of representation, a concept that was canvassed by Baroness Symons before the Foreign Affairs Committee. For example, it was mooted that overseas territories might have access to the House and be able to petition it at the Bar. Should not the Government reflect, before they are arraigned before a court, on the fact that the existing representation for the citizens of our overseas territories is deficient in relation to the European convention on human rights? This is ultimately their Parliament, and we will not have full adult franchise until the British subjects peppered around the globe have representation here.
Mr. Cook: I stress to my hon. Friend that the British Overseas Territories Bill fulfils an undertaking that we gave in the last Parliament to extend British citizenship to
442
all those in the overseas territories who wish to take it and who fulfil the residency requirements. That was welcomed in the overseas territories, especially but not only in St. Helena, where people felt a sense of injustice that they had lost their rights to British citizenship. This is an important Bill which fulfils our part of a bargain that we made with the Governments of the overseas territories that they would in turn take tougher action to ensure that they had stringent financial measures in place that reflected the international agreements we had made in their name.
On the wider question, we should reflect carefully before taking the steps that my hon. Friend suggests. It is an important principle—and important politically—for the residents of the overseas territories that they are self-governing and only involved with the UK to the extent that we handle their external affairs, defence and international obligations. We must be careful not to take any steps to erode their rights of self-government, which might turn out to be unpopular in the overseas territories.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House will know that the Government have confirmed that they intend to close two transplant units in April 2002. The hospitals at Wythenshawe in Birmingham and in Sheffield have been left with an uncertain future for a year. It is a source of great disappointment to those hospitals and the many thousands of transplant patients who depend on them that we still have not had a clear statement from the Government on what their recommended decision will be. Can we have an urgent statement and, for the sake of those hospitals and the people they serve, learn the Government's intentions, so that proper preparations can be made in time before April next year?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is right that the concentration of transplant facilities has been under review for some time, and I stress that it is in line with sound medical advice and practice to ensure that adequate specialisation is focused on one site and is not dissipated too widely. I am not aware of the Department of Health having reached a decision on the local consultations or whether it has received a view from the local health authorities, but I shall ensure that if any announcement is made during the recess the hon. Gentleman is informed, preferably in advance.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Given the huge scale of the Government's achievements, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explain why the Government have discontinued their annual report? Is there not a case for having a debate, perhaps when we return from the recess, about a possible role for the Office for National Statistics, which could publish a report independently of the Government that would look back to the manifesto commitments that were made?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarkably loyal opening line. I have given several assurances that I shall write to fellow Ministers and I shall certainly write to the Whips to draw attention to my hon. Friend's opening sentence. Whatever we politicians might imagine, the outside world would regard it as strange if having had a general election only a few weeks ago we were suddenly to produce an annual report going back

443
well before the election. The people have had the opportunity to reach a verdict on our performance in the previous Parliament, and I am happy to say that the result was a resounding success for the Government.
Sir Robert Smith: As the Leader of the House will know, my constituents will be concerned about the east coast main line, which does not, as is often thought, end at Edinburgh but carries on to Aberdeen. In his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that the franchisee, GNER, would be able to purchase rolling stock despite the uncertainty. Does he recognise, however, that the type of rolling stock required may depend on the type of track improvements that are decided on? Given that uncertainty, will he ask the Secretary of State to see whether he has any powers under section 56 of the Railways Act 1993 to underwrite the purchase of that rolling stock, so as to remove the uncertainty and ensure that at least some of the improvements come to the line as soon as possible to benefit our constituents?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to hope for an underwriting of costs by the operating company, but he has highlighted a problem associated with giving a 20-year franchise at the present time. The actions of any operator, including GNER, depend on the state of the track, which is why a two-year extension has been granted.
I am well aware of the line to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is one of the most attractive lines in the United Kingdom, and I hope that it will soon be among the best.
Paul Flynn: As a reforming and modernising Leader of the House, does not my right hon. Friend think that the debate on drugs to be held in October would be far more valuable if a motion were tabled on which the House could vote? The "World at One" radio programme has announced the result of its survey of opinion among hon. Members. It found that, of the hon. Members surveyed, four out of five want there to be a royal commission on drug use, because they think that the present drug laws perversely increase drug harm and are unenforceable.
Mr. Cook: I note what my hon. Friend says, although I would not wish to adopt the innovation of "World at One" surveys becoming the basis on which the House reaches a decision. At the present stage of the debate for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has called, it is right that the House should have an open-ended debate in which hon. Members can express their opinions freely, without being polarised by a substantive motion and an amendment. That is appropriate for this stage of the debate, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take part in the debate in October.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the Government's attitude to the atrocious behaviour of the Russian army in Chechnya? That army is not merely in combat with guerrillas, but is perpetrating gross human rights abuses against the civilian population. If we cannot have a statement, may we at least have an indication of
444
whether the Prime Minister will take the opportunity, when he meets President Putin, to raise these terrible issues?
Mr. Cook: There have been exchanges in the House on this matter on many occasions in the two years since the invasion of Chechnya. There have also been many exchanges on the matter between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Foreign Office representatives and their opposite numbers in the Russian Government. I fully share the hon. Gentleman's concern about human rights abuses in Chechnya, and I have often impressed on the Russian Foreign Minister the importance of winning the hearts and minds of the public in the effort to isolate people from the guerrillas. We shall continue to urge that view on the Russian Government.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend may remember that, in April, the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced that £5.5 million in assistance would be given to fishing communities, to be delivered through the regional development agencies. Will he confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry is now responsible for that initiative? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on the methodology used to divide that sum between the regions containing fishing communities?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the apportionment should reflect the size of the fishing communities in each region? The bigger the fishing industry in an area, the more local economies have been dented, and the more assistance is needed. I have found no evidence of that thinking in the figures that I have seen regarding the apportionment of the money, so I should be grateful for any help that my right hon. Friend can give me.
Mr. Cook: I understand my hon. Friend to be correct in saying that the matter now comes within the scope of the Department of Trade and Industry. He makes an interesting point about the way in which the compensation scheme is distributed among communities that have been involved in fishing, and I shall be happy to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Leader of the House aware that yet another case of foot and mouth disease has been confirmed in Vale of York today? Will he take this opportunity to impress on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that this is not the most appropriate time to revoke the blanket closure of footpaths in north Yorkshire? Will he also investigate the failure of that Department's officials to respect the biosecurity rules that the Department set out? The experience in Vale of York is that farmers have been ruthless in applying those rules, but that the Department's officials have been less so.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to confirm that, in making her announcement today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed that she agreed with north Yorkshire's proposals temporarily to retain closures in parts of the county. Therefore, the immediate threat that the hon. Lady apprehends does not exist and north Yorkshire can continue with blanket closures for the time being. As I

445
said earlier, it is a source of disappointment to Members on both sides of the House that the tail of this outbreak is proving so stubborn and that it is taking so long to achieve our aim of complete eradication. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked us to examine what further steps can be taken to achieve the goal of no further outbreaks of the disease.
Mr. John Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 134?
[That this House congratulates Barry Town Football Club on their outstanding victory over FC Shamkir in the first leg of the Champions League; recognises the achievement of a two goal advantage for the second leg and only the second ever win in this competition for a League of Wales team; appreciates the contribution made by goalkeeper Tim Clarke in his debut match; and wishes the team all the best for the return match in Baku Azerbaijan, next week.]
It has been signed by Members on both sides of the House and me. Barry Town won the second leg of its champions league tie in Azerbaijan, against all the odds. It was a stunning victory. Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend probably will not be able to find time for a full debate on this success, will he inform his right hon. Friends of this result, join me in congratulating these giant slayers and wish them all the best in the next round against Porto in Portugal?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating his local team, and I assure him that I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to this signal success of British sporting endeavour abroad. I will have to make a particular point of attending the debate on the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill when we return, which plainly will be very interesting.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Leader of the House has mentioned the importance of fighting the worldwide epidemic of HIV. He will be aware of the growing problem in this country, where new HIV cases last year totalled nearly 3,500—the highest-ever incidence of new HIV infection. The picture is similar with gonorrhoea, syphilis and chlamydia among young people.
In spring 1998, the Government promised an HIV strategy for the autumn. In spring 1999, they promised a sexual health strategy for the year 2000. In spring 2000, they promised an integrated strategy for spring 2001, and a draft strategy for autumn 2000: nothing has appeared. Nearly six months ago, the Government said that a strategy would be published shortly, and people were expecting it to be published today. It has not been published.
The Leader of the House is a man of the world. Perhaps he can tell his more coy and bashful colleagues that they must stop behaving like giggling schoolboys and be prepared to tackle the sexual health problems affecting this country. The strategy must be published so that young people in this country can be protected from further infection.
Mr. Cook: Coy and bashful are not words that I would associate with any hon. Member of this House. I shall
446
meet the Minister with responsibility for public health in an hour's time and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to her attention. This is a serious issue and there is no doubt that countries that have run vigorous public campaigns of information and warning have coped best with the epidemic.
On the forthcoming G8 meeting and the action being taken in Africa, we hope to confirm in Genoa that $1 billion will be available to combat the spread of AIDS and other diseases, such as tuberculosis, in the poorer parts of the world. It is important for those countries that we take that step, but it is also important for us, because until we tackle the worldwide epidemic there can be no insularity for ourselves.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: After references to Barry Town and Carlisle United, I am tempted to make a special plea for Greenock Morton, but perhaps not now.
On a serious note, does my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement from the Japanese Environment Minister, Yoriko Kawaguchi, that her Government will sign the Kyoto agreement? Does that mean that the outstanding obstacle is now the attitude of the American Administration? May we have an early debate on this and the other aspects of the so-called special relationship that many of us fear are looking increasingly bad for our health?
Mr. Cook: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments on Morton. I should take this opportunity, perhaps in sheer self-defence, to congratulate Livingston football club on its promotion to the premier division—it is long overdue.
On Kyoto, my hon. Friend raises a serious issue that will be at the heart of the discussions between President Bush and the Prime Minister today. We have given a commitment that, with our European colleagues, we will try to ensure that the Kyoto protocol comes into existence. To achieve that, we need the support of other countries such as Japan, and we are working to get that support in Bonn at present. I hope that we will be successful when that conference reconvenes again in November in Marrakesh. On the wider question, I have never taken the view, either as Leader of the House or Foreign Secretary, that the House is short of opportunities to explore and discuss the special relationship.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on channel tunnel safety? Is he aware of reports that the French authorities continue to arrest as many as 250 would-be illegal immigrants at Coquelles every night, that dozens are still getting through and that they often end up in my constituency? Those desperate people are resorting to desperate measures. There have been many serious injuries and, sadly, four fatalities. Will my right hon. Friend find time for us to debate such matters and to review channel tunnel security?
Mr. Cook: I am very much aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. It is, of course, of national and not only local concern, important though it is in his constituency. We have had dialogue with the French authorities on the problem, particularly at Calais. I am pleased to say that we are enjoying good

447
co-operation from the French police. Together, I hope that we will be able to secure our goal, which is to ensure that immigrants who come here illegally are halted as soon as possible at the far end of the tunnel.
Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on cremation charges for very young children? Is he aware of the case of my constituents, Rose and Philip Jones, whose stillborn baby Lisa was disposed of in an incinerator? In the 1980s, the parents had been promised a proper cremation. As a result of that and many other cases, cremation is available for miscarried babies. According to press reports, however, charges may be introduced—for the first time in many cases—for the cremation of very young children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have a debate on ensuring that parents are not punished at their time of greatest grief?
Mr. Cook: I understand entirely the enormous distress caused to a family when a child is lost through miscarriage, and I fully appreciate the great need for emotional sensitivity when handling such a case. My understanding is that in Wales, as elsewhere, the family have the option of having the hospital deal with the foetus or of arranging privately for a cremation. Cremation charges are a devolved matter for the Welsh Assembly, and I am sure that the Minister responsible there will have heard my hon. Friend's comments. I understand the need to approach the matter in a different and more tactful way than one would in other circumstances.

Bowman Contract
1.28 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the awarding of the Bowman contract.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Bowman communications programme.
This project will provide the armed forces with a modern, highly capable tactical combat radio communications system to replace Clansman. It will provide secure, reliable communications to our land forces and selected elements of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. In addition to voice communications, the system provides a tactical internet and automatic position location, navigation and reporting. Delivery will include more than 48,000 radios, 30,000 computers, conversion of more than 30,000 existing platforms and training for more than 100,000 members of the armed forces.
Until recently, the history of the Bowman project has been a saga of difficulties. The requirement for the system was originally endorsed as long ago as 1988, but the initial attempt at competition collapsed in 1996. The following year, in March 1997, it was decided to pursue a single source procurement with Archer Communications Systems Ltd.
Last summer, in the light of continuing major problems with the programme, the Government decided that the competition for the Bowman combat radio would have to be relaunched. That decision has now been vindicated. Over the past year, we have made impressive progress on the project. There has been a vigorous competition, with three strong bids submitted by Thales, TRW and CDC, a subsidiary of General Dynamics already operating in the United Kingdom. Following careful analysis of the bids, I am pleased to announce today that CDC has been selected as the Department's preferred supplier of the Bowman system.
We evaluated a wide range of issues. Given the project's chequered past and the continuing operational need, the priority has been to deliver a successful and low-risk solution that will fill this capability gap at the earliest possible opportunity: CDC offers just that. Its solution is the clear winner of the competition. It provides the best value-for-money solution, fully meeting our military requirements. I am confident that it will meet our demanding timetable for getting the system into service. It is based on experience of developing a proven system, and includes best-of-class radios and a very efficient approach to rolling out and supporting the equipment.
The Ministry of Defence and CDC will now work together on the programme to bring Bowman into service. We aim to be in a position to let a contract in late summer this year, to achieve an in-service date of early 2004. The contract is valued at about £1.8 billion. It will cover the supply of the Bowman system and the first five years of support up to the year 2009. It will use the ITT VHF radio sub-system and the Cogent cryptographic system.
CDC's solution provides employment opportunities in the UK in a broad range of system areas, including design, development, manufacture and project management.

449
Ninety per cent. of the work content of the CDC bid will be based in the UK—the highest proportion of any of the three bids. About 1,600 jobs will be secured across the UK, including 400 new high-technology and support posts at the company's headquarters, which CDC plans to establish in south Wales.
The company has also earmarked south Wales for a new Army communications technology research and development centre, to be staffed by about 65 leading scientists. Other regions will benefit as well. We expect subcontract work to secure more than 100 jobs in Scotland, more than 300 jobs in south-west England and about 75 jobs in the south-east, centred on Hastings. Major United Kingdom subcontractors include Alvis and Westland.
This is excellent news for British industry, and not just in terms of job opportunities. The high-quality jobs that it brings will allow for the continuation of this country's defence communications capability. In particular, there will be significant technology transfer to the UK. The Ministry of Defence will hold appropriate intellectual property rights, available for use by other companies working on linked projects. Industry has committed itself to maintain a development and production facility as a UK concern. All this will mean that we will maintain a strong UK strategic capability.
This month will also see the first deliveries, ahead of schedule, of the personal role radios. This is a new capability, separated from the main Bowman requirement in 1999 to ensure early delivery to the front line. The radios will provide short-range communications for dismounted infantry, and will transform the way in which they are able to operate.
The progress that we have made, and this announcement today, draw a clear line under the problems of the past. They confirm that the Bowman programme is on track for success and show that our commitment to smart acquisition—to best practice—is delivering tangible results for the armed forces. Selection of the preferred supplier, just one year after we re-opened the competition, underlines our determination to deliver this battle-winning capability to our service men and women. Our armed forces can now look forward to receiving the most modern and integrated secure communications system available anywhere in the world.
I recognise that today's announcement will be a disappointment to the other two bidders. Thales and TRW have invested considerable time and effort in their respective solutions. Both submitted proposals that were substantially better than the one that we rejected last year. Their involvement has ensured a hard-fought and successful competition. As a result, their reputations as credible prime contractors will have been enhanced. I want to stress how much we have valued the significant Thales presence in the UK defence sector.
For this project, however, CDC offers the best solution to meet our military requirements to the right time scale. As I have outlined, it does so with an excellent package of work in the UK. I am confident that we have made the right decision both for the armed forces and for UK industry. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Keetch: The Liberal Democrats welcome the procurement of Bowman for the armed forces, coming as
450
it does after nine years. I thank the Secretary of the State for coming to the House. Although he said that he wanted to do so, it is a matter of fact that he wanted to make his answer in response to a written question and not as a statement.
Is it true that a hastily convened press conference at the Ministry of Defence this morning had to be abandoned, and that press releases had to be taken back after news of your decision, Mr. Speaker, to grant my private notice question?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House why CDC clearly knew well in advance that it had won this contract? When I checked the company's website at 10 o'clock this morning, it was advertising jobs in Calgary, in Canada, to manage the prime contractor job—the posting had been placed on the website on 12 July. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that such a complex project can be managed from Calgary?
Has CDC guaranteed that the Bowman contract will be delivered on time and to specification? What is the Government's assessment of job losses and job gains, not in Canada but in the United Kingdom? We certainly welcome the job gains, for example at Westland in Yeovil, but we want to know more about the quality of the jobs that will be created.
Is it true that there was an intervention by Lord Levene, who offered a factory in south Wales to employ former steel workers? Are those jobs being created at the expense of other high-quality jobs that will be lost throughout the United Kingdom? Are the rumours true that some kind of deal is being offered on the carrier projects as a sop to Thales?
Finally, if this means the end of secure military communications capability for the United Kingdom, what export orders can CDC of Canada look forward to as a result of today's announcement by the British Government?
Mr. Hoon: As usual, it is difficult to tell whether the Liberal Democrats are for or against any proposal. They have taken the full opportunity to criticise our proposals without indicating whether they are genuinely concerned about the quality and the quantity of the jobs that will be created.
I have dealt with all the hon. Gentleman's points about the quality and the quantity of jobs. In my statement, I pointed out that, of the three companies that made excellent offers to the Ministry of Defence, CDC proposed the largest proportion of jobs in the UK. I emphasise that the overriding need was to provide both value for money and the most secure system available in the right time scale for our armed forces. More than anything, that was why we chose the CDC offer, which built on the company's experience of supplying similar equipment that could be developed to the Canadian armed forces.
I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that CDC was not informed on 12 July, and that the matter has been pursued with all the appropriate means at our disposal so as to ensure full consultation.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): Of course we welcome the decision for our own defence forces, but may I express disappointment on behalf of those of my constituents who are employed by Thales and will inevitably be concerned

451
about the future of their jobs? Such concerns for constituents are shared by other Members. What feedback will the unsuccessful bidders be given to ensure that they are able to look to the future for more British contracts?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, there are losers when such important contracts are awarded. I made clear in my statement the importance that we attach to the contribution that Thales has made in the UK since its foundation. The company already has defence work worth about £2.7 billion. That is not to say that it is not eminently capable of winning far more work in future. The company is excellent and we very much value its presence in the UK—a point that I shall make directly to the company.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): It is all too characteristic of the Government that they make a statement after the news has been all over the press: in the Financial Times this morning, on the "Today" programme and, as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) pointed out, on the internet. Once again, Parliament has been treated—on the last day before the recess—with characteristic levity by the Government.
It is also characteristic, and typical of new Labour spin, that the Secretary of State should set out the positive job news without mentioning the negative job news. Is it not a fact that Thales will have to lay off several hundred people in its former Racal subsidiary?
The Conservative party unreservedly welcomes the fact that a decision has now been taken on this important matter. Never again must the British Army go into battle, as it did in Kosovo, with such an unreliable communications system: soldiers were forced to use their personal mobile telephones, which were insecure. That was utterly disgraceful. There is no doubt that the Government have a mixed record on this matter, having spent three years being taken for a terrible ride by the Archer consortium. If they thought that they could do better than us, and our record on this matter is far from exemplary, they might have done so without waiting three years.
One or two things were clearly missing from the statement. I did not hear any mention of an in-service date. Will the Secretary of State tell the House, precisely and unambiguously, the in-service date for the system? In what respects have the specifications, which CDC will be working to, been altered from those to which the Archer consortium was asked to work? In other words, to what extent have the specifications been set back in the past year?
How much public money will the Government have to write off because of the Archer fiasco? [Interruption.] Yes, it was a fiasco, and it was entirely a fiasco of this Government. Labour Members are misinformed: the Archer fiasco lasted from 1997 to 2000. The National Audit Office says that between £35 million and £102 million of public money will have to be written off. Will the Secretary of State tell us the correct figure?
Will the Secretary of State give us an unambiguous assurance that the full source codes will be made available to this country, and that in future we will have total control of this important software?
Mr. Hoon: I have heard some astonishing performances by the hon. Gentleman recently, but today he probably wants to outdo himself before he goes off for a well-earned rest for the summer.
On the responsibility of the previous Government, I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of the dates that I set out to the House. The requirement for the system was originally endorsed as long ago as 1988, and the House does not need reminding which Government were in power at that time. It also does not need reminding about the collapse of the competition in 1996 and the decision in March 1997—we all know when the general election was held that year—to pursue a single source procurement with Archer Communications Systems Ltd. All those are matters of fact, and I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should choose to comment on them when he lives in a very large greenhouse—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has asked several questions of the Minister, and he must allow him to reply.
Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I have dwelt on the hon. Gentleman's discomfort for long enough, save to say that this Government tried hard to make the single source procurement system work. I recognise that we failed to do so. That may have had something to do with the way in which the contract was originally placed, but I will pass over that. We took a difficult decision to abandon that programme, and we have now been rewarded by the fact that we have had a vigorous competition involving three very successful companies.
The in-service date should be early 2004. Specifications have been adjusted in certain areas, but not with any great significance. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with precise details if he requires them. There will be some write-off. The final figure has still to be determined, but we judge that the great majority of the write-off will benefit the existing procurement because the work that has been done will not be wasted. We will not waste significant sums as a result of abandoning the previous process. If the hon. Gentleman requires assistance with other matters, I will pass him the relevant information.
Mr. Robert Walter: The Secretary of State will be aware that the headquarters of the Signals and the Royal School of Signals are located at Blandford in my constituency. He mentioned the creation of 1,600 jobs. There has been considerable speculation in the Blandford area about the three bidders and how many jobs will be based there. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the establishment which the winning contractor will locate at Blandford for implementation, training and support purposes?
Mr. Hoon: As I have already said, and as I must make clear, some 1,600 jobs will be secured. I mentioned the range of detailed technical equipment that will be required, from radios and computers to equipment that will be fitted inside helicopters. Although there are early indications across the country of the numbers of jobs that are likely to be created in each place where the subcontractors are currently located, it would not be sensible to give out precise details of the proposals because of the nature of the contract. It has only just been placed and still needs to be signed up to, which we hope

453
will happen later this summer. It would not be right to create expectations unless we are absolutely confident about where the jobs will be located. However, I shall ensure that the details are sent to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have them.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): The Secretary of State has placed on the record his appreciation of the significant contribution that Thales makes to the United Kingdom defence industry. Has the company told him about the impact that the decision will have on its 14,500 employees in the UK?
Mr. Hoon: I have had discussions with Thales about the contract's implications, and it is right that those remain confidential for the moment. It is obviously for the company to determine how it organises itself in light of the decision.
Each of the three companies would have established new facilities rather than continuing at existing facilities had they been successful, and the percentage of work in relation to each company's bid would have been roughly the same in the UK.
The developments in communications for the armed forces are important. In those circumstances, had the decision been in favour of Thales, I doubt whether the precise number of jobs created would have differed significantly. if there are job losses as a result of the decision, it will not be the direct consequence of Thales failing to win the contract; rather, it will be the result of its reorganisation of its business across the UK.
Tony Worthington: I want to congratulate those parts of the UK which have benefited from the contract, but the decision will be a major disappointment to my constituents who work for Thales in the Govan area at a company previously called Barr and Stroud, which was tremendously well known. However, when making such announcements, the Secretary of State should talk not just of job gain, but about the overall situation. Thales certainly thinks that 400 jobs will be going as a consequence of the decision. It is also worried that its ability to tender for very important contracts on aircraft carriers will be damaged by the award of this contract to CDC. Will he comment on that?
Mr. Hoon: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), it is for Thales to determine how best it organises its work force across the country in light of the decision. I well understand the disappointment to which my hon. Friend refers. Had the contract gone to Thales, it would have been able to create a significant number of new jobs across the UK, but the percentage would have been slightly less than the percentage work-share that CDC has proposed. That is not, however, the basis of the decision. There is absolutely no reason why Thales should not continue with the excellent programme on which it has been working for the design of future aircraft carriers. Indeed, as I said in my opening statement, we very much value Thales's presence in the United Kingdom. It is has a substantial
454
amount of defence work already, and we look forward to its winning more defence work and creating still more jobs in the United Kingdom in future.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The key to the announcement is that, at last, our armed forces may get a secure communications system, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that that is absolutely crucial in battlefield conditions. Let us hope that the Secretary of State has chosen the right winner of the competition and that the contract succeeds this time. He will know from shadowing me when I was the Minister for Science and Technology that the technology is vital, and it is essential that it is kept within his power, as Secretary of State for Defence. Will he tell us a little more about his reference to intellectual property and about the research centre, because the United Kingdom will suffer if British industry is denied full access to the technological developments in the Bowman contract?
Mr. Hoon: The position on technology is as I set out, and it would not be appropriate for me to go into the detail of the technology that will be available to the Ministry of Defence, which can then be passed on to other companies. Clearly, whichever company had been successful, there would have had to be precisely the same kinds of intellectual property arrangements between the company involved and the MOD on behalf of the Government. We are entirely satisfied that the arrangements in the CDC bid will allow this country the opportunity to exploit and develop the work that we have required for Bowman, both overseas, where appropriate, and in further enhancing the system.
That is why we welcome the creation of a research centre, which is likely to be located in south Wales. It will allow us to do further work in training and development towards the full digitisation of the system in the future. That is an important development; it will further enhance the communications equipment available to our armed forces, and that is why we judge overall that CDC provides the appropriate value for money solution, as well as a platform that can be effectively developed in future. I anticipate that that will involve a wide range of suppliers of such equipment.
Mr. Wayne David: I thank my right hon. Friend for today's enormously positive statement, which is good news for the United Kingdom and, of course, the armed forces. It is particularly good news for the Caerphilly county borough in south Wales—an area with objective 1 status because of its very low gross domestic product, which has suffered a large number of job losses in recent months. The 400 new jobs that will come to the borough will be high-quality and well paid—precisely the kind of jobs that we need. Can my right hon. Friend say how the contract might help the greater south Wales economy?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. Certainly, the announcement will be good news for south Wales. I have already mentioned CDC, which will develop a number of jobs in south Wales. Cogent Cryptographics at Newport will also be an important supplier of cryptographic equipment under the contract. Several other companies are likely to benefit—

455
this is only the first tier of the contract. We anticipate that there may be a further 300 jobs in second-tier contracts, which have yet to be identified. As I said, it is not entirely appropriate to give the precise details, but I can give my hon. Friend details relevant to his constituency, and I will do so for other hon. Members' constituencies.
Mr. David Laws: I greatly welcome today's announcement, which is not only long overdue, as the Secretary of State said, but will be extremely important in my constituency, not least at Westland Helicopters. Can the Secretary of State confirm that about 120 jobs at Westland will be secured over the next five years and that such work will provide the foundation for future orders? Will he make a commitment to continue to work alongside Westland to help to secure future orders, not just in the domestic market, but in the export markets?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. As I said in my statement, Westland will be an important subcontractor and its work on converting helicopters to incorporate the Bowman system will secure at least the number of jobs that he mentioned.
Jane Griffiths: Although it is obviously welcome that the contract has been awarded and that the future of armed forces communications looks in better shape, what can I say to my constituents who are employed by Thales, some of whom will lose their jobs immediately according to the company, which expects 400 jobs to go straight away, initially at Harrow and Bracknell—both places where my constituents are employed? It is clear that south Wales has greater need of new jobs than the Thames valley, but none the less my constituents are real people with real homes and real families. What can I say to them?
Mr. Hoon: I entirely understand the disappointment felt by those who work for Thales. I had the opportunity in recent weeks of visiting a Thales facility that provides some of the most advanced optical equipment available anywhere in the world for the United Kingdom. Thales is a very high-quality, successful company, employing highly skilled people. Although I cannot in any way substitute 1the decision that we have made—on the grounds of best value for money and the most effective in-service date for the armed forces—I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. All I can say to her—perhaps this message can be passed on to her constituents—is that a large number of jobs will be created across the country as contractors and subcontractors secure work under the overall Bowman programme. I anticipate that some of that work may well go to her part of the world.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Members for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) have emphasised the fact that Thales already employs 14,500 people in many constituencies all over the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State understandably stresses the new jobs to be created, but what about those to be lost, such as at the former Racal factory, now Thales, in my constituency? How many people does CDC currently employ in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hoon: In a sense, I have dealt with that point. All three companies, had they been successful, would have
456
been developing solutions that would have required an increase of up to 90 per cent. in the UK work force. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to leave the House with the impression that somehow the 14,500 people employed by Thales in the UK are all engaged in such communications work. That is far from the case. Indeed, Thales would have created a significant number of jobs had it been successful. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), Thales is a diverse company. It makes available a range of high technology in defence work to the UK and other countries. I see absolutely no reason why that successful high-technology work will not continue.
Mr. John Lyons: Are the unsuccessful companies excluded from bidding for subcontract work under the Bowman programme?
Mr. Hoon: No. Indeed, I anticipate that, as the effect of the contract spreads across the country, there will be a great number of contracts and subcontracts for which Thales and other unsuccessful companies may bid successfully.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I would be grateful if the Secretary of State informed the House whether there have been any job losses in the senior management of the MOD over the bungled and incompetent handling of the contract—or, as normal, have they been rewarded with promotions and decorations? Will he substantiate his response to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that there would be only minor downgrading of the specification? In evidence to the Select Committee on Defence last year, those from his Department said that the original spec would be downgraded significantly to the one now on order. Could he also give a figure for the compensation that will have to be paid? He alluded earlier to the existing contractors involved in the contract. How much money has the Ministry spent to date on the project?
Mr. Hoon: Let me make it clear that, as I said when I talked about specification changes, there were adjustments. There are constant adjustments in the specification of complex pieces of equipment; I gave the House an idea of the nature of that equipment in my statement. Adjustments in a contract that takes this length of time are inevitable and are part of the process.
As for compensation, in a sense the hon. Gentleman is asking the same questions that were asked earlier. The amount that is likely to be written off has yet to be determined precisely, but I am confident that a great majority of the work done under the previous contract will be relevant to the work that has been awarded to CDC, so the money that has been spent will not be wasted.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the wisdom of his decision, not least because it is a true British decision and a true British solution which employs the greatest number of British workers? In particular, it provides some 75 jobs in my constituency of Hastings and Rye. Following the rather sad news last week about the bypass, it is good news that jobs are to be created in an area where there is

457
a weak economy. Is the announcement likely to result in export opportunities and therefore on-going jobs after the period of the contract has ended?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend tempts me, but it is fair to say that none of the three bids were entirely British. It is in the nature of modern high technology for defence purposes that that is increasingly unlikely. Much as I would like to agree with my hon. Friend, it is important to tell the House that these are multinational bids by companies based in several different locations.
As for the potential for export, the prospects for the future are very good. Such equipment will put Britain's armed forces at the head of countries that invest in secure battlefield communications. I am confident that the research and development investment that is likely to be located in south Wales will mean that our lead can be extended. Clearly, that experience will mean that other countries will look to our expertise and the manufacturing capability established in the United Kingdom with a view to securing export orders. I am confident that the decision gives us an appropriate platform for export.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In his letter to me dated 19 July 2001, Lord Bach, the Minister for Defence Procurement said:
"Thales Acoustics in Harrow remain a potential sub-contractor to CDC."
Is that a sop to my many constituents who work at Thales, or has CDC given positive indication to that effect to the Ministry? Why cannot the Minister give positive, clear news about the actual costs involved? He quoted a figure of £1.8 billion as the overall cost of acquisition, training and support. Could that not he broken down between the bid from Thales and CDC's winning bid? Is it not time for open government in defence procurement?
Mr. Hoon: Clearly there is some extremely sensitive commercial information, but none of the companies would welcome costs being published, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, as the result of such competition. That has never been the practice and I do not anticipate changing that today. As I told the House, this is a prime contract; it is an overall contract for securing a particular service to the armed forces. I indicated that the contract was for 48,000 radios, 30,000 computers, a conversion of some 30,000 platforms and, most importantly, training for more than 100,000 members of the armed forces. As a result of the placing of the prime contract, there will be a cascade of further contracts across the country and we are confident that those companies that did not successfully secure the winning order will nevertheless benefit from that cascade.
Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the Bosnian conflict our systems were so insecure that using the Welsh language was the only method of ensuring that no one could interfere? Although today's news will be disappointing to those who teach Welsh in the Balkan states, it is welcome for my constituency. It means 80 new jobs at Cogent Cryptographics in Newport. It is a small consolation in view of the thousands of jobs that have been lost a few miles away from the plant, but it emphasises that Cogent
458
provides a world-class service and that south Wales is a natural home for high tech. The plant is cheek by jowl with that temple of intellectual property in Britain, the Patent Office in my constituency.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's later comments. Initially, I wondered whether he was suggesting that the Ministry of Defence might save money by compulsory training in Welsh for the armed forces. I agree with his further comments because we are pleased with the work that is conducted in his constituency. It adds to the security of the system and I am delighted that the announcement means jobs for his constituency.
John Thurso: The Secretary of State knows the significance of the AEA Technology Batteries factory in Thurso. It is well placed to provide the batteries through its links with ITT. Is nominating ITT as supplier good news for Thurso? He mentioned an estimated 100 jobs for Scotland. Do they include jobs in battery provision in Thurso?
Mr. Hoon: Earlier, I referred to a cascade of contracts. I understand that the company to which the hon. Gentleman refers is well placed to take advantage of the decision that we announced and that it has some exciting technology, which could make a significant contribution. However, the Government will not examine every contract that results from the main decision. I therefore cannot answer his question specifically, but I am confident that the factory is in a good position to take advantage of today's announcement.
Mr. Dai Havard: I declare an interest because, as a trade union official, I have been involved in discussions with all three bidders about their future activities as corporate citizens. I welcome today's announcement.
I share Caerphilly borough council with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David). We have been involved in discussions about not only manufacturing work but quality research and development. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can confirm that approximately £25 million could be invested in research and development projects in that area with the local universities. The area is in great need of such activity.
My right hon. Friend should take note that no nationalist Members have bothered to be present for today's announcement although Caerphilly council is a nationalist authority.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Secretary of State to note such matters.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful that I do not have to comment on the absence of hon. Members. Nevertheless, I confirm that there will be substantial investment in south Wales. As I said in my opening statement, we attach great importance to providing training and research to take the equipment to a new level of digitisation and security.
Syd Rapson: Is the equipment compatible with the equipment that we shall use

459
in Europe? We know that it is compatible with Canada and north America, but is it interoperable with that of European forces?
Mr. Hoon: Compatibility is a tricky word in this context. We do not want the equipment to be easily understandable because the purpose of secure equipment is to be secure. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the need for interoperability, which may be a better word than compatibility.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I very much welcome the news today: anyone who has any connection with the armed forces will want to see the beginning of the end of this particular project. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a particular need in the United Kingdom to bolster the role of small subcontractors, and will he do everything that he can as part of the further negotiations that will undoubtedly ensue to ensure that small subcontractors have a fair wind and are not discriminated against?
Mr. Hoon: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of seeing the end of this particular saga, and I do not think that the Government can claim that the overall process has been particularly successful. In those circumstances, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I also agree with him entirely that it is important that, as the contracts that will be placed following the decision develop, smaller subcontractors have that opportunity. We have estimated that at least another 300 new jobs could be created as a result of those second-tier contracts, which are likely to be with smaller companies, adding to the total that I have already indicated.

Speaker's Statement
2.11 pm
Mr. Speaker: Last, week, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) raised with me the view which the Electoral Commission has taken on the parking passes that hon. Members have received from the British Airports Authority and the need to declare them as a donation made for political purposes.
I must inform the House that no question of a contempt has arisen. However, as I promised, I have looked into the matter, and I am pursuing it vigorously. I hope that matters will be satisfactorily resolved very soon.

Speaker's Statement

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
  Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2001

  BILL PRESENTED
    FOOTBALL (DISORDER) (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw and Mr. John Denham, presented a Bill to amend section 5 of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 26].

European Communities (Finance) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
2.12 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 18th July and pursuant to the Programme Order of 3rd July 2001 (proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill)—
(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, he brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on the first allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 5.30 p.m.);
(2) any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second allotted day and, so far as not previously concluded, shall he brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the day (or, if that day is a Thursday 7.00 p.m.).
I am pleased to move this motion, which provides for the conclusion of consideration in Committee by 5.30 today, and a further full day for remaining stages. We had a lively and good-natured debated on Second Reading, and it is important that all the issues of concern to hon. Members be properly scrutinised now. The motion allows the House adequate time to discuss this very short but important Bill, and I commend it to the House.
2.13 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): The Economic Secretary to the Treasury did not take long to speak to the programme motion, but I have one or two points to make about it. I should also state at the outset that I am by no means an admirer of the new arrangements that have been made, under the guise of so-called modernisation, to timetable legislation. The more I see of the operation of those arrangements, the more unsatisfactory they seem to be.
The usual reason why the arrangements are unsatisfactory is that, as we all well know, they constrain the House in its consideration of legislation. Bills are now passed by the House when large parts of them have received inadequate consideration, or in some cases no consideration at all. The arrangements therefore fundamentally negate the purpose of the House. However, we will not necessarily encounter those problems when considering the European Communities (Finance) Bill. The problem with this programme motion is that, in addition to the problems that I have just mentioned, it does not allow sufficient flexibility in considering the Bill in Committee and on Third Reading.
This Bill is important in its own way, and hon. Members on both sides of the House may wish to debate the important issues that it raises. The Economic Secretary was right to say that the Bill raised issues for debate. She was also right to say that we had a good debate on Second Reading, when Opposition Members properly raised some important issues. If hon. Members on either side of the House wished to address those issues in detail, the arrangements that have been made would be all well and good.
As we know, however, thus far no amendments to the Bill have been tabled. Our debates on the Bill today may be simply on whether its clauses should stand part. Perhaps those debates will occupy all the time that the Economic Secretary has said is available, but we shall
462
have to wait and see. Perhaps that will not be the case. Perhaps there would have been sufficient time today to consider the Bill even on Third Reading. We simply do not know what will happen in the time available today.
The Opposition do not know why the programme motion was drafted so as to exclude the possibility of considering the Bill on Third Reading today. The motion provides that, regardless of whether we use all the time allocated for consideration in Committee, Third Reading is bound to occupy a second allotted day, in the autumn when the House returns from the summer recess. Those arrangements do not seem to be the most flexible possible, or even necessarily to work in the interests of the House, either in considering the Bill or in best using valuable parliamentary time.
Interestingly, as originally drafted, the motion provided for consideration on Third Reading today, the first allotted day. Additionally, when the motion was originally drafted, it was not known whether amendments would be tabled for debate in Committee. Yesterday, however, after it had become apparent that no amendments had been tabled, the motion was changed to exclude the possibility of Third Reading today. That is a strange arrangement.
Undoubtedly issues will arise in our consideration of this short Bill today, and they will have to be addressed. I am all for detailed scrutiny, and my usual criticism of programme motions is that they prevent such scrutiny. However, I do not know why we should be governed by programme motions that are so inflexible that they exclude the possibility of a debate on Third Reading even if such a debate would allow the best use of parliamentary time. I do not think that anything is to be gained by being so inflexible.
I must therefore conclude that this programme motion has exposed yet another unsatisfactory feature of the timetabling arrangements that the Government have introduced for the consideration of Bills. So often those arrangements not only prevent us from considering Bills properly and in the depth we should like, but are so inflexible that they could result, as they may today, in parliamentary time not being used in the best possible manner. We have discovered one more unsatisfactory feature of the arrangements, on top of all the others. It just goes to show that the arrangements have not been well thought through, and work against proper parliamentary scrutiny and proper parliamentary democracy.
2.19 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I support the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). When the Programming Committee met yesterday, we had an interesting situation, because the representatives of both the main Opposition parties were arguing against the Government, saying that the Government were probably allowing too much time for debate. There may be one or two Back Benchers, such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who would object to such a statement—
Mr. Eric Forth: Yes.
Mr. Davey: Indeed, given his seemingly very passionate speech on Second Reading, I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Wokingham

463
(Mr. Redwood) would object to it, too. However, having examined the Bill and listened to the debate on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—the Conservative Whip—and I felt that the time being allowed today was sufficient for proceedings both in Committee and on Third Reading.
The fact that there are no amendments would suggest that that interpretation was correct. So the important issue of parliamentary time being well used arises. In the Programming Committee, when we asked why so much time had been allowed to debate the Bill, we received no answer. We found it rather odd that the request from Opposition parties to reduce the time allocated to the Bill was not met with agreement. Given that the Minister has had more than 24 hours to muse on that, I hope that she will explain why it has been given so much time. Given the current problems in the Conservative party—
Mr. Forth: What problems?
Mr. Davey: The fact that its next leader might be a pro-European, although his Back Benchers are anti-European—
Mr. Forth: That is indeed a problem.
Mr. Davey: It is not often that the right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement, but on this occasion it appears that we are.
Perhaps the Government want to start as they mean to continue if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) becomes the leader of the Conservative party, and promote as many debates and votes as possible on European issues in order to give the splits in the Conservative party a public airing—but I may be ascribing too many machiavellian tendencies to the Government.
I do not want to insult the Minister or the Whip, but I believe that parliamentary time is precious. As we are given only three days in the parliamentary year to debate the estimates, and are told that we are not allowed to debate our country's expenditure at greater length, it is bizarre that we have been given an extra day to debate a relatively small sum of money, when the Opposition parties have requested that the debate be allocated less time.
I hope that the Minister will either give us a good reason why we should vote for the motion, or say that she is prepared to allow a Third Reading debate today.
2.22 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: All that raises the question of whether we need a programme motion in respect of this Bill at all, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are in an indecent hurry to get the Bill through, and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) seems to think that the Government did not know what they were doing, which is quite an indictment, coming from a friend of the Government. The fact that yesterday in Committee the Minister was unable to give an answer was no surprise to me, and it should have been no surprise to the hon. Gentleman—but perhaps our patience will be rewarded now, and the Minister will grace us with an explanation beyond what she has said so far.
464
The truth is depressingly familiar. These programme motions are turning out to be an embarrassment and an affront to the House. In this case, in the very few words that the Minister was prepared to utter in some sort of defence of the motion, she said that in her view it would allow adequate time for debate. That exemplifies the attitude that is now being repeated over and over again in relation to programme motions: Ministers are to judge how much time should be available for the House to conduct its proceedings. It is now quite blatantly becoming a matter of routine. The Minister said, "I think that I know how much time will be required for the debate." In most cases we tend to argue that almost certainly the time will be inadequate, but on this occasion—perhaps we should note the day and the date—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton seem to be saying that far too much time is being offered.
Mr. Clappison: The question that the Government need to address is: why should we exclude the possibility of a Third Reading today if consideration in Committee finishes unexpectedly early? Important issues that have to be discussed may occupy all the available time, and that would be well and good—but what is to be gained by excluding the possibility of a Third Reading debate today if consideration in Committee does not occupy all the allotted time?
Mr. Forth: As a pale and inadequate substitute for the Minister, let me try to answer my hon. Friend and offer a possible explanation. The Government presumably want us to get on to the Northern Ireland business, and then perhaps deal with further business. Had they taken the approach that my hon. Friend has helpfully and inventively suggested, it might have put at risk an adequate Third Reading debate—or, if the Government had not put an end to the whole proceedings, we might even, heaven forbid, have had to sit after 7 o'clock this evening. That is perhaps a clue to the Government's thinking. They are so afraid of keeping the House—and for "the House" I can probably substitute "the babes", as it is usually they who are behind these things—and asking the delicate flowers on the Labour Benches to stay after 7 o'clock on a Thursday, that the whole business has to be structured in order to avoid that horrendous prospect.
I suspect that the Government work back from the convenience of certain Members who do not want to tarry here too long, and then fit the business in accordingly. So this has nothing to do with the nature of the business, the extent of interest in the House or anything of that kind, but everything to do with fitting the business of the House in for the convenience of Members who obviously do not want to spend much time here. That is probably the explanation—but no doubt we will get a much fuller explanation from the Minister when she replies to the debate.
Yet again, Ministers have taken it upon themselves to make a judgment about how much time the House will require, and that is the end of the matter. The House then has to fit in with the Minister's judgment and the convenience of Ministers, regardless of how much we may want to say or how much scrutiny we may want to give a measure.

465
My next point is well illustrated by what has happened today. Even Ministers do not necessarily know what business may come up. Normally we would expect to get to the main business on a Thursday at roughly 1.15 pm. We have departmental questions from 11.30 to 12.30. We then have business questions, which Mr. Speaker, with his normal generosity and open-handedness, normally allows to run its natural distance, which is normally until about 1.15 pm. Today, however, we had a very important statement in which many hon. Members were rightly interested, so we did not get to this business until about 2.15.
In other words, there was an hour less than would normally be available. That is not in any way allowed for in the approach that the Government are now taking with this heavy-handed, automatic, rigid, inflexible programming that we are now required to have laid upon us, which takes no account of what may happen in the House in the way of statements, private notice questions or whatever. Today provided a good example of that. That is another argument against programming, and against the Government's approach.
There is also the rather odd phenomenon that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere touched on. The Government have stated their intention that, slightly unusually, the Third Reading of this measure will be detached by a period of about three months from the Committee stage. That would suggest that there can be no urgency or importance whatever about the Bill—personally, I welcome that—and that any number of events could intrude between now and then which could affect the attitude of the House to the Third Reading debate.
It is one thing if we can anticipate having a Third Reading debate fairly quickly after the Committee stage, but it is quite another if there is to be an intervening period of three months. Anything could happen—who knows? The United Kingdom could leave the European Union—although for some of us that is but a dream. Any number of things could happen between now and then that could have a material effect on the Bill. So the confidence of the Government in asking us today to approve a measure that will determine the length of the Third Reading debate three months hence is even more bizarre than would usually be the case. I could just about understand the Government arguing that if we were to have Third Reading next week, they could reasonably anticipate how much time we were likely to need, but this is entirely different.
The Minister has some explaining to do to persuade us that the motion is appropriate in the circumstances. Self-evidently, the Bill is not urgent and the time needed for the rest of our business today cannot be foreseen. I am delighted to see that the business motion, item 5 on the Order Paper, has the magic words "Until any hour" attached to it. That must mean that it is a matter of some importance that will require very lengthy consideration. We should be grovellingly grateful to the Government for their generosity in allowing such a debate.
What follows may be relevant to the approach that we may take to this motion and whether we feel it appropriate for our business to be truncated as the Government are suggesting.
466
This is an unusual programme motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and the Liberals are taking the odd approach that they want to hurry on, take Third Reading and get the whole matter dispatched rather quickly. I, who favour a more leisurely approach, am positively stunned and delighted by the fact that we are to have a three-month period of reflection between Committee stage and Third Reading. However, the product of that protracted reflection might have some relevance to the amount of time that the motion should allow for Third Reading.
We are in unusual circumstances. I am sure that the Minister will feel an urge to explain at some length why she cannot rush the Bill through as fast as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere seems to want, and why we are to be given this period of reflection.
Needless to say, I am unhappy with the motion. Unless the Minister gives an adequate explanation, I will certainly want to resist it, as we generally do, not routinely but taking each case on its merits. I know that she will do her best. I can see her straining at the leash, desperate to let us have it in great detail and at great length, but unless she comes up with a satisfactory explanation, I am afraid that we will have to oppose the motion.
2.32 pm
Ruth Kelly: We had a lively and good-natured debate on Second Reading, and I very much look forward to continuing in the same tone today. I believe that the time allocated will allow us ample opportunity to discuss these important issues.
The House overwhelmingly agreed to have programming motions and timetable motions for Bills such as this, so that we could have sensible and serious debate on all issues. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should choose a European matter on which to say that they have been granted too much time for debate. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested, we should probably note the day and the time. He said that he was stunned and delighted by the time available, and I am glad that he agrees that we have allowed sufficient time to address all the issues.
As for flexibility, we have until 5.30 pm at most for consideration in Committee, but if hon. Members feel that there has been sufficient debate, it is totally in order for proceedings to draw to a close before that time.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 108.

Division No. 36]

[2.34 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bennett, Andrew

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Benton, Joe

Allen, Graham

Berry, Roger

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Best, Harold

Atherton, Ms Candy

Betts, Clive

Atkins, Charlotte

Blizzard, Bob

Austin, John

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Bailey, Adrian

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Baird, Vera

Brennan, Kevin

Barnes, Harry

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Barron, Kevin

Browne, Desmond

Battle, John

Bryant, Chris

Bayley, Hugh

Burgon, Colin

Beard, Nigel

Burnham, Andy

Begg, Miss Anne

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

467

Cairns, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Casale, Roger

Hepburn, Stephen

Caton, Martin

Heppell, John

Challen, Colin

Hesford, Stephen

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Heyes, David

Clapham, Michael

Hill, Keith

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hodge, Margaret

Hood, Jimmy

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hope, Phil

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clelland, David

Howells, Dr Kim

Clwyd, Ann

Hoyle, Lindsay

Coaker, Vernon

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cohen, Harry

Humble, Mrs Joan

Coleman, Iain

Hutton, John

Colman, Tony

Iddon, Dr Brian

Connarty, Michael

Illsley, Eric

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cooper, Yvette

Jamieson, David

Corston, Jean

Jenkins, Brian

Cousins, Jim

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cranston, Ross

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cruddas, Jon

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cummings, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Joyce, Eric

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Keeble, Ms Sally

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

David, Wayne

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Davidson, Ian

Kelly, Ruth

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kemp, Fraser

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dawson, Hilton

Khabra, Piara S

Denham, Rt Hon John

Kidney, David

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Donohoe, Brian H

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Doran, Frank

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Drew, David

Lazarowicz, Mark

Drown, Ms Julia

Lapper, David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Leslie, Christopher

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Levitt, Tom

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Edwards, Huw

Linton, Martin

Efford, Clive

Lloyd, Tony

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Love, Andrew

Farrelly, Paul

Lucas, Ian

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Luke, Iain

Fisher, Mark

Lyons, John

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

McCabe, Stephen

Flynn, Paul

McCafferty, Chris

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

MacDonald, Calum

Foulkes, George

McDonnell, John

Francis, Dr Hywel

MacDougall, John

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McFall, John

Gerrard, Neil

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gilroy, Linda

McIsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McKechin, Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McKenna, Rosemary

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grogan, John

McNamara, Kevin

Hain, Peter

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McWalter, Tony

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mahmood, Khalid

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hanson, David

Mallaber, Judy

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Havard, Dai

Mann, John

Healey, John

Marris, Rob

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

468

Martlew, Eric

Shipley, Ms Debra

Merron, Gillian

Simon, Siôn

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Skinner, Dennis

Miliband, David

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Moran, Margaret

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Julie

Southworth, Helen

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Spellar, John

Mountford, Kali

Steinberg, Gerry

Mudie, George

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mullin, Chris

Stinchcombe, Paul

Munn, Ms Meg

Stoate, Dr Howard

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Stringer, Graham

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Norris, Dan

Tami, Mark

O'Hara, Edward

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Olner, Bill

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Organ, Diana

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Owen, Albert

Timms, Stephen

Palmer, Dr Nick

Tipping, Paddy

Pearson, Ian

Todd, Mark

Perham, Linda

Touhig, Don

Picking Anne

Trickett, Jon

Pickthall, Colin

Truswell, Paul

Pike Peter

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Plaskitt, James

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pond, Chris

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pope Greg

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pound, Stephen

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tynan, Bill

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Primarolo, Dawn

Walley, Ms Joan

Prosser, Gwyn

Ward, Ms Claire

Purchase, Ken

Wareing, Robert N

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Watson, Tom

Quinn, Lawrie

Watts, David

Rammell, Bill

White, Brian

Rapson, Syd

Wicks, Malcolm

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wood, Mike

Roy, Frank

Woolas, Phil

Ruane, Chris

Worthington, Tony

Ruddock, Joan

Wright, David (Telford)

Ryan, Joan

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Salter, Martin

Wyatt, Derek

Savidge, Malcolm

Sawford, Phil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shaw, Jonathan

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Sheridan, Jim

Mr. Nick Ainger.

NOES

Allan, Richard

Cameron, David

Amess, David

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Bacon, Richard

Baker, Norman

Carmichael, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Cash, William

Barrett, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Beggs, Roy

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clappison, James

Boswell, Tim

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brady, Graham

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Brake, Tom

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brooke, Annette

Dodds, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Burstow, Paul

Doughty, Sue

Burt, Alistair

Duncan, Peter

Butterfill, John

Ewing, Annabelle

Calton, Patsy

Fallon, Michael

469

Flight, Howard

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Page, Richard

Foster, Don (Bath)

Paterson, Owen

Francois, Mark

Pickles, Eric

Gale, Roger

Price, Adam

Gidley, Sandra

Pugh, Dr John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Rendel, David

Grieve, Dominic

Robathan, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Hayes, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Heath, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hermon, Lady

Sanders, Adrian

Hoban, Mark

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Simmonds, Mark

Holmes, Paul

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

Jenkin, Bernard

Stunell, Andrew

Keetch, Paul

Swayne, Desmond

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

Swire, Hugo

Syms, Robert

Kirkwood, Archy

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Lamb Norman

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Laws David

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Leigh, Edward

Thurso, John

Letwin, Oliver

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tyler, Paul

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Walter, Robert

Lidington, David

Waterson, Nigel

Loughton, Tim

Watkinson, Angela

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Weir, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wilkinson, John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Mercer, Patrick

Wishart, Pete

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Oaten, Mark

Mr. John Randall and

Öpik, Lembit

Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Finance) Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day]
  [SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair.]

  European Communities (Finance) Bill
    Clause 1

      EXTENDED MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"
      2.51 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I beg to move, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the new own resources decision amending the arrangements for financing the Community budget agreed at the 1999 Berlin European Council.
      Clause 1 provides for the new own resources decision agreed by the Council of Ministers on 29 September 2000 to be added to the list of Community treaties in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. This addition will allow payments made by the United Kingdom, pursuant to the decision, to be charged directly on the Consolidated Fund, under section 2(3) of the 1972 Act.
      The new own resources decision that we are considering is little changed from the 1994 own resources decision, and any changes made to the decision are financially neutral for the United Kingdom. Our net contribution to the EU budget will not change as result of what we are considering today.
      The changes were rather technical in nature. The main change arising from the decision is to allow for an increase in the amount that member states can retain against the cost of collecting the traditional own resources. That amount was increased from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent.
      Secondly, the decision allows for a staged reduction in the maximum call-up rate of the VAT-based resource, from the current 1 per cent. to 0.5 per cent. in 2004. Thirdly, it maintains the ceiling for own resources at 1.27 per cent. of EU national income. It simplifies the calculation of the UK's abatement, removing unnecessary and redundant calculations. However, as the recitals to the own resources decision make clear,
      "this simplification has no impact on the determination on the amount of the correction"—
      the abatement—
      "granted to the UK."—
      Finally, the decision adjusts other member states' shares of the financing of the UK's abatement, in order to meet concerns raised by Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, with no effect on the UK.
      In line with the precedent set in previous own resources decisions, the UK agreed to forgo windfall gains arising to the UK from the changes to the financing of the EU budget and from a change in the treatment of

      471
      pre-accession aid that will occur on enlargement. We achieved a position that was, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described,
      "not a euro more, not a euro less",
      and ensured that amounts currently abated will remain abated under the new decision.
      The own resources decision implements parts of the wider reforms agreed at the Berlin Council that are an important step forward for the EU and good for the UK. That Council secured declining expenditure in the 15 EU countries over the financial planning period. It stabilised expenditure as a proportion of gross national product, thereby paving the way for a successful enlargement. It achieved no increase in the own resources ceiling. it secured the UK abatement, fully intact, and took steps in the right direction on policy reform.
      The Bill shows the huge benefits of Britain's constructive engagement with the EU. It shows that by taking a leading role in reform and working together with other member states, we can achieve outcomes that are good for the UK and good for the EU.
      Mr. Howard Flight: Our usual complaint about financial legislation in recent years is that it has been too long, obscure, often wrong and with too much to amend. Our problem today is that the Bill is virtually impossible to amend. I had considered proposing a sunset clause to make the Bill conditional on adequate reform of the common agricultural policy in a given period of time, but I felt that that tactic would not work. However, I shall revert to the crucial question of CAP reform later.
      Parliament can really only say yes or no to the Bill, because it is the Council decision of 29 September 2000, following Berlin, which, in essence, contains the detailed legislation. Before I focus on the CAP, the crucial issue that underlies clause 1, I want to speak about article 9 of the Council decision. We debated the matter at some length on Second Reading, as it enables the EU to propose the implementation of direct taxation.
      The House will recall that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and I objected to article 9 on Second Reading, we were advised by the Economic Secretary that there was nothing to worry about, as no such proposition would ever arise. I cannot resist pointing out that the words were scarcely out of her mouth when up popped Belgium—backed by Germany—proposing to replace EU revenues paid by national Governments with an EU-wide system of taxation. It is therefore wrong to say that such a concept is not on the agenda: it is on the agenda, and is contained in the EU decision that we are considering today.
      I congratulate the Chancellor on his robust opposition to that concept, and on the effective lecture that he gave to the EU, in which he urged other nations to get on with supply-side reforms of capital and labour markets. Did that lecture enjoy the full support of the Prime Minister? I should like to know. It is well known, in euroland and the City of London, that the Chancellor is strongly opposed to euro membership—indeed, he is now referred to as the Eurosceptic Chancellor. But is the policy being followed on the euro the Prime Minister's or the Chancellor's?
      On Second Reading, Opposition Members made the point that there is no free lunch, and we asked the Economic Secretary what would be the cost of forgoing
      472
      our windfall on Euro enlargement. She replied that the cost would be of the order of 220 million euros, but in such language that it appeared that she was saying that it would be a one-off loss. However, I am pleased to state that, in subsequent correspondence, she has made it clear that the loss will be in every year that we give up as part of the deal.
      The main impact of the Council decision is the shift from VAT-based contributions to GNP-based contributions. I asked the Economic Secretary whether the definition of GNP to be used would be the official figure, or whether it would include estimates of undisclosed economies. The Economic Secretary has advised me that the official figures would be used in that context.
      Why was it deemed appropriate, when considering how the Maastricht targets could be met, to take GNP figures for the different EU states that included estimates for undisclosed economies, on the basis that some countries had much larger black economies than others? Why has it been decided now that it is not necessary to calculate fair contributions where the GNP element has gone up? I point to that inconsistency, and to the fact that in terms of Maastricht, the rules result in those with larger undisclosed GNPs contributing less than they should.
      3 pm
      I have raised the rather fundamental issue implicit in the Council agreement that 1.27 per cent. of GNP is a sufficient transfer payment to make a common currency work. In the United States, for example, transfer payments are of the order of 11 per cent. of GNP. I have received no answer to this question, which was important in terms of the Council decision and the economic prospects for the euro. The Government must focus on this matter.
      I have noted that the Chancellor has added another item to his economic tests for the euro—that of success. Clearly, the euro must be a success before the right hon. Gentleman will even think about it. However, it is important to ask whether the transfer payment arrangements—which have been set in stone by the Council decision at 1.27 per cent. —are sufficient in terms of economic analysis for a common currency to work.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Has the hon. Gentleman read the European Commission's analysis that said that, within member states, there are fiscal transfers between different regions, such as in the UK between London and the south-east and Scotland? When one is analysing the importance of fiscal transfers as an adjustment mechanism to compensate for the fact that we are losing the currency as an adjustment mechanism, one must take into account the fiscal transfers within each existing member state because the differences between regions within each member state may be as big as those between member states.
      Mr. Flight: I am aware of that study, which has some relevance in other parts of the world that share a currency. But one must look at the transfer payments of individual countries within the EU because this matter goes beyond Scotland versus the south-east and reaches the whole economy in terms of competitiveness and cost structure. Many costs are determined on national bases by trade union agreements and so forth. I am calling for a study of the territory, including transfers within individual

      473
      economies as well as among them. I am not aware of a convincing analysis to suggest that the level of transfer payments that the Council decision has set stands up. It may do, and I am not pre-judging the situation, but it is clear as a matter of theory and practice that the euro will not be a success unless that is the case.
      The main underlying issue raised by the clause is enlargement and the CAP. The discussions in Berlin, and the Council decision emerging from them, were all about changes in the financing arrangements to enable enlargement and modest reforms to the CAP to be included. Is enlargement by 2004 for real, or are we living with another politically convenient deceit? The Opposition support enlargement because a larger and more diverse EU clearly holds out the prospect of the Union's remaining an association of nation states trading freely among themselves.
      Enlargement will be impossible if the CAP is not reformed significantly. Despite the fact that there are plans for further reforms in the next two years, there is insufficient time to effect those by 2004 to allow enlargement to occur. Are we dealing with a conspiracy—deliberate or otherwise—to delay enlargement, or with extremely bad management?
      I wish to refer to the history of those discussions at Berlin, which led to last year's Council decision. The European Council agreed that there would be a series of reforms under Agenda 2000 in the crucial policy areas of the CAP, the budget and regional policy to pave the way for enlargement. It was clear that the 1992 reforms of the CAP, while meeting the demands of GATT, would not be sufficient to prevent further pressures at subsequent trade negotiations.
      The 1999 CAP reforms, in conjunction with the later Council order, were held at a time of crisis and preoccupation with Kosovo. As a result, they were substantially watered down and not properly pursued. If the agreement reached in Berlin was regarded here as a success, the world could be forgiven for wondering what a failure would look like. The most significant feature of the reform has been that the depth of the price cuts has been subsequently reduced.
      The main impetus for reform was budgetary, and the level of the budget had been agreed before the reform negotiations on the CAP. The first reform would have exceeded the budget; the second appeared to meet it. At the time, the United Kingdom, along with Sweden, was leading calls for reform and suggested that even the original 2000 proposals did not go far enough. It is not clear how the Government can say today that all that emerged was satisfactory.
      The UK was a member of what was known as the London Club or the Gang of Four, who wanted to see the quota system abolished and the milk market liberalised by 2006. However, the result was that these will be increased in 2005–06. In terms of the arable sector, the United Kingdom, along with Denmark and Sweden, wanted to end set-aside.
      The irony is that, even by the admission of German Ministers, further reforms will be needed to comply with the demands of enlargement and the next world trade negotiating round. The 1990 reforms in no way met that either. The reality was that the millennium round
      474
      collapsed before reaching agriculture and great pressure was removed as a result, for the time being. If enlargement goes ahead, all professional analysts have commented that extending the CAP in its present form will be unworkable. At one stage, Fischler had thought that there would be a solution, with price supports changing to income supports. Then, the new entrants would not need to cut prices and would not even have to be brought into the CAP. However, this suggestion was perverse; why should a farmer in East Anglia get subsidies while a farmer with a similar-sized farm in Poland does not?
      I shall focus on the options because we rarely deal in this Chamber with the issues and how the CAP might be reformed. The first designated area of possible reform has the unpleasant euroland name, degressivity, which in simple English means the reduction of direct payments over time. It involves the replacement of price support with direct payments and then the reduction of the latter in time.
      Allowing a fixed time span ensures that budget costs rise but then fall again and avoids the potential problems associated with extending CAP payments to member states, which the European Union could not afford to be given to farmers who had not experienced falling prices in the first place. Allegedly, that system would offer the best route to contain budget costs.
      That approach was opposed by Germany and supported by France and the United Kingdom. France introduced it to counter the move towards co-financing, which Germany had proposed. Furthermore, France proposed the reduction of direct payments by between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. each year, with exemptions for small farmers. The UK proposed 4 per cent. cuts across all direct payments. Estimates at the time showed that cuts of 3 per cent. a year for all payments would save about 4.5 billion euros over seven years. Cuts of 3 per cent. in arable payments and 1 per cent. in other sectors would save about 3 billion. In its most extreme form, the reduction could eliminate direct payments over a fixed time period. It would mean that, while the initial costs of enlargement would be high, in time they would be reduced.
      The removal of the price supports would have had the beneficial consequence of solving the export subsidy problem. Not only do export subsidies cost the EU a substantial sum: they have caused the depression of world food prices, which has affected third-world economies particularly severely.
      The second proposed approach to reform has been called co-financing or repatriation, which is sharing the CAP budget costs between EU and national budgets. That would involve removing part of the funding of agriculture from the EU budget and handing it to national Governments. It does not, therefore, necessarily reduce the overall cost and it could increase policing costs. Support for that approach went along the lines of net beneficiaries versus net contributors. Germany proposed it to try to reduce its contributions and the UK opposed it at the time because we felt that it would be likely to distort the single market.
      Additionally, that approach is unpopular with farmers, who expect to get less as a result. It would solve the problem of what to do about enlargement, as it would be up to the countries concerned. Many of the central European countries do not want agricultural subsidies because they want to reduce their agricultural sectors.

      475
      Repatriation failed as an idea in 1999 and it looks as though it will fail again as the other reforms have failed sufficiently to reduce the level of prices, making the option extremely unattractive to beneficiaries such as France and Ireland.
      The third approach, which again has a nasty Euro name—modulation—is about targeting support to smaller farms and limiting payments to particular farms. The concept is that total aid payable per farm could be capped or compensation above certain thresholds met at less than a full 100 per cent.
      The UK opposed all forms of modulation essentially because of the size profile of our farms. Capping the amount that could go to any individual farm would hit the UK the most. That approach was first proposed in 1992 and again in the early stages of the 1999 reforms, but it was blocked on both occasions. To a lesser extent, under the rural development project, countries could divert a fraction of their receipts to other projects, such as agri-environmental projects and afforestation, but only a handful have taken up that option, including Britain, where it has accounted for only 2.5 per cent. of the money distributed through the CAP.
      In essence, none of those proposals has got anywhere. I mentioned them to put them on the record because that is all that is on the record. It is all very well to talk of the need for CAP reform, but how is the policy to be reformed if the Council decision that we are asked to approve today is to work?
      3.15 pm
      The problem with the CAP is that no one knows any longer what it is for. It has outlived its original intent by many years. It was intended to increase productivity, and to ensure a fair wage for farmers and that the price of food was kept at a fair level. Now, it does almost the contrary on all three counts. Productivity has increased and there is no logic for the CAP's being converted into a social policy. Should intensive farming be encouraged? People tend to argue that, if farmers should receive special treatment, it is as custodians of the environment.
      Fundamental thinking is urgently required on the matter and the UK should lead in that. If we do not undertake that, we are not serious about enlargement and the countries of eastern Europe will end up being badly let down. It is a mistake that repatriation failed as an idea in 1999 because other reforms had not reduced prices sufficiently to make it attractive enough. The present crisis in British farming, for example, needs immediate prescriptive attention, which we could provide much more effectively if we were managing our own agricultural policy rather than being forced into the inappropriate straitjacket of the CAP for British farming. By analogy, the only solution for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the other potential member countries would be for them to manage their own agricultural support policies and to have the freedom to decide what to do, within some broadly agreed cost guidelines.
      Today, we are faced with the choice of a yes or no on a fundamental clause of two or three lines that concerns an EU decision which is a good decision in terms of how funding has changed but which is inadequate to meet its overall objective, which is to permit enlargement. I repeat the crucial message that, unless we have a major reform of the CAP—potentially along the lines that I suggested—well before 2004, there will be no enlargement then.
      Jim Sheridan: I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Tommy Graham, who, as many hon. Members will remember, was a colourful character both inside and outside the Chamber.
      On behalf of my constituents I welcome the financial reforms to which the Bill commits us. It paves the way for the progressive enlargement of the EU. In doing so, I firmly believe that opportunities for growth, development and prosperity for all my constituents will flow from those reforms. I say that with a note of caution, however, as those objectives will be achieved by the British electorate only if there is a level playing field for worker participation and fair competition for all our businesses.
      West Renfrewshire is experiencing significant job losses in the electronics and defence industries. Established companies such as Compaq and Selectron are making people redundant as we speak. Perhaps that reflects the difficulty that that industry is going through, but that is not the case with ROF Bishopton, where BAE Systems proposes the closure of its ammunition-producing facility. That is not happening because the skilled work force are resistant to change or unproductive. Their only drawback in life is that they belong to a country and are employed by a company in which consultation about factory closures and redundancies is a sham. Such companies can move production to other member and non-member countries of the EU with total impunity, at times exploiting the financial benefits that are offered from Europe. That is unfair and unacceptable to the British electorate.
      I do not wish to ponder on the negatives of belonging to the EU: benefits flow from it. Tangible evidence can be found in my constituency, where European funding has helped to rejuvenate areas such as Port Glasgow, which has a high level of deprivation. Its people have been ignored for too long. The rejuvenation has been achieved without the taxpayers having to pay increased taxes and without any increase in our overall contribution to the EU budget.
      The Labour Government's financial prudence, at home or in Europe, means that many of my constituents enjoy a stable standard of living, with low mortgage rates and even lower levels of unemployment. If we were to accept the Luddite approach to Europe articulated by many in the official Opposition, it would be disastrous for our country, our electorate and, more important, our businesses. Their lack of progress in Europe is consistent with the performance of our countries' national football teams, and let us hope that that will also improve.
      Most of my adult life has been spent in manufacturing industry, and I make no apology for that. I have witnessed at first hand the corrosive effect on communities of needless job losses. The hostility shown by the official Opposition to workers' rights was a significant factor in those job losses and a major reason why I entered the world of politics. It is an extremely frustrating and humbling experience to have to depend on our European colleagues in the trade union movement to argue our case in European works councils simply because our British workers cannot be represented there.
      In conclusion, it would be remiss of me not to mention my party's constructive partnership not only with our European partners but with the Scottish Parliament—a partnership that, unfortunately, the Scottish National party wishes to destroy. It is unfortunate that a party that claims to want independence in Europe is not present to hear this important debate on European finance.

      477
      Many people have asked me for my assessment of my early days in this House. What has struck me most is the generosity, courtesy and advice offered by my experienced colleagues on both sides of the House. I think that I reflect the views of many of the new Members when I say thank you.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) for his maiden speech. It is clear from his first outing in the House that he will be fighting fiercely on behalf of his constituents and their interests, especially on employment in his constituency. I share concerns about job losses in the electronics sector of our economy. The imbalance in the British economy is a problem. We have regional imbalances and an imbalance between the manufacturing and service sectors. I look forward to future contributions from the hon. Member on that subject. He will bring a great deal of expertise and knowledge to bear on our deliberations.
      On Second Reading we had a long debate on many issues surrounding EU budgetary reform—the cap, the need for greater accountability and the underlying issues of how the budget could develop. Clause 1 applies specifically to the details of the own resources decision. There are three elements to that decision that deserve discussion, one of which I want to focus on. The first is the change in the weightings given to the different elements of own resources and the switch away from the VAT element to the GNP element. That has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, so there is probably little more to say about it except that we hope that it will continue. It is good that it has been achieved.
      The second element is the ceiling of 1.27 per cent., which was agreed. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have generally welcomed that, in the sense that we need to ensure that before the EU takes more of the British taxpayers' hard-earned money it reforms its budget and the way in which it spends it. Therefore, putting a medium-term cap on its size is a necessary discipline, which the Liberal Democrats welcome.
      The third element is the triumph that the United Kingdom Government claim for retaining the United Kingdom abatement. It may be a good thing, but there is no information before the Committee to enable it to know whether it is a good thing in the longer term. That may sound like heresy. We all remember Mrs. Thatcher coming back from Fontainebleau having achieved the abatement and claiming that it was a major success for UK diplomacy. Successive Governments have defended the abatement. It may prove that they were right to do so, but I shall ask the Minister some questions to find out whether the abatement is such a success as we have been told.
      In order to retain the UK abatement, we have had to give up windfall gains that we would otherwise have achieved from the switch from VAT to GNP and other detailed changes behind the own resources decision, so the question for the Committee and the Government is whether what we have had to give up is more than we have gained from keeping the abatement.
      It is clear from the Berlin summit communiqué that the amount that we had to give up was relatively small—the estimate was 220 million euros—but that was not the first
      478
      time that the UK abatement was retained at the expense of windfall gains. In 1988 the Conservative Government negotiated the retention of the United Kingdom abatement. In 1988 and in 1992, windfall gains that might have accrued to the United Kingdom were given up in order to retain the abatement. The Committee will quickly see what I am implying: if by fighting to retain the abatement in 1988, 1992 and 2000 we gave up cumulatively more in windfall gains than would otherwise have accrued to us, we are losing out. That may or may not be the case because I do not have the figures.
      The Library could not find in the communiqués issued after the 1998 and 1992 Councils a figure that was given in the same way as in the communiqué after the 2000 Berlin summit—in other words, the 222 million euros. There was no figure on record of the windfall gains that the UK gave up by retaining the abatement.
      My question is factual. The Minister may not be able to give me an answer today, although perhaps her officials can help her out. If she cannot give me the figures, perhaps it is a good thing that the Third Reading debate will not be held until 16 October so that we can obtain the figures before we give the Bill its Third Reading. I doubt that there can be precise figures that would enable us to make judgments on the benefit of retaining the UK abatement and the successive amounts that we have forgone because we did not gain from those windfalls.
      3.30 pm
      That equation is necessarily difficult, as is shown by the fact that the benefit from the UK abatement changes every year. In 1991, the abatement was worth £2,497 million at cash prices—£2.5 billion. In 1995, it was worth £1.2 billion, and in 2002 it was worth £2 billion. Its value changes every year because it contains so many variables. No doubt the calculation of what the UK would have retained, if it had kept all those cumulative windfall gains, depends on many other variables such as the base of consumer expenditure underlying the VAT element of the own resources decision or the different rates of duty and levy collected in each country. Those variable factors would be part of the calculation.
      One would not expect the Minister to give precise figures in order for us to make a decision, but one could expect ranges of figures—an indication of the size we are talking about. For example, is the UK rebate worth between £1 billion and £2 billion each year—depending on those factors—and is the amount that we would have gained from the windfalls between £500 million and £1 billion? Such a range of figures would be useful. The Committee could then come to a final decision about whether successive Governments were wise to fight so hard for the UK rebate, not only at Berlin but before that in 1988 and 1992.
      The Minister raises her eyebrows to the ceiling—clearly, the calculation is difficult—but if we are to hold the Government to account for their decisions on negotiations made on behalf of the UK taxpayer we need those figures. Successive Governments may cumulatively—almost unknowingly—have cost the UK taxpayer a lot of money in net terms. By defending that sacred cow of Fontainebleau and by going to the wall and saying that we will fight to retain the UK abatement, we may be doing ourselves an injustice and costing the UK taxpayer more.

      479
      It is time to examine the matter in detail, because we shall no doubt return to the reform of the EU budget and the own resources decision in five or six years, when another European Communities (Finance) Bill will appear before a successor Parliament. If we do not get the figures right—if the Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do not start to work them out—we shall again get it wrong in future negotiations on reform of the EU budget.
      Perhaps we should change our whole negotiating position. Perhaps—I do not know, because I do not have the figures—we would earn an awful lot of prestige and benefit in European diplomacy and in our standing in the European Commission if we said, "Hold on, we are prepared to look at the issue of the UK rebate, but we will only even consider giving it up if all the windfall gains that you previously asked us not to take are given back to us." We might benefit from that approach. Instead of mounting a jingoistic, nationalistic—even prejudiced—defence of the Fontainebleau agreement, we might realise that it was to our benefit to lay a certain sacred cow to rest.
      In some areas of the UK, the rebate has negative effects. Hon. Members may be aware that agriculture suffers from the rebate. The argument is complicated, as European financial discussions always are. The knock-on effect of the green pound and the associated calculations is that UK agriculture does not benefit as substantially as it might from agrimonetary compensation.
      Mr. Flight: I entirely support the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but is not the reason for those effects that, under Fontainebleau, the UK is obliged to contribute 70 per cent. of the cost of the exchange rate adjustment and that, over the past few years, the Government have failed to do so?
      Mr. Davey rose—
      Angus Robertson (Moray): The Conservatives negotiated that arrangement.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is right but, as the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) points out, the negotiations were conducted by a Conservative Government. If the UK Government pay their fair share of agrimonetary compensation under the green pound revaluation compensation mechanisms, the UK loses out in the following year when the rebate is clawed back. Her Majesty's Treasury therefore never wants to pay out as much as it should in agrimonetary compensation and UK farmers are disadvantaged.
      That is a real problem. It is a particularly British problem as more and more countries adopt the euro. We shall be the only country that could receive agrimonetary compensation, so changing the nature of that agreement—only we shall have a real interest in it—will become nigh on impossible. That disbenefit for UK farmers stems from the retention of the UK rebate, so by looking again at the sacred cow of the UK rebate we might obtain a better deal not only for UK taxpayers but for UK farmers.
      All those statements are conditional—we do not have the information before us. Even with the best will in the world, my researches before the Committee sat did not
      480
      produce the relevant information. During my exchanges with the Minister on Second Reading about the definition of "windfall gain" and in her subsequent, kind letter of 16 July, copies of which were sent to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and to the Library, it has become clear that the point is of some substance.
      We needed those exchanges in order to be sure what a windfall gain was: whether it was a genuine, one-off gain or a cumulative gain. From the hon. Lady's letter, it appears that the gain is cumulative, which is what worries me. We have established that the gain is cumulative, so the UK could have given up an awful lot of money in order to retain its abatement.
      The Economic Secretary will be glad to know that I do not expect her to give me detailed figures today, which would be quite demanding, but on Third Reading on 16 October, when the House will be asked to consider whether such agreements are really in the UK's interest, we will need that information. I hope that my contribution will set minds a-thinking in Her Majesty's Treasury and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about whether the UK could adopt a position at future negotiations that might save us money and might also help our farmers.
      Ruth Kelly: I am glad to say that once again we have had an interesting and good-natured debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), who spoke with passion about the employment situation in his constituency, and about the need to consult workers and protect their rights. He spoke from his own experience in manufacturing. He also pointed out the need to engage constructively with Europe. I look forward to hearing from him again on this subject, and I am sure that he has a significant contribution to make to the House.
      The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), referred to article 9, which we discussed on Second Reading. I thought that I had dealt with the matter fully at the time and made it absolutely clear that any taxation changes would need to be agreed by unanimity. There is no prospect of the United Kingdom endorsing such an approach. I am, however, glad that he decided to congratulate the Chancellor, and I look forward to his doing more of that.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition of GNP. As he said, we discussed that after Second Reading, and I am glad to be able to give him a little more detail about it. I can assure him that all member states calculate three independent measures of GNP: production, income and expenditure. Those calculations are made in accordance with worldwide guidelines on national accounting. The three measures are balanced using supply-use tables. The balancing process ensures that even though certain illegal production can filter into a measure, it will generally be picked up in one of the calculations. For example, income from selling stolen goods may be spent legally and will therefore be picked up in the expenditure measure. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      In an interesting contribution to the debate, the hon. Gentleman also talked about the size of the transfer payments in the EU. As yet, there are no signs of economic and monetary union leading to new fiscal powers for the EU. EMU has left decisions on fiscal

      481
      policy firmly with member states, and those are co-ordinated, in a non-binding way, through the broad economic guidelines.
      Mr. Flight: The specific issue that I raised was not about resisting EU taxation and tax harmonisation, but about whether the euro can succeed as a currency within euroland without adequate transfer payments. I note that the Chancellor has recently attached great importance to being interested in the euro only if it is a success.
      Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but I repeat that there are no signs of such pressure arising, and fiscal authority remains with member states. The question of the euro's success is implicit in the five economic tests, and no sixth test is being introduced.
      The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the common agricultural policy and the forces at work due to enlargement. I assure him that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the nations urging the EU 15 to expand and encouraging other states to join, as long as they meet the criteria, of course. I assure him also that 2004 is a realistic date. Although the Berlin ceiling provides for market support and rural measures, it does not include direct aid measures for farmers in the candidate countries. We hope that the EU will consider that issue in 2002, so clearly there will be pressure for further reform in the years ahead.
      I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comment that CAP reforms have been watered down by the UK's approach. We are in the vanguard of those pressing for reform of the policy. The agreement that was reached was for the most radical reform of the CAP since its creation. It will provide a benefit to the average family worth £70 a year and achieve significant price cuts for beef and cereals. Of course, we want further, deeper cuts, and we will press for those with our neighbouring countries in Europe. For the first time, funds will be transferred to rural development.
      3.45 pm
      As the hon. Gentleman so rightly pointed out, at the negotiations at least three approaches to reform were set out: co-financing, degressivity and modulation. The UK endorsed progressive price cuts, and we look forward to reconsidering that in the mid-term review of the CAP, Modulation would provide significant flexibility and, for the first time, countries would be able to transfer resources to rural development. The UK intends to take advantage of that facility and transfer up to 4.5 per cent. of CAP spending to rural development by 2006–07.
      I was pleased that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) welcomed the switch to the GNP resource, which is of course a more progressive system. He welcomed also the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. on own resources, which, as he rightly pointed out, imposes the necessary financial discipline on EU countries. He asked detailed questions about the windfall gain and the UK rebate. Those are interesting questions, and I will attempt to answer at least some of them.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are three elements to the windfall gains: that relating to successive shifts from VAT to GNP financing; a new element relating to
      482
      the switch to GNP as a result of an increase in the amount that member states can retain against collecting the traditional own resources; and a third element that will come into effect only after the next enlargement.
      The first element is eliminated by article 4(d) of the own resources decision. That has the effect of setting our contribution at a level equal to what it would have been if the switch to GNP had not taken place. The second element will be eliminated from 2001 by article 4(e) of the own resources decision. That subtracts from the abatement the UK's net gains resulting from the increase in the percentage of traditional own resources to be retained to cover collection and related costs.
      The calculation needed to eliminate the enlargement windfall gain will not, of course, arise until the year after the next enlargement. It will involve establishing the amount of pre-accession expenditure in the acceding countries in the year immediately before enlargement takes place, and excluding that amount from the expenditure on which the abatement is calculated. In subsequent years, that amount will be indexed using the euro-GNP deflator, and excluded from the expenditure on which the abatement is calculated. That ensures that, in real terms, what was unabated before enlargement will remain unabated afterwards.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be possible for the Treasury to calculate the cumulative effect of windfall gains forgone. As he rightly pointed out, that is a rather complex calculation of amounts that can vary from year to year. Indeed, it is not at all clear at the moment what will be the value of the windfall gains that will be forgone on enlargement, as that will depend precisely on which countries are eligible for enlargement and on the amount of pre-accession aid that is spent in the year preceding enlargement.
      The EU has come up with its own estimate, although I believe that others may come up with different estimates. It would be even more difficult to go back and calculate a cumulative total, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not even considering doing so. I assure him, as I have been assured, that the total of the windfall gains forgone is not significant compared with the size of the total UK abatement. I hope that I have reassured him and that he does not spend the recess trying to make his own calculations.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance, but it would still be useful for Members to see the figures. Even if I do not spend my summer recess calculating them, I hope that someone from Her Majesty's Treasury will. Perhaps she can confirm that they will. We clearly have historical data on the windfall gains that were forgone after the 1988 and 1992 decisions by the Conservative Government, so it would be fairly easy for the intelligent people in the Treasury to calculate the figures. If the brains exist in the Treasury to produce the formula in the first place, surely its officials can make a prediction, or a range of predictions, for the windfall gains forgone because of the 2000 decision.
      Ruth Kelly: I am sure that the Treasury team is extremely flattered by the hon. Gentleman's words, and I shall consider his request. However, it is not a simple calculation and it is not clear whether it would make sense, but I shall heed his words.

      483
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the effect of the Fontainebleau agreement on the green pound. He rightly explained that the Conservatives introduced the system when they were in government. Their Governments did not pay out a penny of the optional money that was available for agrimonetary compensation, whereas this Government have taken advantage of it to support our farmers.
      In conclusion, the deal is good for Britain and Europe. It maintains financial discipline, shifts financing to GNP and retains the UK's abatement. I hope that the arguments made on Second Reading and those that we have pursued extensively today make the clause acceptable to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      To be read the Third time tomorrow.

  Northern Ireland
  3.54 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move,
  That the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001 No. 2513), dated 18th July 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.
  I was tempted to move the order formally, but I see that some hon. Members are here to debate it.
  The order, which was made in Privy Council yesterday under the procedure in section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, makes three essentially technical amendments to policing legislation and comes into effect on 30 July. Before going into those in detail, I want to ensure that hon. Members are in no doubt: the order does not arise from the Weston Park talks. It addresses two issues that have arisen on new police recruits—referred to as police trainees—and takes the opportunity to make a technical amendment on parliamentary procedure, which I hope will be welcome.
  I also want to set out for those not familiar with section 85 of the 1998 Act how it works. In brief, Her Majesty the Queen at Privy Council makes the order. It must then be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament within 40 sitting days. If it is not, then it ceases to have effect.
  The order makes two amendments to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and a further amendment to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The main change concerns the appointment and training of the first new recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The first amendment relates to section 39 of the 2000 Act, which provides for the appointment of police trainees. As recommended by the Patten report and therefore as provided for in the Act, police trainees do not acquire the status and powers of police officers and are not subject to police terms and conditions until they have successfully completed their recruit training. As a consequence, section 41 of the Act provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the terms and conditions of trainees. It also requires that the Policing Board, among others, be consulted before the regulations are made.
  In spite of the Government's considerable efforts to bring about the necessary agreement on outstanding policing issues to enable the Policing Board to be established, it is not yet in place; nor is it likely to be in time to be consulted before the regulations for the trainees are needed. It is planned that the trainees will be appointed in September. The order accordingly substitutes the Police Authority for Northern Ireland for the board for the purposes of consultation, and to undertake any of the board's functions under the regulations until the board is in place. Although that is not what we would have wanted to do, it is a sensible remedy. Put simply, it enables us to go ahead to set terms and conditions for the trainees.
  On the second issue that affects recruits, the proposed amendment to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 exempts trainees from the requirement to hold firearms certificates. That will avoid the necessity for the Chief Constable to issue individual firearms certificates to trainees for the purposes of firearms training. Again, I hope that that makes sense. Police officers United Kingdom-wide are already exempt.

  485
  Finally, the order will amend section 76 of the 2000 Act. As it stands, section 76 requires that a draft order to renew the 50:50 recruitment provisions, under section 47(3), and draft regulations on flags and emblems for the new policing service, under section 54, must be laid in Parliament for 40 days before they come into effect, but section 76 does not require that they be debated. The amendment applies the affirmative resolution procedure, which guarantees debates in both Houses, and allows the legislation to come into effect immediately thereafter.
  To be frank, we thought that we had done that in an amendment to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill in the other place in response to the report by its Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which called for the affirmative procedure to be applied to the powers in those clauses. That is what we meant to do at the time and are now doing through the order. With those brief comments, I commend the order to the House.
  3.58 pm
  Mr. John Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the provisions of this short but none the less important order. The Conservatives will not oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.
  I do not intend to follow the Minister by going into detail, but the order effectively enables the Secretary of State to consult the Police Authority for Northern Ireland on regulations for new recruits made under section 41 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 rather than the new Policing Board that was recommended by Patten and is legislated for in the Act.
  The 2000 Act was, of course, debated at length in the previous Session. Although it was a highly contentious measure, the Opposition welcomed much of it, but there was also a great deal in it that concerned us or that we opposed—the name change; the scrapping of the cap badge; the inclusion on the Policing Board of former terrorists or the representatives of organisations that insisted on keeping their illegal weapons; and the district policing partnerships.
  The House will be relieved to know that now is not the time to go over that territory again, but as with the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001, which we passed on Monday, it is important that the House understands why we are debating this order. Quite simply, despite all the painful changes to the Royal Ulster Constabulary that have been, or are in the process of being, made—changes that have led to alarmingly low levels of morale among the police—republicans and nationalists still refuse to give their support to the new policing arrangements. As such, they refuse to take up their entitlement to nominate members of the Policing Board—rightly or wrongly, the central element of democratic accountability over policing in Northern Ireland proposed in the Patten report.
  The nationalists' argument is that the legislation that we passed in the House last year does not faithfully implement the Patten report. That is a matter of debate. but I tend to agree with Dr. Maurice Hayes, who served on the Patten commission, that it is better to get 90 per cent. of something than 100 per cent. of nothing. Meanwhile, to the best of my knowledge, republicans have never even endorsed the Patten report—diluted or
  486
  not. Their attitude seems to be that the Patten report was just a starting point in a process that would lead to their vision of a disbanded RUC.
  The fact is that there was a good deal in the Patten report, or the legislation that followed, that none of us liked, but that is not an argument or an excuse for running away from our responsibilities to get behind the police and give them our backing in their efforts even-handedly and impartially to uphold the rule of law in extremely difficult circumstances. I cannot be alone in finding an inconsistency between politicians exercising ministerial functions in part of the United Kingdom, yet at the same time refusing to support the police.
  Far from softening their stance, however, nationalist and republican demands on policing have merely increased. Despite the Patten report and the legislation passed in the House last year, policing is now placed on a par with decommissioning and so-called demilitarisation as one of the outstanding issues to be resolved before the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. Well, I am sorry if I missed something, but I was under the impression that the issue had been resolved when the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 became law last year. It seems that nothing will satisfy the republicans on the issue until the police have been left completely demoralised, gutted and unable to perform any effective function in Northern Ireland, while the whole paramilitary infrastructure is left untouched.
  Policing formed a central part of the discussions at Weston Park last week, and it will certainly be a key element in the paper that the British and Irish Governments present to the parties in the coming days. May I tell the Minister that the Conservative party continues to have the gravest reservations about giving any more ground on the issue in advance of the clearest evidence that the war really is over, that weapons are being put beyond use and that the structures of terrorism are being dismantled? In particular, we are greatly concerned about any new measure that will compromise the operational independence of the Chief Constable; that removes the bar on independent members with criminal convictions serving on the Policing Board and the DPPs; that allows the DPPs to raise 3p in the pound to spend on additional policing services; that would prematurely phase out the full-time reserve or reduce police numbers; and that would put constraints on the equipment currently available to the police to maintain order.
  In that context, we utterly reject the totally naive comments made yesterday by the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, who called for an end to the availability of plastic baton rounds. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that there can be no question of going down that route, which would put the lives of police officers seriously at risk.
  As we have seen in the past few days and weeks, politically motivated and carefully orchestrated violence from republicans and so-called loyalists continues to scar life in Northern Ireland. It is left to the men and women of the RUC to hold the line. Once again, we pay tribute to the bravery, skill and sheer professionalism of the RUC in serving the whole community in Northern Ireland and to the Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, as he seeks to guide the force through such difficult times.
  Recent violence in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland, in addition to the prevailing terrorist threat from dissidents or those organisations that have failed to

  487
  decommission, highlights once again why we need effective policing in Northern Ireland. We need policing based on common sense, rather than a set of politically correct soundbites. We need a police service in Northern Ireland that is able to get on with the job without any operational interference from politicians and that has the capacity to combat terrorism and the resources that it needs to do so. In short, we need the RUC and the RUC is entitled to the support of the House.
  4.6 pm
  Lembit Öpik: It is a matter of regret that article 2 of the order, which substitutes the Police Authority for Northern Ireland with the Policing Board, has been required at all. A year has passed since the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 was introduced in the House, and it is disappointing that the board has not yet been set up.
  To be frank, by declaring that they will not take their seats on the Policing Board, the members of the Social Democratic and Labour party have effectively held up many of the reforms that they wanted. I would counsel the SDLP to think hard about its position in the hope that it might reconsider it. Having said that, given the decisions made by the Northern Ireland parties, the Government can do little else if they want to maintain the effective and regular policing activities necessary across the United Kingdom and, obviously, in the Province, too.
  I seek clarification of the circumstances of individual firearms training. I understand from what the Minister said that the arrangements under the order will bring police firearms training in Northern Ireland into line with the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that she will confirm that that is the case in her concluding remarks. She spoke about whether Parliament should debate such orders, and it is very welcome that Parliament can now debate them. That is sensible and it will allow us to cover any outstanding issues.
  We shall reconvene three months from now—a long time in politics and a very long time in the politics of Northern Ireland, and who knows what progress may have been made by then. I hope that we really have reached the endgame. We have to take a couple of steps back from time to time as we move questionably forward in the politics of Northern Ireland and the search for stable peace.
  I remind the Minister of yesterday's exchange in the House on police funding. Without detaining the House too long, I remind her that the police are talking about the need for adequate resourcing. They estimate that there will be a shortfall of about £117 million in the money that they require to carry out fully the work expected of them in the Province. The Minister gave an assurance yesterday, and I hope that we shall spend more time discussing those issues than having to fall back on technical measures such as the order.
  As I look around the Chamber, I see seven of the finest Labour Members and six of the nicest Conservatives that one could hope to meet.
  Mr. John Taylor: Seven.
  Lembit Öpik: There are now seven, and it is only a matter of regret to me that the leadership campaign is not
  488
  being fought between the Conservative Members who are here. I also see five of the most enjoyable and pleasant Northern Ireland politicians.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: I shall give way to one of the finest Conservatives that one could hope to meet.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. To complete the picture, how many Liberal Democrats does he see as he looks around the Chamber?
  Lembit Öpik: We save the very best for these debates. I should clarify that my comments were about the right hon. Gentleman's personality not his sartorial elegance. [Interruption.] I am talking about his tie.
  Considering the fine quality of politicians present, I hope that common sense will prevail and we shall not be driven to a Division. Such technical orders are an indication of the fact that there is still delay in Northern Ireland politics, as the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said. There are individuals who could have prevented this order from being required. More to the point, there are those who have it in their capacity to deliver the outstanding issues in the Good Friday agreement.
  No amount of technical discussion in this Chamber about police orders such as this will ultimately deliver the long-standing stability that we seek. I hope that we shall not have to make such coarse corrections too often on the way to such stability. I hope that people in Northern Ireland will recognise that the order puts more pressure on those who can deliver what they must in the Province to do so.
  4.11 pm
  Lady Hermon: I apologise to Members, and particularly to the Minister, for not being present when the debate began. That was because the Police Federation for Northern Ireland has been in touch with me about the order, especially the pensions regulations. I shall mention those to the Minister later.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this order, which amends the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. As that Act implemented many of what we regard as the deeply flawed recommendations of the Patten report, it comes as no surprise to see it amended so soon. I remind the House that the Patten commission was given terms of reference under the Belfast agreement. The very first paragraph of those terms of reference urged the commissioners to come up with
  "proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for these arrangements."
  However, and most regrettably, instead of encouraging such essential widespread community support, the Patten commission has managed to discourage it. The order,

  489
  albeit a short one, serves to highlight two aspects of the Patten report that have greatly alienated Unionist support for police reform in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Taylor: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Patten report was an attempt at a vision of policing in Northern Ireland on the far side of the total fulfilment of the Belfast agreement?
  Lady Hermon: It would have been greatly appreciated had the Patten commission endeavoured to encourage widespread community support. Elements of the report have had completely the opposite effect.
  The first aspect of the order to which I shall turn my attention is that concerning new police trainees. When I first read the Patten report, I was most impressed by its emphasis on human rights. However, that initial favourable impression quickly vanished. The Patten commission stated that a human rights based approach should be at the very core of the report. That was a welcome initiative. Despite that aim, new police recruits will be selected on the basis of their religion.
  Since religious liberty and freedom from all forms of discrimination are basic essential human rights, it is totally repugnant that trainees will be selected on the basis of their religion. It will be enormously damaging to good Catholic recruits undergoing the procedure. They will be chosen on merit, but unfortunately, it will be implied that they have been selected on the ground of religion. That is very sad and will be damaging to them in the long run. I dislike reverse discrimination and religious discrimination enormously, and I am deeply concerned for the new trainees.
  I also remind the House that in its third report of 1997–98, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee noted that
  "the major reason preventing young Roman Catholics coming forward to join the RUC is the fear of violence which would be offered towards them and to members of their family."
  I therefore urge the Minister and her colleagues to ensure that effective measures are quickly implemented to bring an end to the vicious intimidation of young Catholics.
  It is also essential that the Government ensure that the Gaelic Athletic Association repeals its offensive and discriminatory rule 21. That was recommended in the Patten report. The Government want full implementation of the Patten report, so will the Minister assure us that they will ensure that that discriminatory rule is abolished?
  The Patten report also recommended a new purpose-built training college. The police recruits whom we are talking about have been given an extension for firearms training. All recruits need good, new training facilities and I would like the Government to commit themselves to such provision. There are rumours that the former Maze prison would be a good site for a college. I suggest that that recommendation be completely ignored. It would not be good for morale or anything else to put new police recruits on such a site.
  The order makes provision for the Police Authority to carry on in the absence of the new Policing Board. The Patten commission recommended that politics be taken out of policing. Chris Patten said that he wanted "the depoliticisation of policing" in Northern Ireland, but the
  490
  recipe that he suggested is not a sensible way of achieving that. He recommended a new Policing Board of 19 members, 10 of whom would be politicians—Assembly Members chosen on the same basis as their representation on the Assembly Executive. Consequently, we have given—I hope inadvertently, but it looks deliberate—a huge lever to Sinn Fein and the SDLP to extract even more concessions on police reform. No more concessions can be made on police reform without discouraging the essential widespread support that we need for it to occur.
  The matters brought to my attention this afternoon by the Police Federation are serious, and I should like the Minister to address them in her winding-up speech if she can. During the 26 weeks of their training, the trainees will be a new breed of police officer in the United Kingdom. They will not be covered by the pension regulations that apply to other police recruits. So if officers who currently serve in the Metropolitan police or other English or Scottish police forces, for example, transfer to the new policing service, there will be no continuity of pension rights or any other benefits. That is a huge loophole. The trainees' pay has not been negotiated, either.
  I am sorry to mention this, but when the training centre was in Enniskillen, it was bombed; if any trainees are injured, or worse still, murdered during their 26-week training, according to present arrangements, their families and relatives will not benefit under pension regulations. That issue was raised specifically by the Police Federation and needs urgent attention; I should be grateful if the Minister would comment at the end of our debate, if she can do so at such short notice.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: The proposed Policing Board will experience the same problems that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has experienced for many years. Many people in Northern Ireland did not give their full undiluted support to the authority. In fact, members of the republican community campaigned against those who would serve on the authority; they picketed their homes and subjected them to attack, both physical and verbal.
  Unfortunately, the political representatives of many people in the republican community were associated with the criminal gangs who attacked members of the authority. People in the nationalist community, including members of the SDLP, would not support the authority, and there were many attempts by previous Governments to get members of the SDLP to give their support to the authority, and, indeed, to join it. There were consistent and prolonged campaigns to try to encourage greater nationalist involvement in the authority.
  Unfortunately, the same effort was not expended in trying to get members of my community—those in the Democratic Unionist party—to join the authority. In fact, our many entreaties to previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland seem to have fallen on deaf ears. We were promised that if a position were to become available, a member of the DUP would be looked on favourably, given that other political parties seemed to have several nominees on the authority. In fact, some minute political parties, with no more than 2 per cent. support in Northern Ireland, seemed to have nominees serving on the authority.

  491
  Moving on to the problems that will be encountered now and in future, it appears that the greater the efforts of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to combat crime, the greater the support given by the community to assist, and the more successful that that all is, the greater the intensity of opposition to the RUC in sections of the republican community. Of course, like the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), I do not want to go back to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and its provisions on insignia and symbols; that created many difficulties in the Unionist community and continues to do so.
  The Policing Board will face problems, particularly in relation to 50:50 recruitment. Any recruitment in Northern Ireland that operates according to a quota will be attacked and criticised because the community will infer that people are being selected for service in the police according to their religious denomination rather than on merit and their ability to do the job. That will always create a problem. It should be remembered that in 1920, when the RUC was formed, 20 per cent. of its members were Roman Catholic. That figure diminished in the following decades because of a campaign of intimidation and, latterly in the 1970s and 1980s, a campaign of murder.
  We are now faced with an unsatisfactory 50:50 quota arrangement to try to redress the unacceptably low number of Roman Catholics in the RUC. However, we must accept the rationale behind our present position: it is because of intimidation that only 8 per cent. of RUC police officers are Roman Catholic. It is not because Catholics are not acceptable in the RUC; they are. Last week, on television and in our newspapers, there were pictures of a fine woman police constable who faced up to a mob in Belfast and helped to save the life of a male colleague. She was a Roman Catholic.
  Many constables, both male and female, Protestant and Catholic, have been attacked, and have been subject to attack, for many years in Northern Ireland. The Government and every Member of Parliament ought to give the police force total support. We want an excellent police service to be made even better. My community has problems with the proposed Policing Board because we do not believe that the essential elements for improving a good police service are present.
  There will be other problems with the district policing partnerships. We see grave difficulties concerning possible participation by former terrorists in those partnerships, which will pose exceptionally grave difficulties for members of my community, and will only make the task of the police service in the wider community more difficult, rather than easier.
  I shall close with an appeal to the Minister and the Government for greater resources for the RUC, an excellent police service which we should all strive to make better, more independent and more accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. Rather than attack and criticise the RUC or make life more difficult for them, we should try to improve what is already an exceptionally fine police service in Northern Ireland.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). I endorse entirely his remarks on the quality of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As someone
  492
  who has witnessed at first hand in my constituency the vilest attacks on members of the police force, made as part of an orchestrated plan of violence by republicans, as the Chief Constable himself admitted last week, I believe that everyone in the House should pay tribute to the gallantry and bravery of members of the RUC and the work that they attempt to do protecting decent law-abiding people on all sides of the community.
  One thing that has undermined morale at all levels of the RUC is the prospect that the Northern Ireland Policing Board, established under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, will, according to the Patten report and the Belfast agreement, comprise members of Sinn Fein-IRA. Many members of the RUC tell me and other elected representatives that when they stand on the front line trying to protect the community, they see members of the republican movement orchestrating violence, yet, in a short while, they could face the prospect of political representatives of that organisation serving on the Policing Board. For them, that is another reason for lack of confidence about the future and a growing concern about morale in the force.
  I note that this is the second time that we have had to deal in the House with legislation relating to the fact that there are problems with the Belfast agreement. Last Monday, we debated elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are approaching 12 August and the six-week period for the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister is about to run out, so the Government had to come to the House to rush legislation through to deal with that. We are now dealing with another problem, to do with policing.
  If the House were sitting after tomorrow, we would probably deal with other aspects of the agreement too, but all this proves that the agreement is not working as far as the people in Northern Ireland are concerned. Why is it not working? It is because—hon. Members may not like to hear it—the agreement has the support of virtually 100 per cent. of nationalists and republicans, but not of a majority of the Unionist community. That applies to the broad thrust of the agreement and policing reforms, which are a major part of the Belfast agreement and Patten report.
  The Patten report flows inexorably and inevitably from the Belfast agreement. There are attempts among some people inside and outside the House to say that the Patten report took those who supported the agreement by surprise. The reality is that the terms and remit of Patten were set out in the Belfast agreement. Those of us who predicted that the commission set up to look at policing under the agreement would come up with the sort of proposals that Patten did, indeed, come up with were pooh-poohed and told that we were scaremongering. Our position has been vindicated.
  Lembit Öpik: I understand that the Democratic Unionist party is not happy with the agreement as it stands. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could briefly summarise the alternative agreement that he believes would command the support of all sides of the community.
  Mr. Dodds: I am grateful that someone from one of the major parties in the House is prepared to ask that question. It seems that the Government are not interested

  493
  in asking what the alternative is. They were not even prepared to invite the Democratic Unionist party and like-minded Unionists who represent the majority of Unionists in the Province to come to discuss an alternative, so I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is showing an openness of mind and a willingness to listen.
  We are saying clearly that we must find a way forward in Northern Ireland, based on the consent and agreement of both communities in Northern Ireland—not just nationalists but Unionists. We are prepared to sit down and play our part in trying to find a way forward, but it is clear from the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that at present he has a closed mind on that. That was witnessed by the fact that other parties were invited to the talks at Weston Park. The Democratic Unionist party has not been invited to take part in any discussions about an alternative way forward in Northern Ireland—so much for democracy.
  To return to the order, as hon. Members have said, there is a crisis of morale among the membership of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The order adds to the uncertainty about the future of the force and what will happen. There is a question mark about what will happen to the name, the emblems and badges of the RUC.
  What will happen come 1 September? What will happen over the coming months if the agreement is suspended? What will happen to the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? What will happen on the issues of the emblems, badges and so on? It would be useful to hear from the Minister what the position is in relation to that particular aspect of the police legislation.
  Lembit Öpik: I am sorry to detain the House further. I am pleased that the hon. Member feels that I am listening. I am receptive to views from all parties. Having accepted that, can he briefly summarise which proposals would have been put forward by the DUP to prevent us having to discuss the order today?
  Mr. Dodds: Again, I am delighted. Our party will be happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman and other constitutional democratic politicians at any time our proposals on those and a range of other issues, but there is widespread support within the community in Northern Ireland for the Royal Ulster Constabulary as it stands at present. Surveys that have been independently carried out show that the main reason why members of the minority community, the Roman Catholic community, were not joining the RUC was not concern about emblems, badges, names or anything else but fear of intimidation, threats and violence against them and their families. In the last year before the first ceasefire was called by the IRA, almost 25 per cent. of all applicants to the RUC were Roman Catholics. That is an indication of the widespread acceptance of the force.
  The reality is that Patten has got it wrong. The police legislation is not endorsed by the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland. People look, for example, at the issue of police numbers. As has been pointed out, the police are on the streets virtually every night in Belfast and other parts of the Province keeping the peace and maintaining law and order. What is Patten proposing on police numbers? He is proposing that numbers should be
  494
  reduced from 13,000 to 7,500. That proposal has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government and is being implemented, even though we still have a crisis in terms of security, even though we have had some of the worst community violence for many years, even though so-called dissidents still pose a grave threat, in the words of the Chief Constable, to security and peace in Northern Ireland and even though the provisional IRA is still fully armed and intact. The proposal, however, is to reduce the number of police in Northern Ireland.
  Rightly, in England, Scotland and Wales, both the major parties are vying with each other as to who can be the most macho in terms of the police and put more policemen and women on the beat. People in Northern Ireland are simply saying, "Why is it that in Northern Ireland for political expediency police numbers will be reduced?" I plead with the Minister and with hon. Members to have a bit of common sense on policing issues and to respond to what ordinary people on the ground are saying. Keep our police force, keep the Royal Ulster Constabulary and let us move forward, increasing the operational capacity of the police to deal with the problems that we have. The Government should not continue with political tinkering for the sake of appeasing IRA-Sinn Fein.
  As the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) rightly said, many of us believe that Sinn Fein republicans will never be satisfied on the issue anyway. No matter what is done to reform the police, they will still come back for more. It is a disgrace that the police should be used as part of a bartering process.
  Some told us that decommissioning would be the only issue on the agenda at Weston Park. Far from it—it is clear that policing, so-called demilitarisation and keeping the institutions in place were very much part of the agenda. People in Northern Ireland are already deeply concerned about the concessions that have been given on policing. If the Government come back and tell the people of Northern Ireland as part of their package of proposals—incidentally, they have told us that we are not even going to see that, even though we have five hon. Members in the House—that in exchange for another fudge on decommissioning more concessions will be given on policing, that will be resisted very strongly indeed.
  4.38 pm
  John McDonnell: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you have given us a great deal of leeway in the debate on this narrow order and I understand why. Some pertinent points have been made beyond the scope of the order, including the point that was made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about pensions and compensation, which needs to be dealt with urgently.
  The order represents further acceptance, I suppose, that the political process is failing again. The process started with the Good Friday agreement. We had a lengthy debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, but we failed to reach 75 per cent. of the amendments that were tabled to it. A thorough debate on them might have led to greater understanding and could perhaps have obviated the need for today's predicament.
  The order has been presented almost as an emergency measure because of the failure of the political process to resolve matters. It suggests a slide into crisis for the

  495
  six counties. I fear that our last hope is the package that the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister will produce. It is important that all hon. Members, representing all perspectives, receive information on it. Although the House will be in recess, members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and other hon. Members who have consistently taken an interest in Northern Ireland would readily be brought together to discuss the package in detail, use our best offices in the dialogue about it, and perhaps pursue some of its measures to resolve the problems that arise from the gradual erosion of some of the principles of the Belfast agreement.
  We face a three-month recess, and the position could become very dangerous in August and September. We could almost drift into war-like circumstances. If that happens, the House should be recalled for a full debate on the matter. The general populace on this side of the Irish sea do not understand the seriousness of the situation, and it behoves us to come together in August and September to discuss the matter if the package proposed by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister does not resolve the problem of implementing and furthering the Belfast agreement and if the political dispensation that the Good Friday agreement created breaks down. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider that and raise it with the Leader of the House to ascertain the measures that can be put in place to effect that.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: There may not be many occasions when I can happily follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I concur at least with his last point. The Leader of the House and his colleagues should seriously consider recalling Parliament to discuss the package that is being drawn up by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, especially if it includes a requirement to suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly. Hon. Members may wish to comment on that.
  The order is a monument to the intransigence of nationalists and republicans and evidence of the Government's inability to move without their consent. That clearly shows that there is a nationalist veto, although the Government are always happy to go ahead without the support of the Democratic Unionist party, which speaks for the overwhelming majority of the Unionist community on the issues that we are discussing.
  My view is different from that of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I believe that the Patten recommendations were in line with the remit that the Belfast agreement gave the commission. It is clear from the detailed terms of reference in the Belfast agreement that the commission was asked to devise proposals on composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols. The only restriction was that the outcome should enjoy widespread support from the whole community and the police service should be perceived as an integral part of it.
  I challenged the hon. Member for North Down to say whether she was prepared to support the new police service. Both of us were called to order because we were straying wide of the subject of the debate. Of course, the answer is yes. Even though the hon. Lady does not like much of the Patten report, as an elected representative who supports law and order she could do no other than
  496
  say that she supported the new police service despite her anxieties about the way in which it was set up and some of the changes.
  The Patten report has therefore fulfilled the recommendations of the Good Friday agreement because the police force enjoys the support of the community. Even from my point of view, I have to say that people should support the police service, no matter how it is set up. That is the responsible position.
  Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, on 9 September 1999, the day on which the Patten report was published, the Police Federation issued a public statement, which is in the public domain? The federation said that it was
  "happy to welcome much that is in the Patten Report."
  Does the hon. Gentleman wish to comment on that?
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Lady knows that any report that contains hundreds of recommendations is bound to include something good. It would be a terrible travesty if not one of the recommendations was in the interests of the police service. I am content with the commission's recommendations on training and the new IT equipment. They are good for policing in Northern Ireland, but we must make a balanced judgment on the recommendations as a whole.
  As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, as a whole the Patten report was "a shoddy job". The hon. Member for North Down recalls the view of the Police Federation clearly; I am therefore surprised that she cannot remember that of her party leader. The Belfast agreement gave the Patten commission a specific remit. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann did a shoddy job in agreeing to a remit that allowed Patten and his team to introduce such proposals.
  The order reveals something further. It shows that although the Patten proposals and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 made major concessions to nationalism, at the expense of good policing in Northern Ireland, nationalists are still not satisfied. Gaining 90 per cent. or even 99 per cent. of what they want is not enough. They will hold out until they get it all. Nationalists are not prepared to sit on the Policing Board and therefore the order has been introduced to allow the Government more time and the opportunity to make further concessions at the expense of policing.
  The bottom line for ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland is an inferior police service because of Patten and concessions that the Government have yet to make. For example, we are told that the Government will consider whether all police officers, even existing members, should have to take the oath. I remember the Secretary of State telling us that we were not talking about the RUC being disbanded but about policing reforms and a moving on for the police service in Northern Ireland. There could be no clearer signal to policemen in Northern Ireland that the RUC is being disbanded than that they be required to re-take their oath of allegiance. That would be a clear signal to them that a line had been drawn under their past life in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that a fresh and new start was being made with a new police service.
  I hope that the Minister will address that issue, as it is causing major concern in Northern Ireland's police ranks. It would be greatly beneficial to policemen and

  497
  policewomen in Northern Ireland if she could scotch that rumour, which started at the Northern Ireland Office, and say that they will definitely not be asked to re-take the oath to which they attested when they went into the job initially. That should certainly not be another concession to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Like the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), I tabled a question for oral answer on the future of the full-time RUC reserve, to which I am sure both the hon. Gentleman and I have both received a written answer. In reading that answer, I was very concerned that the clear inference was that there is no turning back on the Government's position on the full-time reserve and that they still intend to wipe it out. That message also will cause real concern in the RUC.
  At this very moment in Northern Ireland, full-time RUC reserve men and women are out there protecting our society. Recently, many of them have been injured, in north Belfast, in east Belfast and elsewhere. They are prepared to put themselves on the line without knowing what their future will be. I really think that the Government have to stand by those men and women in the full-time reserve. I have spoken to the Chief Constable, and he recognises the very real contribution that they have to make to policing in Northern Ireland. They are an essential part of the police service in Northern Ireland, and the Government should not have them destroyed on the altar of political expediency.
  I should like finally to address the issue of the police authority itself. The Secretary of State is required by law to appoint, so far as he can, a police authority that is representative of the community as a whole. That is a legal requirement on the Secretary of State. Repeatedly, however, he has refused to appoint members of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party despite the fact that they belong to one of the four major parties in Northern Ireland. He has appointed representatives of the Alliance party—the 2 per cent. party in Northern Ireland—to the authority, but he has excluded from it a party that is able to obtain 22 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland.
  Those people are willing to serve their community on the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, with all the risks that that entails in a society such as Northern Ireland, but the Secretary of State is not prepared to appoint them because they do not share his political views. That is contrary to the legal requirement that has been placed on him. If for a further time we remain with the Police Authority for Northern Ireland rather than going to the Policing Board, as envisaged in the recently passed Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, there will remain on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a duty to ensure that that board is representative of the community as a whole. He cannot fulfil that legal duty unless he appoints representatives from the Democratic Unionist party to the board.
  4.52 pm
  David Burnside: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), may I ask the Minister to comment on the position of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's full-time and, potentially, part-time reserve? Currently, 43 per cent. of constables in west Belfast are full-time reserves, and
  498
  25 per cent. of mobile support units in Northern Ireland are full-time reserves. Surely it is a dereliction of duty for the Government to wind down the full-time reserve and the RUC's operational capability at a time when the Provisional IRA—I stress the Provisional IRA, not Real or Continuity IRA—is engaged in procuring arms from continental Europe and the United States of America to re-arm. As the Minister should know, the IRA army council includes Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein; Martin McGuinness, current Minister of Education at the devolved Administration at Stormont; and Pat Doherty. They are procuring arms illegally from continental Europe. How can the Minister preside over the running down of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's manpower and its reserve when crime and the threat of terrorism are increasing? I ask for the Minister's reply.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: It is interesting to ponder just for a moment the provenance of this order. The Minister slightly glossed over why the order is here and where it came from. There are some clues, of course, even in the instrument itself. It says:
  "Whereas it has been made to appear to Her Majesty that by reason of urgency this Order requires to be made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
  So there was some urgency, and we have been given a hint as to why. It states on the Order Paper that the motion has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The motion was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments this morning; I am grateful to its members for calling an extraordinary meeting.
  Mr. Forth: That is extremely helpful. It shows how flexible the House is that even between the printing of the Order Paper and today's debate we can have such an immediate response from the Joint Committee, which no doubt deliberated seriously and considered the matter closely. That leads one to ponder what scope there is for the House, either in full session, as we are now, or through the medium of the Joint Committee, for example, to consider an instrument of this kind given that it has emanated from no less a source than the Court at Buckingham palace.
  We must not take our constitutional role in any way for granted. I shall leave aside for the moment, as you would not want me to digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we might some day consider how far the House has any proper role to play in matters such as this. Northern Ireland is obviously a serious and sensitive subject and matters such as this, which the Government consider to be urgent, cannot be treated lightly—nor can Orders in Council emanating from the Court at Buckingham palace be dealt with lightly.
  Having said that, and given the speedy response of the Joint Committee and the fact that we are now considering the matter, one is left wondering just what scope there is for proper consideration or indeed flexibility. Although the Minister, quite properly, made some little play on the fact that the Government's generosity was allowing us the affirmative resolution procedure, you know, Mr. Deputy

  499
  Speaker, I know and everyone here knows that although those procedures look as though they are providing an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, they cannot be amended, so they are basically a take it or leave it job. I shall not use this opportunity to complain about that, except to note that we are left without the powers that the House of Commons would normally expect to have.
  Presumably, when the Joint Committee sat in all solemnity this very morning and gave the matter its consideration, it was in the same difficult position. Perhaps some day we might return to this lacuna in our procedures.
  I ask the Minister for some guidance. I am being tentative because I have rarely if ever sought to involve myself in Northern Ireland matters: I am conscious of the fact that those of us who have an imperfect understanding of such matters tread on the ground at our peril. However, I was slightly worried by the exemption of the need to issue individual firearms certificates to trainee police officers.
  If I understood the Minister correctly when she said, very properly but rather briefly, that the measure would be of practical value and would bring the Northern Ireland force into line with those on the mainland, I was left wondering whether the argument was that trainee police officers would have no requirement to, and would not even be allowed to, use firearms during their training, or whether it was deemed acceptable that the safeguard of issuing individual firearms certificates and all that goes with it was now to be put to one side and a bulk certificate issued.
  As a lay person in these matters, that would give me pause for thought, given the sensitivities about firearms generally. Tragically, there have been recent incidents involving the use of firearms by the police, so our mind should be concentrated on the issue, be it in Northern Ireland or on the mainland. Any measure to alter the arrangements for giving police trainees access to firearms should be considered very carefully.
  Are we saying that police trainees are not required to be trained in the use of firearms, or that the existing safeguard of issuing individual licences is no longer necessary? That would worry me, because there must have been a long-standing presumption, which I share, that we should do everything that we can to be satisfied of the suitability of an individual to have access to a firearm, even in the context of all the disciplines of police training.
  I am all in favour of proper measures to make all our police forces as effective as possible, but given the current environment, not only in Northern Ireland but here in London, and the anxieties that have arisen in the light of recent events, we should all show even greater sensitivity than usual.
  I am sure that the motion will be approved, but we must not allow such procedures to happen too often. I would not want the Government to think that all they need to do is to come up with something that emanates from Buckingham palace, say how important it is, convene a meeting of the Joint Committee, have it nodded through and then put it before the House the day before we leave for the summer recess, reassuring Members that everything had been done properly.
  Everything may have been done properly in a strict technical sense, and I am sure that the Minister is about to reassure us in her usual silken way that all is well and
  500
  that we can go off on the recess without giving it another thought, but I want to put down a marker to say that this should not happen too often. We should not feel that this can become standard procedure. Let us always be aware that matters of such sensitivity and importance must be properly scrutinised.
  In the normal course of events, I hope that such a measure would be allowed more time and that the plea of urgency would never be used to evade proper scrutiny. The presence of the Secretary of State and the Minister, with all their integrity, reassures me that that is not the case, but I want to make the point that this should be treated as an exception, not a rule.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I apologise for not having been here for the opening speeches, because of the collapse of the earlier debate.
  We are having this debate because the Government are unable to proceed in establishing the new Policing Board, the nationalist parties, and the SDLP in particular, having failed to give the board their support. It is interesting that none of the SDLP's representatives is here to explain why the SDLP is not prepared to support it.
  It is fairly clear to observers of such matters that the SDLP has not yet obtained enough concessions from the Government on policing to bring it to the point where it is prepared to support the board. That is most unfortunate, because we need all the political parties in Northern Ireland that have signed up to the democratic process to support the forces of law and order. It is regrettable that one side of the community has so far refused to support policing structures designed specifically to win its support.
  Unionists have encountered many difficulties with the proposals on policing that emanated from the Patten report, as the Secretary of State knows. The Government need to be careful if they are minded to make further concessions to the nationalist community, and especially to the SDLP, to win its support for the new policing arrangements and for the membership of the new Policing Board. The effect of those concessions could be to undermine further the Unionist community's confidence in the new policing structures and arrangements so that we would find it difficult to embrace the changes. We already have significant difficulties, as the Secretary of State will be aware.
  The uncertainty that arises from the refusal of the SDLP to back the new policing arrangements has had an enormous impact on the RUC's morale. Every day, my colleagues and I receive correspondence and telephone calls from police officers who see their position constantly being undermined. In particular, the full-time reserve members do not know what their future is. They hear rumours and read stories in the newspapers, but their future is being negotiated behind their backs, in secret.
  I met the Chief Constable earlier this week. He told me that because of the pressures on his resources he cannot do without the full-time reserve. If we took the full-time reserve out of the equation in the near future, as the SDLP would like, the police could not cope with the present unrest in Northern Ireland, the increasing crime on our streets and the remaining terrorist threat posed by all the paramilitary organisations. I urge the Secretary of State, when he considers how he can win the support of the

  501
  SDLP for the policing arrangements and the new Policing Board, to be careful not to leave the Chief Constable without the resources to respond to the security threat and the levels of violence on the streets. In that respect, we need the full-time reserve and officers on the streets. My colleagues and I find that the police are unable to cope with the level of crime.
  Patrick Mercer: Surely the most eloquent argument on police numbers is that when there has been a flash of violence, of any size or type, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), the RUC has had to be reinforced with soldiers from the British Army. To my certain knowledge, a policy has been in place in Ulster for the past 10 years for the British Army to step further and further back and for the RUC to move forward. If troops are deployed almost at the first sign of serious violence, it suggests that police numbers are woefully inadequate.
  Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is right, and during the talks last week I asked SDLP members whether they wanted the Parachute Regiment drafted into Ardoyne to deal with the riots. More than 100 police officers were injured, some of them seriously, in the riots in Ardoyne. In an earlier riot on the Garvaghy road in Portadown, more than 50 officers were seriously injured. Those injuries occurred because officers were in close-quarters contact with rioters. The rioters were able to get up close to the officers and inflict serious injury. That happened because of the concern in the police command structure that if they fired plastic bullets early in a riot, the police ombudsman would be on their case.
  Plastic bullets are being fired only as a last resort, and after many officers have been seriously injured. That needs to be looked at carefully by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I and my colleagues reject yesterday's unrealistic call from the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for the withdrawal of plastic bullets. Police officers must be able to defend themselves and the communities that they serve from horrific attacks. Plastic bullets are important in that respect.
  I was pleased with what the Chief Constable said yesterday. I hope that the Secretary of State will back up the RUC in regard to the need to retain plastic bullets. I wish that we did not have riots in which plastic bullets had to be deployed, but we have, and the Secretary of State must resist calls to withdraw those bullets from use.
  The Secretary of State must resist the other, unreasonable demands made by nationalists for further reductions in police numbers, especially in the full-time reserve. We need those police officers on the streets of Northern Ireland to deal with crime and riots. They need our support. The present uncertainty must be brought to an end.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will put the needs and security of the people of Northern Ireland before political expediency, and that he will not make concessions—to the SDLP and others—that would undermine the RUC's operational capacity to provide effective policing on the streets of Northern Ireland. That is crucial.
  502
  In addition, I hope that the Secretary of State will not make concessions at this critical time: to do so would further undermine the morale of the RUC and the confidence in the policing arrangements that is felt by people in the Unionist community.
  My party supports the forces of law and order, but we are very concerned about what is happening. The issue of illegal arms held by terrorist organisations is crucial, and we want it to be resolved, but the issue of policing is equally important to us. We will watch carefully to see what the Government do. The Secretary of State should not expect for one moment that we will simply roll over and accept whatever arrangements and concessions he makes with regard to the SDLP and others.
  5.12 pm
  Jane Kennedy: First, I should like to address some comments to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and to the Opposition, who agreed to the meeting that took place this morning, and who allowed us to have this debate.
  The process is already well under way to bring the first new trainees into the police service this autumn. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 provides for their terms and conditions to be set out in regulations. It also provides for the Policing Board to be consulted on the regulations. I understand why some hon. Members missed my opening remarks, but I said then that the board will not be in place in sufficient time for the necessary consultation to take place. The order amends the 2000 Act to enable the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to fulfil the consultation role and any of the board's functions under the regulations until the board is established.
  In addition, the order provides for trainees to receive firearms training without the administrative burden of issuing them, individually, with firearms certificates. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) both asked serious questions about these issues.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made a speech—the elegance of which was second only to the sartorial elegance displayed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—in which he asked whether the order would bring the training of police officers in Northern Ireland into line with training in England and Wales. I can tell him that police trainees in forces in Great Britain are also exempt from the need to have firearms certificates.
  Mr. Forth: Is it sufficient simply to say that, because something is done on the mainland, it is okay for Northern Ireland? I ask that in the obvious context that, although Northern Ireland is rightly an integral part of the United Kingdom, we all recognise that conditions there vary in many crucial ways, as the Minister knows better than me. I ask also in light of the recent incidents involving the police and firearms. Against that background, are the Minister and Secretary of State happy that this is the time to do away with an administrative burden that may provide safeguards of the kind that people want?
  Jane Kennedy: Let me try to reassure the right hon. Gentleman. Police trainees will not be issued with a

  503
  service firearm until they have been trained in its safe handling and use, including public safety aspects. The recruitment process is such that suitability is tested in terms of firearms and all other aspects of policing. I take a great interest in this matter, given the tragic shooting in my constituency last Thursday night.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister confirm whether the arrangements are actually changing in Northern Ireland?
  Jane Kennedy: The current arrangements will continue.
  A number of arguments have been advanced. The order is concerned with the provisions on 50:50 recruitment and the regulations on flags and emblems, which have to be laid in Parliament before they take effect. I knew that this matter was bound to raise many of the questions that were debated at length in the House during the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about the Police Federation's concerns about pension and other arrangements. These concerns are being addressed and discussions are on-going. We are listening carefully to the representations of the federation.
  Members have referred to 50:50 recruitment. Undoubtedly, intimidation is an important factor. We all want it to end immediately and we condemn it unreservedly, but there are other factors. They include, for example, a lack of identity with the RUC; a fear of loss of contact with family, friends and community; and a lack of encouragement from community leaders, which also plays a part. The Government urge all political, religious and community bodies to remove barriers to those wishing to join the police. It is important to remember and place on record that only 8 per cent. of the current police force is drawn from the Catholic community.
  Mr. Donaldson: Why?
  Jane Kennedy: I have explained some of the factors that affect recruitment. There has been a good cross-community response to recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland under the new 50:50 provisions. I am not ideologically opposed to such provisions. In fact, I believe that, on occasion, it is necessary actively to seek to recruit from sections of the community that are not otherwise represented, particularly in such an important public service as the police.
  The Government aim to develop a modern police service that is both effective and representative of the community that it serves, and commands the widespread confidence and support that it needs to be able to operate properly. Members made the point that the community within which the police will operate must support police officers in carrying out their duties. It is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the police service to have that representative service in place.
  The hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and others referred to the talks and to policing. I restate the Government's position.
  504
  We are committed to implementing the Patten report and we are always prepared to consider matters when parties argue that we have not done enough.
  Mr. John Taylor: I repeat a question that I asked the Minister earlier. Is it not the case that the Patten report was a prescription for policing in Northern Ireland once all aspects of the Belfast agreement had been fulfilled?
  Jane Kennedy: No, I do not accept that. The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland himself said that the vast bulk of the Patten recommendations were about "good and effective policing." The Government and the police are keen to move forward to introduce such modern effective policing in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I will not deal with funds as we dealt with them yesterday in oral questions. I refer hon. Members to the comments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I made then. I have no intention of adding to them today.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) raised concerns about Democratic Unionist party membership on the police authority, and other hon. Members raised their involvement in the Weston Park talks. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have met the DUP regularly throughout the process. Indeed, I believe that the Secretary of State will meet the hon. Gentleman's party again soon. The talks at Weston Park were aimed at resolving difficulties and implementing the few remaining aspects of the agreement. Consequently, it was natural that those parties that backed the agreement should be invited.
  Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jane Kennedy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way as I have only two minutes left. I will certainly discuss the matter with him afterwards.
  I will not touch on the many questions about other issues that we may deal with in implementing the reforms to the police force in Northern Ireland, because they are not subject to the order.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the order was an acceptance that the peace process was failing. That is not the case and I hope that he will not use that interpretation. He missed my opening comments, in which I said that, in spite of the Government's considerable efforts to bring about the necessary agreement on the outstanding policing issues, it has not been possible to establish the Policing Board, which we regret.
  I have warm words for the full-time reserve. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to morale in policing, yet he then came out with the unfounded and inaccurate comment that the full-time reserve will be wiped out. The position is as I set it out yesterday. It will be phased out, but only when—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will care to listen to this. It will be phased out only when the prevailing security situation and policing requirements permit. Those will be reviewed in the spring.
  I acknowledge that I have not been able to deal with all the points raised, but I hope that the House will accept the order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001 No. 2513), dated 18th July 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): We now come to the business motion. The Question is as on the Order paper.
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the motion on deferred Divisions. The Question is as on the Order Paper.
  Hon. Members: Aye.

  Business of the House
  5.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I beg to move,
  That, at this day's sitting—

  (1) the Motions standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection may be made notwithstanding paragraph (2)(a) of Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees);

  (2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion relating to the membership of Select Committees not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such motion, and such Questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then he moved;

  (3) the Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed. after Seven o'clock; and

  (4) Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply and the Order [28th June] relating to Deferred divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a Question is challenged in respect of any proceedings on the Motions.

  I apologise for my eagerness a moment ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall briefly outline the purpose of the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. In effect, the House is being asked to approve the timing of today's debates on appointments to Select Committees.
  The motion sets aside paragraph 2(a) of Standing Order No. 121, which provides that motions proposing nomination to departmental Select Committees must have at least two days' notice. Normally, that provision makes perfect sense and works to the advantage of the House as it prevents it from being bounced into nominations and ensures that hon. Members have opportunities to propose amendments. However, if we did not set it aside today, we would be unable, prior to the House rising tomorrow for the recess, to set up the Select Committees in question and make the other changes identified by the Committee of Selection.
  I hope that the House will agree that in those circumstances it is right to consider the new proposals from the Committee of Selection before we rise for the summer. We are allowing up to 90 minutes to debate the appointments to the Select Committees. As I stated earlier in the week, previous Parliaments were only ever given one and a half hours to discuss the appointments to all the Select Committees.
  A number of hon. Members wish to speak to the main motion and I hope that we can move on to it promptly.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Agreed.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: That is all very well. The Minister said 90 minutes. He probably thought that that sounded longer than an hour and a half. Here we are yet again being subjected unnecessarily to an arbitrary limitation on time. After all, we are all in relaxed mood. We are about to be off for almost three months. There is no hurry whatever. It is Thursday evening. Looking around the Chamber, I see colleagues smiling

  507
  and anticipating their buckets and spades. So what is the rush? Why do the Government feel it necessary yet again to impose an arbitrary time limit of 90 minutes on an important debate?
  I judge from the number of hon. Members present that there is going to be quite a lot to be said in that 90 minutes, so I have no intention of detaining the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, with encouragement, I could detain the House, but on this occasion I judge that colleagues are ready to get on to the substance of the debate, as indeed am I. I have a few observations to make on one or two of the proposed Committee memberships. I am absolutely determined that we will not let these matters slide by and allow the Government to impose arbitrary time limits on debates without some protest.
  The Government cannot possibly know whether the House is satisfied that 90 minutes to debate the matters before us is remotely sufficient. We shall have to cover such matters as the proposed membership and probe why some of the changes are being made. I want to say a few words about the changes to Committees and the mechanisms whereby they are agreed, or not agreed as the case may be. I have other queries about the membership of other Committees. There is a lot of substance here. It is not a matter that will be skated over lightly. It is not a matter that we will deal with on the nod. It is something that we want to probe, question and query. Whether the House will want to vote on the memberships of individual Committees is something that we will ponder as the debate unwinds. Ninety minutes will almost certainly not be adequate so I record that fact yet again.
  Question put and agreed to

  Select Committees
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Janet Anderson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Tony Cunningham, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Mr. Simon Thomas and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Catering Committee.—[Ms Karen Buck, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to debate motions 7 to 17.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: Well, here we are giving mature consideration to a matter that has caused considerable controversy. This is an opportunity for the House to think again about how we have arrived at this position. We have arrived at it, have we not, because the House woke up rather late in the day to the fact that the way in which proposals were made to us for the membership and chairmanship of Select Committees was less than satisfactory. The reason for that is that, for as long as anyone can remember, and in probably all the political parties, the composition of Select Committees has been dealt with by a process of hon. Members going to the Whips and saying, "Please may I be on this Committee?"
  The Whips then deliberate in their mysterious and sinister way on whether hon. Members should be pleased or not. Then, worse than all of that, the usual channels—the Whips and the so-called party managers on each side of the House—come together and divvy up the membership of Committees. That is all bearing in mind, of course, that every Select Committee must have a clear majority of Government Members. That is the absurdity. That of course sets the whole tone and gives the whole flavour, and was all thought to be very satisfactory—was it not? It meant that the Whips and the party managers were able to please certain Members by giving them a Select Committee position and to punish others by withholding such a position. It is from that situation that the discontent that we have seen in the House recently has arisen.
  The point that worries me even more than that, and where there may even be a slight departure from integrity, is that we are in danger of accepting that a similar mechanism is at work in the allocation of Committee chairmanships. This whole problem arose in relation to chairmanships, although it has now spilled over into the membership of the Committees. The irony is that we are, I suspect, being asked to sanction the position we would have been in had the whole mechanism not worked to the disadvantage of certain Members: we are about to be asked to sanction, or agree to, the carve-up of Select Committee chairmanships in the same way as we were asked to do for the Committee memberships.
  I simply put the question—the next 90 minutes will, I suspect, he the only opportunity for us to do so—are we, as the House of Commons, now satisfied, first, that Select Committee chairmanships should be allocated arbitrarily between Government and Opposition Members and, secondly, that Select Committee members should be expected to accept that as a given? Are they to be told by their respective Whips and the usual channels, "This is the person that we have decided will chair your Committee"?
  David Winnick: When did the right hon. Gentleman become so passionate about this issue?

  509
  On 13 July 1992, when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was sacked—when he was not reappointed to the Select Committee on Health—there was a Division on the issue. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the time, but presumably he did not feel so passionately about the issue as to resign and vote with those of us who thought that the then Government's decision was wrong.
  Mr. Forth: That is true. When the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government, as I am sure he will be shortly when his talents are recognised by the Prime Minister, he knows that he will have to face the same dilemma—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I plead guilty to the fact that I was not prepared to forsake a modest—indeed, a minuscule—ministerial career for the principle that now advocate. I plead guilty to that. I further plead guilty to the fact that, yes, my view of the world, of the universe, of the House of Commons and of my role has changed since 1992. That may come as a revelation to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he is a bit slower on the uptake than most of us. However, I remind him that as I have had the privilege and the pleasure of four years in opposition, of which I have enjoyed every minute, and that as I propose to continue enjoying it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] —for the next four years, under whichever leader we choose, I see the matter differently. I make no secret of that, nor do I make any apology for it.
  I point out to the House that this will be the only opportunity, possibly for four or five years, for us as a House to express how we feel about the mechanism for deciding, first, who are the members of Select Committees and secondly, and of equal importance, who will chair those Committees. If hon. Members think that they won a great victory during the past two or three days I shall not burst their balloon, but I suggest that we are still sleepwalking through the system. By and large, we accept the system. although in a moment or two I shall have a word to say about the International Development Select Committee which has, rather bizarrely, been an exception to it. In general, it appears that the House and Members are prepared to accept the proposition that the Whips in each party will decide who shall be the Chairman of each Select Committee.
  Ann Clwyd: The right hon. Gentleman and I have known one another for a long time. He was always passionate about things in the European Parliament and has continued to be passionate in this place. I think that we are in agreement that the chairmanship of Select Committees is a matter for the Committees themselves: it is not for the Whips or for the parties to decide between them who should be the Chair of a Select Committee. The rules on Select Committees state clearly that the Committees themselves should choose the Chairman—not a named Chairman, but a Chairman from among the Committee's members. In the debate earlier in the week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that he wants that to happen. That is one reason why the International Development Committee failed to agree on who should be its Chairman.
  Mr. Forth: That may or may not be the case, and I shall come to that Committee in a moment.
  510
  I want to make a challenge to hon. Members, and I speak as someone who is not a member of a Select Committee, so I have no interest in this matter at all. Although the hon. Lady and I would like the Committees to elect their Chairmen, I hesitate on that point, and I suspect that what I am about to say may lie behind the view of the Leader of the House. As long as the Government have a clear majority of members on Select Committees, the hon. Lady might understand a slight reticence on the part of Opposition Members about freeing up the whole system, as she and I would like, and letting a thousand chairmanships bloom, with Committees able to make their selection. Would there be any protection for Opposition Members in those circumstances? That, I predict, will be the reply from Ministers. The Leader of the House will say that the carve-up that occurs gives protection to Opposition Members.
  Ms Diane Abbott: I do not want to prolong the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I must point out that there is a difference between an agreement between the Whips on the principle that certain Committees will have a Chairman from an Opposition party and an agreement between the Whips on a named person. It is the latter that is wrong and objectionable, and the Whips have increasingly been pushing for such agreements in the last two Sessions.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That may well be a solution, or at least a partial solution, that we should all consider. It would make a lot of sense to me if Committees were given, perhaps not total choice, but at least a degree of choice. The system could allow the chairmanship of certain Committees to be at the disposal of Opposition Members.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing not the Chairmen but the membership of Committees?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will say no more about chairmanships per se. I simply believed that the subject flowed naturally from the substance of the membership of the Committees that we are being asked to consider.
  I sense that other Members want to speak—I hope that they do—and I do not want to prevent that, although hon. Members know that I am capable of speaking at length, if I want to. I trust, however, that others want to make a contribution, and this is the opportunity to do so.
  I want to say a few words about the membership of the International Development Committee. We will have to return to the issue on another occasion and at greater length. I suspect that some rather disgraceful things have taken place, and I am sad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is to be discharged from the Committee, to be replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I suspect that the reasons for that discharge are pretty seedy and will not bear close examination because I do not think that they will reflect any credit on the Whips, the party managers or, I regret to say, the members of that Committee.
  I do not want to air the subject now, but I want to state on the record that what occurred in that Committee was regrettable and unfortunate. I hope that some of the

  511
  Members involved feel ashamed of themselves. I am not sure that it is any sort of guide as to how selection should happen. Those events give occasion for hesitation about whether we should completely free up the system.
  Many issues arise from the motions. I had intended to ask about the to-ings and fro-ings on the Modernisation, Procedure and Public Accounts Committees, but I will leave it to others to do that, if they believe that important issues are involved. Suffice it to say, this is the opportunity for Members to make their points about the membership of Committees. This is the opportunity for the House to express and reinforce its view, not only to the Leader of the House but to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, because it affects all of them equally. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take that opportunity because it may not arise again for quite some time.
  5.40 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I am in full agreement with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on at least one thing—he can continue to enjoy being in opposition. I assure him that all Labour Members will work to ensure that that continues for as long as possible.
  The right hon. Gentleman's observations as a tribune of the people, standing up to the forces of authority and the Whips, would have more moral force if there were evidence that he had done that when he sat on the Government Benches. He may wave his hand dismissively, but that is absolutely the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) referred to the vote in July 1992 when the Government removed the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health. At that time, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was certainly not sleepwalking because he walked through the Division Lobby to vote him off the Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman has made a clear and commendably frank admission that the Conservative Government did not allow a genuinely free vote on a House of Commons matter. We allowed a free vote on Monday and are here again today because we have acted to put into place the will of the House, which they tried to frustrate when in office.
  David Winnick: Is there not another aspect to consider? Not only have the Government rightly accepted Monday's decision, but the Modernisation Committee, as my right hon. Friend confirmed in business questions, is rightly examining the way in which we appoint hon. Members to Select Committees. The current system is unsatisfactory. The Tory Government refused to budge on the issue, as they did on so many others while they were in office.
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to agree that the Modernisation Committee has met and considered the matter. I shall return to that topic before I conclude because it is right that the House knows what we intend the timetable to be.
  I hope that this debate will prove less controversial than Monday's debate. The motion on the Order Paper puts my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich
  512
  (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) on the Foreign Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) intervened on me on Monday to ask whether it would be possible for the timetable for those appointments to be made before the House rises for the recess. I agreed that it would be, but that time was tight. I am pleased that this debate allows us to fulfil that commitment and deliver what we agreed on Monday.
  We have also taken the opportunity to bring before the House the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee so that that last departmental Select Committee will be approved before we rise. If the House approves the names, there are contingency plans for all three Committees to meet shortly after the debate to choose a Chairman and work out a programme. We have set up the Select Committees within four weeks of the Queen's Speech, which is in record time. That beats even our previous record of doing it within two months in 1997 and is way ahead of the five months that the Conservative Government took in 1987.
  Over the past week, things have been said about the Whips Office which have not been unmingled pleasure and flattery. I want to balance that. People worked very hard to ensure that the names were brought before the House on Monday and, as a consequence of the vote then, presented today. We should recognise the effort that went into that. The Whips have ensured that 350 places have been filled from a possible 500 candidates. That is not a bad achievement within a space of a week and a half.
  On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, the Modernisation Committee is one of the Committees that has met since Monday. It may help the House if I outline how we intend to proceed. We decided at our meeting on Wednesday that our first priority would be to produce a report on the working of the Select Committees. I would expect that report to be comprehensive and to consider the many recommendations made in the previous Parliament by the Liaison Committee, as well as those that we have received from bodies outside the House.
  There are several issues to consider—for example, the proposal that the Liaison Committee repeatedly made in the previous Parliament to hold a half-hour debate on matters of topical interest suggested by the Select Committees immediately after Question Time once a week. Another contentious suggestion—I heard voices against it on Monday and since then—is the Liaison Committee's proposal to introduce a salary structure for the Chairmen of Select Committees. The Modernisation Committee should examine that matter and report back to the House.
  Another matter, which is recognised universally on both sides of the House, is the presentation and style of Select Committee reports. Leaving aside the excellence and the exciting nature of the contents of those reports, their presentation does not necessarily convey that excitement in an attractive style and format. The reports appear to predate the invention of graphics and colour printing. We should address those issues if we want to ensure that the House exercises its powers of scrutiny in a way that connects with the public and that they find attractive and inviting.

  513
  We have resolved that, to take forward that study, we will take evidence from the members of the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament; from those who served on the Norton commission, set up by the Opposition; and from those involved in the Hansard Society's recent report. Any report in which all those issues are considered in the round will necessarily take rather longer than is desirable to address the process of appointing Members to Select Committees. That is why it is important that we respond urgently to the need for a report on the nomination process to Select Committees. That is urgent because, in the autumn, we shall be faced with the need to fill vacancies as they arise on Select Committees.
  I understand that it must be the will of the House to try to have in place a new system before such vacancies arise and before the House is asked to fill them. That is why the Modernisation Committee has already resolved to meet in September to discuss the issue. This depends on the agreement of the Committee, but I hope that it will be possible to bring a report on nominating Members to vacancies on Select Committees before the House shortly after we return from the recess.
  Last month, we were faced with a choice—whether we sought to set up the Select Committees by the recess, or whether we first sought to lever into place a new nominations system for Select Committees. If we had done the latter, we should have been unable to proceed with the nominations for the Select Committees until well into the autumn and, possibly, not until November.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I accept the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will agree that if towards the end of the previous Parliament better recognition had been given to the growing disquiet about the Select Committee selection systems and the opportunities that were presented—only in Opposition time—to debate such issues had been taken, we could have made progress before the general election, which would have prevented the events that have taken place from occurring.
  Mr. Cook: It is always the case that if decisions had been taken beforehand, one would not be faced with the need to take them afterwards. Starting from where we began after the election, we faced the choice that I have mentioned. It is always very nice to think that we can press the fast-rewind button and have a different set of choices, but that option was not available to us.
  The Government are entitled to be given credit for meeting the timetable of setting up the Select Committees by the recess. Since Monday, 26 Select Committees have met and have started the process of appointing a Chairman and choosing a work programme. After this debate, a further three will have met, so by the recess, 29 separate Select Committees will have begun scrutinising the Government.
  I entirely accept, however, that the message of the past few days is that this is not a time for the Government, having set up the Select Committees, to rest on their oars. We now must apply the same urgency that we put into setting up the Select Committees to the task of implementing a fair system of nomination to them. That
  514
  is why I give an undertaking that we will work through the recess and immediately when the House returns in the hope that, by autumn, before there are vacancies on Select Committees, we have implemented a new system that is accepted as transparent, seen by all Members as fair and ensures that this Chamber has the final say in appointments.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am delighted that the House is faced with another set of Government motions that cover substantially the points raised in debate and by the results of the votes on Monday. It is fortunate, to say the least, that we have had three opportunities in a fortnight to address the fundamental question of how the House can best hold the Government to account. We welcome the change of heart on nominations to the Select Committees on Transport, Local Government and the Regions and on Foreign Affairs. We shall support those motions unreservedly.
  However, it would be a mistake to suppose that all the problems have been solved and all the difficulties relieved simply by returning to the subject today. I was pleased to hear renewed assurances from the Leader of the House that the processes of examination and reform will go ahead speedily. I say again to him that the House has debated some clear proposals that would go some way to resolving the problems. I hope that the Modernisation Committee, on which I happily serve, will make proposals that will satisfy the demands of the House.
  There are even doubts and reservations among Members about some of today's nominations. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to the International Development Committee. Some of us have concerns about the change in its membership and the implication that another Member is to be imposed on it in sequence. Whatever the ins and outs, the appointment has been disputed and difficult. It is to be regretted that revised procedures for nominations will not be established before the Committee appoints a Chairman. The Leader of the House will be well aware, too, of the difficulties over the Information Committee, which was reduced to appointing what it described as a temporary Chairman until October, while difficulties are resolved.
  There is no doubt, therefore, that reform must be pursued vigorously. Nevertheless, on balance it is our view that the motions should be supported because it is of fundamental importance that the Committees be up and functioning in some form or another, even if subsequently they must be reviewed and reformed.
  5.53 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Enoch Powell once said to me that gratitude is a commodity in short supply in politics, and never were truer words spoken. The House owes a debt to the Leader of the House because he has responded with alacrity. He took what could have been interpreted as a defeat on Monday with charm and graciousness, and he has honoured his promise, which augurs well for his time as Leader of the House. I for one am grateful to him, as I hope are Members of all parties.
  It is essential that if the Modernisation Committee is considering the payment of sums of money to Chairmen of Select Committees, those Chairmen are not appointed

  515
  or imposed on Committees by the Whips. It would be wrong if that became another example of patronage. In fact, it would destroy the good effect of the move. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind, and in doing so, to recognise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made one very good point.
  Mr. Forth: Only one?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Well, I am always a little careful about what I say about my right hon. Friend, for fear of encouraging him to say more. However, he made one very good point, about the appointment of Chairmen, which was taken up and amplified by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) —
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made the point that we are discussing the membership of Select Committees, not the chairmanship.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: All right, Madam Deputy Speaker; of course I accept your strictures. I urge the Leader of the House to bear those points in rnind and thank him again for what he has done; I hope that we shall see some good proposals early in the autumn.
  5.56 pm
  Ann Clwyd: As a member of the International Development Committee, I should make the situation concerning membership clear. Obviously we accept that the Committee has been allocated to the Opposition, but perhaps we would have liked some discussion of the allocation of various Committees. I hope that in future there will not be a status quo, and there will be more movement in party ownership of particular Select Committees. In this case, the argument is not about who should have the ownership of the Committee; we accept that it is from the Conservative Members allocated to that Committee that we choose a Chairman. We have had two meetings: yesterday the group was split, five Members against five, and again today, so there is obviously deadlock. It is good for Committees to have the opportunity to question candidates for the chairmanship closely, as we did yesterday.
  Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Lady aware of such a process in any other Committee? Did the Modernisation Committee, for example, quiz the Leader of the House closely on his credentials for taking an even-handed approach to the so-called modernisation of the House? I am puzzled why that process has taken place in only one Committee, as far as I know. Can the hon. Lady explain why it should happen in the International Development Committee and not, apparently, in any other Committee?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind all hon. Members that we are discussing the membership of Committees. Could they please confine their remarks to that?
  Ann Clwyd: Thank you for putting us back on track, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall keep closely to the path that you have outlined.
  516
  The International Development Committee deals with developing countries, and subjects such as the position of women in those countries, and poverty. The Chairman meets many people throughout the world. It is important that the Committee, on which I have served from the start, should have faith in the person who is going to become Chairman; the membership should therefore be able to decide who should hold that position. I do not want to go over the subject again, but there should not be strong intimations about who the Committee should support. The Select Committee rules say —
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must bring the hon. Lady to order. As I have said before, we are discussing the membership of the Committee; we are not here to debate who should chair it.
  Ann Clwyd: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The role of Committee members is important. People who have served on a Select Committee for a number of years should be considered as candidates over and above people who are parachuted in because the Whips have decided who should take the chair. That is why I object to the way things are being done. The Leader of the House has made it clear that he intends to reform all that.
  I think that we were all pleased that the Select Committees got under way very early, but perhaps on reflection we should not have put pressure on our Whips to set up the Committees before the beginning of the recess. On reflection, that was a mistake. We should have had more time to ponder the matter.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my hon. Friend saying that the list of members of Select Committees usually has one member who has been put in, parachuted in or whatever, and that the process of compiling the membership of a Select Committee needs some attention?
  Ann Clwyd: Yes, I am.
  I shall now wrap up my speech, my hon. Friends will be pleased to know. The matter needs a lot more reflection. There should be more transparency. We want to know why some people get on Select Committees and others do not, and why some people who have served on Select Committees are taken off and not given a reason why. I support the proposal by the Leader of the House to make the membership of Select Committees much more transparent in future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Janet Anderson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Tony Cunningham, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Mr. Simon Thomas and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Catering Committee.

  COMMITTEES
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 7 and 8.

  517
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
    That Mr. Bill Olner be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Mr. Austin Mitchell be added to the Committee.
    FOREIGN AFFAIRS
    That Donald Anderson, Mr. David Chidgey, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Eric Illsley, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. John Maples, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Greg Pope, Sir John Stanley and Ms Gisela Stuart be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. —[Ms Karen Buck, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That Mr. Edward Leigh be discharged from the International Development Committee, and Tony Baldry be added to the Committee. —[Ms Karen Buck, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 55.

  Division No. 37]

  [6.2 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Caton, Martin

  Ainger, Nick

  Challen, Colin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Allen, Graham

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Austin, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Barker, Greg

  Barrett, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Barron, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Colman, Tony

  Beggs, Roy

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Benn, Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Berry, Roger

  Cruddas, Jon

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Boswell, Tim

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  David, Wayne

  Brady, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Brooke, Annette

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Browne, Desmond

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bryant, Chris

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burnham, Andy

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burns, Simon

  Dodds, Nigel

  Burnside, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Burt, Alistair

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cairns, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Cameron, David

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  518

  Effort, Clive

  Lloyd, Tony

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Love, Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lucas, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Luff, Peter

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Luke, Iain

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Lyons, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDougall, John

  Grayling, Chris

  McFall, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Greenway, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Grieve, Dominic

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKechin, Ann

  Grogan, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hain, Peter

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Havard, Dai

  Mann, John

  Healey, John

  Marris, Rob

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hermon, Lady

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Holmes, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Hutton, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  Organ, Diana

  Jenkins, Brian

  Owen, Albert

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Pollard, Kerry

  Joyce, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keetch, Paul

  Prisk, Mark

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pugh, Dr John

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purnell, James

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Randall, John

  Lamb, Norman

  Rapson, Syd

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Levitt, Tom

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  519

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ross, Ernie

  Todd, Mark

  Roy, Frank

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salmond, Alex

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Savidge Malcolm

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sawford, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Sheridan Jim

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Simon, Siôn

  Watson, Tom

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Smith Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Weir, Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  White, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Whittingdale, John

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

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Helen

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spellar, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tami, Mark

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Hoban, Mark

  Austin, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Barnes, Harry

  Laws, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  McCafferty, Chris

  Blunt, Crispin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  McWalter, Tony

  Burgon, Colin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Calton, Patsy

  Morgan, Julie

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Price, Adam

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Rendel, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Davidson, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Doughty, Sue

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Duncan, Peter

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Evans, Nigel

  Tyler, Paul

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Flynn, Paul

  Watkinson, Angela

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Wiggin, Bill

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Francois, Mark

  Winnick, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Wood, Mike

  Goodman, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Hancock, Mike

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hayes, John

  Jeremy Corbyn and

  Heath, David

  John McDonnell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  COMMITTEES
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 10 and 11 together.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
    That Mr. Adrian Bailey, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Peter Robinson, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mark Tami and Mr. Bill Tynan be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
    SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
    That Mr. David Marshall be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee, and Mrs. Irene Adams be added to the Committee. —[Ms Karen Buck, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
  Ordered,
  That Andrew Bennett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Gregory Campbell, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Chris Grayling, Helen Jackson, Ms Oona King, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Dr. John Pugh, Christine Russell, Mr. George Stevenson and Mr. Bill Wiggin be members of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee. —[Ms Karen Buck, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the further motions relating to Committees.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
    That Dr. Brian Iddon be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr. Colin Challen be added to the Committee.
    HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    That Tony Cunningham be discharged from the Human Rights (Joint Committee) and Mr. Kevin McNamara be added to the Committee.
    MODERNISATION
    That Helen Jackson and Julie Morgan be discharged from the Modernisation Committee and Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Greg Knight and Anne Picking be added to the Committee.
    That Mr. John Lyons be discharged from the Procedure Committee.
    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    That Mr. Edward Leigh be a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. —[Ms Karen Buck, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Wolverhampton and Dudley Brewery
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Phil Woolas.]
  6.16 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted that so many hon. Members are in the House to hear the opening of the debate. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Speaker, who is of course a renowned teetotaller, for choosing the subject of this evening's Adjournment debate, because it is, of course, Mr. Speaker's choice on a Thursday.
  I raise a subject of great importance, particularly to those of us who live in the west midlands, and I am delighted to see the three hon. Members representing Wolverhampton in their places. I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) will be able to make a brief contribution to the debate because the main brewery to which I shall refer is in his constituency.
  This is really a story of capitalism. I am a great believer in capitalism, but I believe in responsible capitalism, and in people who are in a position to control others' lives because of what they own doing it responsibly. The Wolverhampton and Dudley brewery is an excellent example of responsible capitalism. The company is in the top 300 in the country; it is the country's leading regional brewer. It has pubs as far apart as Alnwick in the north, Weston-super-Mare in the south-west, Corby in the east and Aberystwyth in Wales in the west. It owns Marston's in Burton, the Mansfield brewery and Camerons in Hartlepool, but the heart of the company is in the heart of England, in the black country in the west midlands. It is a thriving, well-run company and has been a cornerstone of local community life since 1890.
  The present managing director is the fifth generation of Thompsons to have had a prominent position in the Wolverhampton and Dudley brewery. The company has contributed greatly to the life of the local community. There are two charitable trusts which have education as their particular objective. It has grown over the years, but its growth by acquisition has been based on success and a sense of responsibility. It is a fiercely independent company in an industry that is increasingly dominated by a few big breweries. It has 1,800 pubs spread around the country, most of them concentrated in the west midlands.
  In my constituency there are pubs like the Dudley Arms in Himley, the White Hart in Kinver, the Greyhound in Swindon and the Plough in Trysull—all wonderful English names for good English pubs, each one of them different from the others, each with its own distinctive character and ambience. That is what we mean by an English pub. The plastic uniformity of the theme pub is not for any true Englishman. I would resist to the end the development of pubs in that direction.
  The company is now threatened by a hostile and aggressive takeover by Pubmaster, a company that is entirely foreign-financed. I am not a little Englander—I am a great believer in our place in Europe—but that does not diminish my fierce local pride and patriotism, and I do not want the Wolverhampton and Dudley brewery to fall into the hands of foreigners who neither know nor care about the English pub.
  522
  What is worse, we know that if Pubmaster acquires the company, it will sell off the breweries and keep the pubs. The ales that people enjoy would then be at risk. There is no guarantee that the breweries would all survive, and if they did, they would certainly be swallowed up by one of the big conglomerates. That is where the Minister comes in. I am most grateful to her for being here. She should carefully consider referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: The hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently about the uniqueness of the pubs associated with the Wolverhampton and Dudley brewery, and they are indeed wonderful pubs, but I declare my interest as a dedicated Banks's boozer drinker. It is not the pub but the booze that attracts me. The beer is wonderful. The uniqueness of the beer brewed at the Park brewery at Wolverhampton is at great risk. Not only the beer and the pubs but 1,700 or 1,800 jobs at the breweries are at risk. We really must keep our beer—Banks's beer, Marston's beer—brewed where it has always traditionally been brewed.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That seems to have been a mini-speech in the middle of mine. I have a great affection for the hon. Gentleman and I agree with every word that he says, even though he has stolen some of my best lines. He probably knows more about beer than anyone else in the House, and I hope he will soon be reincarnated as Chairman of the Catering Committee.
  If the hostile bid succeeded, there would be asset stripping of the worst sort. Furthermore, the pubs themselves, which Pubmaster says it wants to keep, would be threatened by the plastic uniformity of the theme pub, with everything, including the menu, the same in every one. That is the negation of the English pub, which is unique to this country and is already under threat. There are far too many villages and parts of towns where the pub is at risk or has closed. The figures are frightening.
  We are talking about a thriving company, not one that needs bailing out, yet it is at risk. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) talked about jobs. The total number of jobs involved is 17,000, and the number of jobs at risk in our part of the world—I checked the figures this afternoon—is 4,500, if we take into account the drivers and all the others involved.
  Pubmaster's unscrupulous approach was seen this week when the brewery had to take legal action over Pubmaster's divulging of information to potential buyers of breweries when it has bought the pubs.
  We are dealing with a real human story that is repeated in many homes in my constituency and those of all the hon. Gentlemen attending this debate. A cloud of uncertainty hangs over many lives. In some cases, we are talking about families who have given two, three, four or five generations of service to this local company and have been well treated, showing a wonderful corporate spirit in return. I spoke about the charitable doings of the trusts established by the family, but the workers give enormous sums of money to the Compton hospice. They have a corporate and community identity and spirit, and it is at risk.
  I appeal to the Minister to consider a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, because of the threat to the breweries. I also wish to appeal through the

  523
  Minister to the institutional shareholders. There is no doubt that if the individual shareholders had their say, the sale would never take place. However, the final outcome of the hostile bid will be determined not in the homes of Wolverhampton or south Staffordshire but in a few boardrooms in the City of London. I wish to say to those institutional shareholders, "You have a thriving company here in which many people take great pride. You have jobs that are secure and a product that is appreciated and enjoyed. You have pubs that are visited by people who regard them as their locals and who enjoy going there. Do not put all that at risk for the sake of a quick buck".
  Mr. Ken Purchase: The hon. Gentleman speaks well. He said that he supports the notion of capitalist means of production, which has indeed brought great wealth across the world. However, he speaks like a socialist and that is welcome. On a serious note, the danger of international capitalism of the type that he has eloquently described is that it can be completely disconnected from its localities and become hostile to the very people who ensure results for the shareholders. Will the hon. Gentleman make a personal appeal to the institutional and other shareholders to recognise that their profits are at risk if they continue with that folly?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is being a little mischievous. I am not a socialist. As he well knows, I am an unrepentant capitalist, as I made plain earlier. However, I believe in responsible capitalism, which has done so much to help the countries of western Europe, including ours, enjoy our present standard of living. In fact, I am involved in an annual award for responsible capitalism, which was presented last year by no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We made common cause on that issue and we will continue to do so.
  The company is a good example of responsible capitalism, but it is in danger from an avaricious, inhuman capitalism—there is good and bad in everything—and I repudiate that. I hope that those who have the ultimate say will also repudiate it, so that the people whose lives have been so clouded by uncertainty will be able to relax this summer. The bid is not in the best interests of the industry, of the midlands, of those who work for the company or of the consumers who enjoy the products that are produced.
  6.28 pm
  Rob Marris: I should declare a slight non-pecuniary interest, in that my constituency office is rented at a commercial rate from the brewery and I am currently negotiating a new lease. I find it surprising but pleasing that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is coming around to the views of Labour Members about responsible capitalism and, if his current trajectory continues, he may even cross the Floor.
  On a more serious note, the hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this issue. The breweries are local institutions and they support other local institutions, namely the pubs of which he spoke so eloquently. Pubs are a fine British, as well as English, tradition.
  I am especially concerned about the jobs in Wolverhampton, South-West, as the Park brewery is in my constituency. I may not be as big a beer drinker as
  524
  my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—few hon. Members are—but I do drink beer and am concerned about the brands made by the Wolverhampton and Dudley brewery.
  The Campaign for Real Ale has always been very clear that that company—Britain's largest independent regional brewer—does a great job. We must protect the brands that it makes, and the fear is that the pubs will be sold off if the takeover goes through. The brands would then also be sold off, with the result that they would not be brewed in the original breweries. That would be a loss to the nation's taste buds.
  I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire for raising the matter in this Adjournment debate.
  6.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I join in congratulating the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on securing this debate. He and my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) and for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) clearly all feel passionately about the subject of the debate.
  When I realised that I was to reply to the debate, I did not appreciate that it would also be about socialism and capitalism, and about good and bad. Wide new horizons have opened up of which we were unaware when we began. I fully recognise that this is a key concern to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, and to other hon. Members whose constituents also work for the brewery concerned. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is a passionate consumer.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire will appreciate that I cannot comment in detail on Pubmaster's proposed acquisition of Wolverhampton and Dudley, as the merger is being considered by the Office of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act 1973. In due course, the Director General of Fair Trading will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on whether the merger should be referred to the Competition Commission for further investigation.
  What I can do, however, is set out some background to the Government's overall approach to competition policy. I can also sketch out the process for examining mergers such as this, the wider position within the beer market as a whole and the future direction of merger control.
  On competition policy, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear when they announced proposals for an enterprise Bill last month that the Government intend to tackle the challenge of enterprise and productivity in the UK economy, of which an effective competition policy is a key part. It is at the heart of the Government's strategy to close the productivity gap between the UK and our industrial competitors. Competition is a key driver for innovation, productivity and growth.
  Competitive markets provide the best means of ensuring that the economy's resources are put to their best use by encouraging enterprise and efficiency and

  525
  widening choice. Competition policy is used to ensure the efficient workings of markets, and to prevent abuses of markets that lead to less innovation, higher prices, lower choice and lower quality than would result from efficient competition. That may link up with the points made earlier about what capital at its best—as represented by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire—might consist of.
  Part of the Government's competition policy is the regulation of mergers. The principal provisions for the control of merger in the UK are contained in the Fair Trading Act 1973.
  Mergers qualify for investigation under the Fair Trading Act if they either pass an assets test—if more than £70 million of assets are being acquired—or a share-of-supply test. The latter applies if a share of 25 per cent. or more in the supply of a particular good or service in the United Kingdom is created or enhanced.
  Under the Act, the independent Director General of Fair Trading advises the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether qualifying mergers should be referred to the Competition Commission for full investigation; the Secretary of State then decides whether to refer or not. The Commission investigates whether a merger is against the public interest and reports its conclusions to the Secretary of State. If the commission concludes that a merger may be expected to operate against the public interest, the Secretary of State may prohibit the merger, allow it to proceed subject to conditions or allow it to proceed unconditionally. There are no powers to block or impose conditions on non-newspaper mergers unless the commission reaches an adverse finding.
  As I said earlier, the proposed acquisition of Wolverhampton and Dudley is being considered by the Office of Fair Trading. It might be useful, therefore, if I explain in a little more detail the analysis that the OFT undertakes. Where a merger qualifies for investigation under the Fair Trading Act, in the first instance it is the officials of the DGFT who undertake an analysis of the merger. The main aim of their evaluation of a merger is to establish its potential effect on competition, although other possible public interest issues are assessed where they may be relevant.
  Ever since the monitoring process was first introduced in 1965, a primary concern of the reference policy of successive Governments, Conservative or Labour, has been the control of mergers that would have an adverse effect on competition in the United Kingdom. It is the policy of this Government to refer merger cases to the Competition Commission for further investigation primarily on competition grounds.
  It is open to the DGFT and to Ministers to consider other issues, which can be broadly categorised as public interest issues and could include, for example, the effect on employment, regional development, or national security. As the DGFT's own published guidance states, however, it would only be in exceptional circumstances that such considerations might be a decisive factor. The primary purpose of our merger control policies is to consider and, if necessary, block or amend those mergers that are identified as having adverse effects on competition in markets.
  526
  As I am sure the hon. Member for South Staffordshire will appreciate, no two merger cases are identical, but the DGFT's assessment follows a similar pattern. In the first place, he will identify the markets in which the parties to the merger are involved. Where markets directly overlap, there is the most obvious possibility that there might be a reduction in competition, but competition issues may also arise where the merger involves markets that are linked vertically—where the parties are involved in different stages of the production or supply of the same goods or services.
  Secondly, the structure of the markets affected by the merger is analysed so that the likely effects of the merger on the nature and degree of competition in those markets that are relevant can be assessed. Factors that may be taken into consideration include the extent and impact of any barriers to market entry and the buying power of customers. The judgment that the DGFT then makes is whether the merger would give rise to a degree of market power that would allow the merged company to raise prices or reduce quality to the detriment of its customers, or to operate in some other way that could be against the public interest.
  Once the OFT has assessed the merger, the DGFT advises the Secretary of State whether the merger should be referred to the Competition Commission for further investigation. I listened to what the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said in this regard. In October last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)—the then Secretary of State—announced that he had decided to accept the DGFT's advice on reference in all but exceptional cases. This remains the Government's policy.
  Such exceptional cases are not expected to arise often. It may be appropriate for Ministers to intervene, for example, where a merger raises national security issues or where there is a material change after the submission of the DGFT's advice, or where the advice of the DGFT conflicts with the views of sectoral regulators.
  Should the Secretary of State decide, in the light of the DGFT's advice on a merger case, to refer it to the Competition Commission, the commission will assess whether the merger will operate against the public interest. The Fair Trading Act requires it to take into account all matters that appear to it to be relevant in the circumstances in determining whether a merger operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest.
  With that background in mind, I will deal briefly with the case raised by the hon. Gentleman. Pubmaster is a pub landlord with about 2,000 pubs throughout England and Wales. Its proposed acquisition of the Wolverhampton and Dudley was notified to the OFT in June. The merger is still being assessed by the OFT and the DGFT has not yet advised Ministers whether it should be referred to the Competition Commission for further investigation. In view of the Secretary of State's role as statutory decision maker, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on the substance of the case.
  The OFT has issued a public invitation for third party comments on the merger. I will, of course, ensure that the OFT is aware of the views that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends have expressed today. If anyone has any comments that they wish to make, they should contact the OFT directly as soon as possible so that their views may

  527
  be taken into account in the consideration of the case and so that the DGFT can reflect them in his advice to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. David Drew (Stroud): May I remind my hon. Friend of the history? Pubmaster came into being because of Whitbread's divestment under the 2,000 tied houses rule. Is it not worth reconsidering that issue? In my area, pubs were handed over haphazardly, which led to much disagreement in the intervening time. It may be worth looking at the history to find out whether the business can be managed better in future.
  Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have listened carefully. I cannot respond on the particular, but it may be helpful if I set out some more general observations on the brewing industry as a whole and on competition within the sector.
  Historically, the beer sector was and remains the most important alcoholic drink industry in terms of UK production. Both consumption and production of beer have fallen in the past 10 years. Since 1989, the beer sector has seen considerable restructuring in the wake of the beer orders of 1989. The number of national brewers has reduced from six to three and the break-up of large, national brewer-owned pub estates has given rise to independent pub companies such as Pubmaster.
  The UK brewing industry was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation in 1986. That investigation resulted in measures, known as the beer orders, being taken to weaken the links between brewers, especially large national brewers, and pubs. The orders are the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 and the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989.
  The tied estate order required national brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs to release from tie half the pubs they owned in excess of that number by 1 November 1992. It also gave the national brewers' tied tenants the right to serve a guest beer and source wines, spirits and soft drinks from any supplier of their choice from 1 May 1990. The loan ties order enabled recipients of brewers' loans to terminate them without penalty on giving three months' notice, required brewers to publish wholesale price lists for their beers and prohibited brewers from imposing restrictions on the future use of licensed premises when they are sold.
  The Office of Fair Trading monitors the brewing and pub industries closely and investigates any suspected anti-competitive practices, but structural changes in the industry such as the closure of breweries, or contractual matters such as the treatment of tied tenants by breweries and pub chains, cannot be dealt with under competition law.
  There have been major developments in the industry since 1989, including the growth of pub chains as a counterweight to the market power of the large national brewers. The DGFT announced a review of the beer orders on 14 January 2000 and submitted his report to the Department last summer. He recommended the retention of some parts of the beer orders: the provisions relating to loan tie agreements, the prohibition on refusing to supply beer for resale and the requirement to publish wholesale prices. He recommended the removal of the remainder—the cap on the size of brewers' tied estates,
  528
  the requirement on large brewers not to tie drinks other than beer, the guest beer provision and the ban on brewers preventing a pub from continuing to be used as a pub when sold—because they were no longer needed.
  In his response to the DGFT's recommendations, the then Secretary of State said that the beer orders were radical and necessary in their time but that, more than 10 years on, the market had changed and some of them had now served their purpose. He agreed, in particular, with the DGFT's recommendation that the 2,000 cap on the number of pubs that a brewer can own should be revoked.
  There is no doubt that the introduction of the cap in 1989 encouraged the subsequent major growth and development of retail pub chains by forcing on to the market 11,000 divested brewers' pubs. In that sense, the beer orders have served their purpose in that the cap has been instrumental in creating the market power of the retail pub companies, which is now ranged against the national brewers. Moreover, it is right that the cap should go because, as the DGFT said in his report, it is restricting the growth of those larger regional brewers that want to continue to brew.
  Competitive changes in the beer industry are also affected by individual decisions on merger cases. Such cases are considered on their merits. On occasions, mergers raise competition concerns that justify a reference to the Competition Commission—for example, Bass and Carlsberg-Tetley in 1997, Whitbread and Allied Domecq in 1999 and Interbrew and Bass last year. On other occasions, competition concerns can be remedied by undertakings in lieu of a reference, as was the case for Scottish and Newcastle and Greenalls, and the Punch Group and Allied Domecq in 1999. Other transactions raise no competition concerns and are cleared, such as the merger between Grand Pub, Inntrepreneur and Spring Inns in 1997, or Wolverhampton and Dudley's acquisitions of Marston, Thompson and Evershed and of Mansfield Brewery in 1999.
  As with all these cases, I can assure hon. Members that the merger that we are discussing today will be considered on its merits by the Secretary of State in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading and, in undertaking this consideration, the competition effects of the merger will be the key issue.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I intervene because we are not so time-constrained as usual in Adjournment debates. I am grateful for what the Minister has said. Will she give an absolute assurance that the social impact will be taken most seriously into account, as well as all the other factors?
  Miss Johnson: I have already indicated some of the factors that can be taken into consideration, including employment issues. I cannot give him an on-the-spot undertaking on the points that he has raised, but I can assure him that these things will be properly considered. Perhaps that is the assurance that he seeks. I cannot comment further on these matters due to the nature of the consideration that Ministers need to give to them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. However, I hope that what I have said has shed some further light on the situation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Youth Justice
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): It is my great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate on an important subject in which I have had a personal interest for many years. I also ought perhaps to declare another form of interest. My husband is a manager of a multidisciplinary youth offending team and therefore I get a lot of inside information about what is happening on the ground.
I am pleased to see Members in the Chamber for the debate, although it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is not supported by more of his colleagues, because this is an important subject upon which there is potential for parties to work together to achieve shared aims in relation not only to young people in general, but to youth crime and youth justice.
Given the importance of the issue, we have placed it at the heart of the Government's attack on crime and disorder. We know that young people under 18 are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. In London, for example, about 25 per cent. of all burglaries, and a third of car thefts are committed by those aged between 10 and 16.However, we also know that young people suffer disproportionately from crime. They are more likely to be victims of crime than offenders, often at the hands of other young people. The 1998–99 youth life style survey showed that a third of young people had experienced theft of their property.
Many of those who offend are still young enough to be diverted from crime if we can intervene at an early stage. Effective youth justice is not merely a question of protecting the law-abiding citizen, important as that is. It must also prevent the waste of young lives that have turned into lives of crime, by helping young offenders to mend their ways. It must also put victims alongside those issues in determining how we approach the problem of youth crime.
When the Government came to power four years ago, the youth justice system was failing. The 1996 Audit Commission report, "Misspent Youth", highlighted the need for radical reform. The system was not preventing offending, it did not safeguard the welfare of young people and it paid little attention to victims. Instead, the system was making excuses for itself and for the young offenders who came before it.
The then system had no focus on prevention or on victims. Young offenders were not identified and tracked in a systematic way. Supervision was weak and there was little inter-agency co-operation. That is why, right from the start, the Government made tackling youth crime and its causes one of their top priorities. We
136WH
are beginning to see signs of a transformation—a new culture of joint working. A new system has had to be built from scratch.
In 1997, we made it an election pledge to speed up the time that it takes to process persistent young offenders. More broadly, we have set in motion the biggest shakeup in the youth justice system in a generation. In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, we set out an entire new philosophy for youth justice, dedicated to preventing offending and re-offending. As an important start, we established a statutory aim for the youth justice system of preventing offending by children and young people. That has helped to refocus local youth justice agencies on the delivery of services.
2.35 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.50 pm
On resuming—
Beverley Hughes: I was setting out some of the principles underlying the approach that the Government are trying to develop in legislation and in setting up the youth justice system. I was explaining that we started by establishing a statutory principal aim for the youth justice system—preventing offending by children and young people. That has helped to refocus local youth justice agencies in providing services.
The approach has four important elements. It starts, first, with prevention; secondly, an important aim has been to improve the performance of the system throughout; thirdly, we want to make punishment effective—it needs to be tough but proportionate and must challenge misbehaviour and promote responsibility; and fourthly, the underlying philosophy includes recognising the impact of crime on victims and the need to make reparation a key element in the development of a new restorative justice.
I want to outline the components of our approach in more detail. Prevention is based on work with each offender, intervening early to try to nip offending behaviour in the bud. The new multi-agency youth offending teams tackle risk factors such as those associated with education, health and parenting. However, prevention of youth crime begins a long way upstream from the youth justice system. Our reforms work integrally with the Government's wider effort to combat social exclusion in all its manifestations. For example, the surestart programme begins early by promoting the physical, intellectual, social and emotional well-being and development of children under four in disadvantaged areas. By 2004, the Government will be investing almost £500 million a year, and reaching a third of poor children under four.
Similarly, the children's fund has been established as a new part of the Government's strategy to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. That fund will concentrate on supporting five to 13-year-olds, filling the gaps in provision between Sure Start and Connexions. The fund is worth about £450 million over three years. A longterm crime reduction programme entitled "on track" is aimed at children under 12 who are at risk of offending.

137WH
It is part of the children's fund. The Connexions service exists to help steer all 13 to 19-year-olds through education, training and employment, and it places particular emphasis on the needs of those most at risk of under-achievement and disaffection.
Simon Hughes: I shall ask the Minister a question in connection with her perfectly well made point about the importance of starting early with work among disadvantaged or vulnerable children. Has she yet had a chance to be briefed on the work that has come out of the investigation into the death of Damilola Taylor, by the police and other agencies in Southwark? That has interesting information about children who have experienced, first, social services involvement at primary school age or earlier, and a history of abuse in the family, then school problems—particularly bullying and being bullied—and who end up coming to the notice of the police as offenders for the first time at about 12 or 13. In all cases, there is a pattern of activity that one or other of the agencies concerned has spotted before. It seems that a really important lesson is the need to link the agencies together, so that they can share information as early as possible.
Beverley Hughes: I am aware of some of the early findings, although there has not yet been a full report, nor have there been recommendations as to how the lessons learned can be implemented. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of close, systematic inter-agency co-operation that does not fail at times of stress. We have learned this lesson so many times due to various tragedies or events that it is sad that we have to learn it again. We need to pay attention—it is critical.
The Government's 10-year drug strategy addresses another key area of prevention. The target is to reduce the proportion of young people using illicit drugs, particularly heroin and cocaine, by a quarter by 2005 and by a half by 2008. In addition to the broad governmental measures, the youth offending teams, the Youth Justice Board and its partner agencies are concentrating on prevention by identifying young people at risk and by focusing on vulnerable communities. The youth inclusion programme, run by the YJB, focuses on such preventive work with 50 of the most at-risk 13 to 16-year-olds in 70 disadvantaged neighbourhoods throughout England and Wales. For 2001, we have funded almost 150 Easter and summer splash schemes for young children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
I hope hon. Members will not mind my reiterating some broad Government policy—it is important to understand that we shall not effectively tackle youth crime or address the causes of crime unless we start early and pay attention to the areas of young people's lives that influence whether they are led into crime. The measures that address certain aspects of social exclusion are as important as the policies and programmes that are specifically youth-justice focused.
The second issue that I mentioned was performance. We must create a far more efficient and effective youth justice system. We have started to cut delays. I
138WH
mentioned the pledge in the 1997 election campaign to halve, by 2002, the average time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders from 142 to 71 days. By April 2001, it had been cut to 78 days. That is encouraging. We should remember that that is not a target for its own sake; reducing delay reinforces the link between the offence and the response to it. That is an important part of the learning process for young offenders. As well as reinforcing the link, it allows for earlier intervention. Everybody involved with young people agrees that the earlier we can intervene the better the outcome can be. That can strengthen public confidence in the system.
We have set up the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, which has been in operation since September 1998, to provide national co-ordination, and have established 154 multi-agency youth offending teams—known as YOTS—across England and Wales. These are important in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), because they bring together the police, probation services, local authorities, health and education providers and other agencies at local level to work together with individual young offenders. YOTS are required to address all aspects of their offending behaviour, including relevant family, education, health and other issues.
From April 2000, the Youth Justice Board also assumed responsibility for the commissioning and purchase of all forms of juvenile secure accommodation throughout England and Wales, whether in the Prison Service, the local authority or the private sector, for both remanded and sentenced young people.
Julie Morgan: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Wales has a specific problem with young people who are remanded or have custodial sentences. Wales has limited facilities to accommodate them, which means that young people travel to Eastwood Park near Bristol from my area and the depths of west Wales, for example. Among other problems that that causes, it affects continued links with youth offending teams and families when the young people go back into the community. Also, I have been told anecdotally that the use of the Welsh language sometimes causes bullying in young offenders' institutions. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments.
Beverley Hughes: I am aware of the problem. I heard about the arrival of four young people from Cardiff at a London young offenders institution as I visited it this week. We do not want the situation to continue. The factors about closeness to home and to the local youth offending team are important in helping young people most effectively while in institutions, and also while resettling them when they are ready to come out.
The Youth Justice Board is working hard to improve the availability and spread of secure places, and the quality of regimes. It is paying special attention to the problem in Wales. I visited another establishment in Wales and, co-incidentally, the board visited at the same time to explore the possibility of purchasing some places for juveniles there. The hoard hopes to commission some places in the near future. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, as it is important and we want to tackle it.

139WH
The third issue that I shall raise—they are all emblematic of the Government's approach—is punishment. The reform system has to dispense proportionate and constructive punishment. It must focus on making young offenders face the consequences of their offending, and on diverting them from re-offending. Courts are now offered a range of sentencing alternatives. For the first time, there is a systematic process for use of information about young offenders through a new, common assessment scheme called ASSET. Importantly, it enables youth justice professionals to use a standardised instrument to try to match the causes of offending, and a specific programme of action is coming out of the assessment to stop further offending.
Many new programmes have come on stream and are available to the youth offending teams, ranging from help for parents, education and training, drug and alcohol placements, to reparation and restorative justice programmes. Some of the powers that we have given to the police and the courts are essentially preventive. The police now issue a single final warning to offenders, instead of the old system of endless ineffectual cautions.
The courts can now impose a range of orders targeted at the underlying causes of offending. For example, a parenting order reinforces parental responsibilities and provides support to help parents keep their children out of trouble. A reparation order allows offenders to make amends directly to the victim, if the victim is willing, or to the wider local community. The new orders have proved popular with sentencers. So far, more than 13,000 reparation, child safety, parenting and action plan orders have been made since they were introduced nationally on 1 June 2000.
We are trying to use new technology effectively by introducing curfew orders backed by electronic tagging for juveniles. Such orders are designed to break the pattern of offending behaviour, which if left unchecked could increase the risk of offenders receiving custodial sentences. The next major step for youth offending teams is the innovative referral order that is being piloted in 11 areas. It is specifically designed to prevent reoffending through a new approach when young people first come to court and plead guilty. The young person will be referred to community-based youth offender panels, which will decide on positive interventions in consultation with the offender, victims or their representatives and others who have a link to that young person. We plan to implement the order nationally from April 2002.
Mr. David Lidington: I appreciate that referral orders are still in the pilot stage and that the statistical information available to the Minister might not be complete. However, is there any evidence to hand to enable us to assess the success of the referral order scheme in deterring young offenders from committing crimes again?
Beverley Hughes: Yes. There is certainly evidence from the pilot areas, although it is rudimentary at the moment and cannot be used to compare referral orders using the standard test of the reconviction rate within two years. However, there is encouraging evidence in those areas of a reduction in the amount of re-offending compared with what we would normally expect had a referral order not been introduced.
140WH
We are also determined to tackle the problem of young people who defy the criminal justice system by committing repeated offences on bail, and I know that many hon. Members experience that problem in their constituencies. The new Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 includes provisions that will enable the courts to deal with those who repeatedly offend on bail, but who could not previously be remanded into custody because their offence was not serious enough. It will also offer the courts the option of using electronic monitoring of juveniles on bail or on remand to local authority accommodation.
This week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched the intensive supervision and surveillance programme—the ISSP—for about 2,500 of the most persistent young offenders. That is the direction in which we need to go. The ISSP is a highly structured, community-based programme, which is designed to tackle the underlying causes of offending behaviour. It includes supervision and surveillance of an intensity that community programmes have not offered before. Surveillance can be for up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It can be carried out with the aid of electronic tagging and of another new technology, voice recognition, which can be used in conjunction with telephones to establish a young person's whereabouts when they phone in and their voice is recognised. Those various mechanisms can also inculcate the discipline and the response to structure and routine that are necessary for many persistent young offenders whose life styles have been characterised by lack of order, lack of discipline and chaos. The ISSP is an important measure, which will be introduced shortly and used for the most persistent young offenders.
These measures are, of course, backed by the antisocial behaviour order. Next month, we will extend the age range of children who can be covered by child curfew schemes by increasing the limit to 15. That will help local authorities and others to deal with the problem of unsupervised children out on the streets at night.
I have talked so far about the range of provisions that enable young people to be supervised effectively. These provisions deal with their offending behaviour and enable them to remain in the community. For some young people, however, the seriousness or persistence of their offending means that custody might be the only immediate answer, but time in custody must be used constructively. The detention and training order aims to achieve that by combining custody and community supervision to punish and rehabilitate young offenders. Each young offender is subject to an individual training plan, which is designed both to tackle the particular factors that are thought to precipitate their offending behaviour and to provide them with the necessary skills to avoid getting into trouble on release.
Since the Youth Justice Board took over the secure juvenile estate last year, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), facilities and regimes for the under-18s have been transformed, and I have been to see some of them. The board has increased time out of cell and has placed a far stronger emphasis on education and training, cognitive behaviour programmes and the development of social skills. However, there is still a long way to go. By next year we will have implemented the proposals made in

141WH
the social exclusion unit's report "Bridging the Gap" to increase the time allowed for education and training to 30 hours per week for all in custody who are under the age of 18.
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): Is it not a matter of enormous concern that we have proportionately more young people in custody than any other western country? Is it appropriate to lock away children in prison establishments, rather than in local authority establishments, where they would be under the jurisdiction of the Children Act 1989?
Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is very experienced and expert in such matters and he will know that the majority of juvenile offenders in custody are held in secure training units, local authority secure accommodation or young offender institutions in the juvenile part of young offender institutions. Only a tiny number are held in prison.
The latest information that I have is that only 13 are held in prison. We need to change that, but I know that my hon. Friend realises that there are sometimes competing imperatives. For example, there are fewer female juvenile offenders, but it is not always possible to provide female places in all parts of the country. Sometimes the need to keep a young woman close to her home is judged to be an overriding factor. In a tiny number of cases, special circumstances apply, or a judgment is made about a range of issues that results in someone being kept closer to home in prison instead of in a specific juvenile institution. However, I take the general drift of my hon. Friend's remarks.
Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but I wish to push her a little further.
Four years ago, in his first generic report, the chief inspector made clear his view that children should not be held in prison. Is that the Government's policy? Is it therefore the Government's plan that, within a short time, there will be no children in prisons in England and Wales? I do not want to put words into anyone's mouth, but the hon. Gentleman and many others believe that we ought at least to ensure that children are placed not in prison but in alternative forms of custody.
Beverley Hughes: As I have said, the vast majority of juveniles are not in prison; it is more appropriate for them to be placed in one of the three institutions that have specialist juvenile provisions. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that juveniles will never be placed in prison establishments because, as I have tried to explain, the tiny number of juveniles in prison now are there because competing factors can sometimes mean that a prison placement is in their best interests. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that it will never happen, but we generally support the policy that they should be placed in establishments that cater for juveniles. That is what we aim to achieve.
The fourth issue that I raised in my introduction was the underlying philosophy of our approach, which is to engender a new restorative justice with three key
142WH
principles. First, young offenders should start taking responsibility for their actions; secondly, reparation by young offenders to the victim or the community should be a feature of that approach; and thirdly, as a result of the previous two principles, we aim to reintegrate young offenders back into their own communities. That is recognised as an important new approach.
The youth justice strategy reforms that I have set out represent the boldest and most thorough-going drive to reform the youth justice system and to tackle youth crime and its causes that we have seen so far.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that a lot of change has been demanded from the staff who work in such areas, particularly from those in the probation service, which has had to change its whole being. Does she agree that there is a need to bolster confidence because of links with other aspects of the Connexions service as much as anything else? Indeed, some have left the probation service to join Connexions. We need to evaluate the pressures on the service, and anything that the hon. Lady can do to bring that forward would be useful.
Beverley Hughes: I spoke about such matters at the recent national probation conference. Yesterday, I met both the general secretary and the chair of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, who also raised such issues. The new national probation service has done exceptionally well in achieving a change in not only its structure, but its culture and approach. I commend it for that. It has coped with a substantial change. As I said at the conference, we look forward to the challenges of the next few years as a result of the Halliday proposals and sentencing reforms.
Another report is being issued on courts as a result of the Auld report. I hope that that will lead to a much more informed debate on where we need to be going in respect of criminal justice, in general, and youth justice, in particular, and towards making community sentences much more effective. The probation service is well placed to play a major role—if not the major role—in achieving our desired result. Most of the people who work for it want to join the Government and other agencies in achieving that outcome. I welcome working with the service.
We must recognise that many of the changes to which I have referred have been in force for only a year. It is too early to be certain about results, but at some point we must be clear about the effectiveness of those changes. The Home Office and the Youth Justice Board have commissioned several substantial pieces of research and performance evaluation to cover all areas of the youth justice system. We shall receive a series of reports on effectiveness and evaluation this summer.
Youth crime affects young people. Indeed, it affects the whole of society. I hope that people recognise that the Government have signalled their determination to tackle the problem both constructively and proactively. It is an enormous challenge and, although I have spent some time setting out what we have done, I am the first to recognise that we still have a long way to go. Over the past four years, we have made a strong start. We must be committed to tackling the problem. By reducing the number of young people starting or continuing in

143WH
criminal careers, we can prevent young lives from being wasted. We can maximise their contribution not only to their future, but society. We can also create stronger, safer communities.
3.19 pm
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): I wish to express my apologies for being unable to stay until the end of the debate. I was asked to speak at short notice in place of one of my hon. Friends who, for personal reasons, cannot be at Westminster this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will be present on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench for the duration of the debate, and I shall of course read the Hansard reports of the speeches that I am unable to hear myself:
I share the Minister's hope that we can achieve a fair measure of cross-party agreement on this subject. It is in everyone's interest that the Government's reforms bed down and work successfully. In the nine years that I have been a Member I have learned that it is much better if people who deliver a public service can make a new system operate effectively, albeit with a little tweaking, than to have a complete upheaval every four or five years or whenever there is a change of ministry.
We can agree with plenty of the Minister's comments and with those in the Youth Justice Board's annual report, which was published a couple of days ago. My constituency is in the Thames Valley police force area, and my chief constable is a member of the YJB and an ardent evangelist for the virtues of the restorative justice approach, which was pioneered by Charles Pollard in Milton Keynes and in my constituency. I was impressed by the session of the restorative justice circle that I attended and by the enthusiasm with which the members of the Buckinghamshire youth offending team that I visited last year, who were from different agencies and disciplines, worked together for a more effective approach towards the problems of youth crime and disorder.
The test of the new system will be the extent to which it increases public safety by reducing crime and reoffending, and I look forward to the publication of the promised performance indicators. I am sure that throughout the course of the Parliament the Opposition will keep a beady eye on the Government's targets and performance indicators to establish whether what happens in practice measures up to the promises that we have been given.
I want to ensure that any critical remarks or questions that I put to the Minister during my speech are viewed in the context of wanting the new system to succeed. We need to be on the alert for a surfeit of committees and plans. We now have YOTs, which are supposed to draft strategies to prevent youth offending and reduce the incidence of youth crime in their areas and, with the police authority, to draft a policing plan for the area. Each locality, which usually represents a district council or metropolitan borough area, is required to produce a community safety or crime reduction plan. The Youth Justice Board has set national targets for YOTs, and the Home Secretary has set national targets for different police forces, which in due course we shall have for the various probation services as part of the new national probation service. There is always a danger that the
144WH
time, energy and professional expertise of police officers, probation officers and others go into attending committees and preparing plans and that the sharpness of focus that we all agree is necessary is lost.
Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman describes a complex social system. However, surely with YOTs and the direct line to the Youth Justice Board, we now have a simpler and more effective system than the plethora of youth justice arrangements that used to operate?
Mr. Lidington: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. However, YOTs depend for their funding partly on the extent to which police forces, the probation service and others are prepared to put money into a common pot. Their ability to do so and to devote staff time through secondments to YOTs depends upon each agency's priorities. It is not possible to separate the question of YOTs from broader questions about the organisation of the criminal justice system.
The concerns that I have expressed were conveyed to me by police and probation officers and magistrates. As parliamentarians, we must be aware of the risks, and through our questions encourage Ministers to guard against them.
Inherent in the system is a tension between national and local priorities. When talking to local government officers and police officers about the implementation of community safety or crime reduction plans, I find that, on the one hand, there are priorities that are laid down by the Home Office—performance indicators imposed on police by the Home Office. On the other hand, there is a statutory duty on the partnerships to consult local people to ascertain their priorities in terms of community safety and crime reduction. That tension also applies to the youth justice system, and I hope that Ministers will be alert to it throughout this Parliament.
I am critical of the Government on a number of points. The Minister referred to the Government's early pledge to halve the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. As she said, in May 1997 the figure was 142 days and the target was 71 days. Today, she told us that the time taken is now down to 78 days, which is a reduction on the figure for March this year of 83 days—the last published figure before the Minister's comments. I hope that she will be able to say whether May 2002 is still a firm target for the Government's delivery of the early pledge made in 1996.
Will the Minister also tell us what records exist for individual police forces? When I thumbed through the YJB's annual report for 1999–2000, I noticed that it listed six police forces —Cumbria, North Wales, North Yorkshire, the City of London and Dorset—that had achieved the 71-day target or exceeded it. However, the newly published report for 2000–01 contains no such list. Surely, if the YJB had found that more than six were achieving the Government's target, it would have said so. I am suspicious about what is going on, and I hope that the Minister can deal with that in her reply or, subsequently, in writing.
My underlying question about the Government's target for reducing the time from arrest to sentence is that, throughout the Chamber, we agree with the Minister that it is a sensible objective to try to link the fact of punishment to the commission of the crime. That

145WH
linkage is broken when it takes ages for someone to be brought to justice. Even if the individual criminal is not affected, common sense might tell us that an offender's peer group might be influenced by the sight of him or her receiving swift and exemplary justice.
I have also seen evidence—from studies conducted by the university of Sheffield, for example—that the Government's attempt to speed up the system has merely led to young offenders being recycled round the system more swiftly. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government are putting measures in place to enable us to assess the extent to which reducing the time taken to try such cases and to sentence offenders leads to a reduction in crime and recidivism, because there is no benefit to be had from achieving the 71-days target if there is not also a reduction in crime or reoffending. We should not assess that Government target in isolation: we should also assess whether it delivers the goods to the public by producing a safer country.
I turn to the penalties that are available to the courts under the new system. The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), wrote to me on 11 May 2001, about a parliamentary question that he had initially replied to on 20 December 2000—those dates might contain a lesson about the need to speed up the system. I had asked about the number of community orders on young offenders that had been breached or revoked, because it is fine and dandy for such penalties to be made available to the courts, but it is also necessary to ask whether they are effective in practice.
In his letter, the then Minister stated that, between April and December 2000, 29,461 community orders were made against young offenders, and that no fewer than 8,573 had been either breached or revoked. That figure represents no less than 29 per cent. of all the community orders that the courts made on young offenders in that period. It is therefore a serious matter, and it is necessary to ask several questions about it.
The then Minister was unable to distinguish between figures for breach and figures for revocation, although the latter category would refer to cases about which the court had taken a serious view concerning the nature of the breach. Therefore, I am unsure whether the figure of 29 per cent. refers only to cases in which the order has apparently failed, or whether it also contains individual cases that have come before the court more than once, and when the second breach has led to revocation. I would welcome further information about that matter.
Does the evidence suggest that there is a greater risk of breaches with certain types of order? Again, the then Minister's letter failed adequately to address that. Indeed, he wrote that
"the Youth Offending Teams do not yet collect data for breaches of each individual order".
The use of the word "yet" suggested to me that the Government might have plans to introduce a more detailed reporting system, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's response concerning that. If an order has been revoked, does re-sentencing for the original offence follow, and what type of sentence is given in such circumstances? We need more information about the
146WH
operation of these orders, and about breaches or revocation, to enable us to come to an informed conclusion about the effectiveness of the new penalties.
Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of the breach procedure on such an apparently large scale may indicate the system's health? I would be suspicious of any system of youth justice in which breach was not used. If one compares the apparent efficacy to that of custodial sentences in preventing re-offending, may this be a case in which community sentences are properly enforced to ensure that they work properly?
Mr. Lidington: Indeed. One possible explanation of the figures is that the authorities are now enforcing action on breaches more tightly than previously. We need further information; I will not denounce either the Government or the new penalties without that. However, the questions are perfectly reasonable.
I ask the Minister three other points about penalties. My first point is about not so much penalties as reward schemes of the type that the Prime Minister announced in April. The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister said that there would be a Youth Justice Board pilot scheme in London through which youngsters might qualify for vouchers for clothes, music and the like as a reward for good behaviour. All of us, at constituency level, have seen examples of effective diversionary schemes that successfully distract disaffected young men from the temptations of crime and antisocial behaviour. However, there is a fine balance between an effective diversionary scheme and a scheme that appears to reward—in the case of some young people—good behaviour that many others would regard as their plain duty and something that they get on with without reward from the state. The Minister will know that the announcement aroused controversy from many people, including spokesmen for victims' groups. Do the Government intend to follow the policy through or have they discarded the approach?
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): Was the confusion not because a majority of people, through the press, saw the scheme as rewarding young people who had committed an offence? I understood that the scheme was to try to reward young people living in the most difficult areas who, despite all that goes on around them, manage to resist temptations such as a life of crime. In that sense, the scheme was a novel way to support young people who are in the difficult circumstances that many find themselves in.
Mr. Lidington: I will be interested to hear an explanation from the Government of the nature and scope of such schemes, and the criteria on which their success would be judged.
The Minister will be familiar with my two further points about penalties. Child curfew orders were to be one of the great success stories of the previous Parliament's legislation. Of course, they turned out to be nothing of the kind. Not one local authority applied for a child curfew order. In recent legislation, the Government extended the age limits of the groups that a child curfew could be sought for. However, do the Government plan to issue—or have they issued—

147WH
guidance to local authorities and police forces about implementing the new legislation relating to child curfew orders? The police and local authorities are concerned that a blanket ban on all young people going out in a particular area would divert crime and disorder to a different estate or would disproportionately affect the interests of youngsters who are law abiding and would see the measure as an unfair punishment. Further information on that would be useful, as would be some words about the Government's approach to antisocial behaviour orders. These orders can be taken out in respect of anyone from the age of 10 onwards, and from my constituency experience—I suspect that it is shared by other hon. Members from whichever party—a great many complaints, which usually come from the decent people living on rough council estates, concern the behaviour of unruly youngsters in their neighbourhood, who are making life hell for those particular families or individuals. I know that that is a subject which the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has taken up on a number of occasions in Parliament.
The previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), championed antisocial behaviour orders. He said that they would be one of the key instruments in dealing with a problem that everybody, of all political parties, acknowledged was real, harmed lives and made misery for many thousands of our constituents. He urged local authorities and police forces to get on with the job of enforcing the new laws. Yet on the most recent figures that I have seen, only 214 antisocial behaviour orders have been issued nationally in the years that these remedies have been available.
One reason for that still seems to be that the police and local authorities find it time-consuming, cumbersome and bureaucratic to get an order in place. Another difficulty concerns standards of proof. Although to get an antisocial behaviour order one needs only to demonstrate to the court the civil standard of proof, if one is seeking remedy for subsequent breach of an antisocial behaviour order, one has to prove one's case to the court up to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It has been put to me that, for that reason, police and local authorities are reluctant to initiate the process of securing an ASBO unless they believe from the start that they have evidence up to the criminal standard of proof that would be required for any subsequent enforcement action. Cost may also be a factor. I have see one estimate from the police that obtaining an ASBO order costs up to £100,000 when staff time is taken into account. However, the penalties for breaches are insubstantial and it therefore turns out not to be worth doing.
Mr. Dawson: This is only anecdotal evidence, but I would like to say that the northern division of the Lancashire constabulary has been effective in using antisocial behaviour orders across rural and urban areas in its patch. It has used them effectively to deal with drunkenness, downright criminal behaviour and persistent burglars. They have been well supported by communities that have experienced tremendous relief and by the local media. They have worked very well.
Mr. Lidington: If that is happening in north Lancashire, it is indeed good news, although it poses an
148WH
ever starker form of question as to why that apparent success has not been followed up by police forces and local authorities elsewhere in the country. I would hope that if there has been some trick that the Lancashire authorities have discovered, which enables them to use ASBOs more effectively than has been the case elsewhere, the inspectorate of constabulary and others will make that experience well known in other parts of the country.
The Minister made points about secure training places and local authority places. One of the political differences between the two sides of the Chamber is that the Opposition would continue to argue for a much greater expansion of secure training places than that proposed by the Government.
I shall raise a specific point about local authority provision, which was made to me when I visited Bradford city council last week. The council feared that one possible outcome of police and court action following the disturbances was that a number of very young people would be remanded into local authority care for secure provision pending trial for a violent offence. The council thought that it would be difficult to find and finance the places. The Home Office should consider that aspect of the matter, in case any help needs to be given to Bradford or other parts of the country where problems might be faced in the wake of recent riots.
I turn to the issue of young offender institutions. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said in his intervention, that is a matter to which the chief inspector, Sir David Ramsbothom, and his predecessor, Sir Stephen Tumim, rightly devoted a great deal of attention and energy. Aylesbury YOI is in my constituency; it houses some of the most dangerous and difficult young offenders anywhere in the country. They are not simply naughty boys but young men who have committed violent and sexual offences and who need to be housed in secure accommodation.
Managing an institution such as Aylesbury or Feltham YOI is a complex and challenging business. People who serve as prison governors and officers in those establishments deserve support and encouragement for the good work that is done there. Frankly, it is not a job I would like to take on myself. However, problems undoubtedly exist in those places. The difficulties at Feltham have been in the news on and off for the past few months. In Aylesbury, there have been a series of appalling suicides; from memory, I believe that five young men died in the course of about 18 months. From the figures given for the Prison Service nationally—I am not sure whether they apply specifically to the YOI sector—it is clear that the suicide rate has recently increased. Assaults, which sometimes reflect bullying, have also risen in number.
I acknowledge the difficulties of managing such establishments and the fact that young men in their teens and early twenties are the group most at risk of suicide, but I hope that the hon. Lady and the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform will keep that matter close to the top of their respective agendas in the years to come.

149WH
I hope, too, that the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend will spell out Government thinking on the future of YOIs. In the consultation document published a couple of years ago, the Government said that they were minded to move towards a system in which different institutions existed for offenders above and below the age of majority. That would result in a real shake-up of the present YOI system. Is that still the Government's objective? Will they give some assurance, if that is the case, that they recognise the need for institutions such as Aylesbury that will deal with the most serious offenders, who simply cannot be housed in community-based accommodation but who will require, under any foreseeable arrangement, very secure housing?
I read the report of the debate initiated by my noble Friend Lord Hurd that took place in the House of Lords a few days ago. It is required reading for anyone interested in the prison or criminal justice systems, and I hope that in this context of young offender institutions the Government will take note of the comments that were made by Members of that House, from all parties and from none. We need a prison service that not only serves the public by keeping prisoners securely, but is more successful than it has been in the past at ensuring that when prisoners are released—as almost all will be one day—they are able to lead law-abiding lives.
I appreciate the fact that both the Minister and the Youth Justice Board have recognised that effective policies to deal with young offending must include effective punishment and tackle the reasons why young people are tempted into crime in the first place. If there were time, we could debate matters such as achievement at school, exclusion from school and family background. I was struck by the statement in the YJB's report of this week that
"only 50 per cent. of children excluded from school had a father or stepfather living at home."
We know from research by organisations such as NCH Action for Children that children who have been through local authority care are disproportionately represented in youth courts and young offender institutions. I hope that the Government will try, wherever possible, to involve voluntary agencies in the delivery of services that are designed to reach out to disaffected and excluded young people. Those organisations are often able to provide a human dimension to care that a Government agency, however well intentioned, finds difficult because it is inevitably bound by a Whitehall rule book.
I welcome the fact that the Government have made time for the debate. As an Opposition, we shall continue closely to scrutinise the impact of the changes that they have introduced. It will be in the interests of all our constituents if the new youth justice system succeeds as the Government hope that it will.
3.53 pm
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): I am pleased to follow the two speakers that we have heard so far. After the Minister's thoughtful introduction came the comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who entered into the spirit of the debate that people want about youth justice—an important issue that affects us
150WH
all in our constituencies. The debate gives us the opportunity to reflect on what we are doing and some of the problems that confront us, rather than scoring political points off each other.
Having had a couple of conversations about the issue over the past few weeks, I should point out that although we are talking about youth justice and reflecting on the young people that cause us problems, huge numbers of young people are a great credit to themselves and their families. They do a remarkable amount of good, including charity work and volunteering, and they contribute a great deal to society.
I shall start in the same way as my hon. Friend the Minister by examining some of facts that I took from the excellent social exclusion unit policy action team 12 report on young people. The report is now a year old and some of the facts will have since been updated, but I shall quote from it because it provides the context for our debate today. It states that
"One in three men have a criminal record by the age of 30"—
an astonishing figure—and that
"40 per cent of offenders are under the age of 21 and a quarter are under 18".
That, too, is astonishing. The report also states that there is an
"Increase in violent crime by juveniles".
An important factor that has not been mentioned so far is the increasing amount of violent crime by young women.
My hon. Friend the Minister drew attention to the victims of crime. The report states:
"In England and Wales, young people aged 16–24 are more likely to be victimised than any other group."
We often think of it as an adult issue, but young people in schools, youth clubs and on the streets are also concerned about crime and youth justice. The majority of them know someone who has been a victim or have themselves been victims because they are the most likely victims. The report continues:
"a quarter of all violent crime is committed against young men… One in six young people aged 14–25 are the victim of a violent offence each year and more than one in three 12–15-year-olds are assaulted each year."
When I read those statistics to provide the context for today's debate, I was confronted again with the enormity of the issue that we are discussing and what we should be doing about it. The classic retort, which we all make sometimes when we are frustrated, is, "Let's get tougher. We must crack down on crime and lock up more young people." I say that because I, too, am frustrated. For persistent offenders—violent and dangerous young people who are a threat to society or who simply will not respond to anything—there is no alternative because we must protect the public.
The report, to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury and my hon. Friend the Minister referred, also states:
"There are 11,500 15–21-year-olds in custody, of whom at least three-quarters will be re-convicted within two years of release. Nearly three-quarters of offenders under the age of 21 released from prison are re-convicted within two years. The imprisonment rate has risen by about 50 per cent since the early 1990s."
However, the popular myth is that offenders are getting away with their crimes. Our debate is important because those are the facts. We are locking up more young

151WH
people and, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, of the 29 member states of the Council of Europe, only Romania, Estonia and Lithuania have higher imprisonment rates for people under the age of 21 than England.
I make no apology for quoting at length from the report. We must ask ourselves whether we feel safer and whether there has been a reduction in antisocial behaviour, re-offending rates, and so on. There is an enormous amount of work for us to do as a Parliament, as a Government and as elected Members to try to improve the lot of our constituents. There is certainly a problem.
I was delighted by my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks, which the hon. Member for Aylesbury supported. We seem to be entering an era in which we are determined to confront some of the difficult facts. We must ensure that persistent and dangerous offenders are locked up and kept away from the community so that they are no longer a threat. I am interested, however, in the various other measures that the Government are examining to try to turn young people away from crime. It is early days, but I am pleased that we now have young offending teams to bring together different people and agencies. The matter is not just for the police, although, of course, they are involved. Social services, housing agencies and others need to come together to support young people and their families. The Government are making progress in putting the restorative aspect in place as well as ensuring that we clamp down on those who persistently offend.
It is more helpful to discuss practical matters rather than to have a purely intellectual debate. As well as introducing new measures, we must ensure that existing laws and regulations are enforced. Where youth justice is concerned, there is nothing more frustrating for people than the introduction of a new initiative that they thought they had heard all about a couple of years ago. We need to enforce existing laws and to ensure that new ones work.
There has been a problem with antisocial behaviour orders. I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made about north Lancashire, but there have been problems in other parts of the country. Not as many orders have been passed as expected. I was delighted—as, I am sure, were many other hon. Members—by the introduction of the orders, because at last there was a civil, rather than a criminal, sanction for a problem that was driving us all mad—antisocial behaviour by young people on our streets.
We all hear about those problems in our constituency surgeries. Of course, serious crimes are brought to our attention there as well, but a large number of my surgeries—and this seems to be true for other hon. Members—are taken up with people complaining about what seems to be quite trivial antisocial behaviour, but which is driving them stark, raving mad because of what they have to put up with in their own houses and on their streets. When antisocial behaviour goes unchecked in our communities, there is a sense that the law is not being properly implemented, and that can lead to other things. I would like antisocial behaviour orders to be examined to see whether they can be toughened and tightened up.
152WH
Many people say that existing laws on the sale of alcohol to young people and tenancy agreements with councils are not properly enforced. People who take on council properties are supposed to ensure that their, children are properly supervised, but no one enforces tenancy agreements with the necessary rigour and thoroughness. My first plea to the Minister is that antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts be made sufficiently rigorous.
I am pleased that the number of police is being increased because that is important for our communities and for youth justice on the streets. Given what we have seen in the past few weeks on our television screens, it is also important that my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in the Department look again at how to recruit more ethnic minority police officers. There have been many initiatives to try to deal with that issue. We should celebrate the fact that we live in a multicultural society that is an inspiration to us all, but we must consider why we cannot recruit the ethnic minority officers that we need. Greater numbers of such recruits would be enormously helpful.
To judge by the comments of my constituents, there is a great deal of work to do. Many members of the public have lost confidence in community sanctions. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister talk about the need for community punishments as an alternative to locking up young people, but they should not be regarded as a soft option. We must give people the confidence in community sanctions that they have so far lacked. It may not be fair to describe them as a soft option, but if they are seen as such it will be very difficult for them to work.
I was also pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister talk about the causes of crime. It is important to consider the circumstances of many young people. I make no apology for believing that if we totally divorce the criminal justice system from its social context, it is doomed to failure. We need also to consider poverty, housing, poor facilities, educational achievement, and so on. The Home Office should talk to other Departments about the provision of sporting, recreational and leisure facilities for young people, and about what is being done to tackle other neighbourhood problems. We need also to talk to more young people, and to give them a voice.
This morning, I had the privilege of visiting Ernehale junior school in my constituency. Nottinghamshire police and the local education authority have set up the DARE—drug abuse resistance education—programme, certificates for which were being awarded to young people at the school. Police officers, teachers and parents are working together to try to give year 6 pupils the personal skills necessary to resist drugs. When I was there this morning, they were given certificates and tee-shirts such as this one—
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Hansard writers find it extremely difficult to record visual exhibits, which are therefore prohibited in the Chamber.
Vernon Coaker: I am sorry, Mr. Gale.
What was important about the DARE graduation that I attended this morning with year 6 pupils was the optimism that it offered. The police, social services and

153WH
parents have, by working together, given young people the skills, self-esteem and ability to resist drugs, which is the way forward. We must punish those who persistently offend, but we must also recognise that we need to look at ways in which we can turn people away from crime by giving them the hope, skills and abilities that they need to resist the temptations that will come their way.
This is an enormously difficult time for young people to grow up in and we have not yet got the youth justice system right. However, this debate on how to address the serious problems that our young people face gives cause for optimism. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in clamping down on persistent offenders and finding a form for the restorative justice that will, in the end, give us more hope. When we have a similar debate in three or four years' time we shall not be quoting the sort of distressing figures that we have heard today.
4.11 pm
Simon Hughes: Like others, I welcome the debate. I welcome the fact that the Government have given us this opportunity in the week of the publication of the Youth Justice Board report, which means that there is a logical sequence of events.
Today gives me my first opportunity to welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes). I look forward to working with her and her colleagues at the Home Office. She has experience, commitment and interest.
Judging by the tenor of the debate, it has been well worth having. Some of us, including me, were in the Chamber on Tuesday debating not unrelated issues in the debate on urban community relations. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was also present. Many issues that cropped up in that debate are relevant to today's, and vice versa.
Politics, life and news are a rollercoaster event. We went from the debate on Tuesday, which was well reported and regarded, to a day when the public debate focused on the Conservative party's leadership and its future. Today we woke up to have a debate on crime statistics, which has gone on to be about crime and sentencing. I hope that this debate features against the other two big stories of today, because unless we sort out the problems of youth offending we will create considerable problems for ourselves.
Like the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Aylesbury, we are all under pressure at this time of the year to reconcile our time here in the last week of term with other people's last weeks of term. Before I came here this afternoon, I attended the leavers' service of the primary school of which I am chair of governors. It was held in the parish church of St James's in Bermondsey. When I stood up to say a couple of words, behind me was a beautiful picture accompanied by the appropriate theological phrase, "Lo, I am with you always."
As I drove back from Bermondsey, I reflected on the fact that most young people get into some sort of scrape or trouble. However—the hon. Member for Gedling
154WH
was right—in most cases it does not remain with them: they do not become locked into a pattern of behaviour or get a criminal record.
Earlier in the week, we have the launch of the Youth Justice Board report at which the Minister was present; I apologise for the fact that I could not be there. Like others, I pay tribute to the board for its work. It is fair to say that there is little difference of opinion between the three parties on some simple propositions. Until a few years ago, the youth justice system was in a mess. I do not blame that entirely on the Conservative Administration, but the statistics speak for themselves. The Audit Commission's report was strident and pungent about the crying need for reform. One oft-mentioned statistic was that 3 per cent. of offenders were responsible for 25 per cent. of offences. Another salient point picked up by the commission was that in 1991 more than 1,000 young people aged 15 to 16 were on custodial remand, whereas by 1995—four years later—the number had increased to 17,000.
The social exclusion unit figures quoted by the hon. Member for Gedling remind us that if we are not careful to implement the correct strategies, the numbers simply grow. The message from the courts has been that no alternative exists and that the public and the young person must both be protected. However, we learn from reports such as those of the chief inspector of prisons that putting a youngster in custody is often far removed from providing protection. Tough, clear statements have been made that many youngsters in custody are bullied, harassed and assaulted. As we are all aware, they are unlikely to be improved by the experience.
Feltham young offenders institution—where, happily, there has been a division into two regimes—is the subject of a report due out, I think, next week. It is a pity that it was not published before today's debate. I join the hon. Member for Aylesbury in asking the Minister to tell us what further strategies the Government have introduced to ensure that abuse and self-abuse—at the most extreme, attempted suicide—are reduced in our custodial institutions for young people. The chief inspector is clear: there has been far too much bullying, assault and harassment. The figures on attempted suicides are a disgrace to all of us.
I agree with the Minister that reducing drug taking by young people is hugely important. The hon. Member for Gedling pointed out the need to reduce alcohol abuse as well. Hon. Members will have seen last month's news bulletin printed inside the cover of the Youth Justice Board report. The MORI survey that was commissioned at the same time as the report revealed attitudes to crime and set out three factors, called motivators, environmental factors, and values, that influenced children's likelihood to offend. Motivators were explained through quotes from youngsters, such as the following:
"You do it for a laugh."
Another said:
"That copper up behind you. You get the blood pumping. You know you're going to get chased. That is a rush."
The experience is excitement for young people. A third motivator was:
"When I was nine, I was f***ing mad and I used to do anything for money."

155WH
Money is often a factor for youngsters. Mobile phones are often nicked and sold on for money.
There is also a section in the survey on environmental factors. On Tuesday, I mentioned the fact that there are places near all of us where no one would want to live. That is no inducement to good behaviour or the belief that quality of life must be enhanced. The survey also mentions values, offering a sad and telling statement that I will quote verbatim, because it picks up some important themes and provides an example of what we are trying to deal with. A 15-year-old female offender said:
"I probably wouldn't have done half of them things if I weren't pissed. When I was on Valium I thieved so much alcohol from the shops. You just don't give two shits. And if boys pull up next to you that are stoned in the car, if you're sober you're like, 'No, because then I'll get nicked.' But if you're pissed you'd be like, 'oh, yes, man… let's go'."
That is not unreal. We all know that that is how people sometimes come to us, and we see such people on the streets. It is tragic, pathetic and awful. Before I became an MP, as well as a lawyer in the criminal courts I was a youth leader. I dealt with that sort of kid every day because they came to the youth courts every day.
The report is clear. The telling statistic from the Youth Justice Board is that last year 160,000 decisions were made in the youth justice system, of which 50 per cent. were final warnings and reprimands, 26 per cent. community-based penalties, 20 per cent. community sentences and 4 per cent. custodial sentences. We need to remind people that the courts have—thank goodness—decided that we do not need to send inside the majority of those who come into the youth justice system. Only four in 100 are sent inside, because the other options are better.
As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, some young people have no appropriate role model. That point is constantly made. Normally, it is a case of young men lacking an adequate role model, although it is a sad trend that more and more young women are behaving badly. Young women are more likely to have a role model, but in some cases it is clearly not a satisfactory one. That is demonstrated by the statistics given at the beginning of the report, which I have used to set the scene without duplicating what other hon. Members have said.
Answers given by the Under-Secretary's predecessor—the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—to parliamentary questions tabled earlier this year. Show that, of those aged between 10 and 17, a fairly consistent number are sentenced at magistrates courts—about 5,500 during each of the past five years. Happily, only a few of that age group are sentenced at the Crown court, but that figure shows a worrying increase, having gone up from almost 3,000 in 1995 to almost 5,000 in 1999, which reflects the severity of what the young people in question do. At the youth court, the total number sentenced has risen from 59,470 in 1995 to 79,883 in 1999.
It is therefore not surprising to read in the YJB report the responses of regular school attenders to the question, "Have you committed any criminal offence in the last 12 months?" In 2000—only a year ago—when the board carried out the survey, 22 per cent. answered yes. In one year that figure has increased to 25 per cent.—a quarter of all young people. Whereas a year
156WH
ago the only two figures that were above 25 per cent. were 44 per cent. in respect of fare dodging and 31 per cent. in respect of shop theft. This year, fare dodging has increased to 49 per cent. of those questioned, vandalising property to 39 per cent. and shop theft to 35 per cent. The really worrying and depressing figure is for physical assault, which has increased to 35 per cent. of those questioned.
There are features common to all those offences. I take the view that there is a step difference between offences against property and offences against other people and I think that everybody with responsibility in this area agrees. That is why I told the Minister about the findings of the work done in Southwark, which may have to be further refined but which shows the pattern of physical abuse being replicated in different ways as youngsters get older. Surprisingly for me when I went through the figures I learned that, tragically, it often starts with abuse in the home by a parent, relative, carer, stepchild or mother's boyfriend; the young person in turn becomes the bullied, the bully, then the offender.
One point completes and reinforces the picture. The hon. Member for Gedling quoted the social exclusion unit figures from 2000. Because I had to respond on my party's behalf to the latest crime figures, I read carefully the crime figures report that was embargoed until this morning. Looking at violent crime as a whole in the last year, victimisation was highest in the 14 to 19 age group, which accounted for one in five of all victims. In addition, three quarters of male victims and nearly 9 per cent. of female victims knew the offenders, so they were victims as well as offenders and they knew each other in many cases. In the case of robbery, the 14 to 17-year-old males group accounted for a quarter of all victims in the last year for which statistics are available, and 40 per cent. of the suspects were males aged 14 to 19.
We have a group of young people—the future of the country. Many of them start off on the straight and narrow. Often, they often become offenders or victims, but on stripping away the bravado, we find that they do not want to be either. They want to go on and get the same satisfaction from life as the rest of us.
The Minister made two other important points which I wholly endorse. We must make sure that in the pattern of constructive activity we do not think only about the three school terms—or six, if that change occurs—but of the time between the terms, when summer schemes and the like are hugely important. The second is that it is clearly right for young people that the period between offence, punishment and disposal should be as short as possible. Otherwise, the system does not work. Youngsters have to understand the relationship between the two, or it becomes disjointed—a game.
Will the Minister and her colleagues to try to increase the co-ordination between her Department and the Departments for Education and Skills, for Work and Pensions and for Culture, Media and Sport in certain areas? We desperately need more trained and qualified youth workers. I hope that by the end of this Parliament we shall have the youth service on a statutory footing, which would help a lot. We need more counsellors for young people—people qualified to help with drugs, alcohol and other problems.
We desperately need more mentors. I have long believed that if every primary school child in their leaving year had somebody come in to talk about their

157WH
aspirations—someone from business, sport or elsewhere in the community; it could be a police officer, somebody in the services, a teacher or whatever—and that happened again in secondary school before children started to play truant, to be excluded and so on, they would have something to motivate them and they would be more likely to remain engaged.
Some children are not academic; they are not going to be academic. It is no good thinking that GCSEs are what they want out of school. They might want to drive cars or ride trail bikes instead. We should find out what will lock them into pursuing a sense of achievement and value. I hope that Ministers will talk to each other about how we can maximise that; a programme that supports each youngster in that way would be helpful.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Aylesbury that they should not get a message that if they behave they will receive mercenary rewards. We live in far too mercenary a society—there is too much bribery by way of anything from increased pocket money to a double cheeseburger. We must find non-mercenary rewards, and schools try by way of stars, merit marks and all the traditional coloured sticky things that we used to have on our school books. Things like that matter a lot.
Having expressed solidarity and a desire to collaborate and agree with colleagues, I have another point that I should like to flesh out. Again, it has already been made by the hon. Member for Gedling. There is an interesting book about communities and how to rebuild them co-authored by Lord Young of Dartington, the Labour sociologist. It makes the point that, for 30 or 40 years, housing allocation destroyed communities: moving a single 17-year-old into a flat where he or she does not know anyone, or moving a young couple with a child or two nine-year-old children away from their parents, aunts and uncles or grandparents means that there is no family support. Inadequate parenting—we might all be guilty of that—is compounded by inadequate support, and kids are out and about, running amok much more. We must make sure that social landlords, such as the local authority, and others in the housing sector, manage housing policies, housing allocation, tenancy issues and responsible neighbour issues much more effectively.
I have a set of questions that are not intended aggressively, but designed to check where we stand. They arise as much from other people's concerns as from my own. First, the new intensive surveillance and supervision programme was launched this week. I welcomed the pilot in Southwark. However, I want to ask whether it is intended to be an alternative to custody. If so, custody-level offences have to be reached before it should be considered. However, there is always a danger of downward slippage in the mind of the person handing out the sentence.
Secondly, how are we doing with ensuring that youth offending teams are properly evaluated before they are developed? People in the sector have put it to me, and the Minister will know this from her family, that there is a mountain of work and that people want to move quickly. There is a danger that we do not learn the lessons of the past. The Minister was honest enough to say, "Look, this is a new system and we don't have all the answers yet." That is true—we clearly do not, and I
158WH
am keen that we do not push people more quickly than it is humanly possible for them to go as regards evaluation. In that context, who evaluates the youth offending teams? Is it the Youth Justice Board or someone else? What is the Minister's plan in that regard?
Thirdly, I shall not make a party point about implementation but merely express my trust that the Government's goal for speeding up the youth justice system will be achieved by next year. If it is not, I will have a bit of a go, but I am happy to wait. However, there is a tension between accelerating the process and ensuring that the victim gets involved in any reparation system. It is not always easy to get victims to sign up to being part of the criminal justice process; they do not necessarily feel happy about having a relationship with the person who committed the offence.
One encouraging point to emerge from the reports by the Youth Justice Board and Her Majesty's inspector of prisons is that young people understand the impact of the crime much more if it is personalised and they relate it to someone, rather than to society as a whole. I am a huge believer in the effect of that approach. If offenders suddenly realised that smashing up someone's car meant that it could not be used to take a little child to hospital, they suddenly see their offence in a personal context—it could have been their little brother or sister or baby. Will the Minister make it clear that we are not accelerating the process and cutting the time between the criminal act and disposal so much that we lose the opportunity of working with victims?
Fourthly, are we satisfied that the people in the youth courts are now adequately trained? The issue was raised by the professionals—by the Magistrates Association, the Judicial Studies Board and Her Majesty's inspector. Fifthly, are we satisfied that the courts take a consistent approach? I am not one who believes that we should have robots in the courts—we should not. We have individuals who judge the individual, the crime and the community circumstances. Clearly, however, we must make sure that there is no unjustified disparity.
Sixthly, when will the new referral orders be implemented? I think that I am right in saying that they are planned for next year at the latest. Do we have plans to make sure that enough community volunteers are recruited to sit as panel members and to ensure that youth offending teams are adequately resourced?
My last two points relate to matters touched on by the hon. Member for Gedling. The other day, I substituted for the Minister at a National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders conference—it is amusing to think that a Liberal Democrat spokesman substituted for a Minister; I am not sure that No. 10 Downing street would regard such an option as automatically desirable, although I sure that we could often manage to express compatible views. Perhaps it would be better to say that I took the Minister's place at the NACRO conference, which was about what we do with 18 to 20-year-olds.
It is clear from the debate in the Lords and from Lord Warner's contribution that, whereas huge progress has been made with youngsters aged up to 17, many of the advantages thus gained will be lost unless we get the system for those aged 18 and upwards in working order. I do not want the Minister to tell us that things will be changed in two seconds, as that would be a mistake.

159WH
However, I should be grateful to know what process and timetable are envisaged for working out whether the Youth Justice Board or a similar body should deal with commissioning. I prefer the idea of commissioning for a band covering those aged 18 to 24; the 18 to 20 grouping is less appropriate.
I have a plea. I perceive a dilemma to which we are all prey. Governments frequently want to sound tough, even though the more effective actions are often the less tough ones. The hon. Member for Gedling made that point well, as did the hon. Member for Aylesbury. There is a tendency to use phrases that dress up or hype the need to punish. The trouble with that approach is that it hides the truth and does not educate the public about what really works, and the culture that it creates can lead those who pass sentences to respond accordingly.
One of our new colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), is a philosopher—his background is as a teacher of philosophy. He told me that Plato said that democracy was a nightmare operation because it meant pandering to the public wish, which was bad for the public because a more considered response was preferable. I am no expert on such matters but that is what I am told. Plato was apparently a spin doctor of his day—an adviser rather than an elected politician.
The general election is over, there will not be another for some years and the Government appear to have just enough of a majority to enable them to hang on for four years. In that case, the more honest that we can be about what is effective rather than what sounds tough, the better. I do not criticise the Minister, but my plea is that we set a pattern of honest debate about what works rather than what sounds good.
Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, on which I have been reflecting. Does he agree that the debate needs to include a challenge to what I could call the popular notion—it is not only public usage, but the language that we use in the House—of what is tough? I have never accepted that there is an inherent contradiction in the idea of a toughness that demands rigour and discipline but that constructively provides some of what young offenders need to avoid future offending.
Simon Hughes: I absolutely agree. Besides doing youth work, I spent a few happy days experiencing borstal from the inside—not compulsorily, I point out lest hon. Members get the wrong idea. It was a telling experience. Half the time it was frustratingly and desperately boring. Being locked up is a quite unpleasant experience: knowing I could not get through the door brought on an overwhelming desire to go the pub, which would not normally have overcome me in the middle of the night. Besides that, there were activities that were theoretically tough but actually easy, like completing an assault course or some other tough physical assignment that was over in 20 minutes. That is easier than routinely turning up to take part in responsible activity for weeks or months. It is often much tougher to confront one's actions and their implications by dealing with the victim, or as part of a group that forces one to come to terms with one's inadequacies.
160WH
Whatever other arrangements are made between parties in this Parliament, I am happy to collaborate and co-operate with Ministers as much as possible on this issue. I have suggested to the Home Secretary, on behalf of my party, that we do so in respect of criminal justice reforms. We serve no one by making cheap political points and holding a Dutch auction of wacky ideas. We need a more measured approach.
The answers will not come tomorrow, as the Minister honestly said. There is always pressure on the Government to deliver so that something can immediately be put in the shop window. If we get the system right, it may take the lifetime of this Parliament to establish it firmly, and another Parliament to see that it works. Reducing crime, preventing re-offending and allowing more young people to start on the path toward responsible, constructive adulthoods is a prize well worth having, as much for them as for the rest of us.
4.40 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): It is a pleasure to take part in such a stimulating debate. I am mildly bemused by the idea of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) committing himself to a borstal for three days to experience life there. He may recommend it, but I would not take up a similar offer, even though he has risen in my esteem by being prepared to go to such lengths.
The Minister's intervention of a few minutes ago was extremely important and constructive. If we can create a genuine dialogue about the issues between all parties in the House and outside, we could make real progress on youth justice. Earlier this afternoon, I diverted myself with the thought that it is almost 20 years to the week since I began a placement at a pioneering youth justice project in Rochdale, in the days when IT meant intermediate treatment rather than information technology. That project explicitly set out to put into practice the ideas developed by David Thorpe, David Smith and Norman Tutt at Lancaster university's centre for youth crime and community. It acknowledged the role of systems in youth justice and worked towards the development of ideas about effective practice, concentrating on offending behaviour, seeking to confront young people about it and effecting lasting change. It took a multidisciplinary approach, but compared with the present structures—the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams—those early stages were rudimentary in the extreme.
I welcome the debate because it coincides with the publication of a good report from the Youth Justice Board, and because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced intensive supervision and surveillance programmes earlier this week. I am not sure of the figures nationally but am pleased that, in Lancashire, it will mean £2.7 million of extra investment over three years. That will enable work to be carried out with 75 young people at once, to reduce offending by 5 per cent. and to tackle those young people's underlying problems. It will pay particular attention to educational needs and will develop a programme that I hope will reassure the community about the extremely serious behaviour of those young people who can be regarded as persistent offenders—young people who have been charged or warned for imprisonable offences on four or more occasions and who have received at least one

161WH
community or custodial penalty. They will not be first offenders but serious, persistent offenders. The community should at least be reassured that the programmes can operate rigorously and be effective and that they have substantial resources behind them.
As I said, those programmes will be targeted at persistent offenders. Those working on the programmes will have a case load ratio of one worker to five young people, which is a remarkable level of intensity. The programmes will stress reparation, education, and training and will deal with serious offending behaviour to help young people to build a bigger stake in the community. I hope that grounds for breach in those programmes will be operated rigorously; if so, they will provide an excellent tool. In addition to the local youth offending team, they will make a big difference in dealing with the offending behaviour of those young people.
As well as reducing crime and assisting young people to make far more of their lives, I hope that a programme of intensive supervision and surveillance will begin to reduce the incidence of custody in my local area and throughout the country. I have not worked in youth justice since the late 1980s, but I have worked within a system that managed to obtain a custody-free zone. That was a worthy objective and I am still proud of having been part of achieving it.
The considerable use that we make of custody is unacceptable. We should put an end to remand in custody for 15 and 16-year-olds. I am completely opposed to the use of prison custody for all young people under 18. I firmly believe that young people who are a danger to others and to the community and have to be kept away from the community should be maintained in secure units that are subject to the Children Act 1989, which imposes the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of young people who, although they may have committed the most serious and heinous offences, are still children. I shall return to that subject later.
On a more positive note, after several years of necessary upheaval, the Government are putting youth justice on the right lines. As I said in an intervention, the strong leadership of the Youth Justice Board is important, but it must maintain quality control and surveillance and consider the effectiveness of youth offending teams. It is beginning to work. Its admirable goals are to help rebuild communities and promote decent opportunities for all by preventing offending by children and young people. I strongly support its aim to promote a culture in which it is a matter of shame for young people and their parents to appear in a youth court. I strongly support an approach that emphasises the rights of victims and the responsibilities of young people and their parents to reduce the seriousness and frequency of offending by children and young people, which, in turn, will lessen the use of youth courts and custody measures. What had, in the 1990s, become a confusing and inadequate mess has been transformed under the Government's direction.
I look forward in particular to the introduction of referral orders in April 2002 as a result of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. I firmly believe that an approach to first-time offenders that involves
162WH
parents, agencies and communities as well as victims in a programme of restorative justice to tackle criminal behaviour that requires offenders to repay their victims will be a key building block in the youth justice system of the future. It is important to reflect on the huge range of community approaches in the youth justice system. Referral orders will complement the system of final warnings, reparation orders, parenting orders, action plans, combination orders, curfews, ASBOs and compensation orders, as well as the more traditional approaches of fines, conditional discharges, binding over and supervision orders. People know what systems work and are clear about which measures address offending behaviour and relocate young people positively in community structures. If emphasis is placed on identifying which systems work and they are linked to other basic networks and community opportunities, it will make a huge difference.
I declare an interest as the husband of a sure start manager. We need to put youth justice in an overall context of community redevelopment and regeneration. I agree with the Government's programmes on neighbourhood regeneration, the renewal of initiatives to combat child poverty, the promotion of work opportunities for parents, providing young children and their families with great opportunities under programmes such as sure start at an early stage and facilities such as the children's fund. Locating youth justice within such systems and facilities can be profoundly important. It is the only way in which youth justice will work and how we shall achieve an acceptable situation. I strongly believe in the participation of young people in the structures that dominate their lives and in the decisions that are important to them. It is of enormous significance that we empower and involve young people at all levels—that is a message for the Youth Justice Board and other agencies working with young people in the community.
Two important issues are the rate of custody and the age of criminal responsibility. I am firmly opposed to young people being in adult prisons, and we have had an indication of the Government's reluctance about such placements. I hope that the Government will agree that, as a fundamental principle, young people should not be in adult prisons. That resolution should not be undermined by factors such as whether facilities are closer to home. It is a fundamental principle that young people should not mix with adult offenders.
Young people are accommodated in other forms of Home Office custody. In 1999, approximately 4,700 young people received custodial sentences and at the end of March 2000, 1,708 under-18s were serving sentences in custody. We seem to lock up more teenagers than almost any other country in western Europe, and I wonder why. We almost doubled the number of imprisoned 15, 16 and 17-year-olds between 1993 and 1998. I am concerned that the alterations to the criteria for remand under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will lead to more young people being in custody, which cannot be right.
We are aware—it has been mentioned again this afternoon—of the number of young people who have committed suicide in custodial institutions and of the huge number of incidents of self-harm. There has been

163WH
a stream of horrific reports from the prisons inspectorate, which said that it had
"not come across such totally deliberate and unnecessary impoverishment of children anywhere",
and that this would be
"unacceptable in a civilised country".
The inspectorate has highlighted
"disgraceful treatment and appalling conditions."
Incidents of bullying, criminal behaviour and drug abuse are well documented, as is the gross overrepresentation of young black people within custodial institutions. Such a system cannot be right.
I have an excellent young offenders institution within my constituency. I am going to Lancaster Farms tomorrow to celebrate and commend its work. Although I admire the institution's work with young adults, I am appalled that there is now a wing—albeit rigorously separate from the rest of the establishment—that is available for 12-year-olds. With the possibility of the extension of detention and training orders, some of those involved may be as young as 10.
Not only am I morally opposed to the use of custody for young people, I do not believe that it is effective in reducing crime. Custody is not a tough measure: it avoids the really tough decisions, which involve facing the necessity of confronting young people with their offending behaviour, of putting in place structures and systems that can support them, of addressing their behaviour in the community, and of addressing the role of the parents and the institutions that have failed them in the community. Compared with facing those decisions, locking young offenders away for a while is not a tough measure. Our debate has given me hope that we can have further discussions on this issue.
Custody for young people reinforces their criminal identity. It also cuts them off from their families, schools and wider communities when much needs to be done to re-establish those ties and to build mutual commitment—which is very important. The high rate at which we commit young people to custody demeans us all, and it must be addressed. The Government have done a lot for children—although they must do a heck of a lot more—and they should be making great strides to address the issue.
The best way for the Government to start to get to grips with the problems of the youth justice system is for them to take a good, hard and considered look at the age of criminal responsibility. At present, criminal responsibility starts at 10 years of age, when children are still in primary school. Children are not legally entitled to own a hamster until they are 12 years old, but at the age of 10 they are expected to take the responsibility for criminal behaviour that is applicable and relevant to an adult. The age of criminal responsibility is 18 in Belgium and Luxembourg, 16 in Portugal and Spain, 15 in Denmark, 14 in Germany, 13 in France and 12 in Greece.
Youth justice is a serious issue for young people and their families. It is also important to communities: lives can blighted, destroyed and disrupted by the serious criminal behaviour of young people. However, their problems must be addressed properly, and in the right context: it must be acknowledged that they are, in many ways, the victims of communities that need huge
164WH
resources, investment and support to enable them to become fit places to live in. The serious underlying problems in such children's lives must be addressed. Many of them have problems with their families, schools or mental health. All of their various problems must be addressed firmly and comprehensively. We should not go down the custodial route, or resort to the soundbites that all politicians, including me, can be driven to utter when we feel under pressure.
The Government are moving along the right lines; good basic structures are being put in place, and I look forward to continuing this debate over the coming years. This is an opportune time, as has been said: we are at the beginning of a new Parliament, so we have several years to think the issues through. Some basic structures are beginning to be put right, and we should now begin to tackle some of the hard and difficult issues.
5.4 pm
Beverley Hughes: It is a long while since I heard such a constructive and informed debate in Parliament. It augurs well for cross-party support, although it has raised matters that not only Opposition Members but my hon. Friends will take issue with. However, I welcome the general support for the Government's approach, and the co-operation to engender the debate that, as it is acknowledged, must take place.
I have tried to pick out themes in hon. Members' speeches, rather than simply responding to individuals, and I shall try to address those themes as comprehensively as possible. A number of hon. Members mentioned the Government's pledge in 1997 to reduce the average time—at 142 days, a considerable period—taken for a persistent young offender to move through the criminal justice system from charge to sentence. I am glad that it has been recognised, notwithstanding questions about the impact on reducing the period, that the period between being apprehended and the matter being disposed of at sentence is too long to allow young people to make the necessary link.
I tell the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the pledge was to reduce the average time taken by half by or before May 2002—that holds. By the first quarter of this year, 18 of the 42 areas were already at or below 71 days. We cannot claim that we have met the pledge overall because it was about the average time. However, we are working hard so that by—or possibly before—May 2002 we will be able to say that the average has been reduced to that level.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) queried whether that might conflict with the goal of reparation. I remind him that the pledge is about persistent young offenders because that is where the strong link must be made most forcibly. When the pledge is met, we will examine how we continue to ensure the continuation of the principle of keeping the time gap as reasonable as possible. It may be that another pledge is not the correct approach. We will have made a big inroad when the pledge is met and may then have to think of other ways to ensure that the time does not drift back. Reparation largely comes beyond sentence—certainly in terms of many orders that we have heard about today—when discussions following sentence take place about how a young

165WH
offender can best make reparation to an individual consenting victim or the wider community. I am not concerned that we prevent reparation by trying to keep a reasonable period of time to enforce the necessary link.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of suicides and self-harm, as did the hon. Member for Aylesbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). In February, the Home Secretary announced a new three-year strategy to reduce suicides and self-harm across the custodial estate. That was a response to the rising trend of incidents resulting in suicide or serious self-harm. The Director General of the Prison Service has made the matter a personal priority since his appointment in 1999. I do not want to be premature, but we are beginning to see the results of that focus and the action that resulted from having that strategic approach. There was a 16 per cent. reduction in suicides in the financial year 2000–01 compared to the previous year. So far this year, that trend has continued. Of course, even the present figure represents a tragedy, but there has been a reduction. There were 30 self-inflicted deaths across the prison estate by 3 July this year, compared with 42 in a similar period last year.
I cannot give the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey the differentiated figures for young offenders in institutions, but I am confident that they are part of that trend which, after a long upward tendency, is heading downwards. As hon. Members intimated, it is a tragedy for people to lose their lives in custody in such a way. The incidence of suicide and self-harm is also, for many people, a barometer of the general health, or the ill health, of the custodial system.
Simon Hughes: The Minister might not be able to give the answer now, but will she at some stage tell us whether the following two things are in place? First, do all prisoners—especially juveniles and young adults—whether they enter custody on remand or on conviction, have access to a "buddy" system with someone already in custody? That is good practice.
Secondly, do all prisoners go into cells for more than one person at the beginning, so that for the initial few days, which are always the critical period, someone appropriate can monitor them effectively and be on hand? That appears to be one of the best ways of managing prisoners through that time of crisis.
Beverley Hughes: The "buddy" or mentoring system is developing strongly, especially in the youth offender institutions. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether every single person can have that facility on entry, but I will write to him on those matters after the debate.
The hon. Gentleman also raised some specific questions to which other Members did not refer, which I will deal with now. ISSPs are indeed specifically framed as an alternative to custody. He mentioned courts, and asked whether there was consistency. I think that we all recognise that variance exists in the system, and it is difficult to know whether that variance is justified from the figures, because we do not hear all the detail of individual cases and circumstances that might be taken into account. However, the main objectives of the Halliday review, which has now reported, and the
166WH
way in which the Government use those proposals and any others that come out of the consultation process, are designed to ensure that we achieve consistency across courts, within the limits of a system taking individual factors into account. People should be able to expect consistency in sentencing when they appear in different courts in different parts of the country.
Referral orders are coming on stream everywhere in April 2002; 11 pilots are running at present. I raised the issue of volunteers with my officials, because we have recently cleared the guidance on referral orders. At a conference held on Tuesday, that guidance was made available to youth offending team managers and others. It was asked whether there would be difficulty in getting volunteers to serve or community panels. The experience from the pilots suggests that a diverse range of people is willing to undertake that public duty. It is important that those panels represent the diversity within their local communities. So far, the pilots have succeeded. We may face challenges in some areas, but the evidence suggests that with the right strategy they can be overcome.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about youth offender team training and resources, to which I shall refer later. They are important, because much of our aspiration for the effectiveness of the new system and its facilities depends on the quality of the work of individual professionals on the ground with individual young offenders. We recognise the importance of resourcing and training, which the Youth Justice Board takes seriously.
I shall deal later with several points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I listened carefully to his views on the use of custody and the age of criminal responsibility. He speaks, as always on the subject, from a considered and informed position. As he will know, the Government's view on the age of criminal responsibility is now settled, and differs from his. However, I hope that he will recognise that as a result of the Government's emphasis on prevention, including my comments today and observations about prevention, although we may make young people liable for their behaviour at an early age, we have put in great effort and resources and have provided several new opportunities for young people who enter the system at an early stage to be diverted from such behaviour as effectively as possible. Although I accept that there is no meeting of minds on the principle, I hope that there is a meeting of minds on what we each want to achieve in keeping very young people out of the criminal system and from consolidating a criminal career.
The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Aylesbury mentioned 18 to 20-year-olds. We have rightly focused on juveniles, in the custodial estate in particular. The impact of the Youth Justice Board in improving conditions in the juvenile custodial estate has been significant. In recognition of that effectiveness, our manifesto for the last election included a commitment to use our experience of the Youth Justice Board in improving the circumstances of juveniles not only in custody but across the board, apply those lessons in considering the 18 to 20-year-old group and make that the next priority for improvement. Ministers in the Department have already commissioned work to develop that approach, and I

167WH
shall ensure that that work progresses rapidly over the next few months. Hon. Members will be interested to know that I shall not have much of a recess, as that is one of the urgent pieces of work that needs to be done. Many Ministers are involved, but I am initiating it.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned one of the many issues that need to be considered—18 to 20 and the right, or most feasible, age group, about which views differ. The 18 to 20-year-old group has been identified because, as about half the 100,000 persistent offenders are in that age group, an impact on it could have a significant impact on crime overall.
Another issue is whether 21 to 24-year-olds would be more suitably linked with the way in which we treat adults in the criminal justice system, rather than the way in which we treat young people aged 16 and 17. There are a number of different professional views about that, which we want to take on board in developing our ideas about the 18 to 20-year-old group—or whatever age group it turns out to be. Custody will not be the only focus, although I recognise some of the urgent questions in that regard. We will look across the board in the same way that we have for juveniles to consider how we can make the system more effective for them.
Broadly, two important issues were raised by Members of all parties in this debate. The first was concerned generally with questions of evaluation, effectiveness and performance. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he would be looking, from the Opposition's point of view, with a beady eye on performance. He will be behind me, because I will be looking with a beady eye as well. I, and all my colleagues, want these measures to work. I agree with him that, in terms of the measures by which we will be judged, the impact that we have on youth offending and re-offending will be one of the most important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised some important points about the need to make sure that the measures that we have already introduced are bedded down, and made as effective as possible before other measures are brought on stream. That is an important point. I listened carefully to what he said about ASBOs. Other hon. Members raised the issue of the child curfew. The age in relation to the child curfew has been raised because feedback from local areas showed that such a low age was not workable. Young children do not associate only with people of a certain age—groups are mixed. If the measure is to be effective, we have to have more flexibility. On ASBOs, I cannot give my hon. Friend any resolution to those problems, except to say that they have been recognised. A review of the ASBO scheme has been instigated, to consider how to make it even more effective. A total of 215 antisocial behaviour orders is a fairly good record. One of the questions that we want the review to address is why people in local areas have not used the provision more frequently.
Questions were also asked about breaches, and I would say to the hon. Member for Aylesbury—although he has left this Chamber—that we recognise that, in order for us to be able to evaluate what is happening in relation to some of the new measures, data collection needs to improve. Data on breaches will be collected and it will be possible to differentiate between the figures for breach and revocation of community orders. Everybody agrees that youth offending teams
168WH
are a good thing, and I declared my interest at the start of this debate. However, we must evaluate their effectiveness. We must have a system in which we can say how well they are doing. We are discussing with the Youth Justice Board what that mechanism of inspection or evaluation should be. There will be an evaluation of the teams, and on-going evaluation of the specific programmes that they are using—the offending behaviour programmes, education programmes and so on. All those programmes are in the process of being evaluated and the results will appear shortly.
A central tenet of the way in which we have approached the matter—it is a term that has been used today—is that we have a system based on what works. That is not merely a slogan. It is a principle that we must have evidence that what we are resourcing and doing in terms of interventions in young people's lives and the lives of their families is having a positive impact. That is an important backstop position for us.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Lancaster and Wyre and the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Aylesbury all raised important issues, which are part of a wider debate that we must try to engender about the future of youth justice. Hon. Members also pointed to this country's high custody rate for under-21s. It is difficult to provide demanding, constructive regimes within custody when we have to cater for large numbers of young people there. There is therefore a need to provide effective community-based alternatives. That is important, and it has not happened in the past.
I would like to recount a comment from my husband, who is the youth offending team manager of a team in an area that has a high incidence of youth custody, which I used at the meeting of the annual review of the Youth Justice Board this week. He asked me, "When we were setting up our team, do you know how many young people were transferred to us from the statutory agencies, as being on supervision in my area?" When I said "No," he said, "It was 12." That was how effective the system was at that time at identifying, bringing in and supervising young offenders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling rightly said that the public does not yet have confidence that we are providing effective alternatives to custody. We need to do that urgently, and that is why evaluation is important, as part of the process of demonstration. We need effective disposals, and we need to engender public confidence in them. There are lessons from the past for all of us.
The youth offending teams, and the apparatus around them in the youth justice system, are changing the culture. We have touched on an important point by recognising that we can be both constructive and tough. We have to get that message across.
Mr. Dawson: Does the Minister accept that this Government inherited a system that was chaotic indeed? I am sure that there are many examples of extremely bad practice, but there are also examples of good practice. We do not have to hold up our hands in despair. There are things that we know how to do well. If we have a proper structure, such as we are now developing, we can make the system work.
Beverley Hughes: I agree with that, and it fits quite neatly with what I was going on to say.

169WH
The matter is partly about structure and resources, and the Government have a commitment to provide those, and the impetus and the political will for change. However, ultimately, the effectiveness of the new system also strongly depends on the quality of what happens every day in the interaction between young offenders and dedicated professionals, the quality of the decisions made by the courts, the rigour with which people pursue goals and the effectiveness of inter-agency co-operation. However strongly we all feel about the matter, the Government cannot do those things. We depend on people in local areas to deliver that rigour and quality. Otherwise, we will not be as effective as we could be.
Simon Hughes: I should like the Minister to respond to my point about inter-agency co-operation between the three Departments of Government—she mentioned four—on the issues of the youth service, mentoring, ways in which young people can be supported through the education service, a potential statutory youth service and sport and other activities outside the formal school environment. Will she take that up and examine the idea of working with the other two or three Departments to see whether we can get a more comprehensive system for providing support for young people in the primary and secondary school age ranges?
Beverley Hughes: At Government level, that cooperation is going on through various sub-committees. If the hon. Gentleman means will the Government establish one big Department to institute those arrangements, my reply is that I do not think that we will. We cannot avoid the need, whether it is at central Government or at local government level, for Departments and organisations to work together. We cannot fuse everybody into one big organisation, as that would not work. We must continue to work at people in different organisations, ensuring that they break down barriers and pool their resources and expertise effectively where that is required. It is equally important—this is a bit jargony, but hon. Members will know what I mean—to bend the core activities and resources of mainstream organisations so that those organisations take on board the work that is going on.
170WH
In terms of YOTs, we need education, health, police and probation not only to send somebody along to a team or meeting but to take on board and incorporate into their priorities the work of YOTs. I accept that the same thing needs to happen at Government level. We are working hard to make that happen and in some ways that is how we reached the youth justice proposals. YOTs have had contributions from the Departments and we must continue to ensure that those partnerships work. Nevertheless, the principle that there needs to be that partnership remains.
Simon Hughes: I agree with every word that the Minister said. However, I am still pushing her to say that she will consider whether we can offer through the school system a better scheme for comprehensively linking mentors with young people. We should seek to build up the youth service and look at whether it could be statutory and filled with people who can do both professional youth work and professional counselling because we are desperately short of that. Such role models outside home and school are, in my experience, hugely important in avoiding the development of criminality.
Beverley Hughes: I agree in principle that the role of mentors in the community is something that many YOTs are pioneering. As the hon. Gentleman said, they must mainstream that in terms of services outside the criminal justice service, which could be an important part of prevention.
We must keep focused on the impact of crime. We must remember that families and communities are threatened and have their lives made miserable by the activities of some young people. We must say that our shared position on tackling youth crime is not negotiable: we must tackle it and we recognise the reasons why. Having said that, we must go further and recognise that in order to tackle youth crime we must tackle the underlying causes as well as the offending behaviour. We have had an excellent debate and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. If we can continue to work together in that spirit, we shall ensure that these new measures and the developments arising from them can be as effective as possible, as that will help many young people and their communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Six o 'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Nigeria
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of her Department in improving access to justice in Nigeria. [6346]

  Clare Short
  I have this month approved a £30 million programme to support Nigerian Government efforts, at both federal and state level, to enable poor people to obtain rapid and fair justice. This involves the whole justice system—courts, police, prisons, legal aid, and traditional and informal mediation. We plan to implement this programme particularly in the four states in which our programmes are focused. These are Benue, Ekiti, Jigawa and a state in the south-east yet to be selected. Jigawa State announced last August that it will apply Shari'a criminal law. We will ensure that the assistance programme is taken forward in all four states in ways that uphold international human rights standards.

  Botswana and Namibia
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's assistance to(a) Botswana and (b) Namibia. [4279]

  Hilary Benn
  In Botswana, DFID is supporting programmes in rural livelihoods, education and HIV/AIDS. In Namibia, DFID is supporting programmes in rural livelihoods, education and health. In the financial year 2000–01, DFID provided around £2.5 million of assistance directly to Botswana and £2.6 million to Namibia in addition to our contributions through multilateral agencies.

  Over the next few years, DFID will be subsuming its bilateral programmes in Botswana and Namibia within a more regional approach to poverty elimination.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what are the terms of reference for the Green Minister in her Department; and if she will make a statement; [3984]

  (2) on what date a Green Minister was first appointed in her Department; when subsequent appointments were made; and if she will make a statement. [3970]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001,Official Report, column 690W.

  Lord Ashcroft
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if officials in her Department have been disciplined for passing documents relating to Michael Ashcroft and his activities in Belize to The Times and The Guardian in July 1999 and December 2000. [4056]

  Hilary Benn
  No.

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when KPMG sent letters to(a) Carlisle Holdings and (b) Sonisa during its study commissioned by her Department to review the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; if she will place copies of these letters in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [4058]

  Hilary Benn
  I understand that KPMG wrote to Carlisle Holdings on 25 August in response to their letters of 10 and 18 August 2000. I am not aware of any KPMG correspondence with Sonisa. The correspondence is private to the parties concerned.

  Debt Relief
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she plans to make with the process of debt relief at the G8 Summit in Genoa. [2291]

  Hilary Benn
  To date, 23 countries have qualified for exceptional debt relief under the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Relief totalling more than $53 billion will be provided to these countries, reducing their debts by more than two-thirds on average, and freeing up resources for spending on poverty reduction. At the G8 summit in Genoa, we will be urging our partners to push forward with implementation of the HIPC initiative, so that more countries will qualify for relief. However, making substantial progress will be difficult, as many of the remaining HIPC countries are affected by conflict.

  Debt relief is only one part of what will be required by developed and developing countries alike if poverty is to be reduced and the International Development targets set for 2015 to be met. The Italian Government, which hold the Presidency of the G8 in 2001, have already issued a paper to be discussed at the Genoa summit entitled "Beyond Debt Relief"—which sets out some of the other key areas in which progress needs to be made: trade reform, generating investment and improving the quantity and quality of spending on health and education. These are all important issues for poverty reduction which can be taken forward effectively at international level through the G8 forum.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list, for each
  309W
  of the last three years, the deals established by the Commonwealth Development Corporation broken down by (a) country and (b) project. [2285]

  Clare Short
  The table summarises the number of deals completed by CDC in 1998, 1999 and 2000, distinguished by country. These include those where deals had previously been made in the same project.

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Africa (pan)

  1

  0

  1

  Argentina

  0

  0

  2

  Asia Pacific (pan)

  0

  0

  1

  Bangladesh

  0

  1

  0

  Barbados

  0

  1

  0

  Belize

  2

  3

  1

  Bolivia

  2

  1

  2

  Caribbean

  0

  1

  1

  China

  0

  0

  2

  Costa Rica

  5

  4

  4

  Cote d'Ivoire

  1

  1

  0

  Cuba

  1

  1

  0

  Dominican Republic

  2

  1

  3

  Ecuador

  0

  1

  0

  El Salvador

  0

  0

  1

  Ghana

  1

  3

  1

  Guatemala

  0

  0

  1

  Guyana

  0

  1

  0

  India

  8

  0

  0

  Indonesia

  0

  3

  2

  Jamaica

  0

  1

  0

  Kenya

  4

  1

  3

  Malawi

  0

  1

  0

  Mauritius

  1

  0

  0

  2001

  1997

  District council

  Number of spoilt votes

  Percentage of total vote

  Total votes polled

  Number of spoilt votes

  Percentage of total vote

  Total votes polled

  Derry

  1,390

  2.81

  49,435

  939

  2.23

  42,145

  Limavady

  239

  1.55

  15,455

  193

  1.45

  13,287

  Coleraine

  491

  1.97

  24,986

  348

  1.80

  19,314

  Ballymoney

  268

  2.09

  12,826

  182

  1.88

  9,681

  Moyle

  187

  2.51

  7,438

  126

  2.03

  6,201

  Larne

  342

  2.42

  14,161

  236

  2.37

  9,938

  Ballymena

  510

  1.74

  29,346

  403

  1.76

  22,942

  Magherafelt

  429

  1.87

  22,882

  326

  1.60

  20,371

  Cookstown

  360

  1.89

  19,086

  307

  1.72

  17,900

  Strabane

  457

  2.08

  21,919

  352

  1.80

  19,587

  Omagh

  599

  2.20

  27,233

  575

  2.51

  22,920

  Fermanagh

  650

  1.98

  32,837

  505

  1.72

  29,329

  Dungannon

  497

  1.74

  28,491

  409

  1.64

  25,008

  Craigavon

  988

  2.43

  40,633

  573

  1.84

  31,076

  Armagh

  552

  1.81

  30,514

  386

  1.45

  26,553

  Newry and Mourne

  1,263

  2.70

  46,829

  943

  2.49

  37,899

  Banbridge

  329

  1.57

  20,897

  220

  1.35

  16,275

  Down

  677

  2.22

  30,560

  383

  1.65

  23,192

  Lisburn

  1,085

  2.27

  47,844

  575

  1.75

  32,780

  Antrim

  501

  2.42

  20,739

  258

  1.78

  14,523

  Newtownabbey

  938

  2.61

  35,973

  437

  1.86

  23,473

  Carrickfergus

  376

  2.38

  15,794

  177

  1.61

  10,960

  Northdown

  782

  2.35

  33,279

  360

  1.88

  19,167

  Ards

  652

  2.88

  22,606

  405

  2.02

  20,004

  Caslereagh

  809

  0.57

  31,491

  432

  2.03

  21,265

  Belfast

  4,106

  3.25

  126,294

  2,948

  2.69

  109,402

  Total

  19,477

  2.41

  809,548

  12,998

  2.01

  645,192

  310W

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Mexico

  0

  0

  1

  Mozambique

  2

  0

  0

  Nicaragua

  0

  1

  0

  Nigeria

  0

  0

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  2

  1

  Pakistan

  2

  0

  0

  Peru

  0

  2

  2

  Philippines

  2

  0

  0

  South Africa

  4

  3

  2

  Sri Lanka

  0

  1

  0

  Swaziland

  2

  2

  0

  Tanzania

  7

  4

  4

  Thailand

  2

  1

  0

  Uganda

  2

  0

  0

  Zambia

  3

  1

  3

  Zimbabwe

  2

  2

  0

  A full list, detailed by project and country, will be placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Spoiled Ballot Papers
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many spoiled ballot papers there were in each district council area in Northern Ireland in the(a) most recent and (b) 1997 local elections. [3413]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of spoilt ballot papers received in each district council area in Northern Ireland in the(a) latest and (b) 1997 local elections are:
  311W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many spoiled ballot papers were received in each constituency in Northern Ireland at the(a) 2001 and (b) 1997 general elections. [3414]

  2001

  1997

  Constituency name

  Number of spoilt votes

  Percentage of total vote

  Total votes polled

  Number of spoilt votes

  Percentage of total vote

  Total votes polled

  Belfast, North

  377

  0.91

  41,309

  128

  0.31

  41,580

  Belfast, South

  233

  0.61

  38,185

  244

  0.61

  39,728

  Belfast, East

  202

  0.55

  37,031

  125

  0.32

  39,154

  Belfast, West

  716

  1.72

  41,698

  238

  0.52

  46,123

  North Antrim

  328

  0.66

  36,327

  115

  0.25

  46,301

  South Antrim

  196

  0.44

  44,354

  148

  0.37

  40,343

  East Antrim

  327

  0.98

  40,268

  90

  0.26

  34,437

  East Londonderry

  399

  0.99

  49,545

  112

  0.29

  38,214

  Foyle

  495

  1.00

  49,374

  219

  0.25

  48,034

  Lagan Valley

  281

  0.61

  46,222

  133

  0.46

  44,443

  Upper Bann

  339

  0.66

  51,376

  120

  0.30

  47,907

  South Down

  574

  1.09

  52,648

  248

  0.25

  49,734

  Newry and Armagh

  587

  1.04

  56,208

  228

  0.43

  53,503

  Mid-Ulster

  452

  0.90

  50,388

  154

  0.30

  50,823

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  693

  1.32

  52,667

  377

  0.77

  48,667

  West Tyrone

  434

  0.89

  48,964

  260

  0.56

  46,535

  North Down

  188

  0.50

  37,377

  97

  0.26

  36,653

  Strangford

  217

  0.50

  43,471

  87

  0.20

  41,703

  Total

  7,038

  0.86

  817,412

  3,120

  0.39

  793,882

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to publish Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary 2000–01 report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [5971]

  Jane Kennedy
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) 2000–01 report will be published on Tuesday 14 August 2001. Copies of the report will be placed in the House of Commons Library. The report will also be available to the public from that date.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the prison population in Northern Ireland was on(a) 7 June 2001 and (b) 22 May 1998. [3395]

  Jane Kennedy
  The prison population in Northern Ireland on 7 June 2001 was 913 prisoners and on 22 May 1998 was 1,527 prisoners.

  Stun Grenades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what powers he has to prosecute a civilian found(a) to be in possession of or (b) to have fired a stun grenade. [1230]

  Jane Kennedy
  Dependent upon the precise circumstances of the case, a civilian would be likely to be prosecuted under Article 6 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Other Articles of the Order might also be relevant.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to the report
  312W
  Mr. Browne
  The number of spoiled ballot papers received in each constituency in Northern Ireland at the(a) 2001 and (b) general elections are:

  of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on the recording of the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland. [1117]

  Jane Kennedy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Chief Commissioner on 12 June acknowledging receipt of the report. The Secretary of State assured the Commission that the Chief Constable would consider the recommendations carefully and where appropriate take the necessary action.

  Inter-regional Road Infrastructure
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to discuss inter-regional road infrastructure. [3168]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland on inter-regional road infrastructure since this is a devolved matter.

  Weston Park
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the criteria adopted by the Government for deciding which parties should be invited to participate in the Weston Park talks; and if he will make a statement. [4106]

  Dr. John Reid
  The talks hosted by the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park concerned the implementation of the Belfast Agreement, and it was therefore appropriate to invite representative of all the parties to the Agreement.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the people invited to participate in the talks at Weston Park during the week beginning 8 July. [4107]
  313W
  Dr. John Reid
  The British and Irish Governments invited representatives of the parties to the Belfast Agreement to participate in the talks at Weston Park held during 8–13 July. The parties invited to send representatives were:

  the Ulster Unionist Party;

  the Social Democratic and Labour Party;

  Sinn Fein;

  the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland;

  the Progressive Unionist Party;

  the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition;

  the Ulster Democratic Party.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last travelled on the London Underground in the course of his official duties. [3680]

  Dr. John Reid
  I travel by the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, subject to security considerations.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many additional appointments are to be made to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and on what date these appointments will be made. [2250]

  Mr. Browne
  Further appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be made as soon as possible, and by the end of the summer. The response to the advertisements was very high (over 500 applications were received) so the process has taken longer than expected. The number of appointments is still to be determined.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extent to which the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission can extend its powers under the Paris Principles of 1991. [2251]

  Mr. Browne
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's powers and duties are set out in section 69 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Under sub-section 69(2) of that Act, the Commission is required to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how its effectiveness might be improved; the adequacy and effectiveness of the functions conferred on it; and the adequacy and effectiveness of the provisions of that part of the Act relating to the Commission. The Secretary of State received these recommendations in March of this year and they are currently under consideration. The Secretary of State will respond formally in due course.

  Polling Stations (Disabled Access)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures will be taken to ensure that disabled voters have easy access to polling stations before the next Assembly elections. [4558]

  Mr. Browne
  Polling station schemes are a matter for the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. However, I am aware that he takes his responsibilities on access very seriously. The Chief Electoral Officer is a designated public authority for the purposes of section 75 of the 314W
  Northern Ireland Act 1998. He is currently drawing up an equality scheme which will be put out for public consultation. I know that he will ensure every reasonable measure is taken in providing access for the disabled voter.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlay the time taken to bring forward the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. [3167]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government have broadly welcomed the report by the Criminal Justice Review Group, which produced 294 recommendations for change across the criminal justice system.

  Detailed preparation of the draft legislation and an implementation plan, which will be published for consultation, is well advanced. Subject to the outcome of consultation, the Government expect to introduce a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill in Parliament this Session.

  Racial Crime
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to extend legislation on racially motivated crime to Northern Ireland. [1074]

  Mr. Browne
  The provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which created categories of racially motivated offences were not extended to Northern Ireland. The Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, however, makes provision for a range of offences of stirring up hatred or arousing fear on religious or racial grounds. In response to approaches that have been made in recent months, it is our intention to conduct a consultation exercise later this year to consider how best to legislate in Northern Ireland against race crime.

  Sentencing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to monitor sentencing of individuals according to(a) perceived community origin, (b) ethnic origin, (c) gender, (d) sexual orientation and (e) disability. [1073]

  Mr. Browne
  Some information is already available on sentencing trends according to gender. The Government are committed to developing a strategy for equity monitoring the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland as it affects different categories of people, while ensuring that such monitoring does not compromise judicial independence.

  Patten Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to ensure the records of the Patten Commission, the written submissions made to it and the transcripts of oral hearings are(a) made available to researchers and (b) archived for historians. [1224]

  Jane Kennedy
  After the Commission reported in September 1999, it arranged for the research material and the records of the oral submissions to be placed in the
  315W
  Linenhall Library in Belfast. On written submissions, the Commission placed an advertisement in the main Northern Ireland newspapers in October 1999 advising the public that private or personal submissions which had been made to it would be destroyed. Other written submissions which were made to the Commission were passed to the Northern Ireland Office and will be made available in accordance with usual public record requirements.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental Ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4902]

  Dr. John Reid
  Throughout the summer break, a Minister will be on duty for the Department, in line with para. 68 of the current Ministerial Code.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Annual Reports
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Director of the Serious Fraud Office intends to publish her annual report. [6043]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that I have today placed copies of the annual report in the Libraries of the House.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions will publish his annual report. [6044]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that I have today placed copies of the annual report in the Libraries of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sporting Talent
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what evaluation methods are in place for projects designed to nurture sporting talent among young people competing at a national level, with special reference to cricket, rugby and tennis; and what results evaluations have shown about the success of such projects. [4592]

  Mr. Caborn
  The lottery funded World Class Potential and World Class Start programmes administered by Sport England are designed to support and nurture talented English athletes.

  The World Class Potential programme aims to assist the development of talented athletes with the potential to win medals, or equivalent, in significant future international competitions and events within the next eight years (2 Olympic Cycles). The World Class Start programme aims to identify and nurture a specific number of English athletes who have the necessary characteristics to achieve future World Class success.
  316W
  The first awards to the national governing bodies under the Potential and Start programmes were made in January 2000. Funding for Cricket has been agreed but the programmes have yet to be implemented; Tennis does not receive lottery funding support from Sport England (the Lawn Tennis Association administers its own sports development programme); and Rugby has been offered funding of £8 million over 8 years, but the governing body has yet to accept the award.

  As the programmes for cricket and rugby have not started, no evaluation has taken place. However, both sports have identified a performer development model to reflect the transition of the athletes through the Start and Potential Programmes. It is too early to measure the success of these programmes, but I am confident that the lottery investment will enable our talented athletes to achieve success at the highest level.

  Gambling
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the Gambling Review, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, to report. [5878]

  Mr. Caborn
  The report was laid before Parliament and published on 17 July.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she will take to implement the recommendations by the Gaming Board for Great Britain on the stakes and prizes in gaming machines. [6350]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have considered the Board's recommendations very carefully. We are grateful to them and to the industry associations for the work which has gone into their proposals.

  We have also had to bear in mind the proposals for the far-reaching changes to the current law on gambling regulation which have been made by the independent review body chaired by Sir Alan Budd. This makes specific recommendations about the level of stakes and prizes in gaming machines. In laying the report before the House on 17 July, my right hon. Friend made clear her wish to undertake public consultations on the report before reaching firm decisions. For this reason, and bearing in mind that there are substantial points of difference between the two sets of recommendations, we do not propose to take any action to give effect to the Gaming Board's proposals before the consultations have been concluded.

  Historic Environment
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on the historic environment and the English Heritage document "Power of Place"; and if she will make a statement. [6349]

  Tessa Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and I will issue a statement setting out the Government's vision for the historic environment and how we intend to work towards it. We will publish the statement in the autumn. Copies will be available from my Department at 2–4 Cockspur Street, London SW1Y 5DH and from the

  317W
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU, and will be available at the Department's website at www.culture.gov.uk and www.dtlr.gov.uk. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Office of Communications
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Government will appoint the Chair of the Office of Communications. [6351]

  Tessa Jowell
  It depends on the passage of the Office of Communications Bill. The Government do not intend to appoint the Chair of OFCOM before Spring 2002 at the earliest. This means that the process of appointing the rest of the Board of OFCOM for its preparatory work could not be completed before the summer of 2002.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Speaker's Advisory Panel
  Ms Drown
  To ask the President of the Council what progress has been made in setting up the Speaker's Advisory Panel. [6352]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Following the debate in the House on 5 July 2001, I am pleased to announce that the Speaker has appointed to the Advisory Panel the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for Streatham (Keith Hill), the hon. Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), as well as the Director of Finance and Administration, the Head of the Fees Office and the Director of Communications. It is hoped that the first meeting of the panel will be held soon.

PRIME MINISTER

  US Export Administration Act
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the US Administration in relation to the US Export Administration Act in the past four years; and if he will make a statement. [3741]

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no contact with the United States Administration in relation to the US Export Administration Act in the past four years.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit; and if he will make a statement. [6182]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake a further project looking at how to improve the Government's management of risk.

  Effective management of a wide range of risks is essential both for the delivery of improved public services and for the achievement of the Government's wider goals.
  318W
  The project will identify best practice in decision-making on risks and the best methods for promoting this within public services. The work will build on some of the steps that have already been taken to address the concerns raised by the Phillips Inquiry into BSE about the handling of risk and uncertainty across Government. The project will look at communications with the public and also at approaches to risk where some of the responsibility may fall to the private and voluntary sectors or to individuals.

  The PIU will complete its work early next year.

  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office will be the Sponsor Minister.

  Public Duties Allowance
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister what effect the abolition of the Office Costs Allowance will have on the Public Duties Allowance payable to former Prime Ministers. [6187]

  The Prime Minister
  The Public Duties Allowance can be claimed by former Prime Ministers for expenses incurred for their continuing work for the public service and charity. The allowance, which was formerly linked to the Office Costs Allowance, will from 5 July 2001 be set at the same level as the ceiling under the new centralised arrangements for the payment by the House Authorities of the support and secretarial staff of Members of Parliament with London constituencies. This is currently £70,000.

  Business Appointments
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the fourth report of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. [6188]

  The Prime Minister
  The Committee has submitted its fourth report to me. Since 1975 the Committee has advised the Prime Minister of the day on the propriety of any business appointments that Crown servants take up when they leave Crown service. Following a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, it also provides advice directly to former Ministers on their business appointments. I am grateful to the Committee for all their work on this. This report gives an account of their work in 2000–01. I have today placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee's interim report for 2000–01 [6190]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today laid the Government response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report before Parliament.

  Champion for Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Cabinet champion for children; and if he will establish an inter-ministerial group on children. [4922]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 10 July 2001,Official Report,

  319W
  column 452W. The terms of reference of the Cabinet Committee on Children and Young People's Services are to co-ordinate policies to prevent poverty and underachievement among children and young people, co-ordinate and monitor the effectiveness of delivery and work with the voluntary sector to build a new alliance for children.

  Poverty
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the responsibilities of departmental Ministers for reducing poverty following the reorganisation of Government Departments. [3943]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury share a joint PSA target to reduce the number of children in poverty by at least a quarter by 2004.

  Specific responsibilities for poverty and social exclusion are held by Baroness Hollis of Heigham and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). Other Ministers are involved where it is appropriate.

  Electoral Arrangements
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the breakdown of responsibilities of Ministers and Government Departments for electoral systems and electoral arrangements in the UK relating to elections for(a) councils, (b) the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, (c) the European Parliament and (d) the House of Commons, with particular reference to consideration of proposals for review and reform. [5063]

  The Prime Minister
  Overall responsibility for electoral law for the UK rests with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The law relating to European parliamentary elections, Westminster parliamentary elections and the National Assembly for Wales is wholly the responsibility of DTLR. Elections to the Scottish Parliament are the joint responsibility of DTLR and the Scotland Office. Council elections in England and Wales are the responsibility of DTLR. Council elections in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office.

  The relevant Ministers are: in DTLR, Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Dr. Whitehead; in the Northern Ireland Office, Mr. Browne; and in the Scotland Office, Mrs. Helen Liddell.

  Council elections in Scotland are devolved and therefore a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Genetically Modified Maize
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received calling for suspension of the marketing consent for the Aventis genetically modified maize, known as T25. [5651]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a large number of cards and letters, which have been passed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Unsolicited Commercial Communications
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government's support for an opt-out procedure for unsolicited commercial e-mails in the revised Telecommunications Data Protection Directive (com2000/189) extends to electronic messages, including(a) short messaging service, (b) mail to WAP phones and (c) other forms of electronic messaging; and what remedies she proposes for the consequent costs incurred by consumers. [3243]

  Mr. Alexander
  The proposed Communications Data Protection Directive treats all forms of electronic messaging, including text messages to mobile phones, as e-mails, for the purposes of regulatory controls on unsolicited commercial communications.

  The UK Government have argued that member states should be allowed to choose between opt-in and opt-out controls on unsolicited commercial e-mail. This approach allows an assessment of the situation in the light of working experience of both approaches by the deadline for implementing the new directive.

  Fishing Communities
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the criteria used to apportion to the regional development agencies the money for regeneration of fishing communities announced in April. [4874]

  Alan Johnson
  RDAs were awarded £120,000 for each port in their region affected by the recent fishing quota reductions. This accounted for £3,840,000 of the £5,500,000 budget. The remaining £1,660,000 was distributed in proportion to the weight of the catch at these ports.

  Each RDA has been given freedom to decide how best to direct funding to help with the regeneration of fishing communities in their regions. There is no compulsion to spend specific sums in specific ports.

  Insolvency Service
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if consultants have been employed to undertake a pay and grading exercise in the Insolvency Service. [5870]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Yes.

  Small Business Council
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings she has had with the Small Business Council since 1997; and what response she has made to the recommendations contained in the SBC's first annual report. [5367]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I attended the first Small Business Council (SBC) meeting in May 2000. Since then my right hon. Friend and I have had several meetings with William Sargent, Chairman of the SBC. William Sargent met me and presented the first Annual Report of the SBC to me on 12 July 2001.
  321W
  Some of the recommendations in the SBC report impact on several other Government Departments (HM Treasury, Cabinet Office and DfES) as well as the DTI. A copy of the SBC report has gone to these Departments for comment and my Department will provide a co-ordinated response to the SBC recommendations in the autumn.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she intends to make for awarding licences for broadband fixed wireless access at 28 GHz that remained unsold after last November's spectrum auction. [5973]

  Mr. Alexander
  I intend to make available in September all of the licences that remained unsold after last year's auction. This will allow the provision of competitive services throughout the UK.

  The key features of the award process will be:
  Licences will be open for bids initially for a 12-month period.
  Applications will be invited for licences in specified regions, with bids at no less than the reserve prices.
  The first application for a licence in a region will be publicised and other applications invited within 20 working days. If there are no competing applicants for any of the licences on offer in the region all applicants will be awarded licences, subject to pre-qualification and associated bidder checks.
  If there are competing demands for a licence a simple multiple round auction will be held for all available licences in a region to determine which bidders will be awarded licences.
  Unsold licences will remain available until the closure of the 12-month period for applications.
  A successful bidder will be able to hold just one licence in each licence region, but will be able to hold a licence in any number of licence regions. The conditions attached to the licences, including the reserve prices, will be those applying to the licences sold in last year's auction.

  I will be publishing shortly draft regulations to be made under section 3 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 to provide for this award process. There will be a period of 28 days for comments to be received. With the draft regulations I will also publish for comment a draft of the notice that I intend to issue under the regulations. The notice will set out the detailed arrangements for the award process and will include the date from which applications may be made. I will place copies of the draft regulations and the draft notice in the Libraries of the House. I hope to lay the regulations before Parliament by the end of August.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Coal Authority's report and accounts for 2000–01 will be laid before Parliament. [5974]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have today laid a copy before each House of Parliament.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to receive the annual report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. [5976]

  Alan Johnson
  The ACAS Report for 2000–2001 is being laid before both Houses of Parliament today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.
  322W
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has received the annual reports for 2000 from the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under Part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if she will make a statement. [5972]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have received the annual reports for the year 2000 from the five recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors: a combined report from the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and one each from the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government will take to ensure that the new electricity trading arrangements do not penalise CHP and renewable generators. [5184]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 18 July 2001,Official Report, columns 263–64W.

  Departmental Bills
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of bills were paid on time by Government Departments and their agencies during the financial year 2000–01. [5975]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am today publishing tables setting out the payment performance of Government Departments and their Agencies in the financial year 2000–01. The publication of these tables is part of our commitment to tackle late payment and improve the UK's payment culture. We are determined that the public sector should lead by example.

  Government Departments and Agencies are required to pay all valid invoices within 30 days, or other agreed credit period. The tables show that, overall, Government Departments and their Agencies paid 96.80 per cent. of bills within the agreed credit period.

  Annex B

  Percentage

  Main departments

  Paid on time

  National Investment and Loans Office

  100

  Privy Council Office

  99.86

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  99.8

  Office of Water Services

  99.75

  Scotland Office

  99.7

  Department for National Savings

  99.6

  Land Registry

  99.5

  Public Records Office

  99.2

  HM Treasury

  99.09

  Ordnance Survey

  99.06

  Ministry of Defence

  98.67

  Inland Revenue

  98.65

  Office of Telecommunications

  98.64

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  98.62

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  98.5

  Health and Safety Executive

  98.40

  Northern Ireland Office

  98.1

  Electoral Commission

  98

  Government Actuary's Department

  97.85

  323W

  Annex B

  Percentage

  Main departments

  Paid on time

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  97.79

  Office of Gas and Electricity Markets

  97.43

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  97.41

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  97.4

  HM Customs and Excise

  97.36

  Charity Commission

  97.2

  Department of Trade and Industry

  95.7

  Forestry Commission HQ

  97.16

  Government Communications HQ

  96.75

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  96.7

  Department for International Development

  96.66

  Office of Government Commerce HQ

  96.37

  Crown Prosecution Service

  96.27

  Cabinet Office (Total)

  96.27

  Department for Education and Employment

  96.25

  Office for Standards in Education

  96.11

  Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel

  96.1

  Department of Health

  95.97

  Office for National Statistics

  95.45

  Office of Fair Trading

  95

  Royal Mint

  95

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  94.69

  Department of Social Security HQ

  94.4

  Serious Fraud Office

  93.67

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  93.56

  ACAS

  92

  Home Office

  91.7

  Food Standards Agency

  85.76

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  80.75

  Office of the Secretary of State for Wales

  67.5

  Total

  96.80

  Research Councils
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the outcome of the first stage of the quinquennial review of the six grant-awarding research councils will be announced; and what its principal recommendations are. [5978]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am today able to announce the outcome of the first stage of the quinquennial review of the six grant-awarding Research Councils. I shall be placing a copy of the stage 1 report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Quinquennial reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are a key part of our programme to modernise Government. The Government are committed to achieving better public services that are of higher quality and are more responsive to the needs of the people who use them. Regular NDPB reviews are an important element in ensuring that we have in place the right structures to deliver the Government's agenda effectively and to provide a strong focus on improving future performance. Under Cabinet Office guidance (31 January 2000), such reviews should be conducted in two stages.

  The terms of reference for this review set the following objectives:
  the first stage would examine the role and organisation of the Research Councils, by reference to their Charters and missions, and evidence of past practice. It would set the detailed terms of reference for the second stage;
  324W
  the second stage would examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the Councils' operations and look for further opportunities for improving performance.

  The principal recommendation of stage 1 is that the Research Councils should continue to be executive NDPBs. The review concluded that:
  the Councils are a necessary mechanism for the delivery of Government policy for scientific research and postgraduate training;
  the Councils individually and collectively are an important source of independent scientific advice to Government;
  the Councils' existing individual missions provide an effective focus for their communities;
  none of the alternative organisational models would offer equivalent benefits to the UK Science and Engineering Base at the present time;
  the Councils have made considerable progress in adopting new ways of working to generate efficiency savings, demonstrate value for money and maximise spending on science;
  NDPB status remains the most appropriate organisational model for maintaining the Haldane principle, ensuring effective accountability for public funds and engaging the scientific communities.

  Stage 2 of the Review will now examine four broad themes, which were identified following the extensive stage 1 consultation. These are: mission, structure and governance; relations between the Research Councils and their clients; priority-setting and decision-making; the Councils' management and internal processes. Working groups, whose members will include a wide range of stakeholders, will be considering these areas, and there has been also been a second written consultation.

  I welcome these recommendations, and I am grateful to the members of the steering group for their work on this review.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the regional development agencies have prepared annual reports and accounts for 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [5977]

  Alan Johnson
  The Regional Development Agencies' annual reports and accounts for 2000–01 have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. These cover the period from 1 April 2000 through to 31 March 2001. The Government welcome the continued progress made by Agencies in improving the economic regeneration, skills and competitiveness of the regions.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the Regional Development Agencies have published an action plan as part of their corporate/business plan for 2001–02 setting out how they propose to develop their evaluation and performance monitoring framework; and how many of those action plans contain a commitment to consulting the general public on the content of the frameworks. [4608]

  Alan Johnson
  Each Regional Development Agency (RDA) has produced an action plan as part of the corporate planning process for 2001–02 setting out how they propose to develop their evaluation and performance monitoring framework. RDAs are required to publish an abridged version of their corporate plan, but whether or not this includes the action plan is at their discretion.
  325W
  RDAs were not required to consult the general public on the content of the frameworks, although several RDAs are developing and refining their frameworks in consultation with regional partners.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe, Your North West"
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the definition is of trading links contained in her Department's document, 'Your Britain, Your Europe, Your North West'. [4324]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Companies with "trading links" means those in the North West which are associated with the export of goods and services to other EU member states.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for how many jobs in the North West membership of the single market is crucial according to her Department's document, "Your Britain, Your Europe, Your North West". [4325]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Membership of the Single Market makes the UK, including the North West, attractive to inward investment from across the world. As the document states this investment has amounted to £5.5 billion over the last ten years helping to create or safeguard over 100,000 jobs.

  Construction Industry (Women)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many women have been helped to enter the construction industry in the North West by EU funding. [4374]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Although gender breakdown of beneficiaries of European Social Fund projects is recorded and monitored, this is not in sufficient detail to show how many women have entered the construction industry as a consequence of European funding.

  Manchester (EU Funding)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the cost of remodelling the Arndale Centre and the new Exchange Square in Manchester has been met from EU funding. [4373]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  £20 million was allocated from the European Regional Development Fund for the redevelopment of Manchester City Centre. Of this, £1.79 million was directly allocated to the Exchange Square project. £4.4 million was allocated to 'public realm' improvements in the City Centre, which included work on the public areas surrounding the Arndale Centre.

  Assisted Area Status (Scotland)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has had with the European Union with regard to assisted area status in Scotland; [5073]

  (2)what proposals she has for the review of assisted area status in (a) Scotland and (b) Angus; [5071]

  (3)what criteria will be used to determine which areas of Scotland will be put forward to the European Union for assisted area status; [5070]
  326W
  (4) when she will next review the provision of assisted area status in Scotland; [5074]

  (5) what representations she has had from (a) the Scottish Executive and (b) other organisations in Scotland in relation to assisted area status within Scotland. [5072]

  Alan Johnson
  The European Commission approved the UK areas eligible for regional state aid in July 2000; these were then implemented through the Assisted Areas Order 2000. The European Commission approval lasts until the end of 2006; the Government are not planning to review the assisted areas until it is necessary to develop proposals for the subsequent period. At that stage they will consult interested bodies on the selection of areas, including the Scottish Executive and others in Scotland.

  Third Generation Telecommunications Technology
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what appraisal was undertaken of the environmental impacts of granting licences for the development of third generation communications technology; and if she will publish it. [3866]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]Installations are subject to planning law which deals with environmental considerations as it applies to Public Telecommunications Operators.

  Government strongly encourage the sharing of masts and sites in order to minimise environmental impact and operators must show that they have considered sharing options as part of the planning process in order to minimise the environmental impact of networks.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many additional telecommunications masts she estimates will be needed in(a) urban and (b) rural areas for the effective development of third generation telecommunications technology. [3865]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]The number of additional telecommunications masts that will be needed for the effective development of third generation mobile communications will depend on commercial decisions by the network operators on how they configure and roll out their networks.

  The Information Memorandum for the third generation mobile auction sets out the means by which the Government strongly encourage mobile telecommunications network operators to share masts and sites, in order to minimise the environmental impact of networks.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for(a) each county and (b) each region the percentage of electricity generated by renewable sources; and if she will make a statement. [4440]

  Mr. Wilson
  Published statistics on renewable energy relate to the United Kingdom as a whole, as do published electricity generation statistics. In 2000, 2.8 per cent. of the electricity generated in the United Kingdom was from renewables.
  327W
  Estimates by my Department show that in England about 1½ per cent. of the electricity generated came from renewable resources in 2000, while in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the proportions were about 8¾ per cent, 3 ¼ per cent. and 1½ per cent., respectively. The percentages are higher in Scotland and Wales because large scale hydro generation (which accounts for almost half of generation from renewables) is concentrated there. In the United Kingdom as a whole, if large scale hydro generation is excluded, about 1½ per cent. of electricity was generated from renewable sources in 2000. On this basis the proportions in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were 1½ per cent, ½ per cent, 2 per cent. and 1½ per cent, respectively.

  Information is not available on a county basis.

  Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) average, (b) mean and (c) median length of time is taken to process (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful applications from former Icelandic Waters trawlermen for compensation for each region and nation of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [3906]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]Statistics are not available in the form requested.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation have been received from former distant water trawlermen living in Lancashire; how many claims have been paid; and how much the total payment is for(a) Fleetwood, (b) Blackpool and (c) the remainder of Lancashire. [3809]

  Nigel Griffiths
  At 13 July 2001, 174 payments had been made to claimants living in Fleetwood totalling £1,812,204. The corresponding figures for Blackpool are 27 and £226,299. I regret that the other information requested is not available.

  Energy Research
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the European Commission's MOX fuel research programme. [3946]

  Mr. Wilson
  Research projects on MOX fuel are included under the research area of the (European Atomic Energy Community) EURATOM Fission Programme aimed at improving the safety of existing nuclear installations and future systems. BNFL participates in one of these collaborative research projects, along with other European partners.

  Slate Quarrymen (Industrial Diseases)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will recognise emphysema and chronic bronchitis as industrial diseases for slate quarrymen and former slate quarrymen. [4481]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to prescribe chronic bronchitis and emphysema as a prescribed disease in the industrial injuries scheme for slate quarrymen and former slate quarrymen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is advised on such questions by the independent Industrial
  328W
  Injuries Advisory Council who have reported on lung diseases, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema in 1973, 1988 and 1992 (Cmnd 5443, Cm 379 and Cm 2091).

  The Council's present conclusions are that there is no scientific or medical evidence which would justify prescription of chronic bronchitis and emphysema for occupations other than coal workers. The Council keeps the list of prescribed diseases under review. If the hon. Member has evidence he wishes to submit to the Council, he is invited to write directly to the Chairman of the Council Professor Anthony Newman Taylor c/o Room 605, The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London WC2 6HT.

  Independent Insurance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information, prior to Independent Insurance going into liquidation, was provided to(a) her Department and (b) the FSA relating to the French regulator's review of the company's French branch; and when this information was provided. [5286]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The French regulator, the Commission de Contrôle des Assurances (CCA), first wrote to the FSA expressing their concerns about the French insurance subsidiary of the Independent Insurance Group on 11 January 2001. This company was a sister company of the UK-supervised insurer, representing about 5 per cent. of group premium income, and was subject to French supervision. The FSA, following discussions with the UK company, and having received copies of the company's own detailed responses to the French authorities, replied to the CCA in March 2001. In that letter, the FSA noted its understanding that the group had provided additional financing to the French subsidiary. The FSA subsequently had a number of further contacts with the CCA including a visit to their offices in Paris, provided financial information about the financial position of the UK company, and kept the CCA informed of events in the period leading to the company's closure.

DEFENCE

  Disposal Services Agency
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Disposal Services Agency for the financial year 2001–02. [5988]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since its launch in October 1994, the agency has positioned itself as the market leader in the disposal sales of surplus equipment and goods in the public sector. The key targets, which have been set for the chief executive of the Disposal Services Agency for this financial year, are aimed at securing disposal receipts from the sale of surplus capital assets and inventory items from both the Ministry of Defence and a range of public sector organisations. The chief executive of the agency has been set the following key targets for the financial year 2001–02.
  329W
  Key target 1
  To achieve a disposal sales gross income of £40 million from sales of surplus Government owned equipment and stores.
  Key target 2
  To maintain and where necessary improve Customer Satisfaction rates as recorded in the 2000 Customer Survey; particularly a 5 per cent. points increase in Collection Arrangements and Efficiency of Contractor Services.
  Key target 3
  To achieve the Customer Supplier Agreement Performance Standards for the removal of surplus equipment from Defence Logistic Organisation sites.
  Key target 4
  To develop an electronic exchange pilot programme for surplus IT equipment by 31 March 2002.
  Key target 5
  To secure £350,000 sales per person employed for commercial sales activities.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Defence Agency
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Defence Agency for 2001–02. [5989]

  Mr. Ingram
  The role of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre is to train the armed forces and other intelligence agencies in intelligence and security disciplines, and conduct after capture; to maintain an operational capability; and to contribute to effective and timely advice to the armed forces on appropriate intelligence and security matters. The key targets for the agency for the 12 months from April 2001 are:

  Key Target 1To satisfy 100 per cent. of operational tasking required by the Department to the standard specified by the tasking authority.
  This target will be met if all operational requirements for the field HUMINT team (1(UK) FHT) and the defence debriefing team (DDT) are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the tasking authority.
  (a) 1(UK) FHT and DDT commensurate with allocated resources:

  (1) The number of man training days (MTDs) deployed against those required by Chief of Defence Intelligence (CDI) authorised tasking;

  (2) Customer satisfaction is 100 per cent.

  Key Target 2To deliver at least 90 per cent. of a Training Programme endorsed by the defence intelligence training policy group (DITPG) within agreed resources.
  This target will be achieved if an endorsed programme of courses and MTDs are arranged by DISC. Poor take-up or Sponsor postponement/cancellation of courses shall not impact on the target. Additional resources provided for non-programmed tasks shall be subject to separate measurement.

  (a) 90 per cent. of agreed total programme satisfactorily mounted. (MTDs offered for take up against previously agreed requirement within the allocated Resource Budget);

  (b) 10 per cent. of required MTDs not provided due to lack of DISC resources or capability.

  Key Target 3To ensure that the training provided by DISC meets the quality requirements of its customers.
  This target will be met if the requirement for each course has been determined by the Statement of Training Requirement (SOTR) process and the quality of the training has been validated using the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) benchmark.
  330W

  (a) 100 per cent. of all courses programmed have an agreed SOTR;

  (b) 80 per cent. of all courses programmed have been SAT validated, up to and including Internal Validation, by April 2002 and thereafter maintained at this level or better;

  (c) 90 per cent. of all DISC training staff have attended prescribed job related training within six months of appointment.

  Key Target 4To reduce the "Real Terms" cost of delivering the average training place made available by the DISC by 2 per cent. in FY 2001–02.
  The target will be met if a 2 per cent. or greater reduction in average MTD costs is achieved between 1 April 2001 and 3I March 2002.

  Ballistic Missiles (Iraq)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of Iraq's capability to use ballistic missile technology to target surface-to-air missiles. [4040]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since December 1998, the Iraqi integrated air defence system has been engaged in a systematic campaign to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. There have been over 1,800 direct threats from a range of Iraqi air defence assets, including surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. Coalition aircraft are authorised to respond in self-defence only against air defence targets, and have done so on some 270 occasions.

  Over the past two and a half years, the Iraqis have evolved a range of novel tactics, aimed at maximising the threat to the coalition while minimising the risk of being targeted by a self-defence response. In particular, we assess that Iraqi surface-to-air missiles have been launched without the support of their fire control radars, in order to hide the position of the firing unit (thereby reducing its vulnerability).

  Missiles launched in this way receive no guidance information during flight and are much less likely to hit a target in comparison to a conventionally guided missile. The corollary is that there is also an enhanced risk, as with Iraq's indiscriminate use of surface-to-surface rockets in this role, of damage to civilian facilities when the missiles return to earth. Although surface-to-air missiles operated in this way follow an unguided, ballistic trajectory, there is no evidence that Iraq has employed ballistic missile technology to guide these surface-to-air missiles.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff the Defence Diversification Agency has; and where its annual reports are published. [5075]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Diversification Agency (DDA), part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), currently has 24 staff of which seven are MOD employees (three within the defence science and technology laboratory and four, including the director, within MOD head office) and 17 employees of QinetiQ made available to the MOD under standard project support tasking arrangements. The DDA has three aims: to extend technology and expertise within the defence sector to civilian use; to foster partnerships and joint development programmes, recognising that the civil
  331W
  sector has much potential benefit to defence; and to inform and assist the defence industry's own diversification planning. Until 1 July 2001, the DDA was part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), the annual reports of which cover the activities of the DDA. The most recent report is the DERA annual report 1999–2000 published by The Stationery Office in July 2000 and which has sections on such issues as "Exploiting DERA's Technology" and "Defence Diversification and Regional Development" that deal with the DDA's activities. Following the DERA public-private partnership and the formation of the new company QinetiQ on 1 July 2001, the DDA has been brought into MOD head office. We are examining how best to report on its activities in future alongside our consideration of the formation of a Defence Diversification Council, which I have already announced our intention to establish once we have experience of how the DDA will operate in practice under the new structure. I will make a further announcement in due course.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is with regard to the siting of wind farms in tactical training areas; and what research has been undertaken in developing this policy. [4872]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 296W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman).

  Live Ammunition
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign training sites are being used by the British Army; and at what percentage of those sites the British Army uses live ammunition. [2793]

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

  Merlin Helicopter
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) budget for and (b) cost of running and maintaining the Royal Navy Merlin helicopter squadron has been in each year since they were purchased. [4339]

  Mr. Ingram
  The first Merlin helicopter squadron (824 training squadron) was formed in June 2000. In the financial year 2000–01, the repair and maintenance, manpower, aviation fuel and support authority operating costs for the squadron is estimated at £12 million, by comparison with a budget of £15 million.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will undertake a review of the(a) manufacture of nuclear warheads at Aldermaston/Burghfield by AWE plc, (b) deployment of Trident 2 as the UK's nuclear deterrent, (c) use of Faslane as the Trident submarine base and (d) commitment to maintain a nuclear deterrent. [4293]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following a fundamental re-examination of the issues, the 1998 Strategic Defence Review concluded that a minimum nuclear deterrent would remain a necessary element of our security. It determined that our deterrence requirements would be met by one Trident 332W
  ballistic missile submarine on patrol at all times carrying 48 nuclear warheads, and a national stockpile of less than 200 operationally available warheads. I see no reason to conduct a further review.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his compliance with paragraph 105F of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. [4294]

  Mr. Hoon
  Paragraph 105F of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, given in July 1996, states that:"There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control".
  The UK had already signed and ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968. Article VI of the NPT commits all Parties to the Treaty
  "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

  At the 2000 NPT Review Conference the United Kingdom, together with other participating countries, gave an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all states are committed under Article VI of the NPT. At the Review Conference the UK, together with other participating countries, also agreed to the establishment in the Conference of Disarmament of an appropriate body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament.

  Discrimination (Compensation)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 362W, on discrimination, how many outstanding compensation claims there are for (a) men and (b) women discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality following the ruling of the ECHR. [5279]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are 54 outstanding compensation claims from service personnel claiming that they were discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality following the ruling of the ECHR. Of these 41 are for men and 13 are for women.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the British servicemen held as prisoners in Auschwitz during the second world war are known to be still alive; and what memorials exist to(a) them and (b) those who were interned in other such camps. [5076]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not hold complete information on how many British service men held as prisoners of war during the second world war are still alive.

  All of those who lost their lives during the world wars are commemorated through the nation's central memorial, the Cenotaph. The MOD holds no central record of memorials erected at individual sites overseas.

  Training and Assistance
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) countries and (b) organisations which have received British military (i) training and (ii) assistance since 1997. [5342]

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

  HMS Cromer
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to dispose of HMS Cromer. [3525]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]On current plans, HMS Cromer is due to be withdrawn from service towards the end of 2001. Plans for her disposal are currently under review.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on(a) Fylingdales and (b) Menwith Hill in relation to recent proposals to install a national missile defence system at Fort Greely, Alaska; and if he will make a statement. [4856]

  Mr. Hoon
  In testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 12 July, the director of the US Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation set out plans to expand their ballistic missile defence "test bed" to include up to five ground-based silos at Fort Greely, Alaska. He stated that:"if directed, this test bed could also provide a basis for a contingency defensive capability if the security environment warrants".
  However, facilities in the UK will not form part of this test bed; the US Administration have not decided what sort of missile defences it will ultimately seek to deploy; and the US Administration have made no request for the use of facilities in the UK for missile defence purposes.

  Six-nation Framework Agreement
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which existing collaborative projects will become co-operative armaments programmes under the Six-nation Framework Agreement. [5360]

  Dr. Moonie
  Existing collaborative projects are already subject to their own conditions and procedures. It is too early to say whether there would be benefits from seeking to apply Framework Agreement procedures to such programmes.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Government Departments will be involved in approving the permitted export lists under the Six-nation Framework Agreement. [5359]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government Departments involved will be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence, Department of Trade and Industry and, as required, the Department for International Development, in line with their respective responsibilities.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 581W, if he will place in the Library the incomplete record of materials which were deposited in the sea off the north Cornish coast when CDE Nancekuke was decommissioned; [5947]

  (2) how the results of testing and decontamination of materials disposed of into the sea at Nancekuke when the base was decommissioned (a) were recorded and (b) will be published. [5791]

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

  Defence Training Review
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the implementation of the Defence Training Review and related training estate matters; and if he will make a statement. [5990]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the Defence Training Review for the future of RAF Halton. [4938]

  Mr. Ingram
  Work is in hand in the Ministry of Defence on the implementation of the Defence Training Review which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House in March. A number of areas have been identified where rationalisation on a single site appears feasible, and scoping studies are taking place on these. These studies are examining, in the first instance, options for providing the training at MOD sites. These will serve as benchmarks, or Public Sector Comparators, against which a wider range of options can be considered. Wider options include potential partnerships with the private sector, and private sector providers are being encouraged to propose innovative solutions. These might involve establishing training establishments on completely new sites. The selection, therefore, of a benchmark site does not imply that the MOD has taken a decision to continue training on that site.

  The sites being examined for these benchmarks or Public Sector Comparators are RAF Cosford for aeronautical engineering training; the Defence School of Transport at Leconfield for logistic training; Defence Intelligence and Security Centre at Chicksands for security, intelligence, language and photography training; the Royal School of Signals at Blandford for communications and information systems training; RAF Halton for joint personnel administration and police training and HMS Sultan for electro-mechanical engineering training. There will be implications for other sites at which elements of this training are carried out, but because work is at an early stage these cannot be quantified.

  In parallel with the work on the Defence Training Review, the Royal Navy has been conducting a comprehensive review of the remainder of its training estate. It is now proposed to concentrate naval shore training over the next 10 years at the Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth, HMS Raleigh in the Plymouth area, and HMS Collingwood in Gosport. This will permit

  335W
  the delivery of more cost-effective training and improve operational capability. It will include the creation of an Integrated Maritime Warfare School at HMS Collingwood, which will deliver all maritime warfare training in a single site. As part of this programme, HMS Dryad in the Portsmouth area will become surplus to requirements and close by no later than 2011, although vigorous efforts will be made to advance this date to maximise the operational and financial benefits, and it is intended that substantial elements of the establishment will progressively transfer to HMS Collingwood over the next few years. Changes are also planned at HMS Excellent in Portsmouth, which has been announced as the future site for key elements of the Royal Navy's Fleet Headquarters.

  Detailed proposals for all the above measures will be subject to normal consultative procedures at the appropriate time.

  Trident
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest estimate is of the cost of the Trident acquisition programme; and if he will make a statement. [5987]

  Mr. Hoon
  The current estimate of the total acquisition cost of the Trident programme, with payments already made expressed at the prices and exchange rates actually incurred and future spend at the current financial year exchange rate (the hybrid estimate), is now £9,764 million. Leaving aside the effects of price inflation and exchange rate variation (+£7 million), there has been a real cost increase of £12 million. Expenditure on the Trident acquisition programme to 30 September 2000 represented some 98 per cent. of the total estimate. If all expenditure, past and projected, is brought up to this current year's economic conditions (the non-hybrid estimate) the estimate is £13,662 million.

  The programme continues to show an overall reduction in real terms on its original 1982 estimate. This reduction, including the savings resulting from the decision to process missiles at the United States facility at Kings Bay, Georgia, now stands at over £3.9 billion at current prices.

  The proportion of the estimate for work undertaken in the United Kingdom is around 70 per cent.

  Our four in-service Vanguard class submarines are successfully maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence. HMS Vengeance entered service earlier this year.

  Carrier Fighter
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the CVF (aircraft carrier) assessment phase contracts; and if he will make a statement. [5134]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations continue with both candidate prime contractors on the basis of the work they have done so far and the proposals they have submitted for the next stage of CVF Assessment. It remains our intention to contract for the next stage of Assessment as soon as agreement can be reached with the prime contractors.

  Bowman
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the Bowman project; and if he will make a statement. [5986]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Bowman project will provide the armed forces with a modern, highly capable tactical combat radio communications system to replace Clansman which has been in service since the mid-1970s. It will provide secure, reliable communications to our land forces and selected elements of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The system will also implement a tactical internet and provide automatic position location, navigation and reporting.

  Last summer, in the light of major problems with the programme, the competition for the Bowman combat radio was re-launched. Following careful analysis of the bids submitted by Thales, TRW and CDC, I have decided that CDC, a subsidiary of General Dynamics already operating in the UK, should be selected as the preferred supplier of this system.

  Our priority has been to deliver a successful solution that fills the capability gap at the earliest opportunity. CDC has offered a solution that fully meets the military requirement and represents the best value for money. I am confident that it will meet our demanding timetable for getting this vital equipment into service with the armed forces. It is based on the development of a proven system, and includes best of class radios and a very efficient approach to fielding and support. Its bid is the clear winner of the competition.

  The Ministry of Defence and CDC will now work together on the programme to bring Bowman into service. We aim to be in a position to let the contract in late summer this year, in support of an In-Service Date in early 2004. The contract is valued at around £1.8 billion. It will cover both the supply of the Bowman system and the first five years of support up to the year 2009.

  CDC's solution will provide employment opportunities in the UK in a broad range of system areas, including design, development, manufacture and project management. Ninety per cent of the work content of the CDC bid will be UK-based—the highest proportion of any of the three bids. Around 1,600 jobs will be secured across the UK, including 400 new high-technology and support posts at the company's headquarters, which CDC plan to establish in south Wales. The company has also earmarked south Wales for a new Army Communications Technology research and development centre, which will be staffed by around 65 leading scientists. Other regions will benefit too. We expect sub-contract work to secure over 100 jobs in Scotland, over 300 jobs in south-west England, and around 75 jobs in the south-east centred on Hastings. Major UK sub-contractors include Alvis and GKN-Westlands.

  This month will also see the first deliveries, ahead of schedule, of the Personal Role Radios, a new capability which was separated from the main Bowman requirement in 1999 in order to ensure early delivery to the front line. These radios will provide short range communications for dismounted infantry, and will transform their operations.
  337W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on procurement policy, with particular reference to the willingness of each of the competitors to accept future UK defence prime contracts, if(a) CDC, (b) TRW and (c) Thales were awarded the Bowman contract; and if he will make a statement; [5135]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Canadian Government to verify the performance of CDC in respect of the IRIS programme; and if he will make a statement. [5133]

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

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assurances he has received from TRW about its performance in respect of US digitisation programmes; and if he will make a statement; [5129]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the US Government to verify the performance of TRW in respect of digitisation programmes for the US armed forces; and if he will make a statement; [5132]

  (3) what estimate he was made of the impact on the value of UK exports of Bowman if (a) CDC, (b) TRW or (c) Thales were awarded the Bowman contract; and if he will make a statement; [5128]

  (4) what assurances he has received from CDC about its performance in respect of the Canadian IRIS programme; and if he will make a statement. [5131]

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Refugee Fund
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations successfully bid for funding under the European refugee fund for voluntary repatriation measures in 2000–01. [6026]

  Angela Eagle
  The International Organisation for Migration, with Refugee Action as an implementing partner, successfully bid for funding of three separate projects under this measure. All three projects are co-funded by the Home Office. They are:

  Voluntary Assisted Return Programme 2000

  The project is open to any persons, subject to the European refugee fund criteria, who wish to return to their country of origin but do not have the means to do so. The programme aims, within a 12-month period, to organise a dignified and orderly return service to facilitate the return of 1,200 persons to their home destination. Information and assistance are made available, in the home country, to all returning persons. This project commenced in September 2000 and is therefore funded retrospectively.

  Somalia Project

  This project aims to facilitate the sustainable return and reintegration of 100 Somali nationals currently living in the United Kingdom who have applied for asylum and now wish to go back to Somalia. The project will be concentrating on the regions of Somalia—predominantly
  338W
  Somaliland and Punt Land—where there is peace and conditions are conducive for the safe and orderly return and reintegration of Somali nationals.

  Voluntary Assisted Return Programme (VARP) 2001

  This project, which will begin in September 2001, aims to continue the work already established by the earlier project (VARP 2000). The target is a further 1,200 voluntary returns. The same criteria will apply and it is intended that any identified improvements following evaluation of the VARP 2000 project will be incorporated into the programme.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the asylum support adjudicators will publish their annual report and accounts for 2000–01. [6027]

  Angela Eagle
  The asylum support adjudicators annual report and accounts for 2000–01 will be published on Wednesday 25 July. A cop) will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have arrived in(a) the county of Suffolk, excluding Felixstowe and (b) the Port of Felixstowe since 1 January. [4119]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the number of asylum applications made in the county of Suffolk is unavailable. Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port of application. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  The number of asylum applications made at the Port of Felixstowe in the period of 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2001 was 30 (excluding dependants). This information was taken from manual counts of asylum applications taken at port, which do not reconcile with the provisional monthly asylum statistics published on http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the shackling of asylum detainees attending hospitals for medical treatment. [5382]

  Angela Eagle
  Immigration detainees may be handcuffed, if this is assessed in a particular case to be necessary for reasons of security and control, while being escorted from their place of detention to another location. This could include attendance at a medical appointment. Handcuffs would in all cases be used for the minimum period necessary for the purposes of security and control and, in the context of medical appointments, would not be applied during any medical examination.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of asylum appeals was on(a) 30 May and (b) 30 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [2940]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]Provisional data indicate that on 30 May 2001 there were approximately 52,000 asylum appeals lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate which has not reached the end of the appeals process.
  339W
  Data from the manual records kept in 1997 indicate that on 30 May 1997 the comparable figure was approximately 26,000.

  Between 1997 and 2001 there was a 244 per cent. increase in decision making, from 38,895 initial decisions in 1996–97 to 133,695 in 2000–01. Over the same period the number of appeals within the process increased by 100 per cent.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects(a) to have completed his assessment of the fieldwork on the asylum vouchers review and (b) to make an announcement of his conclusions from the review; and if he will make a statement. [5115]

  Angela Eagle
  The review of the operation of the asylum voucher scheme remains on-going. We have not set a specific date for completion of our consideration of the evidence from the review, but we will not be making any announcements before the summer.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that asylum seekers who have been victims of torture are not detained in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [5116]

  Angela Eagle
  The detention under Immigration Act powers of any individual, whether an asylum seeker or not, has to be justified on the basis of the particular circumstances of the individual concerned and there is a general presumption in favour of granting temporary admission or temporary release. In any case where detention is considered necessary a range of factors must be taken into account before the detention is authorised.

  One of these factors is whether the individual concerned has a history of torture. Evidence of such a history would weigh heavily against detention and, in any case where there is independent evidence of torture, the person concerned would not normally be considered suitable for detention.

  Where information on a possible history of torture comes to light after a person has been detained this information would be taken into account in deciding whether detention of that person should continue.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to implement Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 relating to routine hearings to review the detention of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement; [5119]

  (2) what the timetable is for bringing into force Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 relating to routine hearings to review the detention of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [5206]

  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does not specify a date by which part III is required to be implemented. While it was not proposed to implement part III before October 2001, the actual implementation date is currently under review and a final decision has yet to be taken.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the regional structure of the National Asylum Support Service; and if he will make a statement. [5207]
  340W
  Angela Eagle
  The structure of National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is kept under review. Any decision to increase the number of NASS staff in the regions much take into account the broader requirements of Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) as a whole.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if guidance notes accompanying statement of evidence forms are distributed to asylum seekers in their own language; how many translated guidance notes have been published, and in what languages; and if he will make a statement. [5205]

  Angela Eagle
  The guidance notes that accompany the statement of evidence form (SEF) have been translated into 33 main languages spoken by asylum applicants. Other languages may be added if a need is identified. When a SEF is issued to an asylum applicant, it is accompanied by a copy of the explanatory notes in English and a language which the applicant can understand.

  The explanatory notes have been translated into the following languages:

  Amharic

  Arabic

  Albanian

  Bengali

  Chinese

  Croat

  Czech

  Dari

  Farsi

  French

  Gujerati

  Hindi

  Kurmanji

  Lithuanian

  Lingala

  Ndebele

  Nepali

  Pashtu

  Polish

  Portuguese

  Punjabi

  Romanian

  Russian

  Serbian

  Shona

  Sorani

  Spanish

  Somali

  Swahili

  Tamil

  Turkish

  Ukrainian

  Urdu.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are located in Southend; and how many have been sent to Southend from other areas. [2309]
  341W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]: The information requested is not available.

  Southend is not currently a cluster area used by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and so asylum seekers are not dispersed there by NASS. Information on the location of asylum seekers receiving voucher-only support from NASS is collated only by region, not by town.

  Statistics for asylum seekers dispersed by local authorities are not held centrally.

  Animal Procedures
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Animal Procedures Committee annual report for 2000. [6028]

  Angela Eagle
  I have today published the committee's annual report for 2000, and laid it before Parliament pursuant to section 20(5) of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I am pleased to note that the committee has continued to make progress on its extensive programme of work.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the figures relating to scientific procedures performed on living animals in Great Britain in 2000, licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [6030]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested will be published in full as a Command Paper on 26 July 2001.

  The Command Paper will contain a great deal of detailed statistical data. I can meanwhile report the following key facts:
  the number of procedures started in 2000 was just over 2.71 million, an increase of 58,000 (2.2 per cent.) on 1999;
  66 per cent. were for fundamental biological research and applied human and veterinary medicine, and 17 per cent. for toxicological/safety testing (mostly for pharmaceutical evaluation purposes);
  82 per cent. of the procedures involved use of rats, mice and other rodents, and fish and birds were used in 14 per cent. of the remainder;
  dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates, accorded special protection under the 1986 Act, were collectively used in less than 1 per cent. of the procedures;
  the number of procedures involving the use of genetically modified animals, mostly mice, rose by 70,000 (14 per cent.) to 582,000 in 2000;
  the total number of animals used for the first time in 2000 was 2.64 million, an increase of almost 74,000 (2.9 per cent.) on 1999.

  Voluntary and Community Organisations
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a report on central Government funding of voluntary and community organisations. [6029]

  Angela Eagle
  I am today announcing the publication of the latest research into central Government funding of voluntary and community organisations. It reveals that total Government funding for the year 1999–2000 was £2.2 billion—a rise in real terms of 5.4 per cent. over the last two years. A copy of the report "Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000" has been placed in the Library.
  342W
  The amount spent by each Department in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 was as follows:

  £

  Departments

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  346,400

  368,265

  Cabinet Office

  2,473,761

  2,473,761

  Crown Prosecution Service

  5,000

  0

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  219,286,178

  247,449,533

  Ministry of Defence

  15,638,725

  15,099,220

  Department for Education and Employment

  96,055,271

  167,393,594

  Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions

  950,353,834

  1,042,711,540

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  7,707,459

  9,645,839

  Department of Health

  59,992,313

  60,273,422

  Home Office

  73,210,511

  79,790,487

  Inland Revenue

  0

  30,000

  Department for International Development

  181,577,000

  195,269,000

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  22,497,467

  3,285,565

  Department of Social Security

  14,535,775

  13,508,767

  Department of Trade and Industry

  17,328,000

  16,106,000

  Northern Ireland Executive

  1—

  1—

  Scottish Executive

  282,129,574

  289,888,456

  National Assembly for Wales

  110,107,441

  95,104,573

  1Not available

  Prisons
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will confirm the final 2001–02 key performance indicator targets for average cost per uncrowded prison place and average cost per prisoner. [6031]

  Beverley Hughes
  The final targets for 2001–02 are:To ensure that the average cost per uncrowded prison place does not exceed £36,323
  To ensure that the average cost per prisoner does not exceed £37,509.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the performance of Her Majesty's prison services in 2000–01. [6032]

  Beverley Hughes
  The annual report and accounts for the Prison Service for 2000–01 has been laid before the House today. A copy will he placed in the Library.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Records Bureau will publish its annual report and accounts for 2000–01. [6033]

  Mr. Denham
  The Criminal Records Bureau annual report and accounts have been published today and I am pleased to say that copies have been placed in the Library.

  Immigration Appeals Authority
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further right of appeal on human rights grounds is available to those who had appeals pending before the Immigration Appeals Authority, or where an in time appeal could have been made, on 2 October 2000. [6034]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In another place, on 20 March 2001,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 153–54W my noble Friend, Lord Bassam, in reply to a question from Lord Lester of Herne Hill, clarified the position of asylum seekers who wished to make a human rights claim under

  343W
  section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. He confirmed that people appealing against immigration decisions made before 2 October 2000 cannot benefit from this appeal right which is not retrospective. But they could make a separate human rights claim and would have the opportunity to appeal except in those instances where the human rights issue had already been considered by the appellate authority or the courts, or there had been findings of fact at an earlier appeal which mean the human rights claim is bound to fail.

  However, it has been decided that the exception should not apply to people who had an appeal pending or could have lodged appeals in time to the immigration appeals authority on 2 October 2000. If they make a human rights claim and it is rejected they will be able to make an allegation and we will then give them an opportunity to appeal to the immigration appeals authority.

  Oakington Detention Centre
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants have had their claims processed at Oakington detention centre since 20 March 2000; what was the outcome of each claim; how many of those refused asylum subsequently appealed; what were the outcomes of the appeals; how many appellants failed to attend the appeal hearing; how many were held in other detention centres pending determination on an appeal; and how many were removed from the United Kingdom. [3307]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]The following information is based on provisional Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) data. Up to 30 June 2001, there have so far been 6,182 principal applicants who have had their asylum claim decided at Oakington.

  The outcome of those decisions was as follows:

  Outcome

  Number

  Granted

  33

  Refused but granted exceptional leave to enter or remain

  13

  Asylum refused

  6,136

  Total decided

  6,182

  There have so far been 5,425 appeals lodged. Only appellants who are detained or whose claim was certified as manifestly unfounded on their merits are subject to fast-track appeal arrangements. Of those sent to the IAA, and so far determined, the outcome was as follows:

  Outcome of appeals

  Number

  Allowed

  121

  Conceded

  6

  Withdrawn or abandoned

  489

  Dismissed

  2,389

  Total

  3,005

  Information on the number of appellants who failed to attend the appeal hearing is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. 884 appellants have been detained pending the determination
  344W
  of their appeal. 1,233 principal applicants who had their claim decided at Oakington, plus 275 dependants, have so far been removed from the United Kingdom.

  James Ashley
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) the Wilding report and (b) the Hoddinot report into the death of James Ashley. [3622]

  Mr. Denham
  Those reports are the property of Sussex Police Authority and the Chief Constable. I met my hon. Friend and members of the Ashley family on 4 July. At the meeting I said that we would use our best endeavours to encourage the Police Authority to publish as much as possible, bearing in mind that the report contains confidential information that will need to be subject to considered legal advice, and the need to ensure there is no adverse impact on other proceedings.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates his Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [4814]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 July 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  Sexual Offences Review
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to implement the recommendations of the Sexual Offender Review Group; and if he will make a statement. [4888]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have arranged that the report of the review of Part One of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will be published for consultation during the week beginning 30 July. I will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he plans to publish the Government's response to the Sexual Offences Review; [5381]

  (2) if he will publish a list of those who have responded to the consultation on the Sexual Offences Review; and how many responses he has received to the consultation. [5378]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 27 June 2001,Official Report, column 99W. We received responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals. A detailed breakdown is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost, as some of those who responded did not want their identity disclosed.

  As soon as we have considered all the responses in detail in relation to the 62 recommendations contained in Volume 1 of "Setting the Boundaries" we will be making an announcement of our conclusions.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental Ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4900]

  Mr. Blunkett
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  National Black Police Association/Superintendent Dizaei
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if surveillance of Dr. Dizaei included telephone conversations on private and public telecommunication systems in connection with his position as adviser to the National Black Police Association; [1921]

  (2) how many of the phone intercepts of Dr. Dizaei carried out between September 1999 and October 2000 were of private conversations unrelated to Dr. Dizaei's work as a police officer; [1922]

  (3) if phone interceptions were carried out and transcribed while (a) Dr. Dizaei was giving advice to black officers taking proceedings against the Metropolitan police service and (b) Dr. Dizaei was discussing such cases with the lawyers involved. [1923]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the practice in relation to calls made by Superintendent Dizaei (prior to 2 October 2000, when Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 came into force) was that all calls on the Metropolitan police service telephone network were recorded. Those which related to his role as National Black Police Association Legal Adviser were not transcribed and not passed to the team that is investigating his conduct.

  Of the calls recorded during the period between September 1999 and October 2000, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that 899 calls appear to he unrelated to Superintendent Dizaei's duties as a police officer.

  In relation to interception of communications, which comes under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and its predecessor, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, it has been the policy of successive Governments to neither confirm nor deny whether interception has taken place in any specific case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis(a) the accounts of the National Black Police Association were disclosed to the Metropolitan Police and (b) his Department agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service not to allow the National Black Police Association to examine its own accounts. [1924]

  Mr. Denham
  For the purposes of its investigation into Superintendent Ali Dizaei, the Metropolitan Police asked to examine Home Office documents recording payments of public funds to the National Black Police Association. The Metropolitan Police asked Home Office officials not 346W
  to disclose the documents to the National Black Police Association. Having examined the documents more fully, however, the Metropolitan Police withdrew its request. The National Black Police Association has since had access to the documents.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has followed the formal complaint made by the National Black Police Association against the Deputy Commissioner Ian Blair, DAC Hayman and Superintendent Norman on 13 May over their conduct in investigating Dr. Dizaei. [1926]

  Mr. Denham
  The chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) informs me that the Authority is dealing with the allegations against Mr. Blair and Mr. Hayman in accordance with Regulation 7 of the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1999. A specialist adviser, who has sought clarification of the misconduct alleged by the National Black Police Association (NBPA), is tasked to report back to a sub-committee of the MPA on all three officers, as soon as possible, following the completion of his inquiries. The sub-committee will then consider what action should be taken under the Regulations.

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is the appropriate disciplinary authority for the allegation against Superintendent Norman. The Commissioner informs me that he will also await the specialist adviser's report before considering what action should be taken under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on who is accountable for the Metropolitan Police service investigations into Dr Ali Dizaei and Chief Inspector Leroy Logan MBE. [4351]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Police Act 1996, the Metropolitan Police are under the direction and control of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which includes the handling of disciplinary investigations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of the investigation into Dr. Dizaei has been to date including(a) salaries of police officers and support staff, (b) cost of other individuals involved, (c) use of technical equipment, (d) cost of facilities and administration and (e) expenses including overtime and travelling. [1925]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that to quantify these costs could be done only at disproportionate cost. It should be noted, however, that the majority of these costs are 'opportunity costs' (that is work carried out in the normal course of an officer's duties), and not additionally incurred. The Commissioner also informs me that the annual budgetary allocation to the Internal Investigations Command of the MPS is £16,646,564.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are working on the investigation of Dr. Dizaei. [1927]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the number of officers engaged in this investigation has varied between eight and 29 at any one time.
  347W
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department how many statements relating to the investigation of Dr. Dizaei have been taken to date and what proportion of those statements, excluding those from police staff, were taken from the visible ethnic minorities. [1928]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me 803 statements have been taken from 305 different individuals. 33 per cent. of people providing statements are not connected with the Police Service. 53 per cent. of those people are from visible ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many superintendents within the Metropolitan Police in the last five years have received surveillance at the level of that carried out in the investigation of Superintendent Dizaei. [1929]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that since the inauguration of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Anti-corruption Squad in January 1998, other officers of Superintending rank have been subject to similar surveillance to that carried out in the investigation of Superintendent Dizaei. It is the policy of the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards not to discuss specific numbers of investigations.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average length of time is spent by young people held in custody on remand before their case comes before court and is finalised. [2846]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average time juveniles spend on remand in custody is 65 days for those held in Prison Service accommodation and an estimated 114 days for those held in local authority secure units.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile offenders are currently held in(a) young offender institutions and (b) elsewhere within the Prison Estate; and if he will make a statement. [2110]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional information shows that on 31 May 2001 there were 2,365 juveniles held in young offender institutions in England and Wales. There were a further 13 juveniles held elsewhere within the prison estate.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants who have held ELR status and who have applied for ILR have been refused in each of the last three years. [4746]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information is given in the table.
  348W

  Table 1: Refusals of an application for indefinite leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom to persons previously granted exceptional leave to remain, 1998–2000

  Year

  Total refusals

  1998

  40

  1999

  10

  2000

  30

  1Excludes dependants of principal applicants and the outcome of appeals. Data rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what orders have been laid under section 84(4)(d) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [4990]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 60W.

  SI 2001 No. 1403 exempts from the regulatory scheme administered by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner certain educational institutions and public health bodies. SI 2001 No. 1393 provides temporary exemption from the scheme (until 31 January 2002) to voluntary bodies which, by 30 April 2001, formally committed themselves to apply for the Community Legal Services Quality Mark; and to employers who give immigration advice to work permit holders.

  Family Visitor Visa
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the effect of fees on the number of family visitor visa appeals. [4747]

  Angela Eagle
  An inter-departmental review of the operation of the family visitor appeal scheme is being conducted. One of the review team's tasks is to assess the impact of the fees, and independent research is being commissioned to investigate this. The team's report will be available early next year.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many family visitor visa appeals have been funded by the Legal Services Commission in the last 12 months. [4593]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Legal Services Commission is unable to produce this information. Responsibility for recording the number of cases funded by the Legal Services Commission is devolved to suppliers under contracts. They are only required to record and report the total number of asylum cases and the total number of immigration cases. Family visitor appeals are included within the number of immigration cases and cannot be identified separately.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will introduce a separate application form for family visitor visa applications which draws attention to the fact that any refusal will be subject to a right of appeal. [4748]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans at present to introduce a separate application form for family visitor visa applications. However, a revised version of the existing visa application form is being prepared which includes an expanded section for visitors. This will allow applicants to

  349W
  indicate their intention to visit a family member. The accompanying information leaflet outlines the appeal right for this category of visitor.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate he has made of the numbers of successful family visitor visa appeals(a) at oral hearings and (b) via paper only. [4750]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  From October 2000 to June 2001, inclusive adjudicators at the Immigration Appellate Authorities decided:

  (a) 406 oral appeals, 279 of which were successful; and

  (b) 910 paper appeals, 323 of which were successful; with another 37 being successful on a further appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  Drugs
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of people aged 16 to 24 years reported that they had used illegal drugs during the(a) past year and (b) past month in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [5226]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The British Crime Survey (BCS) provides data on the levels of self-reported drug use among a representative sample of the general population in England and Wales. The information requested is not available for the years requested.

  The table provides the relevant data for 1996 and 1998. Data were not collected in 1999 since the BCS has been conducted every two years. From 2000 onwards, however, the BCS will be done every year. Data for 2000 will be published in autumn 2001. Data collection for 2001 is not yet complete.

  Percentages of respondents aged 16 to 24 years reporting use of illegal drugs in the last year and last month, in England and Wales

  1996

  1998

  Last year

  29

  29

  Last month

  18

  19

  Sources

  BCS 1996 (weighted data)

  Drug Misuse Declared in 1998: results from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Research Study 197 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors197.pfd)

  PFI/PPP
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) PFI and (b) PPP contracts have been agreed by his Department over the last five years; how many have been satisfactorily completed; and in how many has compensation been (i) paid and (ii) claimed for performance failure. [4596]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Public Finance Initiative (PFI) and Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts agreed in the last five years, based on available information, are as follows:
  350W

  Number

  (a) Number of PFI contracts agreed in last five years

  21

  (b) Number of PPP contracts1 agreed in last five years

  1

  (c) Number satisfactorily completed

  20

  (i) Number where compensation paid for performance failure

  11

  (ii) Number where compensation claimed for performance failure

  12

  1Excludes PFI contracts shown above

  2All contracts are still running

  The level of compensation on one claim is still being negotiated.

  Charity Commission
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy of the Charity Commission in respect of an application to establish a new charity which replicates the scope and remit of an existing charity. [4927]

  Angela Eagle
  The Charity Commission is required by section 3(2) of the Charities Act 1993 to register any organisation which is established exclusively for charitable purposes and is not exempt or excepted from registration.

  Channel Tunnel (Security)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the Channel Tunnel terminal at Cheriton this year; and how many of them have applied for asylum. [5280]

  Angela Eagle
  Provisional figures indicate that, from 1 January 2001 to midnight on 14 July, 3,538 clandestine entrants have been detected at the Cheriton Terminal. The overwhelming majority claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. Action is in hand to implement Civil Penalties in respect of the Eurotunnel shuttles following a period of consultation. A consultation document including a draft code of practice, regulations and a Regulatory Impact Assessment was handed to Eurotunnel on 18 July. A copy of the document will be on the Home Office website at www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk from 20 July.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in completing the security arrangements at the Coquelles terminal of the Channel Tunnel. [5291]

  Angela Eagle
  The work on the inner security cordon around the platforms and freight allocation areas on the Coquelles site is not yet complete. The main fencing is in place but work remains to he done to complete protection on the over-bridges leading to the platforms and to secure some access points for road and rail. Eurotunnel also propose an extension to the inner cordon to protect the rail entrance route to the platforms.

  Action is in hand to implement civil penalties in respect of the Eurotunnel shuttles following a period of consultation. Officials met Eurotunnel on 18 July and outlined a number of improvements that needed urgent action.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which provisions of the Criminal
  351W
  Justice and Court Services Act 2000 are yet to come into force; what the planned timetable is for their introduction; what orders remain to be brought forward relating to the Act; and if he will make a statement. [5107]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which have not yet been commenced are: sections 46 and 51, which are concerned with exclusion orders and requirements; section 53 which is concerned with breach of community orders; section 59 which is concerned with remand centres; section 61 which is concerned with the sentencing of offenders aged 18–21, and section 71 which is concerned with information held by the Police Information Technology Organisation for the purposes of part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is hoped to bring section 71 into effect shortly. The exclusion provisions are to be piloted and the other sections will be commenced when possible.

  In respect of the powers to make orders under the Act I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Criminal Court Orders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the names of criminal court orders. [5209]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 changed the names of Community Service Orders, Probation Orders and Combination Orders to Community Punishment Orders, Community Rehabilitation Orders and Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Orders. These changes have already taken effect.

  The Halliday Report on the Sentencing Framework includes proposals to create new sentences which, in due course, may have implications for the names of existing orders. These proposals are currently the subject of a consultation exercise.

  The Government have no other plans to change the names of orders imposed by the criminal courts.

  Fine Defaulters
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) were imprisoned and (b) received a non-custodial sentence for fine default in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many fine defaults followed non-payment of a television licence fee; what was the average length of prison sentence in each year for fine default; and if he will make a statement. [5114]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Prison receptions data from the Prison statistics database do not include non-custodial sentences for defendants who have defaulted on payment of fines. Details of prison receptions for fine default and average days served are shown in Table A for males and females. Prison receptions for fine default following non-payment of a television licence fee are shown in Table B.
  352W

  Table A: Receptions of fine defaulters by year, and average time served by days and sex for prisons in England and Wales

  Average time served/days1

  Year

  Number of receptions

  Males

  Females

  1991

  18,973

  8.1

  6.8

  1992

  19,826

  7.0

  6.8

  1993

  22,403

  7.5

  6.0

  1994

  22,469

  7.3

  5.0

  1995

  20,157

  7.0

  5.0

  1996

  8,555

  7.0

  5.0

  1997

  6,336

  7.0

  5.0

  1998

  5,374

  7.0

  5.0

  1999

  3,727

  7.0

  5.0

  20002

  2,476

  7.0

  5.0

  1 Excluding those remaining in custody for fine default on completion of a custodial sentence

  2 Provisional data

  Table B: Fine Defaulters that have used a TV without a licence in prisons in England and Wales, by year

  Year

  Number of fine defaulters received1

  1991

  394

  1992

  568

  1993

  825

  1994

  730

  1995

  728

  1996

  327

  1997

  232

  1998

  145

  1999

  80

  20002

  33

  1 Includes those aged 17 up to 1992

  2 Provisional data

  A Home Office Occasional Paper, "New Measures for Fine Defaulters, Persistent Petty Offenders and Others: The Report of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 Pilots", by Robin Elliott and Jennifer Airs was published in 2000. The report looks in detail at fine default in Norwich and Manchester, including imprisonment, non-custodial sentences and type of offence.

  A copy is in the Library or can be accessed on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ-fine.pdf.

  Reoffending
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average recorded reoffending rate was following(a) a community rehabilitation order with conditions, (b) a community rehabilitation order without conditions, (c) a community rehabilitation order with a condition of attendance at an accredited programme, (d) a community punishment order and (e) a community punishment and rehabilitation order on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [5208]

  Beverley Hughes
  Reoffending data for community penalty commencements are not collected. However data on reconviction following the commencement of various community penalties are collected. The latest available data are for commencements in the first quarter of 1997, and are shown in the table. It is not possible to identify
  353W
  separately offenders with a condition of attendance at an accredited programme from those offenders with any conditions specified.

  Percentage of offenders reconvicted for a standard list offence within two years of commencing a community penalty in the first quarter of 1997

  Order type

  Percentage

  Community Rehabilitation Order with conditions

  58

  Community Rehabilitation Order without conditions

  68

  Community Punishment Order

  48

  Combination Punishment and Rehabilitation Order

  59

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 are yet to come into force; what the planned timetable is for their introduction; what orders remain to be brought forward relating to the Act; and if he will make a statement. [5111]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Part I Chapter II (acquisition and disclosure of communications data) and Part III (investigation of electronic data protected by encryption etc.) of the Act have yet to be implemented. We plan to bring these provisions into force by the end of this year. Orders under section 12 (maintenance of interception capability) and section 13 (Technical Advisory Board) of the Act will be laid before Parliament following the current period of public consultation on the section 12 order.

  Terrorism Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 are yet to come into force; what the planned timetable is for their introduction; what orders remain to be brought forward relating to the Act; and if he will make a statement. [5112]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The only provision in the Terrorism Act 2000 not brought into force on or before 19 February 2001 by any of the three commencement orders signed by my predecessor is section 100 in Part VII of the Act. This concerns the making of a code of practice for silent video recordings in Northern Ireland of those detained under the Act. Section 100 has not been brought into force because an order under paragraph 3 of schedule 8 to the Act has been made introducing video recording with sound in Northern Ireland with effect from 19 February. No order has been made prescribing the kind of information to be provided by passenger carriers about passengers, crew and vehicles travelling in the common travel area (paragraph 17 (4) of Schedule 7). Discussions continue about how the power to collect information is to be used and the kind of information to be collected. No order will be laid before the House without prior formal consultation with carriers.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the additional Probation Service staff that need to be recruited in order 354W
  to deliver the accredited programme strategy and the recommendations contained in "Making Punishments Work"; and if he will make a statement. [5214]

  Beverley Hughes
  We estimate that approximately 4,500 additional probation staff will be needed by 2003–04 in order to deliver accredited programmes under the What Works initiative. We have yet to take decisions on the implementation of "Making Punishments Work", but preliminary estimates are that some 4,800 extra probation staff would be required if it were implemented in full.

  Passports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of unprocessed passport applications was at the end of each month since 1 January. [4940]

  Angela Eagle
  The backlog of unprocessed passport applications for each month was as follows:

  Month

  Backlog

  January

  154,048

  February

  184,704

  March

  150,503

  April

  179,729

  May

  237,719

  June

  175,148

  The increased backlog at the end of May is largely the result of normal seasonal demand, which peaks during May. Despite this backlog the average turnround time for straightforward, properly completed applications remained low at just over five days.

  May 2001 intake was 701,144, an increase of 7.5 per cent. over 2000. Much of this increase can be traced to the end of the postal dispute which artificially inflated May intake when compared to previous years.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is providing the Passport Service's out-sourced call service mentioned in paragraph 2.11 of the Services Corporate and Business Plan 2001–2006. [4945]

  Angela Eagle
  Call centre services for United Kingdom Passport Service have been provided by MM Group since January 2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislative changes he is planning to allow the Passport Service greater access to other databases. [4961]

  Angela Eagle
  No legislation is currently planned for the Passport Service.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the incidence of internal fraud within the Passport Service. [4950]

  Angela Eagle
  Detection and prevention of fraud remains a top priority for the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS). Any suspected internal fraud or attempted fraud is investigated promptly and thoroughly and is followed up by legal and/or disciplinary action where appropriate. This is carried out with the full
  355W
  co-operation of the police. Such cases are rare. A log of suspected and actual cases is maintained and is subject to regular review by the Agencies Management.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the original budgeted estimate was for the cost of moving the headquarters and London Regional Office of the UK Passport Agency; what the current estimated outturn is; and if he will make a statement. [4963]

  Angela Eagle
  The original budgeted estimate was £11.5 million. The current estimated outturn is £14.0 million.

  It should be noted that the functionality of the operation has been raised significantly to enable the introduction of a Tiered Application Service. The number of customer counters has been increased and an enhanced appointment and queue management system added. The level of security has also been improved for the added security of both customers and staff.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work he has commissioned into(a) the incidence of passport fraud and (b) possible new measures to combat such fraud. [4944]

  Angela Eagle
  A specialist Fraud and Enforcement Unit has been set up within the Passport Service.

  Improved analysis of levels of passport fraud is being implemented and access to private and public sector databases is being considered to address particular fraud issues.

  The United Kingdom Passport Service will continue to play a full and active role in inter-departmental efforts to combat fraudulent activities across Government.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to recover the deficit which the Passport Service is set to incur in the financial year 2001–02. [4953]

  Angela Eagle
  The objective of the Passport Service, when setting fees, is to break even after contribution to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for non-fee bearing consular services. Fee levels should be set to ensure that the Passport Service breaks even in any given year. Where this is not possible it is necessary for the Passport Service to enter into discussions with Her Majesty's Treasury to agree that recovery will take place over a longer period.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the percentage increase in the revenue of the Passport Service between 2001–02 and 2002–03; what proportion of that forecast increase is attributable to an assumed increase in fees; and if he will make a statement. [4955]

  Angela Eagle
  The forecast for income from the Passport Service is £135.4 million in 2001–02 and £156.8 million in 2002–03, an increase of just under 16 per cent. It is important to note that this increase does not simply reflect a potential general fee increase but also an increase in revenue as a result of the planned introduction of Tiered Application Services, for which applicants would choose to pay a fee premium to guarantee faster delivery times. It is intended to introduce these services during the final quarter of 2001–02 and this has been assumed in forecast revenue assumptions.
  356W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports were scrapped prior to issue in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [4951]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of passports scrapped before issue in each year was as follows:

  Year

  Number of passports scrapped prior to issue

  1997–98

  140,323

  1998–99

  138,037

  1999–2000

  121,481

  2000–01

  107,296

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to recover the costs of the emergency measures introduced by the Passport Service in 1999. [4954]

  Angela Eagle
  In 2001–02 the United Kingdom Passport Service Accounts show a surplus of £4.9 million, which will recover some past deficits. The costs of the 1999 emergency measures are to be recovered through an efficiency programme.

  The programme of efficiency measures will commence following the cutover of all offices to the new passport issuing service, (PASS). As a result of delays to the completion of PASS rollout to minimise risk, this programme has not yet started. It is planned to complete the rollout later this year and to introduce an efficiency programme in 2002–03.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) new passports and (b) renewals there have been in each month since 1 January. [4939]

  Angela Eagle
  The split of passport applications received by the Passport Service for each month is as follows:

  Month/Service type

  Number

  January

  New Adult Applications

  92,774

  Adult Renewals

  265,534

  Child Applications

  108,618

  Amendments/extensions to existing passports

  37,279

  February

  New Adult Applications

  111,273

  Adult Renewals

  273,271

  Child Applications

  139,140

  Amendments/extensions to existing passports

  38,129

  March

  New Adult Applications

  107,218

  Adult Renewals

  237,221

  Child Applications

  146,320

  Amendments/extensions to existing passports

  39,641

  April

  New Adult Applications

  109,229

  Adult Renewals

  193,114

  Child Applications

  184,417

  Amendments/extensions to existing passports

  41,595

  May

  New Adult Applications

  152,724

  Adult Renewals

  289,492

  357W

  Month/Service type

  Number

  Child Applications

  194,421

  Amendments/extensions to existing passports

  55,958

  June

  New Adult Applications

  137,328

  Adult Renewals

  252,116

  Child Applications

  164,503

  Amendments/extensions to existing passports

  51,873

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average processing time was for(a) a new passport application and (b) a renewal in each month of 2001 to date. [4946]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible separately to identify the average processing times of new passport applications and renewals. The average processing times provided relate to all straightforward, properly completed applications issued by the Passport Service during the month.

  Month

  Average processing time (days)

  January

  3.31

  February

  4.46

  March

  4.67

  April

  4.66

  May

  5.12

  June

  5.61

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which(a) private sector and (b) public sector databases the Passport Service is seeking access. [4962]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom Passport Service is:

  (a) considering a trial starting this Autumn that will involve the use of a financial sector database; and

  (b) considering the scope for data matching procedures with the National Insurance Contributions Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Woking dated 30 April and 4 and 6 July, ref. V1006539, re Mrs. Verney, formerly Egorova. [4918]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 19 July. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Social Action Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that Christian and church-based social action initiatives are treated equitably in the allocation of Government funding. [5098]

  Angela Eagle
  I can assure the hon. Member that all applications for Government funding are treated in a fair and objective manner. The Government fully recognise the important role that all faith groups can make to addressing social needs. Codes of Good Practice under the Compact between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector stress the potential of faith 358W
  organisations to contribute to social inclusion and that this is distinct from the promotion of religion. The consultation document recently issued by my Department in partnership with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions puts forward proposals aimed at achieving a more integrated and accessible approach to Government funding of all community groups. More generally, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also recently announced a review of the ways the Government interface with faith communities.

  Prisons (Rehabilitation)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to improve the record of prisons as institutions of effective rehabilitation. [633]

  Beverley Hughes
  [pursuant to the reply, 2 July 2001, c. 53W]This said the Prison Service would be investing an additional £30 million in 2002–03 from the Spending Review 2000. This should have read £50 million.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Autogas
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance the Government have issued on the safety of converting vehicles to use autogas. [4523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The guidance on the safety of converting vehicles to use autogas is contained within UK legislation. The Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1998 (Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2884) provides the technical standards for the use of compressed natural gas and Regulation 94 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (Statutory Instrument 1986 No. 1078) provides the technical standards for the use of liquefied petroleum gas.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidelines have been issued to licensing authorities about the use of private hire vehicles which use autogas. [4522]

  Ms Keeble
  The licensing of private hire vehicles is a matter for local licensing authorities (district/borough councils, unitary authorities or Transport for London). They will decide which vehicles, including the types of fuel used, are suitable for licensing according to local conditions and circumstances. We support local policies which encourage the licensing of vehicles which use cleaner fuels.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to encourage the use of autogas in motor vehicles. [4521]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are encouraging the market for autogas (liquefied petroleum gas or LPG) in a number of ways. For example, as part of the response to the Green Fuels Challenge the Chancellor announced in Budget 2001 a cut in duty of 6p/kilogramme on LPG to
  359W
  maintain the current differential with conventional fuels, and a commitment not to increase the duty in real terms until at least 2004.

  The Powershift programme, which is funded by the DTLR, has a budget of £30 million over the next three years—with £9.91 million for this financial year which will provide grants towards the purchase of around 10,000 clean fuel vehicles, many of which will use LPG. The Powershift programme has been successful in stimulating the development of a LPG infrastructure: there are now over 790 LPG refuelling stations in the UK.

  The new vehicle excise duty and company car taxation regimes also provide concessions for vehicles using LPG.

  Transport Funding
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what share of national income is projected to be taken up by public investment in transport in 2011–12 and what change this represents, in real terms, from the level in 1991–92. [5110]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A projection of UK public capital investment in transport in 2011–12 as a share of national income is not available.

  UK public capital investment as a share of GDP is projected to be 0.62 per cent. by 2010–11. The equivalent figure for 1991–92 was 0.85 per cent.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much total UK transport capital expenditure is projected to rise in real terms by 2011 as a share of GDP. [5109]

  Mr. Jamieson
  UK capital investment in transport by the public and private sectors as a share of GDP is projected to rise from 0.91 per cent. in 2001–02 to 0.98 per cent. in 2010–11.

  "The Future of Aviation"
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he intends to make public the responses to the consultation document, "The Future of Aviation". [5425]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are preparing a summary of the responses, and when it has been completed intend to make it available on the Department's website, and to deposit paper copies of the summary in the House Libraries and the Vote Office. We expect that this will be during the summer recess.

  All responses to the consultation document, other than those from respondents who have requested confidentiality, can be viewed, by appointment, in the Department's Library at Ashdown House, Victoria street, London.

  Waste-burning Incinerators
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the planning authorities that have refused applications to build waste-burning incinerators in urban areas in the last three years. [4520]
  360W
  Ms Keeble
  This information is not held centrally. Local planning authorities decide planning applications in the first instance. Only in those instances where the applicant appeals against the refusal of planning permission will the matter come before my right hon. Friend.

  English Regions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the inclusion of those parts of Cleveland south of the River Tees in(a) a Yorkshire (b) a northern and (c) a north-eastern region. [5082]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no record of any formal representations for the inclusion of Cleveland, south of the River Tees, in the Yorkshire and the Humber region, the old northern region or the north-east region.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria are applied in defining the Government's standard regions for England. [5101]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The 'standard English regions' emerged from local government reorganisation in 1974 and resulted in the creation of eight regions which were used by a large number of Government Departments (though not all) for planning purposes, and became the standard regions for statistical purposes. These boundaries often continue to be termed standard regions.

  In 1994, the creation of the Government Offices (GOs) resulted in a new delineation of regions within England, (now generally referred to as GO boundaries). These reflected the boundaries of the then Regional Boards and the regional organisations of the (then) Departments of Transport and Environment. The GO regions are also of a more equally distributed population size than the standard regions.

  The existing GO boundaries have now become increasingly well-established, reflecting the Government's commitment, in the "Modernising Government" White Paper, that, where possible, all Government bodies should align with GO boundaries.

  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional governance in England. This will set out the Government's thinking on a range of issues, including regional boundaries.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what considerations he has given to the creation of a Wessex(a) region and (b) regional assembly. [5080]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional governance in England. This will set out the Government's thinking on taking forward plans for elected regional assemblies, including the issue of regional boundaries.
  361W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received about including Cumberland and Westmorland in regions based on(a) Newcastle and (b) Manchester. [5081]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no record of any formal representations for the inclusion of Cumbria in the north-west and north-east regions.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the inclusion of north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire in(a) a Yorkshire region and (b) an east midlands region. [5083]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no record of any formal representations for the inclusion of north and north-east Lincolnshire in the Yorkshire and Humber and east midlands regions.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the Government purposes for which, at 31 May 1997, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were included with(a) Dorset and Wiltshire, (b) Sussex and Surrey and (c) Berkshire, with or without other counties in each case. [5099]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As at 31 May 1997, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were part of the South West and Wessex Regional Health Authority, which also included the counties of Dorset and Wiltshire. This changed in April 1999, when Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were aligned with the South East Regional Health Authority. On 31 May 1997, the Environment Agency's south and west region, based largely on the GO south-west region, included a small part of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. That remains the case. For all other Government purposes, as far as we can ascertain, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were, on 31 May 1997, included in the GO south-east region with the counties of Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requests he has received that Cornwall should not be included in a region which includes Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire. [5078]

  Dr. Whitehead
  On 11 July I met the hon. Members for St. Ives (Andrew George), North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), to discuss their views on an elected Cornish assembly. I have also had a number of other representations on this matter.

  Ferry Subsidies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money was spent on ferry subsidies in each of the last three years. [3335]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No ferry services in England and Wales are subsidised by Government. The devolved Administrations subsidise some ferry services in Scotland and Northern Ireland, for which they are, respectively,362W
  accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some local authorities in Scotland also subsidise local ferry services.

  Local Government Funding
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when it is intended that the proposed changes to the general funding formula for local government will take effect. [4582]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Farm Diversification
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when rate relief for new farm diversification enterprises will be available. [5970]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001, which received Royal Assent on 11 May will be brought into effect in England on 15 August. From this date all new small scale non-agricultural businesses on farms with rateable values of up to £6,000, whether or not operated by the fanner, will receive up to 5 years' mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief. Also from this date most small village food shops will qualify for 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief under the existing village shop rate relief scheme.

  The new relief will lower the start-up costs for small non-agricultural businesses located on what had been agricultural land and buildings. This will enable farmers to diversify either directly by starting new businesses themselves, or indirectly, through the sale or leasing of former agricultural premises.

  By extending the existing village shop rate relief to most other food shops, vital support will be given to more village businesses that provide essential services to the community.

  The introduction of these reliefs fulfils Government commitments made in the Action Plan for Farming, the Local Government Finance Green Paper and the Rural White Paper.

  Planning Inspectorate Annual Report
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the Planning Inspectorate's annual report and accounts for 2000–01. [5980]

  Ms Keeble
  The Planning Inspectorate's annual report and accounts for 2000–01 are published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  I am very pleased to report that the inspectorate has had another successful year, against a background of rising workloads, coupled with tighter targets for handling appeals. It has met all but one of the timeliness targets set for its work in England and Wales. The high standard of service to local authorities on development plan inquiries has been maintained with targets being exceeded. This has helped to create a greater certainty for all involved in the planning process as more of England and Wales is covered by up to date development plans.
  363W
  Financially, the inspectorate has continued to seek greater efficiency in working practices, with major investment in business systems and an ongoing commitment to electronic service delivery. Once again expenditure has been contained very closely within budget, reflecting achievement of demanding Treasury efficiency targets. The agreement of a second successive three-year funding deal with DTLR has also introduced greater certainty into the business planning process, enabling a more strategic approach to the challenging years ahead.

  Customer surveys continue to show that the inspectorate's decisions are widely respected. In spite of rising workloads, the quality and efficiency targets were achieved.

  Regional Air Services
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the current status of work on the regional air services studies; and when he proposes to publish the regional consultation documents based upon them. [6176]

  Mr. Spellar
  Work on the six original regional air service studies proposed in the 1998 Transport White Paper was completed last year. Since then a second phase of work has been under way to co-ordinate these part 1 studies and audit them for consistency. This has involved reviewing air traffic forecasts for each airport under a range of national scenarios, examining catchments and route development in more detail, carrying out a more in-depth appraisal of options and integrating this work with the findings from a range of other UK-wide strategic studies. This part 2 work, known as the RASCO study, is nearing completion, but the emerging findings have highlighted a number of key strategic issues on which further work is needed. This is necessary to ensure that the regional air service consultation documents, which we hope to publish around the turn of the year, will provide a full and robust basis for public consultation.

  Two part 3 studies, one covering the midlands of England and the other the lowlands of Scotland, have therefore been commissioned to examine important long-term runway capacity. This work is programmed for completion before the end of the year and will be published shortly thereafter, along with the part 1 and 2 studies to help inform the regional air service consultation process.

  E-Government Local Authority Pathfinders
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to provide funding for the 25 e-government local authority pathfinders in 2001–02. [6179]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have made available £25 million of funding in 2001–02 to help achieve their target of ensuring that 100 per cent. of local authority services are capable of electronic delivery by 2005.

  I have today laid before the House a Special Grant Report setting out my intention to provide some £24 million of this funding in grant to 25 local e-government pathfinders. This will support a co-ordinated programme of experiment, innovation and shared learning. At the same time, up to a further £1.7 million of funding is being made available to
  364W
  support the local government on-line project, which will disseminate best practice information from the pathfinders to all local authorities.

  The Government originally proposed to make available the funding to pathfinder authorities in the form of supplementary credit approvals. However, following representations from pathfinders, we are now seeking the agreement of the House to provide the funding in the form of a special grant.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many work days were lost due to stress-induced illness in London Underground staff broken down by(a)station staff, (b) train drivers, (c) managerial staff and (d) signal/points operators in each financial year since 1994–95 for each line of the London Underground. [5002]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which informs me that it records staff absences and the reason for the absence if possible. Absence due to stress-induced illness could be declared as several different conditions. In addition, information on staff who have left the company is archived and not easily retrievable. Therefore a reply to this question could be obtained only at excessive cost.

  London Underground is currently specifying a much improved enterprise resource planning IT system which should, once installed, be able to produce such information with much greater ease.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many driver working hours are needed to run the current level of trains on London Underground each week day, broken down by line. [5005]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has provided the following information which shows the total train operator hours required on any one week day to operate the current scheduled service:

  Underground line

  Driver hours needed each weekday

  Bakerloo

  811 hours 19 minutes

  Central and Waterloo and City

  1,692 hours 27 minutes

  Circle and Hammersmith and City

  943 hours 34 minutes

  District

  1,879 hours 22 minutes

  East London

  183 hours 17 minutes

  Jubilee

  1,181 hours 05 minutes

  Metropolitan

  1,094 hours 23 minutes

  Northern

  1,930 hours 56 minutes

  Piccadilly

  2,026 hours 14 minutes

  Victoria

  904 hours 20 minutes

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many London Underground trains were delayed more than 10 minutes in each year since 1994–95 broken down by line. [5012]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. It measures train delays of 15 minutes or more, rather than 10 minutes—in line with
  365W
  the Customer Charter. London Underground work to 13 our-week periods in a year, and performance information is gathered on this basis. The following table

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Bakerloo

  22

  25

  14

  17

  20

  25

  23

  Central

  50

  37

  42

  55

  43

  37

  38

  Waterloo and City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  District

  28

  29

  23

  19

  21

  24

  32

  Jubilee

  18

  9

  7

  8

  32

  34

  16

  East London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Metropolitan

  39

  35

  22

  22

  18

  27

  31

  Circle and Hammersmith

  16

  17

  8

  15

  15

  16

  22

  Northern

  30

  33

  23

  26

  24

  23

  17

  Piccadilly

  21

  19

  15

  19

  18

  18

  21

  Victoria

  13

  8

  8

  14

  10

  11

  7

  Total

  237

  212

  162

  195

  201

  215

  219

  1. Waterloo and City included with Central to 1999–2000

  2. East London closed 1995–96 to 1997–98; included with Jubilee 1994–95 and 1998/99 to 1999–2000

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the companies used by London Underground Limited to(a) install, (b) maintain and (c) replace London Underground signals, line by line, in the last five years. [5011]

  Line

  Install

  Maintain

  Replace

  Jubilee

  WSL

  LUL/Infraco1

  LUL/Infraco1

  Northern

  LUL/Infraco/Kvaerner

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  Piccadilly

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  Bakerloo

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  Central

  WSL/LUL

  LUL/Infraco1

  LUL/Infraco1

  Victoria

  LUL/Infraco2

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  Waterloo and City

  LUL/Infraco2

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  District

  LUL/Infraco2

  LUL/Infraco and AMEC for Wimbledon branch

  LUL/Infraco and AMEC for Wimbledon branch

  Metropolitan

  LUL/Infraco2

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  Hammersmith and City

  LUL/Infraco2

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  Circle

  LUL/Infraco1

  LUL/Infraco

  LUL/Infraco

  East London

  LUL/Infraco and Bombardier

  LUL/Infraco3

  LUL/Infraco3

  1 Second line maintenance support provided by WSL

  2 Only minor works

  3 Second line maintenance support provided by Marconi

  Notes

  WSL = Westinghouse Signals Ltd. (now known as Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd.)

  AMEC = AMEC Rail Ltd. (subcontracted to Balfour Beatty BBRM)

  In providing this information, London Underground have assumed that "replace" means like-for-like renewals. Where external companies are named, these are the prime contractors and no details of their subcontractors are given. LUL/Infracos also receive front-line support for some signalling control systems from:

  Line

  Central Line

  WSL

  Jubilee Line

  Alcatel and Marconi

  East London Line

  Marconi

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the average length of time London Underground staff stayed working for London Underground, broken down by(a) station staff, (b) train drivers, (c) managerial staff and (d) signals and points operators, for each line of the London Underground in each of the last five years. [5001]
  366W
  shows London Underground's figures for the average number of trains delayed for 15 minutes or more in a period for the years requested:

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has provided the following information on companies used as prime contractors for signalling in the last five years:

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has informed me that it does not hold data in a format which allows the question to be answered in precisely the form asked. However, it has been able to provide information on the average length of service of all those employees who left the company over each of the last five years. It has also provided information on the average number of years' service of staff currently still employed by London Underground.

  Years

  Station staff

  Train operators

  Managers

  Signal operators

  1996

  8.7

  15.8

  13

  17.1

  1997

  7.8

  13.6

  21.7

  15.1

  1998

  7.9

  16.6

  16.6

  14.4

  1999

  6.5

  16.2

  8.9

  12.9

  2000

  7.4

  16.6

  11.2

  25.6

  Still employed

  9.3

  13

  17.1

  17.2

  367W
  This information cannot be broken down by line without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains ran per hour in(a) peak time and (b) other times in each year since 1994–95 broken down by line. [5009]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on performance figures for the shadow running by the infraco companies in preparation for the partial privatisation of London Underground; [5015]

  (2) if he will list the performance targets set out for the shadow running by the infraco companies in preparation for the partial privatisation of London Underground. [5016]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government do not set specific targets for the performance of the individual infrastructure companies. Their performance is, however, reflected in the targets set for London Underground itself.

  The table shows the performance targets that have been set for London Underground Ltd. in 2001–02, together with the corresponding actual performance at the end of March 2001:

  Actual performance at end March 2001

  Targeted performance by end March 2002

  Capacity1

  63.8

  65.6

  Reliability2

  3.69

  3.63

  Customer satisfaction measures:3

  Train service

  75

  75

  Information

  76

  77

  Customer safety and security

  80

  80

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  68

  69

  Cleanliness

  67

  67

  1 Train lams run in millions

  2 Unweighted excess journey time in minutes

  3 Average scores out of 100

  The Government will set stretching, longer-term performance targets for the London Underground as part of our proposals for a 21st century tube.

  In addition to these performance targets, London Underground Ltd. has also been set the following specific investment targets for 2001–02:
  Total investment expenditure of at least £410 million.
  Specific investment to he completed:

  19.5 km of track renewals

  five station upgrades

  five escalators replaced

  15 escalators refurbished or repaired.

  A number of other works on escalators, rolling stock, signalling, stations and track will also be started, progressed or completed during the year.
  368W
  The Government do not set specific safety related targets. London Underground operates services under the terms of the railways safety case approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The executive now has a double lock on safety. Before the tube modernisation plans can proceed, the executive must accept, firstly, London Underground's safety plans and, secondly, its revised safety plans to reflect the role of the private sector bidders.

  The Government do not provide grant to London Transport for achieving individual targets, nor does London Underground Ltd. record actual expenditure on this basis. By the end of March 2002, a total of £2.781 billion of grant will have been provided to London Transport since April 1997, of which £2.399 billion will have been internally allocated to London Underground. The remainder has been utilised to provide other transport services, such as bus and river services, and Croydon Tramlink, before responsibility for these was transferred to Transport for London in July 2000.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the first year of public-private partnership funding of London Underground will be spent on(a) stations, (b) escalators, (c) signals and points and (d) track improvements. [5007]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's plans for the London Underground will deliver £13 billion of investment over the first 15 years, giving London the 21st century underground that it deserves. The contracts to deliver this investment remain under negotiation. However, London Underground estimate that in the first year of the contracts, approximately 50 per cent. of investment spending will be on train systems including rolling stock and signalling. A further 25 per cent. of investment expenditure will be on infrastructure, including track and civil assets. The remaining 25 per cent. will be on stations, delivering the improvements that passengers consider important: making sure the lifts and escalators work; installing CCTV to improve passenger security; tackling congestion at the busiest stations; providing step-free access; and improving the quality and cleanliness of stations.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many violent incidents against London Underground staff by passengers there were in each financial year since 1994–95 broken down by each line of the London Underground. [5003]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has provided the following information:

  Year

  Physical assaults

  Threats and abuse

  Total

  1994–95

  419

  233

  652

  1995–96

  455

  278

  733

  1996–97

  399

  236

  635

  1997–98

  451

  257

  708

  1998–99

  460

  286

  746

  1999–2000

  518

  427

  945

  2000–01

  576

  539

  1,115

  369W
  The figures show the total number of assaults and threats of assault against London Underground staff by non-staff which have been reported internally. London Underground inform us that to provide a breakdown on a line-by-line basis would incur disproportionate costs as the data are not readily kept in this format.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains per hour in(a) peak time and (b) other times Westinghouse Signals were contracted to provide on the Jubilee Line of London Underground. [5010]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground provides train services on the Jubilee Line. Westinghouse Signals do not provide trains but were contracted to provide signalling infrastructure enabling trains to be run.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many London Underground trains were delayed due to passenger illness in each month since 1994–95 broken down by line. [5006]

  2000–01

  P1

  P2

  P3

  P4

  P5

  P6

  P7

  P8

  P9

  P10

  P11

  P12

  P13

  Bakerloo

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  4

  2

  1

  5

  —

  3

  2

  1

  Central

  10

  7

  7

  14

  12

  6

  1

  6

  15

  2

  12

  11

  8

  Circle

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  2

  District

  4

  2

  4

  6

  7

  3

  1

  3

  5

  1

  3

  4

  7

  East London

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Hammersmith and City

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Jubilee

  6

  1

  7

  10

  4

  1

  6

  2

  2

  5

  5

  9

  4

  Metropolitan

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Northern

  8

  9

  7

  10

  11

  6

  2

  10

  —

  2

  8

  8

  7

  Piccadilly

  6

  4

  5

  3

  12

  9

  11

  10

  5

  10

  11

  10

  5

  Victoria

  3

  5

  2

  3

  2

  3

  3

  5

  3

  5

  4

  2

  2

  Waterloo and City

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  41

  33

  37

  50

  52

  34

  27

  39

  40

  27

  47

  52

  39

  2001–02

  P1

  P2

  P3

  Bakerloo

  2

  1

  —

  Central

  17

  6

  12

  Circle

  1

  3

  1

  District

  5

  6

  3

  East London

  —

  —

  1

  Hammersmith and City

  —

  —

  3

  Jubilee

  2

  6

  3

  Metropolitan

  2

  1

  —

  Northern

  10

  8

  5

  Piccadilly

  6

  6

  5

  Victoria

  5

  2

  1

  Waterloo and City

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  50

  39

  34

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Bakerloo

  1.2

  1.1

  2.7

  3.9

  4.6

  6.2

  5.8

  Central

  2.0

  2.0

  3.3

  4.5

  4.9

  6.2

  6.0

  District

  2.9

  4.6

  7.4

  6.9

  6.3

  6.7

  7.9

  Jubilee

  1.9

  1.5

  3.1

  4.8

  4.6

  4.9

  7.1

  East London1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.3

  1.8

  Metropolitan

  1.1

  0.5

  1.8

  3.4

  5.5

  7.0

  8.5

  370W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. It operates to 13 four-week periods in a financial year and gathers its performance data to these timescales. It has provided the information in the tables as shown on train delays of over two minutes due to passenger illness, split by line and by period. London Underground does not hold data in this format prior to Period 7 (broadly September) in 1999. To collate previous information would incur disproportionate cost.

  1999–2000

  P7

  P8

  P9

  P10

  P11

  P12

  P13

  Bakerloo

  3

  1

  5

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Central

  12

  16

  15

  5

  12

  7

  15

  Circle

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  District

  4

  7

  8

  6

  6

  4

  6

  East London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and City

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Jubilee

  5

  —

  3

  2

  3

  8

  3

  Metropolitan

  2

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  Northern

  11

  5

  5

  4

  16

  12

  10

  Piccadilly

  3

  9

  5

  7

  6

  6

  2

  Victoria

  3

  6

  4

  2

  8

  3

  4

  Waterloo and City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  46

  50

  47

  29

  54

  46

  45

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many customers waited more than 10 minutes to purchase tickets for London Underground journeys broken down by station in each year since 1994–95. [5013]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, which informs me that it does not gather information on ticket office performance in the format requested. It measures "the percentage of customers in a ticket queue for three minutes or more". This information is available by line, but it is not possible to break it down for the 253 stations operated by London Underground. The table sets out the average percentage of customers in a ticket queue for three minutes or more for each of the years requested.
  371W

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Circle and Hammersmith

  2.9

  3.0

  3.3

  5.2

  7.0

  7.2

  9.1

  Northern

  2.1

  2.2

  3.4

  4.8

  5.6

  6.8

  7.1

  Piccadilly

  2.6

  3.3

  3.7

  4.7

  7.3

  8.0

  8.7

  Victoria

  4.4

  3.0

  5.1

  8.9

  9.7

  11.6

  13.6

  Total

  2.3

  2.6

  4.0

  5.2

  6.1

  7.1

  7.9

  1East London line formerly managed jointly with the Jubilee line and not separately surveyed before 1999–2000.

  It should be noted that over this period as a whole the pressures on the Underground network have risen substantially, with some 200 million extra passenger journeys undertaken last year compared to 1994–95.

  Various measures are being taken as part of the Prestige PFI scheme to improve ticketing services. New multifare ticket machines have been installed across the network. These machines take credit and debit cards and are expected to help speed up ticket purchase time significantly. New ticket office machines and accounting systems are being installed which will help ticket office staff process transactions more swiftly. And by September 2001 50 new Queuebuster machines will be in place at key stations, selling a variety of tickets including weekly travelcards.

  Metro Systems
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he compiles comparisons between the performances of the metro systems of major international cities. [5094]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department does not compile data that would enable comparisons to be made on a consistent basis between the performance of either major underground systems or integrated light rail systems in major cities. However, the data and research which my Department has examined or commissioned have shown that light rail schemes and associated integrated transport policies can play a significant role in improving the attractiveness and quality of public transport and increasing its usage.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people were sleeping rough in England in(a) April, (b) May and (c) June. [5228]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is currently collating statistics from independent counts that took place across England over the spring and will publish these figures in due course.

TREASURY

  Competitiveness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on manufacturing competitiveness of changes to the tax burden in the UK and other OECD countries in recent years. [3331]
  372W
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the impact of taxation on the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement. [R] [3332]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government recognise the difficulties that manufacturers are experiencing because of the slowdown in the world economy and the weakness of the euro. No country can ever insulate itself from world economic events. The Government's primary economic task is to create the right conditions of macro-economic stability within which all businesses, including manufacturers, can develop their potential; the Government keep all taxes under review and the changes to the tax system are considered as part of the normal Budget process, taking into account implications for the UK's international competitiveness.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the UK's comparative position in international competitiveness. [3336]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1997 the Government have established the lowest inflation in the EU and highest employment of almost any country in the OECD. We have started a programme of structural reform to strengthen competition and promote enterprise, innovation and skills.

  And we will do more—starting with the reforms we have already announced to make our competition regime truly world-class.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of levels of taxation on the competitiveness of the UK. [3344]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review, and changes to the tax system are considered as part of the normal Budget process.

  EU Structural Funds
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the delivery of European Union aid to the United Kingdom's Objective 1 regions; [3333]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the progress achieved by (a) Government and (b) the four UK Objective 1 regions in delivering the Objective 1 programmes within the pre-agreed timetable. [5299]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  All the UK's four Objective 1 regions are making good progress on their programmes. We are only 10 months into a seven-year programme, and already over 14 per cent. of the total grant available has been approved for projects. In Cornwall, projects to the value of £54 million grant have been approved—nearly
  373W
  17 per cent. of the programme's total allocation. In addition, projects with a grant value of also around £54 million—a further 17.6 per cent. of the programme's total allocation—are under appraisal.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what public match-funds have so far been used to support projects for which European Structural Funds have been offered in each of the four UK Objective 1 regions broken down by(a) public funds and (b) Government Department and by (i) amount offered and (ii) spent so far in each of the four Objective 1 regions; [5302]

  (2) what targets have been agreed with the European Commission for (a) financial commitments to projects and (b) receipt of money by projects to which financial commitments have been made in each of the four UK Objective 1 regions for European financial years ending 2001 to 2006; [5301]

  (3) how much of the money offered under (a) ERDF, (b) EAGGF, (c) ESF and (d) other European structural funds in each of the four UK Objective 1 regions has been paid out broken down by project, by (i) the total amount so far, (ii) proportion of total EU budget under that fund for the region's Objective 1 programme period and (iii) proportion of money so far offered; [5303]

  (4) what grant offers have been made by (a) number of projects and (b) amount of money (sterling) for (i) ERDF, (ii) EAGGF, (iii) ESF and (iv) other structural funds in each of the four UK Objective 1 regions so far. [5298]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not held centrally. My Department is in contact with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (for the three English Objective 1 programmes) and the National Assembly for Wales (for the West Wales and the Valleys programme), which are the organisations responsible for implementation of the programmes, and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the reduction in global carbon emissions resulting from the climate change levy. [3337]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy package will deliver emissions savings of an estimated 5 million tonnes of carbon by 2010.

  Debt Relief
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent progress in relieving the burden of debt in the world's poorest countries. [3338]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The HIPC debt relief initiative is currently delivering debt relief of $53 billion to 23 of the World's poorest countries. This will see their debts fall to below the developing country average. The UK's 100 per cent. policy means that countries that reach a decision point receive relief on 100 per cent. of their outstanding debts to the UK. In addition, all payments from countries yet to receive debt relief—for example due 374W
  to conflict—are being held in trust to be returned when the money will go to the poorest, and not on conflict. The UK has called for other countries to follow its lead and demonstrate they too have no financial interest in these historic debts.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the UK's contribution to international efforts to relieve the debt burden of the world's most indebted countries. [3351]

  Mr. Boateng
  The HIPC debt relief initiative is currently delivering debt relief of $53 billion to 23 of the World's poorest countries. This will see their debts fall to below the developing country average. The UK's 100 per cent. policy means that countries that reach a decision point receive relief on 100 per cent. of their outstanding debts to the UK. In addition, all payments from countries yet to receive debt relief—for example due to conflict—are being held in trust to be returned when the money will go to the poorest, and not on conflict. The UK has called for other countries to follow its lead and demonstrate they too have no financial interest in these historic debts.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit in London. [3340]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit is a success in making work pay for families on low to middle incomes in London.

  At February this year the WFTC was helping 92,000 families in London to the extent of x00A3;400 million per year. This is 50 per cent. more families and double the cash help than was the case with its predecessor Family Credit.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monitoring his Department undertakes of the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit on work incentives for second earners in recipient households; and if he will make a statement. [4454]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have put in place a comprehensive programme to monitor and evaluate the Working Families Tax Credit. The Working Families Tax Credit is part of a wider package of measures designed to make work pay and thereby help to provide employment opportunity for all. These measures also include the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, the 10p starting rate of tax, and changes to employee and employer National Insurance Contributions. Independent estimates, which are consistent with those produced by the Treasury, suggest that these measures will lead to an increase in the labour supply of second earners.

  Children's Bond
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families will benefit from the proposed children's bond. [3341]

  Ruth Kelly
  In late April the Government announced a consultation on two new proposals to encourage saving and the build up of assets, the Child Trust Fund and the Saving Gateway. The Child Trust Fund would benefit each of the 700,000 or more children born every year. In addition to an endowment paid in by the Government,
  375W
  the scheme would allow parents, grandparents, friends and children themselves to make additional contributions, so providing families with a safe and secure account to save towards their children's future. The Child Trust Fund would provide all young people beginning their adult life with the advantage that owning financial assets brings.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further action he is taking to develop the credit union sector. [3342]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government support credit unions' ethos of self-help and thrift, and believe that by offering savings and affordable loans, particularly to the less well-off, they can make a valuable contribution in the area of increasing access to financial services. That is why the Government have been involved with a number of initiatives to help the sector grow, but ultimately every credit union's future rests in the hands of the members and the dedicated volunteers who run them.

  Unemployment
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals on reducing unemployment. [3343]

  Ruth Kelly
  In order to achieve the Government's goal of employment opportunity for all we will be extending the principles behind the New Deal for Young People to a much wider group who face problems in finding work.

  By building upon the success of the New Deal for Young People, which has placed almost 300,000 18 to 24-year-olds into work, we now aim to tackle unemployment among three of the most disadvantaged groups: the long-term unemployed, through the improved New Deal 25 plus; lone parents, through the enhanced programme of choices available through the New Deal for Lone Parents; and disabled people through the nationally extended New Deal for Disabled People.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of recent measures designed to reduce youth and long-term unemployment. [3349]

  Ruth Kelly
  Through the New Deal for Young People we have helped nearly 300,000 young unemployed people find jobs, and in addition over 70,000 long-term unemployed people have been helped to move from welfare into work through the New Deal for Long-Term Unemployed.

  Independent evaluation of the New Deal for Young People has shown that over 200,000 young people left unemployment earlier than they would have done without the programme, with 60,000 entering into employment.

  The New Deal helps the young and long-term unemployed to secure jobs as the most effective way of enhancing their incomes, increasing their skills and securing their future economic independence.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how his plans for public investment will affect measures to help lone parents into work. [3345]
  376W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have set a target for 70 per cent. of lone parents to be in work by the end of the decade. Improving the employment prospects of lone parents is a key priority, and the employment rate of lone parents has risen from 44 per cent in 1997 to over 50 per cent. in late 2000.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents is being expanded to offer more choices for lone parents considering full or part-time work or training. The Working Families Tax Credit has greatly improved work incentives for lone parents, especially the credit for child care. The National Child Care Strategy aims to provide high quality affordable child care places for 1.6 million children by 2004, to enable parents to move into work.

  Pensions
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his planned expenditure on pensions will be in the forthcoming year. [3346]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  For 2001–02 forecast spending in the UK on the basic state pension is £37.3 billion.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding the level of interest rates; and if he will make a statement. [3347]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. The level of interest rates is a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the Barnett formula. [3348]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin),Official Report, column 425.

  Vehicle Fuel Taxation
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change levels of taxation on vehicle fuel. [3350]

  Mr. Boateng
  Taxation on fuel is reviewed on a Budget-by-Budget basis. In making his judgment, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes into account all relevant economic and social objectives as well as the UK's environmental commitments.

  However, we have already announced that Budget 2002 will introduce a lower rate of excise duty for biodiesel, at 20 pence per litre below the prevailing rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel. In addition, we will provide duty reductions or exemptions for pilot projects covering the more environmentally friendly fuels, methanol, bioethanol and biogas and hydrogen.

  Bank of England (Banking Facilities)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Bank of England will extend banking facilities to companies and organisations other than Huntingdon Life Sciences in circumstances where facilities from commercial banks are not forthcoming. [3352]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Bank of England offers banking facilities to the Government and the financial sector. It does not offer facilities to private sector customers outside the financial sector. Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding Huntingdon Life Sciences, it was decided that the Department of Trade and Industry would provide banking facilities to HLS through DTI accounts held at the bank. HLS is not a customer of the bank.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01. [3353]

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the change in the tax burden during the last Parliament. [3358]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Estimates of net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP are contained in tables C10 and C23 of the 2001 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  United States Slowdown
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the slowdown in the US economy on UK exports and employment. [3354]

  Ruth Kelly
  Prospects for the US economy and the potential implications for the UK economy are discussed in the Economy chapter of the 2001 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", paragraph B44 and Box B3.

  Cleaner Road Fuels
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he is taking to promote the use of cleaner road fuels. [3356]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have shown that they are keen to stimulate the development of viable alternative fuels that offer environmental benefits over current conventional fuels and they launched their Green Fuel Challenge in November last year. In the March Budget, we reduced the duty on road fuel gases by the equivalent of a further 3 pence per litre and announced that duty on these gases will not be increased in real terms until 2004 at the earliest. We also announced that duty on biodiesel would be cut in Budget 2002, to 20 pence per litre below the then ULSD duty rate. We also legislated in the last Finance Bill to provide for duty reductions or exemptions for pilot projects covering more environmentally friendly fuels.

  Furthermore, over the last year duty differentials in favour of ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP) have achieved almost complete conversion of the UK unleaded petrol
  378W
  market to ULSP, in the same way that earlier duty incentives had achieved conversion of the UK diesel market to ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD).

  Sex Discrimination
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures aimed at removing disadvantage to women he has introduced since 1997. [3357]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have introduced a series of measures to strengthen the labour market position of women and to help them combine work and family commitments. These include the National Minimum Wage, reforms to income tax and National Insurance Contributions, the Working Families Tax Credit, the New Deal, the National Childcare Strategy and improvements to paid maternity leave and the rights of part-time workers.

  Global Health Fund
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he is holding with his G8 counterparts on establishing the Global Trust Fund for Health. [3359]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK Government's support for a new Global Health Fund was announced by the Chancellor and Secretary of State for International Development at the Westminster Conference "International Action Against Child Poverty—Meeting the 2015 Targets" on 26 February, and followed up by both Ministers through meetings at the IMF/World bank and at the UN with the Secretary-General and others. In addition, the Chancellor has discussed the Global Health Fund and other international development issues with other G7 Finance Ministers, at their meetings in Washington on 28 April and on 7 July in Rome.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the sustainability of the existing planned rate of increase in Government spending over the next five years. [3334]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Government's spending plans are set out in Table C11 of the 2001 Financial Statement and Budget Report. Table C2 of the Report shows that the projected path for the public finances is sustainable and is fully consistent with the Government's strict fiscal rules, the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule, throughout the next five years. The surplus on current budget remains positive throughout the forecast period. Public sector net debt has fallen by 12 percentage points since 1996–97 and is projected to fall further to 30 per cent. or lower, well below 40 per cent.

  Tobacco/Alcohol Smuggling
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tackle tobacco and alcohol smuggling. [3325]

  Mr. Boateng
  Last year the Government published the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy and announced an additional investment of £209 million to fund almost 1,000 new Customs officers and a national network of the latest X-ray scanners. This strategy is designed to put tobacco smuggling into decline within three years.
  379W
  The Government are determined to crack down on all forms of fraud, including cross-channel smuggling of alcohol. We aim to reduce revenue loss from all cross-channel smuggling by 10 per cent. year on year. To achieve this, 170 of the additional Customs officers have been specifically deployed at the channel ports to target both alcohol and tobacco smuggling.

  The strategy is at an early stage but it is already beginning to show results. In the first nine months of 2000–01, Customs have seized 1.4 billion cigarettes in the UK, helped overseas enforcement agencies seize nearly 700 million cigarettes en route to the UK and broken up 38 major organised criminal gangs.

  World Bank
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's policy is on purchasing from firms and individuals listed by the World bank as ineligible for World bank financed contracts for violating the fraud and corruption provisions of the World bank Procurement Guidelines or the Consultants Guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [4455]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's procurement policy is that all Government procurement of goods and services is to be based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. It is for the individual Department to consider how best to meet this requirement in each case. The purchaser can exclude companies which have been convicted of an offence or are guilty of grave misconduct in the course of their business. In reaching decisions on exclusion, the purchaser will look, for example, at the nature and severity of the activity or offence and any remedial action taken. Verifiable and relevant information from external sources, including the World bank, can be taken into account in reaching decisions on exclusion.

  Independent Insurance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the FSA discussed with a director of the Independent Insurance Company the sale of shares to Independent's staff as a means to raise capital finance;[4487]

  (2) what plans he has to establish an (a) internal and (b) external inquiry into the role of the FSA in respect of the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company. [4486]

  Ruth Kelly
  Discussions between the FSA and the directors of the companies it regulates are confidential between the parties concerned.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Treasury has (1) to initiate an inquiry into the role of the FSA in regulating Independent Insurance; [5293]

  (2) to initiate an inquiry into the role of the FSA in regulating Independent Insurance. [5285]

  Ruth Kelly
  The current priority is the Serious Fraud Office investigation. That must be got right before we determine what other reviews may be necessary.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the information on Independent Insurance provided to the FSA by the French Commission de Contrôle des Assurances had already been supplied to the FSA; [4482]
  380W
  (2) what discussions the FSA had with the French Commission de Contrôle des Assurances regarding the activities of the Independent Insurance Group plc's subsidiaries; [4485]

  (3) what matters the FSA discussed with the French Commission de Contrôle des Assurances when they visited their offices in Paris in May; [4488]

  (4) what concerns the French Commission de Contrôle des Assurances has raised with the FSA regarding the Independent Insurance Group since January; [4489]

  (5) what information the FSA made available to the French Commission de Contrôle des Assurances in response to French concerns about the Independent Insurance Group; [4484]

  (6) when the French Commission de Contrôle des Assurances first raised with the FSA their concerns about the Independent Insurance Group; and what response the FSA made. [4483]

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, prior to Independent Insurance going into liquidation(a) his Department and (b) the FSA was informed of the large losses incurred by the company's French branch. [5284]

  Ruth Kelly
  The French regulator, the Commission de Contrôle des Assurances (CCA), first wrote to the FSA expressing their concerns about the French insurance subsidiary of the Independent Insurance Group on 11 January 2001. This company was a sister company of the UK-supervised insurer, representing about 5 per cent of group premium income, and was subject to French supervision. The FSA, following discussions with the UK company, and having received copies of the company's own detailed responses to the French authorities, replied to the CCA in March 2001. In that letter, the FSA noted its understanding that the group had provided additional financing to the French subsidiary. The FSA subsequently had a number of further contacts with the CCA including a visit to their offices in Paris, provided financial information about the financial position of the UK company, and kept the CCA informed of events in the period leading to the company's closure.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have held the position of director of enforcement within the Financial Services Authority since 1 January 2000; for what periods they held office; and for what periods no postholder was in place. [4503]

  Ruth Kelly
  The post of director of enforcement in the FSA is currently vacant. The previous director of enforcement held the position throughout the period from 1 January 2000 to 4 June 2001. While a new appointment is being made, the responsibilities of the post are shared between relevant FSA Managing Directors and Enforcement Heads of Department.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that the Financial Services Authority make public(a) the operating restrictions,

  381W
  (b) the fines and (c) the other sanctions which it applies to the companies it regulates. [4492]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gives the FSA a wide range of powers over the firms it regulates, including the power to restrict their business and to impose financial penalties and other disciplinary sanctions, subject to proper procedural safeguards. The FSA has published details of how it will exercise these powers, and has set out its policy on publishing the sanctions which it has imposed, in its Enforcement Manual.

  Assets Sales
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his estimate of proceeds from the sale of fixed assets contained in table C15 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001; what estimate he has made of the outstanding stock of assets in the public sector; and if he will make a statement. [4456]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Updated information about proceeds of asset sales is contained in table 3.8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02. The estimated outturn for asset sales in 2000–01 is £4,552 million.

  The National Asset Register, which is being published today, will set out comprehensive information about the outstanding stock of assets in the public sector.

  Single Currency
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the euro:sterling exchange rate on exports to the European Union since 1997; and what his policy is on the exchange rate. [4633]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the three months to April 2001 exports of goods to the European Union were 25 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1997.

  Stability-orientated policies based on low inflation and sound public finances will deliver a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions his Department will make on the level and evolution of the exchange rate for the purposes of the(a) preliminary technical work on the assessment of the five economic tests on the euro and (b) assessment of the economic tests. [4639]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that the Treasury will complete an assessment of the Five Tests within the start of this Parliament. Before any assessment is started, we must, of course, continue to do the necessary preliminary work for our analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment within two years.

  Public Services
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his planned level of spending on public services will be over the next three years. [3322]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's forward plans for public spending up to 2003–04 are set out in the 2000 Spending Review, "Prudent for a Purpose: building 382W
  opportunity and security for all", published in July 2000 as Command Paper 4807. The 2002 Spending Review, which will conclude in the summer of 2002, will roll forward existing spending plans and set budgets and outcome targets for Departments up to 2005–06.

  Landlords
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of landlords who benefit from the Rent a Room scheme; and if he will make a statement [4453]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of landlords who benefit from the Rent a Room scheme is not known because many of those landlords do not have to complete a self-assessment tax return. For the purposes of estimating the costs of the scheme, published in Table 1.5 of Inland Revenue Statistics, the Revenue tentatively estimates that around 150,000 landlords may benefit.

  Self-assessment (Internet)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individual taxpayers who file self-assessment tax returns have registered for the Inland Revenue service for filing tax returns on the internet in each month since the service became available; and if he will make a statement. [4457]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since the registration service became available on 3 April 2000, 146,397 individual taxpayers who file self-assessment tax returns have registered for the Inland Revenue service for filing tax returns over the internet. The number of registrations in each month were:

  Month

  Registrations

  Cumulative total

  April 2000

  32,937

  32,937

  May 2000

  14,877

  47,814

  June 2000

  10,677

  58,491

  July 2000

  11,703

  70,194

  August 2000

  11,700

  81,894

  September 2000

  16,557

  98,451

  October 2000

  2,736

  101,187

  November 2000

  1,697

  102,884

  December 2000

  2,902

  105,786

  January 2001

  14,162

  119,948

  February 2001

  595

  120,543

  March 2001

  522

  121,065

  April 2001

  13,485

  134,550

  May 2001

  5,208

  139,758

  June 2001

  4,021

  143,779

  July 2001 to 16 July 2001

  2,618

  146,397

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the fixed cost and (b) the marginal cost of providing self-assessment tax returns on the internet; and if he will make a statement. [4458]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated cost of implementing the internet service for self-assessment for years one and two is just under £10 million. The ongoing support cost, including maintenance, help desk support and ongoing improvements to the system is around £3 million per annum.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the policy is of HM Customs and Excise in relation to targeted investigations of major cannabis trafficking into the UK; and if he will make a statement. [4733]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise's task, with partners at home and abroad, is to reduce the availability of all prohibited drugs in the UK.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton can expect a reply to his letter dated 12 June to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury with regard to Mrs. Denise Southworth. [4502]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have already done so.

  National Statistics Annual Report
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the National Statistics annual report for 2000–01 to be published. [6185]

  Ruth Kelly
  The National Statistics annual report for 2000–01, which provides a comprehensive report on the opening year of National Statistics, is being published today. The report has been laid before Parliament and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Statistics was launched on 7 June 2000, with the overall aim of providing an up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK economy and society. It provides a focus for the work of the Government Statistical Services (GSS), the major provider of official statistics in the UK, with a renewed emphasis on quality, independence and coherence of outputs, to deliver a trusted statistical service for users.

  Framework Document for National Savings
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish a revised Framework Document for National Savings. [6347]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have today arranged for copies of National Savings' revised Framework Document to be published and for copies to be placed in the Library. A copy has also been placed on the agency's website.

  It is part of the usual arrangements for Next Steps Agencies to review their operations and revise their Framework Document every three to five years. Following the completion of a review of National Savings, which was announced in July 2000, changes have been made to the agency's objectives and governance arrangements. The revised Framework document reflects these changes and sets out the relationship between National Savings, the Treasury and the Minister responsible for the delivery of its service.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 10 July; what the Government's voting record was at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [6348]
  384W
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  The Presidency set out its work programme and stressed the importance it attached to economic policy co-ordination, the introduction of euro notes and coins, and structural reform.

  I made a strong appeal for the EU to be outward-looking and reformist: the priority must be to step up the momentum of structural economic reform in product, capital and labour markets rather than, for example, tax harmonisation or a new eurotax. I called for progress in areas such as R&D spending, community patent, and launching a new trade round. I also called on the EU to maximise the impact of its development programmes, and emphasised the importance of the Global Health Fund.

  The Council discussed taking forward the mandates from the Gothenburg European Council. The Chair of the Economic Policy Committee set out how the EPC and other committees would take on relevant aspects of the work regarding pension reform and sustainable development.

  ECOFIN endorsed the Economic and Financial Committee's report and revised Code of Conduct on the assessment of Stability and Convergence Programmes.

  The Commission presented its Communication on future tax policy. No conclusions were drawn, but I stated that ECOFIN's priorities should be completing the Tax Package involving exchange of information on savings income and reaching an appropriate long-term solution to VAT on e-commerce; and made it clear that fair tax competition should be encouraged.

  ECOFIN adopted a timetable for the Tax Package.

  No votes were taken in the course of the meeting.

  Excise Fraud
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to tackle excise fraud. [6184]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1997 the Government have taken firm action to tackle excise fraud. In June 2000, the Government commissioned an investigation into excise duty collection in HM Customs and Excise. The investigation was conducted by Mr. John Rogues, former senior partner of Deloitte Touche. His report and the Government's response to it have today been laid before Parliament (as Cm 5239).

  I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor General is also publishing a report on the same issue today.

  National Asset Register
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to update the National Asset Register. [6186]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  An updated and improved National Asset Register has today been laid before Parliament, providing for the first time a comprehensive list and valuation of all assets owned by central Government Departments, their executive agencies and
  385W
  sponsored bodies and the devolved Administrations. Copies of the register are available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses; it can also be accessed on the internet at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  The total value of the assets listed in the register was £274 billion at the end of 1999–2000. The register is a useful tool in the management of these public assets and details changes in asset holdings since 1997. It shows that in 1999–2000 alone £1.3 billion worth of surplus assets were disposed of, unlocking resources that can be used more productively elsewhere.

  Money Laundering
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the seven banks referred to by the Managing Director of the Financial Services Authority on 8 March in connection with weaknesses in money laundering prevention are fully compliant. [5296]

  Ruth Kelly
  The exercise of powers under the Banking Act 1987 is a matter for the FSA.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the results of discussions between the Financial Services Authority, the law enforcement agencies and the banks following money laundering allegations in the case of the Abacha family. [5295]

  Ruth Kelly
  The discussions are a matter for the parties concerned. It is not the policy of the Government to comment on possible on-going investigations.

  Equitable Life
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the FSA produces an interim report on Equitable Life by 20 July. [4999]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on 13 July 2001,Official Report, column 663W.

  Healthy Life Expectancy
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the healthy life expectancy at age 65 years for(a) men and (b) women in (i) England and (ii) Great Britain. [5217]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Frank Field, dated 19 July 2001 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning healthy life expectancy at age 65 years for (a) men and (b) women in (i) England and (ii) Great Britain.
  The latest available figures are given in the table. Figures presented use the General Household Survey (GHS) question on self-reported general health, to show the further years in good or fairly good health that a person aged 65 could expect to live.
  386W

  Healthy life expectancy in years1 at age 65, 19972

  Males

  Females

  England

  11.9

  13.3

  Great Britain

  11.7

  13.2

  1 Healthy life expectancy combines mortality and morbidity into a single index.

  2 Figures for 1997 are based on 1996–98 mortality data and 1996 and 1998 data from the GHS. The figures for Great Britain and the methodology used to calculate them were published in the ONS journal, "Health Statistics Quarterly 07", August 2000.

  Teenage Mothers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the conception rate was for under 18-year-olds per thousand women aged 15 to 17 in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [5235]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Frank Field, dated 19 July 2001 As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the conception rate for under 18 year olds per thousand aged 15–17in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. (5235)
  The conception rate for under 18 year olds in England and Wales was 47.0 per thousand women aged 15–17 in 1998 and provisional figures for 1999 were 45.0 per thousand women aged 15–17.
  Data for 2000 are not yet available.

  Registrar General (Census)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Minister of Health's powers to control and direct the Registrar General in the performance of his duties under the Census Act 1920 were rescinded; who now holds those powers; and what amendments have been made to section 2(2) of the Act to reflect the change of ministerial control. [4994]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Taylor, dated 19 July 2001 As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on when the Minister of Health's powers to control and direct the Registrar General in the performance of his duties under the Census Act 1920 were rescinded, as well as who now holds those powers and what amendments were made to section 2(2) of the Act to reflect the change in ministerial control (4994).
  The functions of the Minister for Health in respect of his powers under the provisions of the Census Act 1920 were transferred to the Secretary of State for Social Services in 1968 by the Secretary of State for Social Services Order (Statutory Instrument 1968/1699). An amendment to the wording of the section 2(2) of the Census Act 1920 was made accordingly, replacing 'Minister for Health' with `Secretary of State'.
  These functions were subsequently transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1996 when the Office for Population Censuses and Surveys was merged with the Central Statistical Office to form the Office for National Statistics. This merger was implemented under the Transfer of Functions (Registration and Statistics) Order (Statutory Instrument 1996/273), which was made on 14 February

  387W
  1996 and came into force on 1 April 1996. No amendment to the Census Act itself was necessary to reflect this change in ministerial control.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sustainable Agriculture
  Lembit Äpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy relating to supporting a sustainable agricultural economy. [4641]

  Mr. Morley
  Sustainable rural development is one of the key objectives of my new Department. We will be preparing a sustainable development strategy that will look both at the promotion of sustainable food chains within the United Kingdom and promoting sustainability within the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. This will involve the transfer of resources from market support measures—so-called first pillar policies—to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy as the key mechanism for delivering environmental, economic and social policy goals in rural areas and for facilitating restructuring of the agricultural industry.

  We have already said that we will be setting up an Independent Commission to advise on how we can assist the development of a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector within a thriving rural economy which advances environmental health and animal welfare goals. An announcement on this will be made shortly.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many jobs have been lost in Cumbria in the(a) agricultural sector and (b) tourist industry as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; [2552]

  (2) how many rural businesses have closed since the start of the foot and mouth outbreak. [2571]

  Alun Michael
  The Department does not have statistics on job losses in the agricultural sector in Cumbria resulting from foot and mouth disease. We are, however, planning to organise a telephone survey of a sample of farmers who have been directly or indirectly affected by foot and mouth disease. It is proposed that questions relating to the employment effects of the outbreak will be included in this survey.

  It is too early to make a full assessment of the number of jobs lost as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, and for many businesses the worst impacts are likely to occur over the autumn and winter period. However, the Insolvency Service has identified that about 33 businesses have cited foot and mouth disease as the reason for closure since 12 April and anticipate that this figure will rise. Evidence on labour market impact in most of the areas which are seriously affected suggests that foot and mouth disease has slowed the rate at which unemployment is falling, through an effect on both job losses and recruitment. Local survey evidence suggests that the tourism industry in the worst affected areas has suffered a large loss of trade in the past four months,
  388W
  which is likely to have resulted in a fall in the number of seasonal employees in these areas, besides any business failures and permanent jobs lost.

  The Government have introduced a range of measures to help businesses cope with the impact of foot and mouth disease and will continue to assess the scope for further action through the Rural Task Force, chaired by myself.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps were taken to ensure that farmers were aware(a) of the law surrounding slaughter of animals as a result of foot and mouth disease control and (b) of their rights relating to property prior to the slaughter of their animals; and if she will make a statement. [45]

  Mr. Morley
  The Animal Health Act 1981 provides the powers to require the slaughter of any animals affected with foot and mouth disease, or suspected of being infected. It also sets the rate of compensation. The Department took a number of steps to inform farmers of the policies being pursued to eradicate foot and mouth, including letters, the provision of information via the internet and the establishment of a helpline. Veterinary staff and other DEFRA staff in disease control centres throughout the country are available to provide any explanation required by the owner of an infected premises. Owners of infected premises will have the range of movement and other restrictions explained to them.

  Farmers are also made aware of their rights regarding procedures for disputed valuations. Of course, up to the point where the animals are slaughtered, responsibility for the care and welfare of the animals rests with their owner.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the proposed 20-day standstill period on the movement of sheep and cattle. [4426]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12 July 2001,Official Report, columns 627–28W.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long foot and mouth vaccination lasts after administration to livestock. [2553]

  Mr. Morley
  With conventional foot and mouth disease vaccines which meet international criteria of safety and potency and following the routine, two-dose primary course of vaccination, there should be no likelihood of vaccinated animals becoming clinically infected with a closely related strain within the same virus serotype for approximately 12 months. This is dependent on vaccination being part of an overall control programme, which includes movement restrictions.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the protocols and guidance notes for the disinfection of milking parlours following foot and mouth disease. [2768]

  Mr. Morley
  Detailed guidance is currently being drafted in respect of cleansing and the disinfection of milking parlours. It will be distributed widely among all interested parties and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Information is available on the website in respect of disinfectants and their use generally in cleaning farms following an outbreak of FMD.
  389W
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date it is estimated that the last milking parlour on currently infected premises will be disinfected and reinstated ready for use. [2769]

  Mr. Morley
  Central records of infected premises do not specify whether they have a milking parlour. However, even if this information were available, it would not be possible to predict a date given the many variables involved in the process of disinfecting and reinstating premises infected by foot and mouth.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been made to the Government by other countries who have suffered a foot and mouth outbreak. [2566]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have received a number of representations from Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay both via official and diplomatic channels. All of these countries have recently suffered outbreaks of foot and mouth and the representations primarily concerned the UK's position on imports of meat from those countries.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will publish the protocols or guidance for the removal of ash from a foot and mouth disease burn site; [2755]

  (2) what plans she has to dispose of ash from pyre sites in (a) Cumbria and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom; and if she will publish the precautions to be taken in such circumstances. [3443]

  Mr. Morley
  Ash from pyres will normally be buried on site in those cases where the Environment Agency has issued a Groundwater Authorisation that permits this. Where this cannot be done it will be disposed of in licensed landfill sites. A copy of the protocols governing the removal and disposal of ash has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Copies of this document are available from the DEFRA Foot and Mouth Disease Joint Co-ordination Centre, la Page St., London SW 1P 4PQ (Tel.: 0845 0504141); it will also be published on the DEFRA website as soon as possible.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made that vaccinated animals can act as virus carriers of foot and mouth disease. [2578]

  Mr. Morley
  I am guided on this matter by the expert veterinary and scientific advice received, which is that once vaccinated animals are fully protected they should not develop clinical foot and mouth disease. However, the virus can replicate even in animals immune against the development of clinical disease, if they are exposed to infection. A proportion of such animals can become persistently infected while never developing clinical disease. These are so-called "carriers". Virus replication in carrier animals is confined to the oro-pharynx (throat) and occurs only in ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats). Pigs do not become carriers.

  Expert scientific advice is that spread from vaccinated carrier animals is an extremely rare event; the amount of virus excreted is many orders of magnitude less than that expected by animals during the acute phase of disease or
  390W
  during the sub-clinical incubation period. To minimise the risks further, movement restrictions would be applied to all vaccinated animals for 12 months. Any risk of spread of foot and mouth disease from vaccinated carrier animals is considered to be extremely remote. However, it can be one reason to prohibit the export of animals and animal products from countries which practise vaccination to those which do not and which are free of the disease.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the risk of infection of foot and mouth via the wild animal population, with particular reference to deer, hedgehogs and rats. [2556]

  Mr. Morley
  Our current veterinary risk assessment concludes that infected deer could transmit foot and mouth disease to susceptible livestock during the clinical stages of the disease. However the risk of wild deer playing any significant part in the spread of the disease is assessed as very low and feral deer are unlikely to represent a longer term risk. During the current outbreak over 60 deer have been examined for foot and mouth disease with negative results, and we have no evidence of deer playing any part in the spread of disease.

  Hedgehogs are susceptible to foot and mouth disease but do not appear to have played any part in the spread of the disease. Rats are not susceptible to foot and mouth disease but may have a role in spreading the disease indirectly. For this reason an intensive programme of rodent control is carried out on infected premises.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the use of real-time video in undertaking veterinary surveillance of animal herds to detect clinical signs of foot and mouth. [3558]

  Mr. Morley
  No formal assessment has been made but experience has shown that the disease, especially in sheep, may be difficult to detect even by close physical examination by a veterinary inspector. Real-time video is therefore not considered to he a practical proposition.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers in(a) Cumbria and (b) England entered their sheep for the welfare disposal scheme when it was fixed at £45 per head; and how many were (i) not collected and (ii) pending collection when the price was dropped to £30 per head. [3557]

  Mr. Morley
  The Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme (LWDS) was introduced to provide a means of resolving serious animal welfare problems arising directly from the FMD movement restrictions. Payments made under the scheme are to alleviate welfare problems, and are not a form of compensation. The payment rates were changed on 30 April in the light of evidence that applicants were using the scheme as an alternative market, despite the introduction of various schemes to allow livestock movements from 23 April.
  391W
  As LWDS has progressed, an average of 30 per cent. of animals put forward for the scheme are withdrawn by applicants at the point of slaughter as more opportunities to move livestock have become available. Accurate figures of animals "non collected" or "pending collection" from specific counties are not available. A comprehensive breakdown by category of animal of livestock notified under the scheme is not available for the first few weeks of LWDS.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers' animals have received(a) pre-22 March stock valuations and (b) standard valuations; and how many animals were involved in each case. [3425]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not yet available in the form requested. The Department is currently preparing a database of detailed information on livestock valuations and I will write to the right hon. Member when I am able to provide more information.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms within a 10-mile radius of Heddon-on-the-Wall have been infected with foot and mouth disease. [3245]

  Mr. Morley
  Twenty two farms within a 10-mile radius of Heddon-on-the-Wall have been infected with foot and mouth disease.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statutory powers governed the(a) use of vaccination as an eradication policy and (b) other vaccination options considered by her Department in respect of foot and mouth disease. [3231]

  Mr. Morley
  Vaccination against foot and mouth disease is covered by the provisions of Council Directive 85/511/EEC, which requires member states to prohibit vaccination. This has been implemented through the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Control of Vaccination) (England) Regulations 2001.

  However, the Directive also provides for limited recourse to emergency vaccination, in accordance with plans which must be authorised by the European Commission, working through the European Union's Standing Veterinary Committee. Any Commission Decision to permit vaccination would be implemented in the UK by Regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972.

  During the early stage of the current outbreak, two Commission Decisions were adopted which permitted vaccination in parts of the UK in limited circumstances. In the event, these were not put into effect. The use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease is under continuous review, in the light of changing circumstances and knowledge about the disease outbreak.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the incidence of delays in 392W
  payment of livestock compensation to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered in the foot and mouth crisis; and if she will pay interest from the date of stock loss. [2175]

  Mr. Morley
  I recognise that there have been delays in payment of compensation to some farmers whose animals have been slaughtered in the foot and mouth outbreak, and that at the peak period of April and May these delays could be extensive. However, delays are reducing and new claims should be paid within three weeks of the receipt of correct documents. Ministers are considering whether the payment of interest on delayed compensation payments would be justified. Standard valuations were introduced on 22 March which could help to reduce the time taken between diagnosis of disease and payment of compensation. However, this facility has only been used by a minority of farmers.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons a 24 hour slaughter policy was not in place in the initial confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. [2186]

  Mr. Morley
  Veterinary instructions in place before the start of the outbreak required that animals in which disease was confirmed should be slaughtered with all practical speed and that those animals showing clinical signs should be slaughtered immediately on confirmation. The 24-hour policy was introduced as part of an on-going review of the Government's control policies and provided veterinary staff with a more precise target.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes were made to the foot and mouth contingency plan as a result of the updating exercises conducted in November and December 2000. [787]

  Mr. Morley
  The Great Britain contingency plan was reviewed and updated in July 2000. No further updates were carried out in November or December.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) farmers and (b) farms whose stock was slaughtered out because they were categorised as (i) direct contacts, (ii) contiguous cull, (iii) slaughter on suspicion and (iv) voluntary cull. [788]

  Mr. Morley
  Our policy, based on legal advice, is to publish on the DEFRA website details of infected premises as this is essential public information in the fight against foot and mouth disease. For reasons of data protection and confidentiality, we are not releasing information on other affected premises, other than to organisations that require it for the purpose of safeguarding public health and for co-ordination of the rural recovery programmes. Data may otherwise be released with the written consent of the individual concerned.

  Aggregated statistical information, broken down into the above categories, is available on the website.
  393W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis 10 km was decided on as the distance from an infected premises for the ban on animal movement. [4049]

  Mr. Morley
  EU legislation requires member states to declare an Infected Area at a minimum of a 10 km radius around an Infected Premises (IP), taking account of natural boundaries and any epidemiological factors such as the dispersal of virus by windborne spread. This is based on scientific and veterinary advice and experience in dealing with disease.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to lift the blanket closures of footpaths and bridleways imposed by local authorities under the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983; and if she will make a statement. [6183]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 June 2001,Official Report, column 166, that she had asked me to look urgently at revoking remaining blanket closures of rights of way imposed by local authorities in England. Letters were sent to local authorities the next day explaining the Government's proposals in more detail and inviting them to make representations if they considered they could justify retaining blanket closures beyond 20 July.

  I have now considered carefully the representations received. I have agreed that blanket closures may remain in place for the time being in Cumbria and in parts of Devon, Lancashire, Durham, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. I have also allowed Somerset to retain partial blanket closure until 27 July, and agreed with north Yorkshire their proposals for temporarily retaining closures in parts of the county. In granting these exemptions we have recognised the logistical difficulties which revocation would pose for a few authorities, particularly those hardest hit by foot and mouth disease.

  With the exception of the authorities mentioned above, all remaining closures under article 35B will be lifted from midnight on Friday 20 July. At midnight the following Friday, 27 July, any remaining closures under article 35A (which allowed authorities to close individual paths outside Infected Areas without ministerial consent) will be revoked.

  These actions will ensure that public rights of way are closed only where this is justified. The Department's guidance and veterinary risk assessment issued on 23 May makes it clear that, except within 3 km Protection Zones around infected premises, paths may safely be re-opened. We expect authorities to continue to re-open paths where this can be done safely, in line with the guidance. We shall review the position no later than early September.

  Lifting blanket closures does not mean that all paths will be open. Local authorities retain power to close individual paths, though outside Infected Areas this requires the Department's consent. All such closures must be signed at entrances to the path. Authorities should use their power to close paths selectively, in the areas affected by revocation and elsewhere, only where justified on disease control grounds in line with the Department's guidance. Where paths within Protection Zones are
  394W
  affected by the lifting of a blanket closure, authorities should arrange for their selective re-closure where appropriate.

  People using paths should take sensible precautions to reduce even further any risk of spreading the disease. These are set out in the codes for path users accompanying the guidance to local authorities of 23 May. Authorities should publicise these precautions, particularly the need to stay off farmland if people have recently handled farm animals and to avoid going near, touching or feeding livestock.

  The Government's decision to open footpaths to walkers is entirely consistent with our strong advice to farmers to observe tight bio-security and reflects very different risks. The risks of footpath users transmitting the disease are tiny, particularly when compared with those posed by farmers and others who handle livestock.

  Foot and mouth disease remains a serious problem in a few areas and we continue to do all that is necessary to contain and eradicate it. But in most of England there is no case for wholesale closures. Keeping footpaths closed hurts the rural economy and prevents people enjoying the countryside. We have received strong representations in favour of our approach from those engaged in tourism and other rural businesses—including farmers who have diversified their activities—because of the extent to which their income has been devastated by the consequences of the outbreak. Revoking unnecessary closures now means the vast majority of our countryside will be open for the summer holidays and people will know where they can walk, cycle or ride.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 4 July 2001,Official Report, columns 189–90W, how many foreign vets, from which countries, have assisted the UK during the foot and mouth epidemic; and how many left the UK before receiving payment. [791]

  Mr. Morley
  [pursuant to the reply, 4 July 2001, c. 189–90W]I am sorry that there was an error in the list of foreign vets and in which country they are from. Spain was included in error on the list of foreign Government vets.

  The rest of the answer remains correct.

  Foreign veterinary assistance has been provided in two ways. Governments have loaned state veterinarians to the Department. Terms and conditions were agreed with the relevant authorities in each country prior to the vets travelling to GB. Their salaries continue to be paid by the authorities in their own country.

  Other foreign vets have also been appointed as Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs). TVIs are paid a daily rate, which is claimed retrospectively. The necessary details to allow payment of moneys due is requested at the time of appointment. Information concerning the timing of payments to individuals in relation to their date of departure from GB is not recorded.
  395W
  To date 463 state veterinarians from the following countries have provided assistance during the foot and mouth disease outbreak:

  Australia

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  Cuba

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  USA.

  The number of foreign TVI's appointed is currently 375 and they come from one the following countries

  Australia

  Austria

  Belgium

  Canada

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Egypt

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Namibia

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Portugal

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sweden

  Zimbabwe.

  Horticulture
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to grant an exemption to horticulturalists from the licensing scheme for trickle irrigation. [4540]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans to exempt horticulturalists from the abstraction licensing system. The draft Water Bill published last November proposed that trickle irrigation be brought into the licensing system. The system will be revised by a Water Bill when parliamentary time permits.
  396W
  However, it was proposed in the draft Water Bill that the standard threshold above which an abstraction licence is required should be raised to 20 cubic metres per day. The draft Bill also proposed that the Environment Agency should have the power to set different thresholds in specified areas. So horticulturalists will be exempt if they abstract less than the relevant threshold amount in any area.

  GMOs
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the results of testing of(a) seed, (b) food and (c) feed that the Government and its agencies have carried out to identify the presence of approved or unapproved GMOs in the last 12 months. [3754]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The Department will shortly publish a summary of the activities carried out over the last year by our GM inspectorate at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), which will include information on audits of seed imports that the CSL has undertaken on our behalf. This will be placed on the Department's website http://www.defra.gov.uk/.

  The testing of food and feed to ensure compliance with relevant legislation is the responsibility of local authorities. Relevant information reporting the test results is not kept centrally.

  Flooding (Robertsbridge)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the inability of water to escape from the upriver side of the Robertsbridge bypass on the repeated flooding of parts of the village; what account the Environment Agency has taken of evidence from the fire brigade of the differential levels of flooding on either side of the bypass; and if she will take steps to enlarge the culverts under the bypass before the autumn. [3857]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]Operational responsibility for flood defence rests with local operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency, and other bodies, such as the Highway's Agency insofar as highways are concerned. I understand that the Environment Agency has undertaken a pre-feasibility study of the flooding problems at Robertsbridge, including hydraulic modelling and investigation of suggestions that the bypass may have an impact. The Environment Agency's current view is that the bypass does not impede floodwaters and that there is no need to enlarge the culverts under the bypass.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Oaten
  to ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of contingency arrangements to deal with future incidents of(a) flooding, (b) epidemics in farm animals, (c) contamination of food for human or animal (d) interruptions of water supplies and (e) other emergencies; and if she will place copies of the relevant contingency plans in the Library. [4372]
  397W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The Department has contingency arrangements for response to emergencies affecting its policy responsibilities. These are subject to annual review and report to Ministers. After an emergency or exercise, a lessons learned review is carried out and revisions implemented to arrangements where required. It has not been the practice to make individual plans public because of the inclusion of personal telephone numbers. However we have an overarching plan which sets out the principal requirements for departmental emergency response plans. This is currently being expanded to incorporate the responsibilities of the new Department and the lessons learned from recent emergencies. Once completed I will place a copy in the Library.

  DEFRA no longer has responsibility for incidents concerning the contamination of food for human consumption; this is the remit of the Food Standards Agency.

  Rural Recovery Fund (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will extend the rural recovery fund to Worcestershire. [4135]

  Alun Michael
  In the second tranche of Business Recovery Fund allocations announced on 7 May an extra £3 million was allocated to Advantage West Midlands,

  Contractor

  Description

  Type of contract

  Start date

  Contract term

  Annual value

  Lason Information Management Ltd.

  Data Capture Management Services

  Service Provision Agreement

  August 2000

  8 weeks

  696,070

  Global Crossing

  Wide Area Data Networking Services

  Framework

  May 2000

  3 years

  1,800,000

  Compuware Ltd.

  Uniface Software Licensing and Support

  Support Agreement

  April 2000

  Renewed annually

  346,625

  International Computers Ltd.

  IT Supply, Maintenance and Support Services

  Framework

  April 1999

  3 years, with option to extend to 5 years

  18,202,687

  Sema Group UK Ltd.

  Applications Development Services

  Framework

  April 1999

  3 years, with option to extend to 5 years

  15,415.7411

  Sherwood International Group Ltd

  Applications Development Services

  Framework

  April 1999

  3 years, with option to extend to 5 years

  12,030,130

  SAS Software Ltd.

  SAS Software Licences

  Support Agreement

  January 1999

  Renewed annually

  127,499

  Vodafone Corporate Limited

  Mobile Communication Services

  Framework

  1998

  3 years

  458,000

  Computer Associates

  Network Licences

  Support Agreement

  March 1998

  Renewed annually

  176,250

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

  Consultancy and Education Services

  Service Provision Agreement

  Mary 1997

  Renewed annually

  1,500,000

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

  Gold Software Support Service

  Support Agreement

  May 1997

  Renewed annually

  520,391

  Fujitsu Siemens Computers Ltd.

  Unidata Software Licensing and Support

  Support Agreement

  February 1997

  5 years

  480,583

  PC World Business Direct

  Computer Supplies/Products

  Framework

  1996

  3 years, with the option to extend to 5 years

  240,000

  Orion Media Marketing Ltd.

  Computer Supplies/Products

  Framework

  1996

  3 years, with the option to extend to 5 years

  233,0013

  Abacus Direct Marketing and Computer Services Ltd.

  Processor Controlled Keying Services

  Service Provision Agreement

  July 1996

  2 years, with the option to extend to 5 years

  111,470

  Siemens Communications Ltd.

  Telephone Systems and Services

  Framework

  November 1993

  Reviewed 6-monthly

  626,506

  British Telecommunications Plc. Ltd

  Leased Data Circuits

  Framework

  May 1990

  Ongoing

  1,000,000

  398W
  bringing their total allocation to £5.5 million. This has enabled the Agency to help businesses in Worcestershire affected by the foot and mouth restrictions.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by her Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by her Department. [3512]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]The full details that my right hon. Friend requests back to 1991 are available only at disproportionate cost. A list of major IT contracts valued at more than £500,000 (cumulatively) let and currently used by the Department is however shown in the table, together with supplementary information.

  The Department makes best use of Framework Arrangements/Agreements with service providers and suppliers for the provision of IT goods and services, and has established strategic partnerships with several prime contractors. These ensure best value and cost-effectiveness for the Department.

  To ensure probity and value for money, all procurements are also undertaken in compliance with EC public procurement rules, UK Government domestic procurement policy and best practice guidance, Government accounting rules and National Audit requirements.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 18 April, forwarded by the Prime Minister, on behalf of his constituent Mrs. White. [3567]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on 12 July 2001.

  Fishing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total UK sea bass landings were for(a) the commercial fleet and (b) other catches in 2000. [4327]

  Mr. Morley
  Fisheries Departments' statistics record total landings of bass by the UK commercial fleet for 2000 as 407 tonnes. Data on other catches in 2000 drawn from the CEFAS fishermen's voluntary logbook scheme are currently being compiled and will be available at the end of August.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with fishing industry representatives; and what assessment she has made in respect of stock recovery programmes in waters fished by UK regional vessels. [4360]

  Mr. Morley
  I met representatives of the fishing industry immediately prior to the Fisheries Council on 18 June which discussed recovery plans. Industry representatives from the UK and other member states have attended a series of consultation meetings with the Commission as the stock recovery plans have been developed. The UK industry in particular has made a key contribution to this work. In view of the advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, the United Kingdom is fully convinced of the need to develop recovery programmes for North sea cod, west of Scotland cod, and Irish sea cod as well as for northern hake.

  Flag of Convenience Vessels
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the anticipated costs are of meeting the claims arising from the ruling over the Factortame case brought by owners of flag of convenience vessels. [4358]

  Mr. Morley
  Settlement has been reached with all the applicants involved in the Factortame litigation with the exception of two who are appealing against the rejection of their claims by the court. Under the terms of the settlement the total sum of damages paid is £55 million which includes some £26 million interest. The legal costs of the applicants, liability for which was accepted as part of the settlement agreements, are the subject of further legal proceedings and will not be assessed until these are completed. The claims submitted by the applicants totalled some £285 million before interest.

  Organic Food
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent 400W
  estimate she has made of the levels of organic food (a) production and (b) consumption in Great Britain; what targets she has for expansion of organic production in (i) 2005, (ii) 2010 and (iii) 2015; and if she will make a statement. [3989]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]I have made no such estimates. However estimates prepared by the Soil Association (in their Organic Food and Farming Report 2000) indicate that the farm gate value of UK organic produce was around £67 million in 1999–2000 and that the retail value of all organic produce sold in the UK in the same period was just over £605 million.

  We very much welcome the expansion of organic farming and we have done much to assist it. In particular, we have made substantial cash injections into the sector in aid for conversion to organic farming for which there is an ongoing commitment under the England Rural Development Programme. We do not favour setting arbitrary targets for the conversion of land to organic farming or for the producing of organic food.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2000–01 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Laboratory Agency. [6048]

  Margaret Beckett
  The 2000–01 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Laboratory Agency were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2000–2001 Annual report and Accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate [6046]

  Margaret Beckett
  The 2000–01 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2000–2001 Annual report and Accounts for the Intervention Board Executive Agency. [6047]

  Margaret Beckett
  The 2000–01 Annual Report and Accounts for the Intervention Board Executive Agency were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2000–01 annual report and accounts for the Central Science Laboratory. [6049]

  Margaret Beckett
  The 2000–01 annual report and accounts for the Central Science Laboratory were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  BSE
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the findings of the review of the origin of BSE undertaken by Professor Horn will be available. [6045]
  401W
  Margaret Beckett
  Professor Horn has now completed his review and I have today placed a copy of his report in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teacher vacancies there were at(a) January 2001 and (b) January 2000 in each local education authority; and if she will place these figures in the Library; [4931]

  (2) if she will place in the Library the teacher vacancies statistics for January 2001. [5371]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is contained in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills why the number of vacancies for(a) mathematics and (b) information technology teachers changed between 1997 and 2000. [5370]

  Mr. Timms
  The additional funding of £350 per pupil in real terms that the Government provided for schools in England between 1997–98 and 2000–01 allowed more teaching posts to be created. Although the total number of teacher vacancies rose by 867 between January 1997 and January 2000, the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers also rose, by almost 5,500. Between January 2000 and January 2001, there was a further increase of over 5,500 in teacher numbers. Data on how many of these additional posts were in mathematics and information technology are not collected centrally.

  Since January 2000, new Government funding for teacher training bursaries, Golden Hello incentives and the Graduate Teacher Programme have been introduced to encourage more new teachers into the profession, especially in secondary shortage subjects like mathematics and information technology.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason teacher vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post changed from 1997 to 2000(a) in the south-east and (b) in London. [5376]

  Mr. Timms
  Between 1997–98 and 2001–01, funding per pupil rose in real terms by £550 in London and the south-east. These extra resources allowed more teaching posts to be funded. The number of teacher vacancies in London and the south-east rose by 480 between January 1997 and January 2000. In the same period, the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers employed in the region rose by 2,168.

  Grant-maintained Schools (Surrey)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding per pupil was provided to grant-maintained schools in Surrey in the year immediately prior to the end of grant-maintained status; and what funding per pupil those schools receive in the current financial year [2543]

  Mr. Timms
  In the financial year 1998–99, grant-maintained (GM) schools in Surrey received recurrent funding from the former Funding Agency for 402W
  Schools (FAS) amounting on average to £1,810 per pupil in the case of primary schools and £2,410 per pupil in the case of secondary schools. For the financial year 2001–02, the most closely comparable figures currently available in respect of these schools are £2,060 per pupil and £2,660 per pupil respectively. All figures have been calculated to the nearest £10 on the basis of pupil numbers from the Annual Schools Census for January 1998 and January 2001.

  The calculations for 1998–99 are based on financial information supplied to the Department by FAS. The figures include annual maintenance grant together with special purpose grants for development, nursery education, premises insurance, primary support and the purchase of books, but not other special purpose grants or capital grants. Most GM schools' annual maintenance grant included an element to compensate the schools for their inability to reclaim VAT: appropriate adjustments have been made to reflect this.

  The calculations for 2001–02 are based on information from the budget statement published by the local education authority under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, supplemented and updated (in the case of specific grants) by information separately provided by the LEA. The figures include the schools' budget shares (including School Standards Grant and transitional funding); Standards Fund resources devolved to the schools (but excluding capital grants, and other grants relating to school security and the National Grid for Learning); and Infant Class Size grants devolved to schools otherwise than through their budget shares.

  In 1998–99, under arrangements specific to the GM sector, the GM schools received formula capital allocations from FAS amounting on average to £46 per pupil (primary) and £31 per pupil (secondary). Under the NDS devolved formula capital arrangements which apply to all schools, the Surrey ex-GM schools' allocations for 2001–02 amount on average to £37 per pupil (primary) and £28 per pupil (secondary); all these figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

  Blenheim School has been excluded from the calculations because its funding levels are significantly affected by the school's recent establishment. The calculations also exclude Nonsuch High School for Girls, which is situated in Surrey but maintained by the London Borough of Sutton.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the change in incidence of special needs children with statements between 1997 and 2001 as a proportion of pupils on roll at all schools. [5372]

  Mr. Timms
  Since 1997 the percentage of children with statements of special educational need has increased from 2.9 per cent. in January 1997 to 3.1 per cent. in January 2001. This continues an increase from earlier years: for example, the proportion of statemented pupils was 2.6 per cent. in 1995. We believe that these increases reflect improved early identification measures, and improved procedures, in particular the introduction of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Needs in 1994.
  403W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the factors underlying the change in the incidence of special educational needs children without statement from 1997 to 2001 as a proportion of pupils at all schools. [5373]

  Mr. Timms
  Since 1997 the percentage of children with identified special educational needs without a statement has increased from 15.1 per cent. in January 1997 to 18.8 per cent. in January 2001. We believe that this increase reflects improved early identification measures, and improved procedures, in particular the introduction of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Needs in 1994.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many appeals were heard by the Special Educational Needs Tribunal; and how many were successful in 1999–2000 [5377]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of appeals heard by the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in 1999–2000 was 1,196. Of these some 931 were successful, in whole or in part.

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on trends in enrolment to further education. [3184]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]The number of students enrolled in FE colleges and on further education provision in other institutions in 1999–2000 was 4,274,000. This compares with a peak of 4,463,000 in 1996–97, when inappropriate franchising arrangements, some of which gave rise to provision of dubious worth, had caused the participation figures to increase sharply and unsustainably. We are committed to increasing real participation in further education and we are providing real terms increases in further education funding to achieve this.

  Lecturers
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many further education lecturers have left the profession in each of the last 10 years. [2996]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Full-time lecturers in the further education (FE) sector in England at March each year who were no longer employed as full-time in the FE sector one year later, in either England or Wales, in the financial years 1989–90 to 1998–99 (the last year for which records are available) are as follows:

  Year

  Number of FE leavers

  1998–99

  3,955

  1997–98

  7,115

  1996–97

  6,808

  1995–96

  5,953

  1994–95

  4,943

  1993–94

  5,243

  1992–931

  5,081

  1991–921

  4,525

  1990–911

  5,088

  1989–901

  4,810

  1Excludes sixth-form colleges

  404W
  2 Full-time FE lecturers who became part-time FE lecturers are counted as leavers.

  Source

  The DfES Database of Teacher Records. The most recent data available are for 31 March 1999.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated regarding vacancy rates in lecturer/senior lecturer grades over the last five years, in each university. [4572]

  Margaret Hodge
  [answer 18 July 2001]: The information is not held centrally. Individual universities, as employers, are responsible for monitoring their own vacancies.

  Schools (Investment)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her plans for public investment in schools. [3355]

  Mr. Timms
  Our proposals mean that the recurrent funding for schools in England will have risen by £9.5 billion between 1997–98 and 2003–04. On capital funding, in 2000–01 we invested over £2 billion in school buildings. This is three times the £693 million invested in 1996–97. In addition, we are investing £8.5 billion in our school buildings over the Spending Review period. We are determined to continue to improve schools through sustained investment and reform.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the number of individual learning accounts(a) opened and (b) used by (i) gender, (ii) age and (iii) occupation. [4414]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]The figures requested for England up to the period 29 June 2001 are set out in the following tables:

  By gender

  Accounts open

  Accounts used

  Female

  709,728

  310,480

  Male

  523,528

  229,500

  Unknown

  3,786

  2,171

  Total

  1,237,042

  542,151

  By age

  Accounts open

  Accounts used

  19–30

  371,594

  151,895

  31–40

  367,395

  159,362

  41–50

  261,886

  116,387

  51–60

  158,532

  74,115

  60±

  77,635

  40,392

  Total

  1,237,042

  542,151

  By occupation

  Accounts open

  Accounts used

  Housewife/homemaker

  103,241

  50,040

  Manual/factory worker

  67,318

  30,112

  Manager (own business less than 250 staff)

  42,119

  18,886

  Office/retail worker

  220,193

  95,050

  Senior manager/professional

  120,279

  49,920

  Skilled worker/tradesperson

  96,716

  42,164

  405W

  By occupation

  Accounts open

  Accounts used

  Teaching/lecturer

  52,330

  21,672

  Data not supplied

  276,772

  123,471

  Other

  258,074

  110,836

  Total

  1,237,042

  542,151

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individual learning accounts have been opened under the national framework since June 2000. [4447]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: There have been 1,237,042 individual learning accounts opened under the national framework in England up to 29 June 2001.

  Vandalism (Schools)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reduce the amount of vandalism to school premises committed out of school hours. [4451]

  Mr. Timms
  Schools are often most vulnerable to attack when they are closed, and acts of vandalism can have a seriously demoralising effect on schools, with the costs of removing graffiti or replacing broken windows being a drain on resources.

  My Department makes specific funding available to local education authorities, through the Standards Fund, to support school security improvements at maintained schools in their areas. This amounts to £22 million per year. The aim of the grant, which was introduced in 1997–98, is not only to make schools safer environments for staff and pupils, which must be the main priority, but also to help reduce the incidence and associated costs of crime in schools. Local education authorities have reported significant reductions in vandalism where schools have had improvements funded from the grant.

  We have also produced guidance on reducing crime in schools, such as the booklet "Improving School Security", and the video "Can You See What They See?" A school security website has been established.

  PFI/PPP
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) PFI and (b) PPP contracts have been agreed by her Department in the last five years; how many have been satisfactorily completed; and in how many has compensation been (i) paid and (ii) claimed for performance failure. [4603]

  Mr. Timms
  In the last five years, a total of 56 schools PFI projects have been approved by this Department. Of these, 31 have so far signed contracts. The remaining 25 projects are working towards contract signature following approval by DIES and the Treasury chaired Project Review Group.

  In addition, 12 PPP projects, which were developed with support from New Deal for Schools funding, have reached contract signature.
  406W
  Local authorities are generally responsible for monitoring the performance of schools PH and PPP contracts.

  Education (Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the requirement for new(a) lower, (b) middle and (c) upper schools in the South-West Bedfordshire constituency to take account of anticipated house building in the area until 2011. [4717]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government believe that decisions concerning the organisation and supply of school places are best taken locally—by the main partners in the provision of education who have knowledge of local needs. It is the responsibility of local education authorities (LEAs) to ensure that there are sufficient school places within their area.

  Should a district council propose new housing developments we would expect the LEA's School Organisation Plan (SOP) to reflect any projected increases in the pupil population. All LEAs are required to produce a SOP, which sets out how they propose to deal with deficits and surpluses of school provision over a rolling 5-year period. The SOP sets the context for proposals to change school organisation in the area, and may include proposals to establish new schools or enlarge existing ones.

  If, as a result of housing developments, the LEA identifies a need for additional school places, we would consider any future capital bids from Bedfordshire that meet the published criteria for support.

  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in South-West Bedfordshire have school meals provided by the local authority. [4718]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Number and percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals, January 2000

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils

  South-West Bedfordshire

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Maintained nursery and primary schools

  813

  11.4

  Maintained secondary schools

  855

  9.1

  England

  Maintained nursery and primary schools

  821,521

  18.3

  Maintained secondary schools

  523,630

  16.5

  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the class sizes for(a) lower, (b) middle and (c) upper schools were in Bedfordshire on 1 May; and what they are projected to be on 1 May 2002. [4720]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the following table.
  407W

  Average class sizes in Bedfordshire LEA, January 20011

  Schools

  Average class size

  Middle deemed Secondary schools

  26.2

  Comprehensive Upper schools

  19.4

  1 Provisional

  Plain English
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure that all documents that school governing bodies are required to consider are written in plain English. [4774]

  Mr. Timms
  All documents sent to governing bodies by the DIES, and the former DIEE, either bear the 'Crystal Mark' awarded by the Plain English Commission, or are produced to communication standards based on plain English principles. The Department has no direct control over the many communications for school governors prepared by local education authorities but has urged them to adopt the same principles and to keep such communications to a minimum.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 16-year-olds had at least one GCSE at grade A*-G in 2000. [4800]

  Mr. Timms
  The proportion of 16-year-olds that achieved at least one GCSE at grade A*-G in England in 2000 was 94.4 per cent.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of young people left local authority care with one or more GCSE at grade A* to G for the year for which she has the most recent data. [5239]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most recent data were published by the Department of Health on 26 October 2000. These show that 29 per cent. of young people leaving local authority care at age 16 or more during year ending 31 March 2000 achieved at least one GCSE at grade A* to G.

  School Absences
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of school half days were missed in the year 2000 through unauthorised absence. [4807]

  Mr. Timms
  0.7 per cent. of half days were missed in English schools in 1999–2000 as a result of unauthorised absence. Pupil absence data for England are collected by school year, and are published during the following autumn term by DfES in the National Pupil Absence Tables and in School Performance Tables. Figures for the school year 2000–01 are therefore not available yet.

  Teachers' Code of Conduct
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take into account the concerns of teachers about the proposed clause 5 of the professional code of conduct of teachers, drafted by the General Teaching Council, on the grounds of religious conscience. [4920]
  408W
  Mr. Timms
  The professional code of practice is a matter for the General Teaching Council (GTC). Paragraph 5 relates to the way teachers support children in their care, by providing an environment of tolerance and respect that allows all children to flourish irrespective of their home circumstances. Children come from diverse backgrounds and it is important that teachers protect them from antisocial behaviour such as name calling or bullying. The GTC has published its current draft widely, sending it to all registered teachers and their responses, including those relating to paragraph 5, will be considered by the GTC's Council in due course.

  School Exclusion
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been issued on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a local education authority exclusion officer to overrule a school over a decision to exclude. [4930]

  Mr. Timms
  A local education exclusion officer has no powers to overrule an exclusion, whatever the circumstances. The officer's role is to give advice on the appropriateness of the exclusion. The LEA can make a statement to the school's Discipline Committee considering whether or not to uphold an exclusion, for example about how other schools in the authority have responded to similar incidents.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her timetable is for extending free nursery places to all three-year-olds in(a) Staffordshire and (b) England. [4983]

  Mr. Timms
  Our commitment is to provide every three-year-old, whose parents want one, with a free nursery education place by September 2004. In March 2001, around 55 per cent. of three-year-olds in England had access to a free part-time nursery education place. We are currently on target to provide 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds with a free place by March 2002.

  Staffordshire local education authority estimates that around 35 per cent. of three-year-olds have access to a free nursery education place in their area. The access to free nursery education is influenced by the level of provision that the local authority makes available in its own area, as well as the places funded directly by Government. The allocation made by Government, through the Nursery Education Grant, is made on the basis of social disadvantage.

  Childcare (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many day care places in nurseries have been created in Warrington, North since 1997. [4992]

  Mr. Timms
  Early Years Development and Child Care Partnerships have only provided details of the new child care places that have opened by constituency since April 1999. Between April 1999 and March 2001 Warrington Early Years Development and Child Care Partnership has reported the creation of 188 daycare places1 in the constituency of Warrington, North.

  409W
  1This figure includes daycare places created in day nurseries, pre-schools and playgroups. It is not possible to break down the figures to show those in nurseries only.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many out-of-school hours childcare places have been created in Warrington, North since 1997; and how many of those places are in wards which are among the most deprived 20 per cent. of wards in England as measured by the Official Index of Deprivation. [4993]

  Mr. Timms
  Early Years Development and Child Care Partnerships have provided details only of the new child care places that have opened by constituency since April 1999. Between April 1999 and March 2001 Warrington Early Years Development and Child Care Partnership has reported the creation of 337 new out of school hours places1 in Warrington, North.

  Data on child care places are grouped at local education authority and constituency level. We are not able to break the data down to ward level.
  1Data includes places created in out of school clubs and holiday schemes.

  School Transport
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with religious organisations about the implications for church schools of new funding arrangements for school transport of pupils over the age of 16 years. [4996]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There have been no changes to the national funding arrangements for post-16 transport. My officials have not, therefore, had discussions with religious organisations. I understand that Northumberland LEA is considering changes to the support that it provides for transport locally and is consulting on these changes. It is for each LEA to determine the level of support that it makes in relation to local needs, and to have regard to parents' religious preferences.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has issued to education authorities and to learning and skills councils on future funding arrangements for transport to school for pupils aged over 16 years; how many education authorities propose to discontinue free transport on post-16 pupils; and if she will make a statement. [4997]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There have been no changes to the national funding arrangements for post-16 transport and no guidance has been issued. We do not have figures on the numbers of LEAs who propose to discontinue the provision of free transport for post-16 pupils. We are awaiting the outcome of a study into post-16 transport arrangements in September 2001 and will consider any recommendations and issue our response thereafter.

  Early Years Provision
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirements she has placed on(a) local authorities and (b) pre-school settings for the preparation of and application for kitemark schemes. [5084]
  410W
  Mr. Timms
  A range of quality assurance mechanisms is being used successfully by local authorities to raise standards. These include: Investors in People, Charter Mark and the Excellence Model. Some local authorities have also developed their own models. The revised LEA Code of Practice, which came into effect in February 2001, contains a non-statutory Annexe setting out the standards that local authorities should adhere to in their communications with schools.

  In March, Government announced "Investors in Children" a national quality-rating scheme for child care and early years education, as proposed in the Green Paper "Schools Building on Success". Early Years Development and Child Care Partnerships are working to meet a new national target to ensure that at least 40 per cent. of early years and child care providers have been accredited by a quality assurance scheme by 2004.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish, for each local education authority, in respect of(a) three year olds and (b) four year olds (i) the number resident in each local education authority, (ii) the number for whom places are available in pre-school settings, (iii) the number for whom places are available in schools, (iv) the number of places for which Government funding is provided, (v) category (iv) as a percentage of (i), (vi) category (iv) as a percentage of (ii) and (iii) and (vii) the number of residents whom the local EYCDP identifies as in need of provision. [5085]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested can be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Bullying
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the criteria for the inclusion of organisations in her Department's anti-bullying website, "Don't Suffer in Silence". [5122]

  Mr. Timms
  In installing links from our website to other websites of interest to bullied pupils we have considered the usefulness of the other sites to users, whether there is any controversial or inappropriate material, and whether the sites appear to support our policy on bullying.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when her officials plan to meet representatives of the charity Bullying Online. [5123]

  Mr. Timms
  My officials are ready to meet the representatives of Bullying Online at any time. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made this clear in a letter to the Director of the charity on 5 July.

  Trainee Teachers (Tests)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 9 July 2001, Official Report, column 403W, how many students who obtained QTS status last summer have(a) failed the skills tests in numeracy and literacy and (b) applied for an extension in order to retake the tests that they have failed. [5357]

  Mr. Timms
  231 of last year's newly qualified teachers have failed so far to pass the computerised numeracy skills test. They are not required to take the literacy test. We do not yet know how many have applied for an extension to their induction period to retake the test.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are being made to recruit the next HM Chief Inspector of Schools in England. [5610]

  Estelle Morris
  I am grateful to Mike Tomlinson for agreeing to extend his one-year appointment as HM Chief Inspector for five months. This extension, until 30 April 2002, was confirmed yesterday by Order in Council. Recruitment for the post will be run in accordance with the guidelines of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments following advertisement in the national press in September.

SCOTLAND

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will publish the protocols and guidance notes for the disinfection of milking parlours in Scotland following foot and mouth disease. [2767]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Detailed guidance is currently being drafted by DEFRA in respect of cleansing and the disinfection of milking parlours. It will be distributed widely among interested parties and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Information is available on the DEFRA and Scottish Executive websites in respect of disinfectants and their use generally in cleaning farms following an outbreak of FMD.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last travelled on the London Underground in the course of her official duties. [3685]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I use the most efficient and cost-effective mode of transport and travel on the underground as and when appropriate.

  Motoring Fines
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Treasury received from motoring fines in Scotland in each of the last five years. [3883]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Homes
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public funding Scottish Homes has received each year since 1989 [4033]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The table sets out the grant-in-aid allocations made to Scottish Homes each year between 1989 and 1999. On 1 July 1999 this became a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Public funding

  1989–90

  229.146

  1990–91

  266.445

  412W

  £ million

  Financial year

  Public funding

  1991–92

  450.746

  1992–93

  566.897

  1993–94

  320.212

  1994–95

  324.742

  1995–96

  294.921

  1996–97

  281.190

  1997–98

  314.986

  1998–99

  340.591

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many performance audits Scottish Homes has conducted each year since 1989. [4035]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The table shows how many performance audit inspections Scottish Homes conducted each year between 1989 and 1999. Figures from 1989 to 1993 are based on estimates only. On 1 July 1999 this became a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Year

  Number of performance audits conducted

  1989–90

  145

  1990–91

  145

  1991–92

  145

  1992–93

  145

  1993–94

  53

  1994–95

  46

  1995–96

  67

  1996–97

  82

  1997–98

  101

  1998–99

  90

  1 Estimates

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many statutory inquiries Scottish Homes has conducted each year since 1989. [4034]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The table sets out the number of statutory inquiries Scottish Homes instructed each year between 1989 and 1999. On 1 July 1999, this became a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Year

  Inquiries

  1989–90

  1

  1990–91

  0

  1991–92

  1

  1992–93

  2

  1993–94

  1

  1994–95

  0

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  2

  1998–99

  0

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental Ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4899]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A Minister will be on duty throughout the summer break, in line with the requirements of the current Ministerial Code.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Bereavement Payment
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if entitlement to bereavement payment in relation to persons abroad remains the same as that for widow's payment. [6037]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Yes. We shall shortly lay regulations (The Welfare Reform and Pensions (Persons Abroad: Benefits for Widows and Widowers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2001) amending the 1975 Persons Abroad regulations that restore the long established arrangements in the Widows Benefit scheme. These changes come into effect from 20 August 2001. Until then the few cases arising where the current Bereavement Benefit rules are not as we intended them to be from the outset in April this year will be dealt with in line with our original intention and the expenditure will be met by an extra-statutory arrangement.

  Annual Reports
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Employment Service annual report and accounts for 2000–01 will be laid before Parliament. [6038]

  Mr. Darling
  I have today laid before the House the Employment Service's annual report and accounts for 2000–2001 which gives full details of the Agency's performance and expenditure for that year.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the 2000–01 annual report and accounts for each of his agencies. [6039]

  Mr. Darling
  The 2000–2001 annual reports and accounts for the Benefits Agency (HC153), Child Support Agency (HC87), The Appeals Service (HC156) and War Pensions Agency (HC57) have been laid before Parliament today.

  Social Security Fraud Act
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish for public consultation the draft Code of Practice governing the information gathering powers in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. [6040]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Social Security Fraud Act contains new powers for the Department and local authorities to obtain information from the private sector and some public sector organisations, to combat benefit fraud.

  The Act makes provision for a statutory Code of Practice to govern the use of these powers. A draft Code was made available in the last Parliament and we now propose to conduct a formal public consultation exercise.

  Copies of the Code will be sent to a wide range of interested parties, and it will be placed on the Department's website. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and are available from the Vote Office. Respondents will have three months to respond.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans there are to ensure that occupational pension schemes have independent chairmen. [4620]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are currently working on changes to the Pensions Act 1995 that will ensure that more members will have the opportunity to become trustees of their occupational pension scheme. We expect to introduce regulations during this parliamentary Session.

  We have no plans to require the trustee boards of occupational pension schemes to have independent chairmen.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans there are to ensure that members of an occupational pension fund benefit from it in proportion to their contributions. [4621]

  Mr. McCartney
  The factors determining the benefits received by a member of an occupational pension fund differ depending on the type of scheme and the particular scheme rules.

  The Trustees of an occupational pension scheme must use the scheme's assets to provide benefits for members in accordance with the scheme rules.

  Non-state Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was contributed to non-state pensions in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 adjusted in each case to 1997 price terms. [5222]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table.

  The amount contributed to non-state pensions in each of the following years

  Year

  £ billion

  1999

  65

  2000

  69

  Notes

  1. Figures are in 1997 prices, rounded to the nearest billion

  2. Figures represent the contributions of employers and employees to self-administered pension funds and the pensions business of insurance companies

  Source

  MQ5 publication from the Office for National Statistics

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of working age(a) men and (b) women were contributing to a non-state pension in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [5224]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  These figures are not directly comparable with the figures for preceding years due to a change in methodology of the Family Resources Survey.
  415W

  Proportion of working age people contributing to a non-state pension in 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Male

  63

  Female

  54

  All

  59

  Notes

  1. Non-state pension refers to either an occupational or personal pension

  2. Working age refers to all those aged between 20 and the state retirement age who are in work

  3. The information is not available for the years 2000–01

  Source

  The Family Resources Survey

  English House Condition. Survey
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of people aged 60 years or over live in a home that falls below the standard of decency set out in the English House Condition Survey. [5216]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest information can be found in "Opportunity for All, One Year on: making a difference" (Cm 4865). Copies of this report have been placed in the Library.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what percentage of children have lived in households with incomes(a) below 60 per cent. and (b) below 70 per cent. of median household incomes, before housing costs, in at least three out of the last four years; [4803]

  (2) what percentage of children were living in households with income below (a) 40 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (b) 40 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (c) 50 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (d) 50 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (e) 60 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (f) 60 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (g) 50 per cent. of the median before housing costs, (h) 50 per cent. of the median after housing costs, (i) 60 per cent. of the median before housing costs. (j) 60 per cent. of the median after housing costs, (k) 70 per cent. of the median before housing costs and (l) 70 per cent. of the median after housing costs, with the mean and median incomes fixed at 1996–97 levels in real terms; [4805]

  (3) what percentage of pensioners in 1999–2000 were living in households with incomes below (a) 40 per cent. of mean household income before, (b) 50 per cent. of mean household income before, (c) 60 per cent. of mean household income before, (d) 40 per cent. of mean household income after, (e) 50 per cent. of mean household income after, (f) 60 per cent. of mean household income after, (g) 50 per cent. of median household income before, (h) 60 per cent. of median household income before, (i) 70 per cent. of median household income before, (j) 50 per cent. of median household income after, (k) 60 per cent. of median household income after and (l) 70 per cent. of median household income after housing costs; [5219]

  (4) what percentage of pensioners have had incomes (a) below 60 per cent. and (b) below 70 per cent. of median household incomes, in at least three out of the last four years; [5221]
  416W
  (5) what percentage of working age adults lived in households with incomes (a) below 60 per cent. and (b) below 70 per cent. of the median household income in at least three out of the last four years; [5227]

  (6) what percentage of pensioners in 1999–2000 were living in households with incomes below (a) 40 per cent. of mean household income before housing costs, (ii) 50 per cent. of mean household income before housing costs, (iii) 60 per cent. of mean household income before housing costs, (iv) 40 per cent. of mean household income after housing costs, (v) 50 per cent. of mean household income after housing costs, (vi) 60 per cent. of mean household income after housing costs, (vii) 50 per cent. of median household income before housing costs, (viii) 60 per cent. of median household income before housing costs, (ix) 70 per cent. of median household income before housing costs, (x) 50 per cent. of median household income after housing costs, (xi) 60 per cent. of median household income after housing costs and (xii) 70 per cent. of median household income after housing costs in each case taking mean and median household income to be 1996–97 values held constant in real terms; [5229]

  (7) what percentage of working age adults lived in households with an income below 40 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (b) 50 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (c) 60 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (d) 40 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (e) 50 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (f) 60 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (g) 50 per cent, of the median before housing costs, (h) 60 per cent. of the median before housing costs, (i) 70 per cent. of the median before housing costs, (j) 50 per cent. of the median after housing costs, (k) 60 per cent. of the median after housing costs and (l) 70 per cent. of the median after housing costs in each case using 1996–97 mean and median income held constant in real terms in 1999–2000; [5230]

  (8) what percentage of working age adults lived in households with an income below (a) 40 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (b) 50 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (c) 60 per cent. of the mean before housing costs, (d) 40 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (e) 50 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (f) 60 per cent. of the mean after housing costs, (g) 50 per cent. of the median before housing costs, (h) 60 per cent. of the median before housing costs, (i) 70 per cent. of the median before housing costs, (j) 50 per cent. of the median after housing costs, (k) 60 per cent. of the median after housing costs and (1) 70 per cent. of the median after housing costs in 1999–2000. [5231]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is contained in the Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1999–2000 report. Pages 59,75 and 88 show the specific results for children, working age adults and pensioners respectively. Copies of the publication have been placed in the Library.

  Disability and Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what work(a) is being and (b) has been carried out by his Department to develop a method of

  417W
  collecting information on (i) the number of people claiming incapacity benefit who are re-tested and (ii) the frequency with which they are re-tested; [5211]

  (2) which disability organisations have been consulted by his Department about the development of a method to collect information on (a) the number of people claiming incapacity benefit who are re-tested and (b) the frequency with which they are re-tested. [5212]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We already monitor the number of re-tests carried out and are always looking at ways to improve this information.

  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 July 2001, Official Report, column 567, we will discuss with groups representing disabled people the precise administrative arrangements that will underpin the proposed changes to Incapacity Benefit.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people on Incapacity Benefit have not been subject to a medical to assess capacity for work for(a) 10, (b) 15 and (c) 20 years; and what proportion this represents of total numbers of Incapacity Benefit recipients. [3465]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The majority of Incapacity Benefit recipients will have undergone a Personal Capability Assessment (known as the All Work Test before April 2000) to assess their capacity for work, which may have involved a medical examination. While data are kept on the number of medical examinations conducted, information is not available in the format requested.

  The proposed changes to Incapacity Benefit will shift the emphasis from disability to ability. People will be provided with help and guidance to move from benefit to work where they are able and wish to do so.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of people awarded short-term Incapacity Benefit have subsequently been awarded the long-term rate for an indefinite period in each of the last three years. [3224]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Percentage of people awarded Incapacity Benefit at the short-term rate who subsequently became entitled to benefit at the long-term rate

  Year

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  49

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  48

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  48

  Notes

  1. Figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample of claims to benefit.

  2. Entitlement to Incapacity Benefit was subject to the All Work Test during the period covered by this table (this was replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment from April 2000) unless the person was an exempt category. Long-term rate Incapacity Benefit is payable after 52 weeks of incapacity.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in receipt of(a) Incapacity Benefit, (b) Disability Living Allowance and (c) Severe Disability Allowance have had their benefit (i) cut and (ii) removed altogether following a Benefits Agency medical assessment in each of the last three years. [4346]
  418W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  There is no provision within the Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance schemes to award benefit at a reduced rate following a medical examination.

  Number of cases where entitlement to Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) ceased following a personal capability assessment1

  Thousand

  1 March 1999 to 29 February 2000

  IB

  127.6

  SDA

  0.9

  1 March 2000 to 28 February 2001

  IB

  96.9

  SDA

  0.7

  1 All work test prior to April 2000

  Notes

  1. National Insurance credits only cases are included in these figures

  2. Data are not available for 1998–99

  3. Analogous data are not available for Disability Living Allowance

  Source

  5 per cent. sample (excluding a small number of clerically held cases)

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate, for each local authority, the total amount saved in benefit expenditure in the most recent year for which figures are available arising from anti-fraud initiatives; what this figure was as a percentage of the total expenditure on social security benefits administered by each local authority; and what his aggregate estimate is for Great Britain. [4062]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]We aim to ensure that all our anti-fraud initiatives are effective in combating fraud and error. It is not possible to quantify the precise savings arising from our anti-fraud initiatives. We can measure the amount of savings from fraud that we have discovered and estimate how much is saved by our preventive initiatives.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have been employed at the Benefits Fraud Investigations Services, on average, in each year since 1997; and how many positions are vacant. [2259]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We set out our strategy for tackling fraud and error in the paper—"A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security" (CM 4276)—published on 23 March 1999. The overall aim of the strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment. The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of the Department, not just those staff involved in detecting fraud that has already occurred.

  The number of staff employed in BFIS since 1997 is shown in the table.
  419W

  Average number of BF1S staff employed in each year

  Number

  1996–97

  5,000

  1997–98

  5,184

  1998–99

  5,183

  1999–2000

  4,968

  2000–01

  4,914

  There were 313 vacant posts in BFIS at 9 July 2001. We are in competition with a number of agencies locally for staff with the right skills, however, the number of vacancies is expected to reduce over the next quarter due to promotion and recruitment exercises currently being undertaken.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the three Benefits Agency Medical Services contracts awarded to SEMA with particular reference to their impact on(a) management and investment in BAMS, (b) the delivery of service improvements to customers including speedier appointments and reduced waiting times, (c) the maintenance and improvement of quality of service and (d) the value for money offered to the taxpayer. [4404]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: All contracts awarded by the Department give due regard to value for money and quality of service. They are kept under continuous review to ensure that throughout the lifetime of the contract targets are met. The contracts awarded to SchlumbergerSema include targets on the length of the time taken to clear cases and reduce waiting times.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people received the year 2000 winter fuel payment; and what the total cost was. [4528]
  420W
  Mr. McCartney
  Over 11 million winter fuel payments were made last winter, 2000–01, at a cost of £1.7 billion.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the age limit on women in receipt of retirement state pension and able to claim invalid care allowance was reduced to 60 years; for what reasons this change was made; and if he will make a statement. [4112]

  Mr. McCartney
  From the introduction of Invalid Care Allowance in 1976 until 1994 the age limit for claiming the benefit was "pensionable age", which was 65 for men and 60 for women. On 28 October 1994 the maximum age at which Invalid Care Allowance could be claimed was changed from "pensionable age" to "age 65" in order to provide equality of treatment for both men and women. A woman can, therefore, claim Invalid Care Allowance between the ages of 60 and 65 while receiving State Retirement Pension.

  Retirement Pension and Invalid Care Allowance are both intended to help maintain income to avoid duplicate provision; however, the payment of the pension may extinguish or reduce the payment of the Invalid Care Allowance. On 3 October 2000 we announced that carers aged 65 and over would also be allowed to claim Invalid Care Allowance and this will be introduced as soon as possible.

  Old Age Pension
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many women received their first old age pension payment on the date of their 60'h birthday in 2000; [3535]

  (2) how many men received their first old age pension on the date of their 65 th birthday in 2000. [3536]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ian Stillman
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the imprisonment of Ian Stillman; and if he will make a statement. [4101]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As of 17 July the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had received 185 letters from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. We have also received correspondence from the Stillman family, members of the public, non-governmental organisations, Church groups and others.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release of Ian Stillman; and if he will make a statement. [4100]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the concerns about Mr. Stillman's welfare at a meeting on 26 June with the Indian High Commissioners and Prime Minister Vajpayee's Principal Secretary. The Indian High Commissioner asked for a written note highlighting our concerns and the Foreign Secretary duly wrote to the High Commissioner on 28 June.

  We will continue to speak to the Indian authorities to ensure that his appeal is heard swiftly.

  'Your Britain, Your Europe'
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on producing documents in the `Your Britain, Your Europe …', series. [4375]

  Peter Hain
  Ten different FCO leaflets published between November 1999 and June 2001 carry the 'Your Britain, Your Europe' logo: 'Your Britain, Your Europe' (17,000 copies); IGC: Reform for Enlargement (5,000 copies); 'The Future of Europe' (10,000 copies; 'Want to know more about Europe' (11,000 copies); 'What has the EU ever done for us' (8,000 copies); 'Regional Factsheets' (2,200 copies); 'The EU: What's in it for you?' (25,000 copies); 'The Treaty of Nice' (16,200 copies); 'The Stockholm European Council' (3,000 copies); 'The EU: International Crime and Courts' (5,000 copies). The total cost of these was £24,940.51. In addition, five quarterly newsletters were produced with a distribution of 10,000 copies each at a total cost of £18,568.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the documents in the 'Your Britain, Your Europe …', series has been checked for compliance with COI rules on public information. [4376]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO is committed by its Public Service Agreement to promote a better understanding of Britain's EU membership. The guidelines on Government information work are laid down by the Cabinet Office and are available at: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/central/1999/workgis/annex_a.htm. The FCO seeks to ensure that all its publications are fully consistent with these guidelines.
  422W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the Rural Development Plan referred to in his Department's document, 'Your Britain, Your Europe, Your Wales' is funded by the EU. [4323]

  Peter Hain
  Since devolution, issues concerning the Rural Development Plan in Wales are now the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. They provided the information referred to in the 'Your Britain, Your Europe, Your Wales' document.

  EU-Israel Customs Co-operation Committee
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items will be placed on the agenda of the EU-Israel Customs Co-operation Committee for 23 July. [3171]

  Peter Hain
  The EU/Israel Customs Co-operation Committee on 23–24 July will discuss a number of items of interest to the two parties. This discussion will include: questions relating to origin (including the implementation of Protocol 4 of the EU/Israel Association Agreement), extension and continuation of the EU/Israel customs dialogue, and mutual assistance between administrative authorities in customs matters.

  Private Military Companies
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to British embassies requiring them to report contact with companies which may be judged to fall within the sector of mercenaries and private military companies; and on what date this guidance was issued. [3398]

  Peter Hain
  Interim guidance to British embassies requiring them to report contacts with companies that may be judged to fall into the private military or security sector was issued in July 1998. This guidance was revised in April 1999. Disclosure of the report could harm the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of this Department.

  US Export Administration Act
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the United States Administration in relation to the US Export Administration Act since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [3707]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since we came to office, there has been no contact between the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the United States Administration in relation to the US Export Administration Act.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the US Export Administration Act in relation to the operation of UK law. [4277]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made no assessment of the impact of the US Export Administration Act in relation to the operation of UK law.

  Treaty of Rome
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a consolidated version of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty of Nice. [4258]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The Inter-Governmental Conference did not prepare a consolidated version of the treaty of Rome, and therefore it was not included in the Command Paper (Cm 5090) publishing the treaty of Nice. But we expect the Office for Official Publications of the European Union to publish

  Contract

  Original estimated cost (£ million)

  Original estimated completion date

  Actual cost (£ million)

  Actual Completion

  Remarks

  FTN Foreign Office Telecommunications Network

  165

  May 2010

  —

  —

  PFI contract

  Firecrest (external supply)

  45

  June 2001

  —

  —

  Call-off framework agreement contract. Further one year extension just signed

  Prism (procurement phase)

  2.2

  October 2001

  —

  —

  Planning and procurement costs

  Passports

  1.2

  May 2001

  1.2

  May 2001

  Capital purchases

  Dynamics

  0.8

  October 1999

  0.8

  August 2000

  —

  Consular Database

  1.0

  June 2006

  —

  —

  —

  Internet

  6.4

  July 2002

  —

  —

  —

  Fortress

  1.6

  March 1999

  1.6

  October 1999

  —

  FMAS Support

  11.3

  —

  —

  —

  Software support plus

  Microsoft Enterprise Licences

  5.6

  March 2001

  5.6

  March 2001

  —

  NAI Licences

  2.0

  End 2001

  —

  —

  —

  Pay

  1.4

  March 2002

  —

  —

  —

  Aramis

  10.27

  End 2003

  —

  —

  Annual costs predicted to fall as equipment is withdrawn

  Minerva

  10.2

  March 2007

  —

  —

  10 year PFI contract

  1 Per annum

  It would require disproportionate expense to provide details of contracts preceding the last three years.

  The information about suppliers cannot be supplied as it may be commercially confidential or have been supplied in confidence. There was insufficient time to seek the consent of the suppliers to its disclosure.

  Conference against Racism
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent the Government at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban. [5077]

  Peter Hain
  A final decision on UK representation at the World Conference Against Racism has not yet been taken.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be available. [5981]
  424W
  a version of the consolidated treaties in due course. We will place this in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as it becomes available.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3498]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]The information is in the table.

  Peter Hain
  The foundation has continued its crucial work in building democracy overseas, through a variety of targeted programmes ranging from the fostering of good governance to the promotion of civil society. The demands have been great, and the foundation has had some notable successes. The highlight was their work in Serbia where, through a wide-ranging programme of work, they helped the Serbian people assert their democratic rights. Work elsewhere in the Balkans, Africa and central and eastern Europe has also continued to bear fruit. In 2000–01 the foundation received a grant-in-aid of £4,155,000 from the FCO. Copies of the annual report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Hong Kong
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the next report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. [5982]

  Mr. MacShane
  The ninth report in this series covering the period January to June 2001 was published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and
  425W
  Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  Yugoslavia
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to EU sanctions in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [5983]

  Peter Hain
  In its conclusions of 22 January 2001, the EU General Affairs Council welcomed the free and fair conditions in which the legislative elections in Serbia in December 2000 had been held. Their outcome confirmed the determination of the people of Serbia to continue the consolidation of democracy in their country. It was decided that restrictive measures should therefore be confined to the former President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, his family, and persons indicated by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

  On 26 February 2001, the list of those affected by the EU visa ban was amended from 600 to 13 to fall in line with this decision. On 19 June 2001, the EC adopted Council Regulation (EC) 1205/2001 reducing the number of persons subject to Council Regulation (EC) No. 2488/2000, maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr. Milosevic and those persons associated with him, to the same list of persons.

  UK implementing legislation will be amended to take account of EC Regulation 1205/2001.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report on Strategic Export Controls will be published. [5984]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The 2000 annual report on Strategic Export Controls will be published at 10 am on 20 July. The report marks a further step forward in this Government's commitment to transparent and responsible controls on British strategic exports. It includes more detail on export licensing decisions and policy than in previous years, including data on surplus small arms destroyed by the Government and the number of small arms covered by standard individual export licences agreed in 2000. It will be available on the FCO website and through the Stationery Office.

  Diplomatic Immunity (Offences)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were allegedly committed in 2000 by persons entitled to immunity by virtue of their employment by a diplomatic mission or an international organisation, and by their dependants. [5985]

  Mr. MacShane
  From a community of over 19,500 persons entitled to immunity, 17 serious offences, allegedly committed by such persons, were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2000. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on Diplomatic Immunities and Privilege—ie as offences that would, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months' or more imprisonment.

  China
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of China regarding the treatment of Falun Gong members and their families. [4858]

  Mr. MacShane
  We raise our concerns about the harsh treatment and detention of Falun Gong adherents with the Chinese authorities at every appropriate opportunity including the twice-yearly UK and EU human rights dialogues. We did so most recently during talks in July in Beijing between senior officials on human rights issues.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the policy of critical engagement with the Chinese Government. [4857]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's strategy of encouraging and supporting China's closer integration in the international system was endorsed by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its report of November 2000 (HC 574-I). We believe that the most effective way for helping to bring about long-term and positive change in China is through engagement. At the same time, we criticise China where necessary, including over its human rights record.

  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom submitted its 2000 return to the UN Register of Conventional Arms; and if copies of the return will be placed in the Library. [5358]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government submitted the UK's return to the UN Register covering conventional arms transfers in calendar year 2000 on 11 July. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  World Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason BBC World Service broadcasts are no longer available via short wave in North America; and what percentage of the North American land mass is now within broadcast range of the World Service. [5102]

  Mr. MacShane
  The BBC World Service has stopped short wave broadcasts to North America because audiences there listen mainly on FM and the internet. The impact on audience figures will be reviewed next year. The funding released will help extend the World Service's global reach through new services, including short wave where it is needed. World Service broadcasts are available to the whole of North America on the internet and on FM and medium wave through over 230 public radio stations.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Buildings (Maintenance)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2001,Official Report,

  427W
  column 17, on Church Buildings (Maintenance), how much has been invested in the maintenance of church buildings in each of the last five years; and what has been the percentage increase in real terms. [5891]

  Mr. Bell
  The repair and maintenance of the Church of England's 16,250 churches are the responsibility of individual parochial church councils.

  A survey conducted for the Council for the Care of Churches estimated a total repair cost in 1998 of £123 million for such buildings. A study commissioned by the Churches Main Committee, based on a survey of a sample group of churches of all denominations in 1999, broadly supported a similar figure.

  Comparable figures for earlier years cannot readily be given as the basis on which that information is collected has changed during the five-year period.

HEALTH

  Annual Reports
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will publish its annual report and accounts. [5979]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual report and accounts have been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the 2000–01 annual report and accounts of the Medical Devices Agency. [6036]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have received the report and accounts of the Medical Devices Agency and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the annual report and accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [6042]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have approved the report and accounts which have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Breast Implants
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will respond to the Health Committee's report on the provision of information on the safety of breast implants, HC 308, Session 2000–01. [6041]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's response has been provided to the Committee today and copies are available in the Library.

  Prostate/Testicular Cancer
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men were diagnosed with (a) prostate and (b) testicular cancer in (i) 1971, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 2000. [4273]
  428W
  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Vernon Coaker, dated 18 July 2001 As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of men diagnosed with (a) prostate cancer and (b) testicular cancer in (i) 1971, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 2000.
  The latest available figures on the number of registrations of prostate and testicular cancer in 1971, 1980, 1990 and 1997 (the most recent year for which data are available) in England are given in the table below.

  Year of diagnosis

  Prostate

  Testis

  1971

  5,789

  612

  1980

  8,440

  826

  1990

  12,518

  1,199

  1997

  18,201

  1,411

  Disability Equipment
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in response to last year's Audit Commission report 'Fully Equipped' in respect of disability equipment available through the NHS. [4345]

  Jacqui Smith
  Leading up to and following the publication of the Audit Commission Report "Fully Equipped" the Government have taken the following steps:

  We have made available £105 million to the National Health Service for community equipment services over the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. We also took account of the need for additional investment in the personal social services settlement for 2001–02 to 2003–04 to enable councils to contribute an appropriate share to the expansion and integration of these services.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHS PASA) has commissioned a path-finding project looking at ways to modernise orthotic services in the NHS. We will be reviewing the findings in due course.

  As outlined in Health Service Circular 2001–01 and Local Authority Circular (2001) 1, we made available £0.5 million in 2001–02 and £ £1.5 million and £2.0 million in 2002–03 and 2003–04 respectively to be invested in silicone cosmesis. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency have undertaken a tendering exercise to make these products available on the NHS during August 2001.

  During 2000, we continued the £14 million from 1999–2000 for funding invested in indoor/outdoor powered chairs and vouchers and made it recurrent. We also made some adjustments to encourage the effective operation of the service, ending the separation of the allocations for wheelchairs and for vouchers, enabling funds to be spent on either, according to users' wishes, with a voucher scheme being retained in all locations to provide choice. We hope that this greater freedom in the use of funds will help people's needs to be met as effectively as possible.
  429W
  The Department's project "Modernising NHS hearing aid services" is evaluating leading-edge digital hearing aids for NHS patients, coupled with an evaluation of associated service delivery changes. Digital hearing aids require different service delivery models as they incorporate information technology based assessment and fitting procedures. £10.75 million will be available for the 20 NHS hearing aid departments involved in the project over the two years 2000 –01 and 2001–02. If the project is successful by 2003–04 we will be investing an extra £25 million in NHS hearing aid services.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into(a) waiting times and (b) the standard of provision of disability equipment services since the publication of the Audit Commission's report "Fully Equipped". [5230]

  Jacqui Smith
  Leading up to and following the publication of the Audit Commission report "Fully Equipped", the Department is undertaking a major piece of work as part of the NHS Plan in modernising community equipment services. The Department published guidance "Guide to Integrating Community Equipment", issued on 27 March.

  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency have commissioned some work looking at ways to modernise orthotic services in the NHS. We will be reviewing the findings in due course.

  The departmental project "Modernising NHS hearing aid services" is evaluating leading edge digital hearing aids for NHS patients, coupled with an evaluation of associated service delivery changes. Digital hearing aids require different service delivery models as they incorporate IT-based assessment and fitting procedures. £10.75 million will be available for the 20 NHS hearing aid departments involved in the project over the two years 2000–01 and 2001–02. If the project is successful by 2003–04 we will be investing an extra £ million in NHS hearing aid services.

  No research has been commissioned to date on prosthetic and wheelchair services.

  Health Care (Costs)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions on the level of health care cost inflation his Department is using in respect of the financial years(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02, (e) 2002–03 and (f) 2003–04. [4144]

  Mr. Hutton
  The level of health care cost inflation for the financial year 1998–99 was 4.0 per cent. and for 1999–2000 it was 4.5 per cent. The figures are taken from the National Health Service hospital and community health service (HCHS) pay and price inflation index. The latest year that data are available is 1999–2000.

  Assumptions for future years will be made based on our inflation target and possible recommendations from the pay review bodies.

  The HCHS pay and price inflation index provides an indication of inflation experienced within the NHS HCHS. It is compiled by combining pay and price inflation within the HCHS. It is a retrospective index in that it is developed from available data and therefore projections of future years are not available.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds there are at St. George's Hospital, Tooting. [4530]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the financial year 1999–2000, St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust had 767 average daily number of acute beds in wards open overnight.

  Figures are taken from the annual 'Omer return KH03—"Bed availability and occupancy" England 1999–2000.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated for the present financial year to(a) St George's Hospital, Tooting, and (b) Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. [4879]

  Mr. Hutton
  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority's allocation for 2001–02 is £ £498.646 million. This represents an increase of £42.445 million or 9.3 per cent. over the allocation for the previous financial year.

  Revenue funding is not allocated directly to national health service trusts. Trusts receive their income by way of service agreements with health authorities. However, St. George's NHS Trust has received capital allocations of £6.400 million in 2001–02. This includes £0.675 million for the Local Capital Modernisation Fund and £1.152 million for "action on" programmes for orthopaedics and ear, nose and throat.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated at St. George's hospital, Tooting, in 2000. [4880]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of admissions to St George's National Health Service Trust in the year 1999–2000 was 66,121.

  This information is extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics system, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in NHS hospitals in England. Some individuals may be treated more than once.

  Chiropodists
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of chiropodists in the NHS, with particular reference to their screening for diabetes. [4281]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have published the Allied Health Professions Strategy, which highlights the role of chiropodists/podiatrists. Chiropodists are an integral part of the Government patient-focused policy programme, particularly in relation to older people and diabetes, which are part of the National Service Framework programme.

  Chiropodists/podiatrists are valued members of the national health service work force: they play a key role in detecting indications of diabetes, eg foot ulcers. However, there are also screening methods which can pick up indications of diabetes or those at risk of developing it, before such signs become apparent.
  431W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on access to chiropody services in the(a) NHS and (b) independent sector. [4280]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about patient contacts with the chiropody service in England is collected on Department of Health return KT23 and published each year. The latest publication "Chiropody services: summary information for 1999–2000, England" is in the Library. The Department does not collect data on the independent sector.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of proposals to regulate chiropodists in the non-state registered sector. [4868]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new Health Professions Council will determine arrangements for the admission to the register. The council will have a duty to consult and involve those likely to be affected by its proposals.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the representation of private chiropodists on the NPC, indicating if private chiropodists will be allowed to select their own representative. [4925]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new Health Professions Council has one professional member from each of the professions, including Chiropody, currently regulated by the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. There is no specific provision for non-state registered chiropodists to be represented on the new council. However the new council will have a duty to consult and involve those likely to be affected by its proposals.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the competency tests proposed for private chiropodists; and for what reason those tests will not be applied to all chiropodists. [4926]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new council will be responsible for determining competency tests required for registration. The tests will apply to all professions including chiropodists. The new council will have a duty to consult and involve those likely to be affected about the standards of proficiency it requires for registration.

  Prosthetic Services
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that national prosthetic services attracts the appropriate calibre of qualified personnel. [5330]

  Jacqui Smith
  All professional staff in prosthetic services are highly skilled graduates. The team is made up of multi-professional members including doctors, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and, importantly, prosthetists. All the staff are graduates and have to be state registered.

  Qualification for prosthetists are B.Sc. Honours; entry onto the courses is at Strathclyde and Salford Universities. Once students qualify, they are state registered by the Council of Professions Supplementary to Medicine (CPSM). Prosthetic service contracts negotiated by the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency generally stipulate the minimum number of days a prosthetist will be allocated to continuing professional development. This is normally around one day per month.
  432W
  Other staff groups including physiotherapists and occupational therapists are provided by the NHS for these services. All staff have a professional obligation to keep themselves up to date and maintain and develop their skills.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the national prosthetic service is adequately funded. [5328]

  Jacqui Smith
  Prosthetic services are currently commissioned and funded by health authorities who base their resource allocation on local need.

  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency, supported by the Department, has commenced work on the development of a commissioning guide for prosthetic services. This will provide a tool for commissioners to ensure that funding is utilised in the most effective way and highlight to them the most important factors required for a user focused service.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that patients requiring modern prosthetic limbs have access to a high quality, well fitting and comfortable choice. [5329]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients who require artificial limb components have available to them through their national health service limb centre the widest possible range of limb componentry. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency who negotiate the contract on behalf of the NHS source these products from manufacturers across Europe and North America. The NHS PASA contract has some 18,000 lines available to NHS rehabilitation centres. If any new products become available from contracted suppliers, the NHS PASA contract has the flexibility to add these throughout the contract term. There is an emphasis in contracts on continuing professional development to ensure that prosthetic staff are able to deliver the highest quality service to their patients.

  New products such as gel liners/silicone liners, and techniques such as computer aided design and computer aided manufacture for fitting limbs are already being used by some trusts across the country to maximise comfort and fitting. Modernisation of this sort will be evaluated and where appropriate will expand to all centres.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the quality of prosthetic services available to patients in the UK are of at least an equal standard to those available in(a) the rest of Europe and (b) in North America. [5364]

  Jacqui Smith
  Prosthetic services have moved from providing a "limb fitting service" to an "amputee rehabilitation service". Disablement service centres (DSCs) now treat users in a more holistic manner. This has resulted in the development of a whole package of care and has given more involvement to occupational therapists, physiotherapists and counsellors in the service. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of this multi-professional approach.

  Many DSCs prescribe state of the art components. The UK was the first country in the world to develop and

  433W
  adopt an intelligent prosthesis. Another important feature of the UK service is that product prescription is impartial, based on clinical need, whereas in some countries commercial considerations are taken into account.

  The delivery of prosthetic services around the world is far more fragmented than in the UK. For example England delivers prosthetic services from 33 DSCs which means that the service benefits from the concentration of expertise and economies of scale.

  The UK prosthetic service is well structured, provides good value for money and delivers a coherent service.

  A recent Government development is the introduction of silicon cosmesis, as outlined in HSC2001/01 and LAC (2001)1. We have made available £0.5 million in 2001–02 and ££;.5 million and –2.0 million in 2002–03 and 2003–04 respectively to be invested in silicone cosmesis. The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency have undertaken a tendering exercise to

  Scheme

  Capital value (£ million)

  Consortia

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  94

  Carillion Construction1

  Carillion Services Ltd.2

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  65

  AMEC1

  Building and Property Group2

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  45

  Taylor Woodrow1

  Healthcare Group2

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  93

  Kvaerner Construction1

  ISS Mediclean/Kvaerner Rashleigh/Weatherfoil2

  Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust

  65

  Bovis1

  RCO/Bovis Building Management2

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  61

  Balfour Haden JV1

  Initial/Haden2

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  158

  Laing1

  Serco2

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  66

  Alfred McAlpine1

  WS Atkins/Sodexho1

  Bromley Healthcare NHS Trust

  118

  Taylor Woodrow1

  Taylor Woodrow/ISS Mediclean2

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  54

  Bouygues1

  Ecovert South2

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  87

  Bovis1

  RCO/Bovis2

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  64

  Alfred McAlpine/1

  Sodexho/WS Atkins2

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  41

  Shepherds1

  Jarvis/ISS Mediclean2

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  122

  Mowlem1

  Aqumen FM2

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  96

  Carillion Construction1

  Carillion Services Ltd.2

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  64

  Costain/Skanska1

  Sodexho2

  Leeds Community NHS Trust

  47

  Carillion/Weaver Construction1

  Bradford and Northern Housing Association2

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust

  49

  Gleeson1

  Chesterton2

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  404

  AMEC/Balfour Beatty1

  Building and Property Group2

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  22

  Bilfinger and Berger/Haden Young1

  MandW Zander2

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  60

  Bouygues1

  Ecovert2

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  137

  Sir Robert McAlpine1

  Building and Property2

  West Berkshire Priority Care NHS Trust

  30

  Kier1

  ISS2

  1 Constructor

  2 FM provider

  434W
  make these products available on the NHS during August 2001. This was announced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in March 2001.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the PH contracts entered into since 1997, indicating(a) the value of the PFI,.(b) the name of the successful contractor, (c) those PFIs which have benefited from refinancing arrangements, (d) the value of the benefit accrued to the company concerned and (e) the extent of the clawback. [4534]

  Mr. Hutton
  There follows a list of major private finance initiatives contracts which have been signed since May 1997; the capital value of the contract; and the names of the leading contractors and facilities management firms who make up the successful consortia. To date none of the PFI schemes listed have been refinanced.

  Constructor FM provider
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what central monitoring his Department undertakes of value for money obtained in Private Finance Initiative projects; and if he will make a statement. [4460]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department reviews all private finance initiative projects over £ million in value through the Business Case approval system. To be approved, the Business Case must clearly demonstrate that, overall, the private finance option is better value for money when compared to the publicly funded alternative, the Public Sector Comparator, and that it provides improved facilities for the national health service. NHS trusts are required to monitor performance throughout the lifetime of the PFI contract.

  As a result of PFI, six major new hospitals have opened and another 17 are under construction, representing capital investment in the NHS of over £2 billion.

  Consultant
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of whole-time equivalent consultant vacancies in the NHS by specialty. [4421]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available about the number of whole-time equivalent consultant vacancies. The Department collects information about vacant consultant posts, and information by speciality, taken from the 2001 vacancy survey, is provided in the table.

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2001—vacancies in national health service trusts in England—consultants three month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3 for total of each group

  Rates (percentage)

  Vacancies

  Total consultants

  3.0

  670

  Specific specialities

  Accident and emergency

  7.9

  40

  Anaesthetics (inc. intensive care)

  1.7

  60

  General surgery

  1.7

  20

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  1.5

  20

  Ophthalmology

  0.8

  10

  Oral and Maxillo Facial Surgery

  5.6

  10

  Otolaryngology

  2.9

  10

  Paediatric surgery

  5.7

  10

  Plastic surgery

  2.9

  10

  Trauma and orthopaedic surgery

  2.2

  30

  Urology

  2.7

  10

  Cardiology

  2.6

  10

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  1.6

  0

  Clinical oncology

  3.8

  10

  Clinical radiology

  4.6

  70

  Haematology

  2.1

  10

  Histopathology

  6.0

  50

  Medical oncology

  3.8

  0

  Palliative medicine

  7.4

  10

  Forensic psychiatry

  5.2

  10

  General psychiatry

  7.8

  130

  Learning Disabilities

  13.3

  30

  Geriatric medicine

  3.0

  20

  Old Age Psychiatry

  9.3

  30

  Diabetes medicine

  2.7

  10

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents)

  436W
  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses (whole-time equivalent)

  3 Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to one decimal place

  2. England totals include staff from Special Health Authorities

  3. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants left the NHS in(a) England and (b) Buckingham in each year since 1980. [5644]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Information about consultant vacancies in England and in Buckinghamshire health authority are shown in the table.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, 1999–2001 Consultant vacancies in Buckinghamshire health authority3 Three-month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers4

  Number of three-month consultant vacancies

  Three-month consultant vacancy rate (percentage)5

  1999

  England

  470

  2.3

  Buckinghamshire HA

  10

  2.6

  2000

  England

  600

  2.8

  Buckinghamshire HA

  40

  0.8

  2001

  England

  670

  3.0

  Buckinghamshire HA

  40

  0.4

  1 Three-month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three-month vacancy rates are three-month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three-month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses (whole time equivalent).

  3 HA figures are based on Trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of health care.

  4 Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  5 Percentages are calculated on unrounded figures and rounded to one decimal place.

  Source

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001

  Hospital Travel Costs Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the hospital travel costs scheme; and if he will make a statement. [4642]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no immediate plans to extend the hospital travel costs scheme. However, the scheme is being kept under review.

  National Service Framework
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the terms of reference, work programme and schedule for the national service framework reviews. [4081]
  437W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI), with the Audit Commission—and Social Services Inspectorate where appropriate—will review the implementation of each national service framework (NSF) at an appropriate time following their publication to allow for a period of early implementation prior to review.

  NSFs which have already been published are: Mental Health NSF, September 1999; Coronary Heart Disease NSF, March 2000; and Older People NSF, March 2001.

  The next NSF due to be published in 2001 is the Diabetes NSF. We have announced further NSFs on Renal Services, Children's Services, and Long Term Conditions.

  CHI will publish details of the broad scope and timing of each review once this has been agreed.

  CHI and the Audit Commission have already undertaken a review of the implementation of the Calman-Hine/Cameron reports on commissioning cancer services in England and Wales. The report is expected in the autumn.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the National Service Framework for Older People set out in paragraph 29, page 141 of the NSF; and what plans his Department has to analyse the impact of them. [4873]

  Jacqui Smith
  A general assessment of implications for wider areas of education and training was provided within the National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People. A more detailed assessment and analysis to ensure achievement of the NSF milestones will be undertaken nationally by the National Workforce Development Board, informed by the Care Group Workforce Team for older people to be established shortly, and working with education and training bodies. Regional directors of workforce development and local workforce development confederations working with local education and training organisations will play a local role.

  Child Protection Register
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each London borough council are registered on the child protection register; and if he will make a statement. [4788]

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest figures available show the number of children on the child protection register of each London borough council as at 31 March 2000. These are as shown in the table.

  Numbers of children on child protection registers at 31 March 2000, and rates per 10,000 of the population

  Numbers of children on the CPR at 31 March 2000

  Rate per 10,000 population

  London

  4,809

  29

  Inner London

  Camden

  179

  48

  City of London

  1

  12

  Greenwich

  255

  47

  Hackney

  263

  51

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  153

  50

  438W

  Numbers of children on child protection registers at 31 March 2000, and rates per 10,000 of the population

  Numbers of children on the CPR at 31 March 2000

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Islington

  221

  58

  Kensington and Chelsea

  70

  22

  Lambeth

  212

  34

  Lewisham

  217

  37

  Southwark

  164

  28

  Tower Hamlets

  130

  25

  Wandsworth

  142

  29

  Westminster

  98

  26

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  110

  27

  Barnet

  181

  24

  Bexley

  137

  27

  Brent

  112

  19

  Bromley

  172

  27

  Croydon

  294

  37

  Ealing

  84

  12

  Enfield

  101

  16

  Haringey

  226

  44

  Harrow

  148

  30

  Havering

  106

  21

  Hillingdon

  129

  22

  Hounslow

  214

  43

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  37

  12

  Merton

  87

  21

  Newham

  223

  31

  Redbridge

  73

  13

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  83

  22

  Sutton

  101

  25

  Waltham Forest

  86

  16

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children aged under 18 years registered during 1999–2000 on the child protection register had previously been registered. [5233]

  Jacqui Smith
  Of those children registered on a child protection register in England during the year ending 31 March 2000, 14 per cent. had previously been registered.

  Health Care (Undergraduates)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the annual cost of providing to undergraduate students(a) free dental care, (b) free eye tests and (c) free prescriptions. [4911]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated costs of extending free treatment to undergraduate students in England are shown in the table:

  Free treatment

  Approximate figure £ million

  Dental care

  12

  Eye tests

  5

  Prescriptions

  34

  Nursing Vacancies
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies there are in(a) England and (b) Cumbria. [5341]
  439W
  Mr. Hutton
  The listed data show the number of nursing posts which have been vacant for three months or more (and the vacancy rate) in England and in North Cumbria and Morecambe Bay health authorities.

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2001 Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff vacancies in England and in the specified health authority areas1 three month vacancy rates2,3 and numbers4

  Vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage5,6)

  England

  9,020

  3.4

  North Cumbria HA

  20

  1.4

  Morecambe Bay HA

  10

  0.7

  1 HA figures are based on Trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare.

  2 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  3 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical workforce censuses (whole-time equivalent).

  4 Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  5 Percentages are calculated on unrounded figures.

  6 Percentages rounded to one decimal.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001.

  Absence
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days on average were lost per employee in his Department because of sickness; and how many officials retired early from his Department in each of the past 10 years. [R] [5055]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  Average1 days lost per employee through sickness

  Early retirements

  1992

  2—

  64

  1993

  9.7

  104

  1994

  9.68

  92

  1995

  9.8

  253

  1996

  7.14

  171

  1997

  7.8

  44

  1998

  7.4

  26

  1999

  6.8

  21

  2000

  3—

  26

  2001

  3—

  10

  1 Working days absences exclude weekends and bank holidays for staff working a "Monday to Friday" week

  2 Not available

  3 Not yet published

  Note:

  Combined data for the Departments of Health and Social Security continued to be collected by the then Department of Social Security (DSS) following the break up of the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS). Separate figures are not available for the Department of Health.

  Psychiatric Services
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses are 440W
  qualified to work with children and adolescents in Milton Keynes; and how many this represents in relation to the population under 16 years of age. [5315]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally in the format requested. Information on child and adolescent psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses for Buckinghamshire is as follows:

  National health service hospital and community health services: medical and dental and qualified non-medical staff working in the psychiatric areas of work within Buckinghamshire health authority as at 30 September 2000

  headcount

  per 100,000 of under 16 population

  Psychiatric nurses of which:

  440

  296.3

  Community psychiatry

  130

  88.6

  Other psychiatry

  310

  207.7

  Child and adolescent psychiatrists

  20

  10.8

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for referrals to child and adolescent psychiatric services in Milton Keynes. [5316]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the waiting times for an appointment for child and adolescent services following referral are collected on a quarterly basis and placed in the Library. The latest figures for quarter 4 (January to March 2001) of the 2000–01 financial year indicate that Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust had no patients waiting over 13 weeks.

  Drug Procedures
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place to ensure that injections of drugs that may be life threatening are correctly and safely administered. [4578]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 July 2001]The controls assurance framework requires all national health service trusts to identify the risks associated with the safe and secure handling of medicines and develop and implement procedures to ensure the minimisation of risk. These procedures would cover drugs which would be hazardous if given by the wrong route, for example, injected intrathecally rather than intravenously.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has
  441W
  received applications for research for the purposes set out in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001. [6035]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has recently received an application for research from the Centre for Genome Research in Edinburgh. I understand that this centre has an established research team which has already held licences for embryo and stem cell research.

  The application proposes to establish stem cell lines from spare embryos, with a view to depositing the resulting cells in the Medical Research Council stem cell bank, to improve understanding of the growth and survival of pre-implantation human embryos, thereby benefiting in-vitro fertilisation treatment programmes. The proposed programme will also examine the potential for cell replacement and tissue repair therapies for a range of serious diseases.

  Embryo research in the United Kingdom is subject to the most comprehensive regulation. As with all applications for research involving embryos, this application will be subject to detailed consideration by the HFEA to ensure that it meets the strict requirements of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Before deciding on the application, the HFEA requires full details of the project and Research Ethics Committee approval. The application must also explain the project's objectives, protocols and why the use of embryos is necessary for the research.

  This application will require specific justification for the extraction of stem cells and will be subject to peer review on its merits. It will also require details of patient information and consent forms specifying the purpose of the research and all possible uses of the cells lines derived from it. If approved, the project will be closely monitored by the HFEA to ensure that it continues to meet the conditions laid down by the 1990 Act and any conditions imposed by the authority.

  Nurses
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average length of time it took the UK Central Council to register nurses from overseas over the last six months for which figures are available, broken down by country. [4188]

  Jacqui Smith
  This is a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC). The UKCC does not collect information on the length of time for specific registrations by country. However, I am informed by the UKCC that the average time for processing non-European Union applications for registration is 85 working days.

  Recruitment Agencies
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what procedure recruitment agencies achieve recognition by an NHS trust; and what steps he takes to monitor their performance. [4189]

  Jacqui Smith
  Individual national health service trusts have their own procedures for recruiting staff and may use a variety of ways to select recruitment agencies.
  442W
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency helps by awarding, where appropriate, national or regional contracts for medical locums or nurses. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency monitors the performance of the contracts that it awards by holding regular meetings with the NHS trusts and the agencies involved to monitor whether the NHS is receiving value for money. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency inserts a clause in these contracts that allows it to carry out an audit of the contracted agencies.

  The NHS Professionals Agency which will be set up from August 2001 will provide a non-profit making staffing service for the NHS. Initially it will provide nursing staff, but eventually will also cover other medical staff. The NHS Professionals Agency will oversee training and continuing personal development, give temporary staff a better employment package, and will provide a cost-effective staffing solution for the NHS.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set out the timetable for commencement of section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 for each group affected by the provision; [4924]

  (2) what arrangements will be made to monitor the adequacy of the money allocated for free nursing care from October to April and to allocate additional funds in the event of a shortfall of allocation to actual expenditure; [4923]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the draft guidance and directions he plans to issue to implement the provisions of section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001; [4869]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 17 July 2001,Official Report, columns 113–14W.

  Anti-psychotic Medication
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, on anti-psychotic medication, what work his Department has undertaken to explain the trend in prescribing; what were the key findings; and if he will set out prescription numbers (a) by region and (b) by ages (i) under 16, (ii) 16 to 25, (iii) 26 to 35, (iv) 36 to 45, (v) 46 to 55, (vi) 56 to 65, (vii) 66 to 75 and (viii) over 75. [5292]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is expected to issue guidance on the use of these drugs in December.
  443W
  The two tables show:

  (a) The number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England by health authority for atypical anti-psychotic drugs, 1999 and 2000; and

  (b) The number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for atypical anti-psychotic drugs by broad age group 1999 and 2000.

  We do not hold prescribing information on the age breakdown asked for.

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for atypical anti-psychotic drugs, 1999 and 2000

  Thousand

  Health authority

  1999

  2000

  Avon

  13.4

  21.7

  Barking and Havering

  5.1

  8.0

  Barnet

  6.9

  10.1

  Barnsley

  2.6

  4.1

  Bedfordshire

  4.7

  10.3

  Berkshire

  11.2

  16.2

  Bexley and Greenwich

  5.7

  8.1

  Birmingham

  16.7

  25.3

  Bradford

  6.8

  10.5

  Brent and Harrow

  8.7

  12.6

  Bromley

  4.8

  6.6

  Buckinghamshire

  9.4

  14.7

  Bury and Rochdale

  6.4

  9.6

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  8.5

  14.3

  Cambridgeshire

  8.6

  13.2

  Camden and Islington

  8.2

  11.4

  Cornwall and Isles Of Scilly

  6.2

  8.5

  County Durham and Darlington

  8.5

  13.7

  Coventry

  7.8

  12.0

  Croydon

  7.5

  10.9

  Doncaster

  4.0

  5.0

  Dorset

  10.3

  13.8

  Dudley

  3.1

  4.3

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  10.7

  15.6

  East and North Hertfordshire

  6.8

  10.3

  East Kent

  12.0

  16.5

  East Lancashire

  9.3

  13.9

  East London and The City

  12.4

  17.4

  East Riding and Hull

  10.1

  14.5

  East Surrey

  5.8

  7.3

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  15.5

  22.0

  Enfield and Haringey

  8.6

  13.2

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  6.5

  8.9

  Gloucestershire

  5.4

  8.3

  Herefordshire

  1.3

  2.1

  Hillingdon

  2.5

  3.5

  Isle Of Wight

  3.3

  4.9

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  7.6

  11.1

  Kingston and Richmond

  5.4

  8.4

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  15.7

  22.8

  Leeds

  17.1

  23.5

  Leicestershire

  11.6

  16.8

  Lincolnshire

  6.5

  10.2

  Liverpool

  12.8

  18.1

  Manchester

  12.7

  18.7

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  12.9

  18.4

  Morecambe Bay

  6.2

  9.1

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  15.6

  21.6

  Norfolk

  9.1

  15.5

  North and East Devon

  9.1

  12.8

  North and Mid Hampshire

  10.2

  14.2

  North Cheshire

  3.8

  5.6

  North Cumbria

  5.9

  8.9

  North Derbyshire

  3.9

  5.8

  North Essex

  12.9

  19.0

  North Nottinghamshire

  4.2

  5.6

  North Staffordshire

  5.2

  7.9

  North West Lancashire

  7.5

  14.5

  North Yorkshire

  7.8

  12.6

  444W

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for atypical anti-psychotic drugs, 1999 and 2000

  Thousand

  Health authority

  1999

  2000

  Northamptonshire

  8.6

  10.8

  Northumberland

  6.0

  7.6

  Nottingham

  2.7

  3.1

  Oxfordshire

  9.5

  14.5

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  8.6

  12.7

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8.1

  11.7

  Rotherham

  5.1

  7.1

  Salford and Trafford

  9.0

  13.8

  Sandwell

  4.5

  4.7

  Sefton

  6.0

  10.5

  Sheffield

  5.5

  7.1

  Shropshire

  6.3

  9.2

  Solihull

  3.2

  4.0

  Somerset

  4.5

  8.3

  South and West Devon

  9.8

  17.4

  South Cheshire

  11.3

  17.9

  South Essex

  9.3

  13.8

  South Humber

  4.5

  5.9

  South Lancashire

  4.0

  7.0

  South Staffordshire

  5.9

  9.5

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  9.7

  17.2

  Southern Derbyshire

  4.1

  6.1

  St Helens and Knowsley

  6.2

  10.9

  Stockport

  5.8

  8.9

  Suffolk

  6.7

  11.4

  Sunderland

  5.2

  6.7

  Tees

  7.8

  12.6

  Wakefield

  6.1

  9.1

  Walsall

  4.8

  5.7

  Warwickshire

  8.1

  11.8

  West Hertfordshire

  8.4

  12.1

  West Kent

  12.8

  21.4

  West Pennine

  6.9

  8.8

  West Surrey

  8.0

  13.1

  West Sussex

  11.2

  16.6

  Wigan and Bolton

  10.2

  16.0

  Wiltshire

  10.3

  14.1

  Wirral

  9.2

  13.6

  Wolverhampton

  5.1

  5.5

  Worcestershire

  4.8

  7.0

  England

  772.6

  1,149.4

  Notes:

  1. The prescription information is from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The information shows the number of prescription items dispensed in each health authority. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  2. Atypical anti-psychotics are defined within British National Formulary paragraph 4.2.1, antipsychotic drugs, and cover the drugs Amisulpride, Clozapine, Olanzapine, Quetiapine, Risperidone and Zotepine,

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for atypical anti-psychotic drugs by broad age group 1999 and 2000

  1999

  2000

  Prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only (thousands)

  Children aged 0–15 years

  6.5

  9.7

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  252.7

  428.8

  Aged 16 to 59 years1

  405.4

  555.1

  Aged 16 to 59 years2,3

  81.5

  117.4

  445W

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for atypical anti-psychotic drugs by broad age group 1999 and 2000

  1999

  2000

  Prescription items dispensed by dispensing doctors and items personally administered (thousands)

  All ages

  26.5

  38.4

  All prescription items dispensed in the community

  All ages

  772.6

  1,149.4

  1 Exempt

  2 Charged

  3 Includes prepayments

  Notes:

  1. The age related information is based on an analysis of those not required to pay a charge indicated by the categories completed on the back of the prescription form. This is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all prescription items submitted to the Prescription Pricing Authority by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Dispensing doctor prescriptions were not analysed into categories for 1999 and most of 2000. Personally administered items are free of charge.

  2. Atypical anti-psychotics are defined within British National Formulary paragraph 4.2.1, antipsychotic drugs, and cover the drugs Amisulpride, Clozapine, Olanzapine, Quetiapine, Risperidone and Zotepine.

  Community-based Services
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people aged 65 years and over receive community-based services. [5218]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at 31 March 2000 (the latest date for which data are available), an average of 8.5 per cent. of people in England aged 65 years and over were in receipt of community-based social services provided or commissioned by local authorities.

  In 1999–2000, the latest year for which information is available, it is estimated that 21 per cent. of people aged 65 and over were receiving care from the district nursing service, 2 per cent. from health visitors and 2 per cent. from the community psychiatric nursing service. Contact with the community learning disability service for this age group was negligible. We do not hold data centrally on the proportion of people aged 65 and over who receive primary care-based services.

  Nursing and Residential Care
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care(a) homes and (b) beds have closed in Buckingham in each year since 1997. [5637]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with number of new registrations, are shown in the table. Information is not available centrally on the number of beds associated with closures or new registrations.

  Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in Buckinghamshire. Year ending 31 March

  1999

  2000

  Number of establishment closures

  Residential1

  5

  5

  Nursing2

  3—

  3

  446W

  Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in Buckinghamshire. Year ending 31 March

  1999

  2000

  Number of new registrations

  Residential1

  10

  10

  Nursing2

  3—

  2

  1 Buckinghamshire county council and Milton Keynes council

  2 Buckinghamshire health authority

  3 Not available

  Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care(a) homes and (b) beds have closed in Cumbria in each year since 1997. [5764]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with number of new registrations, are shown in the table. Information is not available centrally on the number of beds associated with closures or new registrations.

  Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in Cumbria. Year ending 31 March

  1999

  2000

  Number of establishment closures

  Residential1

  19

  11

  Nursing2

  2

  2

  Number of new registrations

  Residential1

  15

  8

  Nursing2

  0

  0

  1 Cumbria county council

  2 North Cumbria and Morecambe Bay health authorities

  Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for (1) Health how many general practitioners there were in(a) England and (b) Buckingham in each year since 1980; [5639]

  (2) how many general practitioners ceased working in (a) England and (b) Buckingham in each year since 1980. [5641]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information regarding the number of general practitioners in England and Buckinghamshire in each year since 1980 is shown in table 1. Information regarding leavers is available only from 1990–91. This information is shown in table 2.

  Table 1: Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) 1 in England and Buckinghamshire FHSA/HA 1980 to 20002

  Headcount

  Year

  England

  Buckinghamshire FHSA

  UPEs in post

  1980

  21,812

  255

  1981

  22,304

  264

  1982

  22,786

  273

  1983

  23,254

  282

  1984

  23,640

  293

  1985

  24,035

  304

  1986

  24,460

  312

  1987

  24,922

  323

  1988

  25,322

  332

  447W

  Table 1: Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) 1 in England and Buckinghamshire FHSA/HA 1980 to 20002

  Headcount

  Year

  England

  Buckinghamshire FHSA

  1989

  25,608

  335

  1990

  25,622

  337

  1991

  25,686

  348

  1992

  25,968

  353

  1993

  26,289

  358

  1994

  26,567

  365

  1995

  26,702

  367

  1996

  26,855

  375

  1997

  27,099

  372

  1998

  27,392

  382

  1999

  27,591

  396

  2000

  27,704

  403

  1 UPEs includes GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried

  2 Data as at 1 October 1980 to 1999 and 30 September 2000

  Source:

  Department of Health General Medical Personal Service Statistics

  Table 2: Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) 1: Leavers2 from England and Buckinghamshire FHSA/HA 1990–91 to 1999–20003

  Headcount

  Year

  England

  Leavers Buckinghamshire FHSA/HA4

  1990–91

  1,432

  17

  1991–92

  1,171

  15

  1992–93

  1,030

  12

  1993–94

  1,048

  14

  1994–95

  1,249

  25

  1995–96

  1,184

  18

  1996–97

  1,058

  14

  1997–98

  1,040

  13

  1998–99

  1,030

  12

  1999–2000

  1,090

  17

  1 UPEs include unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  2 Leavers and defined as those UPEs reported in the Department of Health's annual GP census in one year but not reported the following year. Leavers will include both career breaks and wastage.

  3 Date relate to those leaving between 1 October and 30 September.

  4 Excludes UPEs who moved to another FHSA/HA.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs were appointed last year. [4424]

  Mr. Hutton
  Between October 1999 and September 2000 1,203 unrestricted principals and equivalent general practitioners joined the National Health Service in England.

  Health Visitors
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the recognition of health visitors as specialist nurses. [4929]

  Mr. Hutton
  The recognition of health visitors is a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. The proposals for replacing the council with the Nursing and Midwifery Council include the retention of current arrangements.

  Health Committee
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the third report of the Health Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 307. [4991]

  Mr. Hutton
  We expect to publish our response to the report before Parliament rises on 20 July.

  Health Trusts and Boards (Membership)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what machinery is used for reviewing the panel of members of the public accepted as eligible for membership of health trusts and boards; and if he will make a statement. [4917]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1 April 2001, appointments of chairs and non-executives to the boards of National Health Service trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts have been the responsibility of the NHS Appointments Commission. Details of the appointment process are therefore a matter for the Commission.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 2001,Official Report, column 590W, concerning care homes, if he will place a copy of the interim report in the Library; and if he will list the research projects and their purpose and reporting dates. [5366]

  Jacqui Smith
  The purpose of the research projects commissioned from the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) is to:Collect information on the costs, fees, profitability and closures of care homes.
  Collect information on local authority purchasing and contracting arrangements.
  Study local variations in numbers of supported older care home residents.
  Model future demand for publicly funded residential and nursing home care over the next decade.

  These reports will be delivered by the end of the year. I understand from PSSRU, which retains intellectual property rights in the research, that publications arising from these streams of work will be published by the end of the year. I will ensure that copies are placed in the Library when publication takes place. Existing studies by PSSRU, on which these projects build, have already been published.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freedom of Information Act
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to announce a timetable for implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [5088]

  Mr. Wills
  The Freedom of Information Act received Royal Assent on the 30 November 2000 and so has to be fully implemented by 30 November 2005. However, the Government are firmly committed to implementation of the Act before this deadline which we set for ourselves.

  As of yet, there is no timetable for implementation within this deadline but the Lord Chancellor will be under a statutory duty to report to Parliament on progress towards implementation by 30 November this year. Before a timetable for implementation of the Act can be announced, there are consultations which need to be completed with the Information Commissioner, most notably with regard to the work needing to be done on publication schemes.

  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many bodies subject to the open government code of practice have indicated that they could not fully implement the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by July 2002; [5086]

  (2) if the Information Commissioner has indicated that she would be unable to discharge her responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to bodies subject to the open government code of practice by July 2002. [5087]

  Mr. Wills
  It is not a question of bodies or the Information Commissioner expressing doubts as to meeting any particular date for implementation, but simply that no one can be certain, as yet, as to when all of the preparatory work towards implementation of the Act will be completed.

  My officials are currently in consultation with the Information Commissioner and public authorities, including the several hundred currently covered by the code of practice on access to Government information, in order to determine how soon it is practicable for them to be able to implement the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  One of the major issues which has to be resolved before a definitive date for implementation of the Act can be set is the obligation on all public authorities to produce and maintain a publication scheme setting out what information they are proactively making available.

  Before public authorities can make a definitive judgment as to when they can have their publication schemes ready, and hence when the Information Commissioner will be able to devise a timeframe for approval of the schemes, the Commissioner has to decide what she expects from the content of the schemes. To this end, the Commissioner arranged a conference, held in Manchester on 17 July 2001, to discuss the content and format of publication schemes.

  In addition there are five bodies taking part in a pilot publication scheme programme in conjunction with the Commissioner, as she announced on the 16 July 2001.
  450W
  These bodies are the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development, the Health and Safety Executive, the Medicines Control Agency and the Public Record Office. The pilot programme should be completed by the end of this year.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department which provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are yet to come into force; what the planned timetable is for their introduction; what orders remains to be brought forward relating to the Act; and if he will make a statement. [5113]

  Mr. Wills
  The provisions of the Act set out in section 87(1) came into force on 30 November 2000, when the Act was passed. These provisions relate to:the bodies covered by the Act:
  approval of publication schemes by the Information Commissioner;
  recommendations as to good practice from the Information Commissioner;
  the Commissioner's obligation to report to Parliament:
  the power to make environmental information regulations relating to the Aarhus Convention;
  the power to amend or repeal statutory bars to disclosure of information; and
  certain miscellaneous provisions, for example, relating to interpretation of terms used in the legislation.

  The provisions set out in section 87(2) of the Act came into force on 30 January 2001. These relate primarily to the creation of the post of the Information Commissioner.

  Certain provisions relating to the amendment of the Data Protection Act, as provided for by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, were brought into force on 14 May by a Commencement Order in Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1637, made on 30 April 2001.

  All other provisions of the Act are not yet in force. The Act must be fully implemented by 30 November 2005 and, as yet, there is no other timetable than this outer date. However, the Government are committed to bringing the Act into force before this deadline and to ensuring that the time taken to ensure that implementation is a success will be used well.

  Some powers contained in the Act will need to be exercised before the Act comes into force, for example the Codes of Practice to be made under sections 45 and 46 of the Act will need to be agreed.

  Others, such as the ability to amend Schedule 1, contained in section 4, or the ability to amend or repeal statutory bars to disclosure, contained in section 75, are on-going processes. These will have to be exercised regularly when, for example, new non-departmental public bodies are created, or decisions are taken that specified statutory bars could be amended or repealed.

  Powers, such as that to provide for environmental information regulations in relation to the Aarhus Convention, contained in section 74, will only need to be exercised once or very infrequently.

  Discussions are under way on the terms of those Orders or regulations which need to be made before the Act can be fully implemented. Drafts of the two Codes of Practice have been circulated for public consultation.

  Parental Responsibility
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place a copy of the Government's response to the EU Commission's working document "Mutual Recognition of Decisions on Parental Responsibility", when made, in the Library. [4103]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have submitted to Parliament an Explanatory Memorandum in response to the European Commission's working document, "Mutual Recognition of Decisions on Parental Responsibility". This was deposited on 20 June and copies of it have been placed in the House of Commons Library. It did not contain a substantive response on issues of policy because the Commission's document did not seek views, and the Commission intends to propose a draft Regulation on this subject in early September. The Government will submit an Explanatory Memorandum on this proposal in the autumn; this will deal with the policy issues raised in that proposal, although a final view on these will only be taken after proper consultation with the judiciary and legal practitioners.

  Correspondence
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the letter that her predecessor undertook to write to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling at the conclusion of his Adjournment debate on child abduction on 3 May will be sent. [4102]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have now written to the right hon. Member, and apologise for the delay in doing so.

  Civil Enforcement
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on phase two of the review of civil enforcement. [6178]

  Mr. Wills
  I am pleased to announce the publication of "Towards Effective Enforcement", a Green Paper on the structure and regulation of enforcement and a single piece of bailiff law. It explores options for the regulation of all enforcement agents.

  The paper discusses what legal powers are needed to allow agents to do the job properly and proposes principles for the fees for enforcement and costs of regulation. It also examines the possibilities of improving access to information and making better use of information through clear, precise and limited powers.

  The primary purpose of the Green Paper is to look at how best to achieve a fundamental improvement in warrant enforcement by opening up to public consultation a range of options and ideas for the future regulation of enforcement agents in England and Wales. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  A White Paper will be published in early 2002 setting out proposals for legislation in the light of this public consultation. It will also cover revised procedures for attachment of earnings, garnishee orders and charging orders arising from Phase One of the Review. At that stage it ought to be possible to develop a practical structure for warrant enforcement service delivery.
  452W

  Public Records Act
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for the execution of the Public Records Act 1958 and for decisions about the opening of the 1911 Census records to public inspection. [4995]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Minister responsible for the execution of the Public Records Act 1958 is my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Under the Act, the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval, or at the request, of the Minister primarily concerned vary the closure period for a particular class of public records. In the case of the 1911 Census, the Minister primarily concerned is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates are in post in the St. Helens and Knowsley court service. [5531]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Merseyside, has provided the following information. There are 108 magistrates on the St. Helens bench and 94 on the Knowsley bench.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures are taken to make sure that people apply to be magistrates who declare themselves politically do not face discrimination. [5535]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, has asked me to say that an individual must be personally suitable for appointment as a magistrate before any other factors are considered. He will then take into account gender, residence, occupation, and political views in order to try and achieve a bench which reflects the community it serves.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the establishment figure is for magistrates in St. Helens and Knowsley. [5530]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, has asked me to say that the target number of magistrates required for the St. Helens bench is 130 and Knowsley bench 110.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action the Lord Chancellor takes to monitor the(a) political balance of magistrates court and (b) residential areas from which magistrates are recruited. [5537]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and

  453W
  Merseyside, has asked me to say that he takes into account the political balance of benches and candidates' areas of residence when considering appointments to a bench.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action the Lord Chancellor's Department takes to make sure political balance among magistrates is maintained. [5534]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, publishes Directions to Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace. The section on political balance states:
  "The political views of a candidate are neither a qualification nor a disqualification for appointment. However, the Chancellor requires, in the interests of balance, that the voting pattern for the area as evidenced by the last two general elections, should be broadly reflected in the composition of the bench."

  The same Directions are published by the Lord Chancellor for Advisory Committees in the remainder of England and Wales.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people applied to be magistrates in St. Helens and Knowsley in 2000. [5533]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Merseyside, has provided the following information. During 2000, 13 candidates applied to become magistrates on the St. Helens bench and 14 on the Knowsley bench.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will make it a requirement for all people to declare their political allegiance in order to maintain the political balance in the magistrates courts system. [5536]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, has asked me to say that application forms for the magistracy require applicants to state which political party they generally support.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the current political balance of magistrates is in courts in St. Helens and Knowsley. [5532]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Comparison with performance in 1998–99 and MPs' correspondence

  Responses within target (1)

  Performance on MPs' correspondence1 2000 (%)

  Department/agency

  Target (working days)

  2000–01 (%)

  1999–2000(%)

  1998–99(%)

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2)

  15

  91

  92

  91

  30

  Cabinet Office

  15

  96

  99

  100

  85

  Crown Prosecution Service (3)

  10

  n/a

  88

  83

  100

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  18

  85

  81

  71

  82

  HM Customs and Excise

  10

  93

  94

  91

  68

  Ministry of Defence (4)

  20

  81

  84

  78

  78

  454W
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, has provided the following information on the political balance of the St. Helens and Knowsley benches.

  St. Helens

  Knowsley

  Labour

  19

  25

  Conservative

  21

  30

  Liberal Democrat

  12

  16

  Other/uncommitted

  56

  23

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Government Performance
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the performance of the main Departments and agencies against the six service standards for central Government over the last financial year. [6177]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have arranged for a report on the performance of the main Departments and agencies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In most cases, Departments' performance in responding to correspondence from the public has continued to improve and there have been some particularly encouraging performances leading to a considerable narrowing in the range of performance. In particular, for the first time, all Departments and agencies have answered at least 70 per cent. of correspondence within their published target. But there is no room for complacency, which is why we have introduced targets for improvements in most Departments' Service Delivery Agreements. The performance of the main Departments and agencies is summarised in the table.

  Against the other standards, the report shows that performance and standards are generally in line with public expectations. Visitors to public offices are usually seen within 10 minutes of their appointment, and most visitors without an appointment are seen within the designated standards. All Departments have at least one telephone inquiry point, and calls are usually answered promptly. Use of the internet is increasing rapidly and all the main Departments dealing with the public have websites, publicise their complaints procedure on-line and are able to accept e-mailed inquiries. The report also shows some of the innovative ways in which Departments and agencies are consulting their users and making their services more responsive to users' needs.
  455W

  Comparison with performance in 1998–99 and MPs' correspondence

  Responses within target (1)

  Performance on MPs' correspondence1 2000 (%)

  Department/agency

  Target (working days)

  2000–01 (%)

  1999–2000(%)

  1998–99(%)

  Department for Education and Employment

  15

  94

  90

  89

  72

  Employment Service (Jobcentres (5)/Chief Executive Office)

  10/15

  90/98

  90/97

  94

  98

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  15

  93

  89

  78

  69

  Driving Standards Agency

  15

  98

  99

  99

  n/a

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

  15

  97

  97

  97

  99

  Highways Agency

  15

  87

  83

  83

  78

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  15

  96

  92

  93

  n/a

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  99

  100

  93

  n/a

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  20

  83

  84

  87

  78/70 (6)

  Government Offices for the Regions

  215

  93

  80–99

  81–100

  n/a

  Department of Health

  20

  78

  48

  63

  50

  Medicines Control Agency

  7

  100

  93

  —

  n/a

  NHS Pensions Agency

  20

  99

  100

  —

  n/a

  Home Office

  20

  72

  64

  23

  41

  UK Passport Agency

  10

  98

  81

  97

  100

  HM Prison Service

  20

  95

  94

  85

  75

  Inland Revenue (7)

  20

  84

  84

  80

  72

  Intervention Board

  10

  93

  92

  79

  n/a

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  84

  88

  72

  74

  Court Service

  20

  87

  93

  97

  66

  HM Land Registry

  5

  96

  100

  94

  n/a

  Department of Social Security

  20

  72

  63

  60

  75

  Benefits Agency

  10

  87

  78

  81-88

  45

  Child Support Agency

  10

  72

  66

  56

  97

  War Pensions Agency (8)

  10

  98

  98

  71

  99

  Department of Trade and Industry

  15

  95

  96

  92

  60

  Companies House

  10

  99

  98

  —

  100

  Employment Tribunal Service

  10

  81

  97

  —

  n/a

  Patent Office

  5

  100

  100

  —

  99

  insolvency Service

  15

  98

  97

  —

  87

  Radiocommunications Agency

  15

  99

  98

  —

  n/1

  HM Treasury

  15

  74

  36

  —

  60

  1 Where available

  2 Max.

  Note:

  Performance has been rounded up or down to the nearest whole figure

  Government Consultations
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the variations between the consultation processes undertaken by Government Departments. [5369]

  Mr. Leslie
  No such representations have been made directly to the Deputy Prime Minister; earlier representations about practice in conducting written consultations, especially the time allowed for responses, led to the publication in November 2000 of the Code of Practice on written consultation. The Code sets out minimum standards for consultation documents, and more generally promotes techniques of effective public involvement. It applies to all public national consultation documents issued from 1 January 2001. In response to views expressed during the passing of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, supplementary guidance has also been issued to Departments by the Cabinet Office in respect of consultation documents under the Act.

  Departmental Targets
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his responsibilities include monitoring the performance of Departments other than his own against targets set out in departmental annual reports; and if he will make a statement. [2676]

  Mr. Leslie
  The responsibilities of the new Delivery Unit were set out in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 95W.

  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the first report of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission will be published. [4468]

  Mr. Leslie
  Responsibility for the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has now passed to the Department of Trade and Industry. However, I understand that the Commission plans to publish a report
  457W
  later this year on its case study of decision making on the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last travelled on the London Underground in the course of his official duties. [3672]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I use the most efficient and cost-effective mode of transport wherever possible. In London this is frequently the underground. The last time I used the underground for official business was 3 April 2001.

  Civil Service (Parliamentary Candidates)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will review the restrictions on those employed in the civil service to permit them to stand as parliamentary candidates. [5873]

  Mr. Leslie
  The provisions regulating the rights of servants of the Crown to become candidates at elections are set out in the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary, European Parliamentary and Northern Ireland Assembly Candidature) Order 1987. This Order, as amended by the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary, European Parliamentary and Northern Ireland Assembly Candidature) Order 1999, specifies that the servants of the Crown to whom it applies must not issue an address to electors or in any other manner publicly announce themselves or allow themselves to be publicly announced as candidates or prospective candidates for election to Parliament. There are no plans to review these provisions.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to reduce the number of Government NDPBs. [5519]

  Mr. Leslie
  This Government have reduced the number of quangos (or non-departmental public bodies to use the official classification) by around 10 per cent. since 1997. This means that numbers now stand at their lowest level for over 20 years. Individual NDPBs are subject to regular review and we continue to work hard to ensure that the overall number of quangos is kept to a minimum.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Departments have failed to produce a regulatory impact assessment for each paper that requires an RIA. [5368]

  Mr. Leslie
  All Government Departments and agencies are required to produce a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for proposed regulations that could impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector.

  An RIA may not be required in certain, strictly defined, circumstances. For example, where the proposal imposes no or negligible additional costs or savings; or where statutory fees are increased by a predetermined formula, such as the rate of inflation. Departments must be
  458W
  prepared, if challenged, to defend their decision not to produce an RIA. No central records are maintained of such cases.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to put the issue of Sellafield safety on the agenda of the Council of the Isles. [1760]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the British-Irish Council, which brings together the British and Irish Governments, the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

  At their meeting in London in October 2000, Environment Ministers of the British-Irish Council agreed that the environment was of vital importance to all of their Administrations. They agreed on a range of issues in the environment field, including Sellafield and climate change, that would be taken forward as part of the programme of work.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if it is standard practice for special advisers to co-ordinate work that costs the policies of opposition parties; and which sub-clauses of section (iv) of schedule 1 (Part 1) of the standard contract for special advisers set out the role of special advisers in costing the policies of opposition parties. [4401]

  Mr. Leslie
  The work of individual special advisers will vary from Department to Department according to the relevant Ministers' requirements. Section (iv) of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the current model contract for special advisers describes the duties special advisers may be required to undertake. These include for example checking facts and research findings, such as information provided by officials costing policy options.

  Flags
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will instruct Departments to fly the Red Ensign on their buildings on Merchant Navy Day. [2365]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  My own Department will be flying the Red Ensign on Merchant Navy Day. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as the sponsoring Government Department for the Merchant Navy, will also be flying the Red Ensign.

  Departmental Events
  David Maclean
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) national and (b) international awareness events the Cabinet Office has participated in since June 1997 in the form of (i) sponsorship, (ii) departmental attendance, (iii) similar departmental activities and (iv) a message of support. [5048]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office, through its Management Units, participates in many events, national and international. The information requested is not held centrally and any response provided could be achieved only at a disproportionate cost.

  Government Task Forces
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the purposes and membership of the Government task forces and reviews(a) which report to his Department and (b) to which his Department (i) appoints members and
  460W
  (ii) provides administrative support, indicating in each case the date on which their first meeting took place; and if he will make a statement. [6239]

  Mr. Leslie
  I shall write to the hon. Member with a full answer and place a copy in the Libraries of the House during the summer recess.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours, Esquire, having been created Baron Campbell-Savours, of Allerdale in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carter and the Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld.
Lord Jones
The Right Honourable Stephen Barry Jones, having been created Baron Jones, of Deeside in the County of Clwyd, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Varley and the Lord Healey.

Message from The Queen
3.12 p.m.
Lord Luce: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Appropriation (No. 2) Act.

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries: Debt Relief
3.14 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to persuade the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to achieve total debt cancellation for the poorest countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the UK and the other G7 members offer 100 per cent debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) scheme. The IMF and the World Bank are also making
1578
substantial debt reductions as part of HIPC to bring debt to sustainable levels. For the IMF and the World Bank to apply 100 per cent relief would concentrate resources on countries that are heavily indebted at the expense of those that are equally poor but not heavily indebted, such as Bangladesh. It must be remembered that the IMF and the World Bank's activities are wider than debt relief and we must support them in their work in all poor countries, in particular in areas such as health and education.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Perhaps I may remind him that although the G7 countries, including the United Kingdom, have taken major steps in terms of debt relief, the IMF and the World Bank themselves still insist on greater than 50 per cent repayment. While that situation pertains, the existing HIPC countries are forced to pay more in debt repayment than they are able to spend on healthcare. Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is chairman of the most powerful of the IMF committees, when are we going to do something to rectify that situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear in my first Answer that the priorities for the IMF and the World Bank are slightly different from those for ourselves and the other G7 countries. They have responsibilities not only for the heavily indebted poor countries, but also for those countries which are desperately poor, such as Bangladesh, Nepal and Cambodia, which have grave problems, in particular in health and education. Those nations should have their share among the priorities, rather than concentrating on debt relief.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest as a former employee of the World Bank. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench assure the House that at the G8 Summit to be held in Genoa, Her Majesty's Government will vigorously oppose the expected proposal of the United States Government that 50 per cent of the highly concessionary loans from the International Development Association, which is the concessionary lending arm of the World Bank, should be in grant form? Does he agree that this would be a certain way of ensuring the eventual drying-up of this extremely valuable source of concessionary finance? Does he also agree that if President Bush wishes to see a greater amount of concessionary finance going to the poorest countries, he might care to look at his own aid programme, which at present amounts to a derisory 0.1 per cent of GNP?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to anticipate in detail the negotiations which will take place in Genoa. However, the points made by my noble friend are valid. I am sure that they will he raised in discussion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with regard to debt cancellation, are steps being taken to ensure that the money thus released then goes to help the

1579
people rather than simply to a corrupt government? Can we do anything to ensure that the right policy is followed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, we can. It has been a feature of the HIPC initiative that we have to be satisfied that the debt relief; namely, the money released which would otherwise be spent on debt repayment, is used for the benefit of the people rather than for the governments. In addition, we have protected ourselves against unproductive expenditure, for example, by denying export credits where otherwise they would have been called for.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the process of writing off virtually unrepayable debts has been dragged out over an extremely long period? That has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction. In addition to the valuable point made by the noble Lord as regards ensuring improvements in health and education for the poorest people, will the Government also bear in mind the importance of creating jobs for those people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course no one can be satisfied other than with immediate action being taken as regards all the countries concerned. However, bearing in mind the valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I do not think that this has been such a bad story. One year ago, of the 41 eligible HIPC countries, 10 had reached decision point to the extent of 15 billion dollars. This year 23 countries have reached decision point to the extent of 53 billion dollars. I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the importance of health and I can confirm that the Global Health Fund is expected to reach 1.5 billion dollars by the end of the Genoa meetings, towards which the UK has contributed 200 million dollars.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this Government constantly advertise that they are providing 100 per cent debt relief? However, following on from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is it not the case that hardly any country has in fact achieved the level of 100 per cent debt relief for the reasons given? Can the Minister confirm that position and tell the House which countries have reached 100 per cent relief?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have given the number of countries and the amount of money—23 countries out of the 41 have reached decision point, and the amount of money concerned is now 53 billion US dollars. This is a significant improvement on the position only a year ago. In addition, some countries, including the United Kingdom, are holding these receipts in trust for those countries for when they achieve the decision point and completion point.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given the Minister's robust and acceptable reply to the question
1580
of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, about corruption, does he accept that it takes two parties to deal with this issue effectively, and that the United Kingdom and other wealthy countries ought to do their very best to prevent money laundering? Does he further accept that many millions of dollars have fled from Nigeria and Indonesia, some of them to Swiss, British and American banks?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have no reason to doubt what the noble Baroness says. I am sure that significant amounts of money slip through the cracks. However, there is a paper, Debt Relief and Beyond, which has been drawn up by the finance Ministers and will be presented at Genoa this week. I believe that this is one of the issues which will be addressed in that paper.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether Zimbabwe is one of the relevant countries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not off-the-cuff. I am sorry. I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.

University Admissions
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that all applicants for university places should be treated equally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, universities are autonomous bodies and are responsible for their own admissions policies and procedure. These may take into account a wide range of indicators, including potential as well as prior achievement. We believe that all candidates should be treated fairly and that all admissions decisions should be taken properly and responsibly.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but does she not agree that if it is the intention to raise standards in what the Government have described as "bog standard" comprehensive schools, the way to do it is not by lowering entrance requirements but by encouraging the improvement of education standards in those schools? Does she further agree that it is very hard on able candidates who have scored top marks in their courses to be turned down? What is their alternative when they have done well? It is hardly an encouragement, either to hard work or to high standards.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government's policy is very much about raising aspiration and achievement. It is not about lowering standards. For that reason, we have introduced the excellent Challenge programme, which is worth

1581
million over the next three years, to help raise the aspirations and achievements of disadvantaged young people and to encourage applications for higher education from all.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, given the great need to encourage children from families who have no prior experience or knowledge of higher education, will the Minister join with me in congratulating the universities which are making such stalwart efforts to expand access? Can she tell the House what will happen this summer in the universities and schools which have set up partnerships to give young people a taste of what it is like to go to university?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this summer there will be 65 higher education institutes involved in summer schools, with approximately 5,500 participants. This programme will be aimed at strengthening the relationship between universities and schools. It will build on the work with schools to help children from the age of 13 onwards to realise their aspirations and potential.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, while we on these Benches share the Government's aspirations to encourage students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university, does the Minister really believe that the best way to do this is to enforce on students a regime whereby they will frequently incur debts of more than £15,000 a year? Do not the statistics on the Scottish system already show that that system is far more effective in encouraging students from poor backgrounds?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, 50 per cent of students this year will not be paying fees in the next academic year. That is precisely because their and their families' income is below the threshold to contribute. Low interest loans are available to help with living costs and we have introduced bursaries for mature students which will assist with childcare. We have also introduced 25,000 opportunity bursaries over the next three years worth £2,000 each for young students from low income backgrounds.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend was referring to living costs rather than fees? Is she further aware that for many students admitted to university from poorer backgrounds—especially those who do not have the benefit of living rent free with their parents during vacations—the level of support is such as to subject them only to a torture of Tantalus? The Government could do much more to improve access to universities by putting that right than by preaching to universities about matters which are not under their control.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I referred to living costs when I described the low interest loans, which are a vital part of ensuring that students are able
1582
to survive within the educational system. But the Government are always keen to look at these issues over time and continue to keep them under review.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister is right, universities are autonomous bodies. However, does the noble Baroness agree that the Government are distorting that autonomy by providing considerable sums of money to widen access? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, while the Government support a widening of access, they would not support the lowering of qualifications for getting into university by the use of that money? Does the Minister agree that a young person, from whatever background, should not be denied a place at university in order to allow someone with lesser qualifications to enter university because of the way in which government money is spent?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the postcode premium—to which I believe the noble Baroness was, in part, referring—is not intended as an incentive. It is a reimbursement of institutions for the additional resources they invest in recruiting and retaining students from lower socio-economic groups. We have announced increases in this premium over time. Institutions are not forced to lower entry standards as a condition of any funding. It is intended to address the specific question of access to institutions which have demanding entry requirements.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, contrary to the notion inherent in the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if a university recognises that a young person who has been failed by the educational system has considerable potential, it would be irresponsible not to give that youngster an opportunity to make the best of university? It would also be an investment in the future of the country.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are some extremely interesting examples of university admission practices throughout the UK, including Nottingham, Warwick, Oxford, Cambridge. Bristol, York and Sheffield. Without taking up the time of the House by describing some of the practices. they look at the different factors affecting the educational attainment and the potential of students for the future. That is extremely valuable. Early research carried out in Cardiff University, for example, is demonstrating that students arriving at university with "A" levels equivalent to those of students who come from schools that have a generally higher standard are performing better at the end of their degree level than those from elsewhere. We are looking with interest at these studies. We believe that universities should look in a broad way at the current attainment and the potential of all students.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend referred to raising aspirations and reducing inequality. Can she tell us more about the Government's plans for

1583
mature students? I am thinking particularly of mature students with children who have some difficulty so far as concerns applications to universities.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have introduced a generous package of measures to help mature students. In 2000–01 we introduced the £1,000 bursaries for mature students and a school meals grant for children of £245 or £265, depending on the age of the child. We have also introduced this year in connection with childcare costs a new childcare grant, typically 85 per cent of the actual cost. A total grant on known resources for a single parent student with two children could be as much as £17,425.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the noble Baroness consider that the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly to castigate the admissions policy of the University of Oxford on the back of the case of the young woman from the comprehensive school in the North East was taken properly and fairly? Or would she have preferred that it had not been taken?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it raised an important debate. It is also fair to say that both Oxford and Cambridge use a greater flexibility when looking at students. They have always interviewed students as part of the process to ensure that their potential as well as their achievements so far are examined. I commend the universities for the work that they have done in this respect.

Medical Schools: Student Applications
3.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reverse the decline in the number of students applying for places in United Kingdom medical schools.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, medicine and dentistry remain attractive careers and there continue to be many applications for places at medical and dental schools from those with the highest qualifications. Furthermore, the increase in the number of medical school places in England and the creation of four new medical schools, in East Anglia, the South West. Sussex and Yorkshire and Humberside, announced over the past two years, will all serve to increase the opportunities to study medicine.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware of the growing concern at the decline in the number of applicants for medical student places from 12,076 in 1997 to some 10,226 last year. Are the Government confident that they can achieve the higher targets they have set for medical recruitment with students of the
1584
highest quality, as required by the NHS, especially in view of the wide-ranging recommendations of the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry report?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole Government in saying that we have great confidence that we can achieve that. The number of medical school places that will be available by the 2005–06 will be 40 per cent higher than the number last year. We are confident that we shall be able to take measures to ensure that students fill those places.
It is worth making a distinction between the number of applications and the number of applicants. Applications have declined because students are no longer applying to five institutions, but to four; therefore, extrapolating by four, not five, gives a decrease. As I understand it, home graduate applications to study medicine rose by 20 per cent between 1998 and 2000.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, even if the Government succeed in making sure that there are sufficient applicants to medical schools, there remains a major problem of recruitment and retention in our medical schools. The London medical schools have made many teaching staff redundant, and a recent survey demonstrated vacancies in some 79 professorial appointments and some 322 lectureships. How do the Government square those findings with their plans to increase the number of places by 2,000 in 2005? Is this not partly the product of an overemphasis on research and the financial incentives for research as compared with the financial incentives for medical teaching?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is worth pointing out that the new medical schools have guaranteed the appropriate level of staffing. This is a broader question in terms of seeking to ensure that we have the right numbers of teaching staff in place. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the subject.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to attract a much wider cohort of students into the medical profession and to seek imaginative responses. I think particularly of the creative partnerships between the Universities of Leicester and Warwick, and Manchester and Keele. I declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. Is not one of the most important ways of doing that to widen applications in terms of graduate entry, to include not only science but also non-science graduates? This is a most imaginative way forward and it could result in a considerable increase in new entrants.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are making it possible for graduates to enter university medical schools in different ways on the back of having acquired a previous degree and being able to transfer across disciplines. In terms of attempting to bring more people into medical schools, in September we are launching the Science Year initiative, aimed at 10 to

1585
15 year-olds. That will be important in terms of showing them that there is a career to be had within the medical profession.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are the figures given by the Minister for England and Wales only; or do they apply to the United Kingdom as a whole? If they apply only to England and Wales, will the Minister bear in mind that Scotland has produced many great doctors for many years, and still has a great potential for doing so?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, having spent part of my career in the health service, I firmly agree with the noble Lord about the greatness of many of our Scottish doctors. But I also call attention to doctors from all over the world who provide an excellent service to the health service.
I can provide the medical school intake figures for the different countries of the UK. The total is 5,595 for the intake for 2000–01, from which Scotland will provide 920. For 2005–06, the UK total will be 7,248, of which Scotland's contribution is predicted to be 884.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important that better education should be given in mathematics and the sciences—otherwise, it will be extremely difficult to produce the people who can become good doctors? Urgent action is needed, with so many children coming out of school badly taught in mathematics and often having had far too little training in science.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is the value that we place on these subjects that has led us to the targets that we have for key stage 1 and key stage 2 for our children and the work that is currently under way on key stage 3. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. It is important that we recognise the role of science—hence we are launching Science Year, for which I am delighted to be responsible—and also the need to ensure that mathematics is a key subject that is taught right through the school curriculum.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are doctors wanting to train to become surgeons and that the rotas are blocked? Will she see that the rotas are unblocked, as we need more surgeons?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand that there is a review of medical workforce planning. I am sure that the reports will come to this House.

European Takeover Directive
3.37 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to continue to press for the adoption of the European Takeover Directive following its rejection by the European Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is for the European Commission to decide whether to start the legislative process again with a new proposal for a takeover directive. The Government will decide what approach to take on the issue after consulting interested parties in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as chairman of an investment bank in the City. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that, if and when the directive is brought back, there will be root and branch opposition to any inclusion of "poison pills" and artificial devices, such a s occurred in the earlier drafts of the first directive— the sole purpose of which is to strengthen the power of management and thereby to deprive shareholders of the value that is rightfully theirs? Secondly, will the Minister talk in terms to the German Government—who have conspired with German industry to defeat the directive—making it clear to them that, if they want to have a pan-European capital market, it will require a level playing field everywhere, not just in the areas that suit Germany and the German Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it seems most likely that if the Commission were to reintroduce the directive it would reintroduce it in its final form—in other words, the form in which it was presented to the European Parliament for Third Reading and rejected—although by 273 votes to 273. We should certainly resist strongly any attempt to delete the improvements that were made to the directive as it went through the European Parliament and before. We are concerned in particular to see that it retains the key shareholder protections that were introduced: the requirement to bid for all shares where a control has been achieved, and the prohibition on frustrating action which the noble Lord referred to as a "poison pill". We should also be very strongly opposed to any weakening of Articles 4.5 and 4.6 referring to derogations from the rules and help to prevent tactical litigation.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a clear case where European legislation is required if we are to receive the benefits of the single market? Surely much of the opposition to this directive is, in fact, nothing less than protectionism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased that all parties from the United Kingdom, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour MEPs, supported the directive when it came before the European Parliament. I believe that we are all united on that front. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the motives of those who are opposed to the directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the reply that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord

1587
Hodgson, does the noble Lord agree that, even in its final form, the proposed takeover directive would have crippled hostile takeovers in this country by allowing target companies to take refuge in the courts? Therefore, does not the noble Lord further agree that the European Parliament has on this occasion, just for once, done something helpful to the British economy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords; I disagree 100 per cent with the noble Lord. There are minor defects in the final directive—for example, I do not believe that the provisions on jurisdiction are entirely clear. However, if I had to choose between the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, I would plump for the latter. This is a thoroughly good directive. It is not perfect, but it deserved and achieved our support.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as a Member of the European Parliament, and as the Conservative spokesman on legal affairs who dealt with the matter. Is it not the case that the German Government welshed on the deal that they made in the Council when they changed their position, and their attitude, towards this directive? Further, is it not a fact that this directive was very popular among significant sections of German business that wanted to see a European market opened for their business, just as for every other country's business? Therefore, is it not true that the German Government have let down a large number of their citizens and their own financial institutions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have resisted any pressure to criticise the motives of those who took a different view from the one that we expressed, especially other governments. I shall continue to resist such pressure. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, should have a few words with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on the subject.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to answer the question that I put to him. I repeat: did the proposed takeover directive in its final form allow target companies to seek refuge in the delay of the courts, or did it not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. It did not. Article 4.6 of the directive has been specifically placed within it to deal with tactical litigation. In this respect, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right to suggest that tactical litigation is to be deplored. That is why we have the agreement between the Financial Services Authority and the Takeover Panel about tactical litigation.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he accepts the use of the word "welsh" in the pejorative sense?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that that is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rather than for me.

Foot and Mouth Disease
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
What extra safeguards are Her Majesty's Government putting in place to cope with the rising number of new foot and mouth cases, particularly in view of the Government's decision to reopen more footpaths.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are still experiencing a number of cases in five or six areas of the country. The Government are intensifying activity in those areas, especially by way of security measures, in order to prevent further spread. Decisions on reopening footpaths reflect the veterinary guidance on footpaths that was issued to local authorities on 23rd May, including codes detailing precautions that path users should take to reduce still further the risk of spreading foot and mouth disease. We also fund the Countryside Agency's campaign which promotes simple rules that people should follow.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the Government are clearly not in control of the outbreak, or of its logistical consequences? Indeed, 10 new outbreaks were confirmed yesterday, one of which has occurred in a totally new area. Moreover, 25 new cases were reported last week, with 24 cases being confirmed during the previous week. Does the Minister further agree that there is a lack of control in rigidly enforcing the biosecurity for farmers, while urging local authorities to open the countryside for riders and walkers? Can the Minister tell the House why the Official Secrets Act is part of the contract for the clear-up work by farmers, many of whom are still awaiting payment for work that has already been completed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not agree with very much of what the noble Baroness says. The disease has been contained. However, there is still active infectivity in the five or six areas to which I referred. That has been the case for some considerable time, except for the rather unusual and unique case to which the noble Baroness referred which was, regrettably, reported yesterday. All the recently reported cases over the past month have been within these "hot spot" areas. It is, therefore, vital that we crack down on the disease and eradicate it in those areas. Moreover, for the benefit of farmers and those in the rural community as a whole, it also means that we can relax restrictions in other areas, including on footpaths that bring ramblers and others to the countryside who will spend much needed money in economies that have been badly hit by the effects of this disease.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the time has come for a

1589
public inquiry to be opened; and, indeed, for evidence to be heard? The Government have still not come forward with clear advice—perhaps they have not received any—as to exactly how this disease is being spread. There is clear evidence to show that footpath closures have damaged the rural economy, but there is widespread anxiety about reopening them because, as we have heard, the number of cases is still rising. There is equally widespread anxiety about keeping them closed as regards the effects on the rural economy that arise as a result of such action. Is this not the time for all the advice that the Government have received, as well as all the known knowledge, to be aired in public? Why are not the Government commencing this inquiry now?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as concerns footpaths, I can tell the noble Baroness that we are not reopening them in the three kilometre zones around infected places. We are agreeing with the county councils in various areas where they wish to keep in place either the blanket measures or the selective measures—for example, in very substantial parts of North Yorkshire. This is not a blanket lifting exercise; it is simply a removal of the blanket closure. We are, therefore, being very selective in relation to footpaths and in listening to the representations from the counties.
I can confirm that the vast bulk of the advice given to the Government on the spread of the disease is already in the public arena. The noble Baroness now wishes us to set up an inquiry, while other people—indeed, the majority of the farming and rural community—are saying that our top priority now must be to eradicate the disease in the areas where it is still proving to be a problem. That is definitely the Government's overriding priority. However, we are also trying elsewhere to reopen the countryside and revive the rural economy. Therefore, now is not the time to open a public inquiry of the kind that some people have been demanding.
The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that there would be such an inquiry. He made it clear earlier that it would be an independent inquiry. The time to take such action is when we are at least within sight of finally eradicating the disease. There is no intention on the part of the Government to hide information. This inquiry, together with the review of what the Government have done and of how the disease has spread, will come in due course when FMD has been eradicated.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House how much compensation has so far been paid to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered in an effort to help to stop the disease spreading?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the total expenditure on compensation so far is over £1 billion, and the figure is rising. It comprises £900 million plus on the direct compensation scheme for FMD, and about £100 million under the livestock welfare disposal scheme.
1590
The total cost of the disease to the Exchequer is significantly over £2 billion. To return to the earlier point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the time that compensation has taken to reach farmers, I appreciate that concern has been expressed in this respect. I can confirm that the delay has been very dramatically reduced. Such payments now fall within the target time of 21 days.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the headlines in Monday's Yorkshire Post referred to the frustration of vets because they were receiving conflicting information from DEFRA? Therefore, will the noble Lord please ensure that all vets are in receipt of the correct information so that it can be passed on to farmers and all those other people who need it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, from time to time I hear complaints of that kind. However, DEFRA's advice is clear. It has to be tailored to individual circumstances and many of the cases reported by vets require individual replies. As I say, the advice is clear. Hard pressed vets and others on the ground experience some frustration with the complexity of the issue, but we are trying to simplify the whole procedure.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, although we welcome the emphasis on eliminating the disease, is the Minister aware just how severe the breakdown of trust is between the farming and other communities and the Government? The severity of that breakdown of trust is extremely damaging. Unless trust begins to be restored, statements which are made not simply by those who have strong vested interests will not be believed and there will be no healing of the community and no opportunity, through better human relationships, to build a future for the farming community and for the countryside.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that I receive reports of, and have experienced directly, what the right reverend Prelate refers to as the breakdown of trust. In the fraught situation in the countryside with everyone—the farming community, DEFRA and the people who work for it, the vets and so on—under severe pressure, some relationships are bound to break down. However, the attacks perpetrated by some people on DEFRA staff and people working for us who work for many hours a day under severe pressure are not acceptable. Much has been done to eradicate the disease by people working for MAFF, now DEFRA. I hope that when eventually we have the inquiry into the affair, at least the DEFRA staff will not be blamed for what has happened. Quite the contrary is the case.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider the answer he gave which implied that the outbreak was substantially under control and was confined to existing hotspots? Is he aware of an entirely fresh outbreak within the past month on the Brecon Beacons on the very day they were opened to

1591
walkers and of a series of outbreaks within the past 10 days in the valley where I live around Llangenny and Crickhowell, an area previously unaffected? All the sheep have had to be culled on the Sugar Loaf, which I see from my home. That area has been opened to walkers recently. Indeed, I climbed the Sugar Loaf only about two weeks ago. Does not the fact that the disease is appearing in entirely new areas indicate just how dangerous it is and the care that must be taken before footpaths are opened?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the outbreak in the Brecon Beacons has existed for some time. It is regrettable that after a lull, there have been recent cases in the area described by the noble Lord. However, to ascribe that to the opening of footpaths is erroneous. There has been no evidence of a single case of foot and mouth being spread by walkers. Overwhelmingly, the highest risk in terms of spreading the disease is incurred by people who transport livestock in vehicles and who move from farm to farm and mingle flocks and herds. One has to strike a balance here. The situation in Powys is unfortunate. The administration of that situation is, of course, primarily a matter for the Welsh Assembly. Nevertheless that is one of the hotspots on which we now have to concentrate to eradicate the disease.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]
3.54 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The first half of the Motion concerns next Monday's business and would allow us to debate the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, alongside the affirmative order it relates to, which seems a sensible adjustment. The second half allows us to move the economic debate pursuant to Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 from Tuesday to Monday. It had been agreed that the debate should occur on Monday, but it is presently on the Order Paper for Tuesday. If the House agrees, the debate will take place on Monday.
1592
Assuming that perfect clarity has not been established by my explanation, perhaps your Lordships would like to read the Official Report tomorrow. I particularly commend that as it will be the last one to be edited by our most distinguished, long-serving editor of debates, Mary Villiers. She has been editor of Hansard for 16 years and retires today. I know that the House will not wish to see that occasion go unmarked. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing our sincere gratitude and admiration for all that Mrs Villiers has done. No matter what any of us actually say in the Chamber, it always comes out coherently in Hansard. Therefore, I record the admiration and appreciation of us all to Mrs Villiers. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with so far as is necessary on Monday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before that in the name of the Baroness Hollis of Heigham; and that leave be given to the Lord McIntosh of Haringey to advance his Motion relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 from Tuesday 24th July to Monday 23rd July. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn. )
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the Question is put, on behalf of these Benches I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I entirely endorse his views of Mary Villiers, the editor of Hansard, not only for the contribution she has made herself but also that of her whole team in providing a real service to this House. It is the lot of Hansard that we talk much about it while forgetting all the people who work so hard to make sense of our words. I know that Mary Villiers in particular on occasions has been able to see through what we are saying so that by the next day we see before us only the pearls of wisdom that we should have uttered. We all wish her well in the future and a long and happy retirement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bowman Radio Communications System
3.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on the Bowman communications programme.
"This project will provide the Armed Forces with a modern, highly capable tactical combat radio communications system to replace Clansman. It will provide secure, reliable communications to our land forces and selected elements of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. In addition to voice communications, the system provides a tactical internet and automatic position location, navigation and reporting. Delivery will include

1593
more than 48,000 radios, 30,000 computers, conversion of over 30,000 platforms and training for over 100,000 members of the Armed Forces.
"Until recently, the history of the Bowman project has been a saga of difficulties. The requirement for this system was originally endorsed as long ago as 1988, but the initial attempt at competition collapsed in 1996. The following year, in March 1997. it was decided to pursue a single source procurement with Archer Communications Systems Ltd. Last summer, in the light of continuing major problems with the programme, this Government decided that the competition for the Bowman combat radio would have to be relaunched.
"That decision has now been vindicated. Over the past year we have made impressive progress on the project. There has been a vigorous competition with three strong bids submitted by Thales, TRW and CDC, a subsidiary of General Dynamics already operating in the United Kingdom.
"Following careful analysis of these bids, I am pleased to announce today that CDC has been selected as the department's preferred supplier of the Bowman system.
"We have evaluated a wide range of issues. Given the project's chequered past and the continuing operational need, the priority has been to deliver a successful and low-risk solution that will fill this capability gap at the earliest possible opportunity.
"CDC offers just that. Its solution is the clear winner of the competition. It provides the best value for money solution, fully meeting our military requirements. I am confident that it will meet our demanding timetable for getting this system into service. It is based on experience of developing a proven system and includes best of class radios and a very efficient approach to rolling out and supporting the equipment.
"The Ministry of Defence and CDC will now work together on the programme to bring Bowman into service. We aim to be in a position to let a contract in late summer this year to achieve an in-service date of early 2004.
"The contract is valued at around £1.8 billion. This will cover the supply of the Bowman system and the first five years of support up to the year 2009. It will use the ITT VHF radio sub-system and the Cogent cryptographic system.
"CDC's solution provides employment opportunities in the UK in a broad range of system areas, including design, development, manufacture and project management. Ninety per cent of the work content of the CDC bid will be based in the UK—the highest proportion of any of the three bids. Around 1,600 jobs will be secured across the UK, including 400 new high technology and support posts at the company's headquarters which CDC plans to establish in South Wales. The company has also earmarked South Wales for a new Army communications technology research and development centre. This will be staffed by around
1594
65 leading scientists. Other regions will benefit as well. We expect subcontract work to secure more than 100 jobs in Scotland, more than 300 jobs in south-west England and around 75 jobs in the South East, centred on Hastings. Major UK subcontractors include Alvis and Westlands.
"This is excellent news for British industry and not just in terms of job opportunities. The high quality jobs it brings will allow for the continuation of this country's defence communications capability. In particular, there will be significant technology transfer to the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence will hold appropriate intellectual property rights, available for use by other companies working on linked projects. Industry has committed itself to maintain a development and production facility as a UK concern. All this will mean that we will maintain a strong UK strategic capability.
"This month will also see the first deliveries, ahead of schedule, of the personal role radios. This is a new capability, separated from the main Bowman requirement in 1999 to ensure early delivery to the front line. These radios will provide short range communications for dismounted infantry and will transform the way that they operate.
"The progress that we have made, and this announcement today, draws a clear line under the problems of the past. It confirms that the Bowman programme is on track for success. And it shows that our commitment to Smart acquisition—to best practice—is delivering tangible results for the Armed Forces. Selection of the preferred supplier, just one year after we re-opened the competition, underlines our determination to deliver this battle winning capability to our servicemen and women. Our Armed Forces can now look forward to receiving the most modern and integrated secure communications system available anywhere in the world.
"I recognise that today's announcement will be a disappointment to the other two bidders. Thales and TRW have invested considerable time and effort on their respective solutions. Both submitted proposals that were substantially better than the one we rejected last year. Their involvement has ensured a hard fought and successful competition. As a result, their reputations as credible prime contractors have been enhanced. I want to stress in particular how much we have valued the significant Thales presence in the UK defence sector.
"However, for this project, it is CDC that offers the best solution to meet our military requirements in the right timescale. As I have outlined, it does so with an excellent package of work in the United Kingdom.
"I am confident that we have made the right decision both for the Armed Forces and for UK industry. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister most sincerely for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. The Statement and the decisions underlying it are extremely welcome. We have been waiting for them for far too long.
Let there be no doubt: the initial slippage came under the Conservative government. But there have been two feasibility studies since then and there were years of fiddling about before the Ministry of Defence removed the preferred bidder status from Archer in June of last year.
I have specific questions under two headings: cost and the in-service date. The Statement states that the contract is valued at £1.8 billion. But the latest MoD estimate is £2.345 billion, of which £351 million has already been spent. This tallies with the National Audit Office estimate of £1.95 billion for the demonstration and manufacture stage of the project.
In March 1999 the Archer consortium delivered a submission which totalled £4 billion. Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement, told the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence that this was brought back into budget,
"not entirely by shouting at the company but by shaving off bits of the requirement here and there".
To what extent are we now getting a cut-price reduced specification project? After all, you get what you pay for. The National Audit Office has given examples of capability trade-offs by certifying Bowman to less stringent standards and reducing the equipment numbers. How does this contract differ from the previous Bowman specification?
The Minister has given an in-service date of early 2004. (I have to say that I shall have a bet on that one!) More important than the in-service date is the date for all the platforms to be completed, including the Territorial Army. When will that be? At present, if we were to face an enemy with a full armoured capability we would be in trouble. There is need for Bowman everywhere; it is vital. Clansman is bad enough as it stands but in the words of the National Audit Office,
"if Bowman is delayed beyond 2004 it is likely that problems arising from obsolescence, such as unreliability and lack of availability owing to repairs will increasingly affect Clansman".
The delay to date and the decision to abandon Archer means that the Ministry of Defence will have to write off development costs of between £35 million and £102 million. This is probably small beer for the Minister of Defence but what amount will have to be written off?
I remind the Minister that the capacity of laptop computers doubles in 18 months. The Ministry of Defence cannot buy anything in under five years. It is no wonder that we are behind. Again, I hope that we can get a move on.
Today and in speeches on previous occasions I have asked a number of specific questions of the Minister and her noble friend. Like my right honourable friend William Hague, I have not been very lucky in getting answers. May I please have some now—possibly through a secure radio system?
4.9 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this much-delayed announcement. The Armed Forces need far better combat radio systems. We are all aware that Clansman is becoming extremely obsolete. The sooner the equipment is available, the better. We also welcome the decision to adopt the best equipment available; and welcome this as a tried system.
I am struck by the way that this Government follow the same path as their predecessors. The civilian manufacturing industry is not given any particular privilege for home-produced manufactures in the Treasury's or sometimes the DTI's approach. In the defence industry the approach to the number of jobs in this country for each contract is applied somewhat differently from the civilian sphere. In that respect, they have chosen the best equipment, even though it has not necessarily provided the best jobs in this country.
In the context of being half way between the declaration of the Helsinki goals and their achievement, with a clear British commitment to closer European security and defence policy, perhaps I may ask how closely that takes us, if at all, towards commonality of equipment with the armed forces with which we are most likely to operate in conflict management, conflict prevention or forceful interventions over the next few years. Is there full inter-operability between Bowman and the Dutch, German, French and other forces with which we are likely to operate in the field?
Secondly, how long is the estimated service life of the system? We all hope that it will have a rather shorter service life than Clansman has had thus far, but it would be useful to have an idea of how rapidly we believe obsolescence will occur.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for having welcomed the announcement this afternoon. They are quite right: it is a very important announcement, and our priority in making it is to ensure that the Armed Forces have a proper system in place at the earliest possible time.
So far as concerns the past, although we cannot exactly draw a veil over it, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, should be slightly cautious in claiming that the present Administration has been involved in any delays that may have occurred. The single source contract was first made in February 1997. However, I believe that in relation to a matter such as this, which is very good news for the Armed Forces and for the country generally, it does not help greatly to hark back too much. Instead, we should look forward and try to ensure that the scepticism shown by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in respect of the in-service date is, in this case, misplaced. We are determined that the system will come into operation at the earliest possible opportunity.
With regard to write-offs, there is no doubt that some will occur. However, it is important to know that a large part of the money spent in the past will have

1597
been of benefit in ensuring that the new system works properly. Therefore, by no means has all the money been wasted; a large part has gone towards ensuring that we have a decent system in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the point that we should not change the way in which we approach these matters. I do not know whether or not that is the case. However, the manner in which this particular decision was reached within a year of the crucial, good decision taken a year ago to restart competition is, we believe, a good example of how Smart acquisition has worked. I am not sure that such a decision would have been reached so quickly in the days before Smart acquisition.
The noble Lord's point in relation to inter-operability is most important. We shall, of course, try to ensure that the new system also works well with the defence systems of our European partners and neighbours.
I do not know whether the noble Lord will be pleased or disappointed to hear that it is intended that the Bowman system should apply until the year of our Lord 2030. I dare say that some big adjustments will be made to it well before the end of this decade, let alone before 2030. However, that goes to show that the Government have today made a major decision. It was made on distinct and clear advice and will, I believe, represent a very good way forward for our Armed Forces.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he can give the date by which all platforms will be equipped with Bowman.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the final date by which that will happen. However, if the in-service date is 2004—a critical date—it is hoped that the system will be in place on a large number of platforms by 2005. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord into believing that I can provide him with a definite date, but it is hoped that all platforms will be brought into operation at the earliest opportunity.
The noble Lord should not play down the importance of the in-service date. That will cover two infantry battalions and brigrade signals, converted and trained—that is, approximately 1,800 members of the Armed Forces. I am glad that, to some extent, I played for time because I now have the answer which the noble Lord sought. All platforms will be completed by the year 2008. I hope that that answer does not come to haunt me.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend unreservedly on today's extremely important announcement. I wish him every success in his decision and hope that he has found a solution that, until now, has eluded even his most distinguished predecessors in the responsibility that he holds.
I have one or two questions to put to my noble friend. First, can he tell us whether, as the price of obtaining this agreement, there has been any
1598
derogation of the originally intended TACAIR and marine elements of the Bowman solution? If he is unable to answer that question in public, which may well be the case, can he undertake to find a way of providing a classified briefing on this matter to seriously interested Members of the House? We are starved of classified briefings because this House does not have a defence committee. The lower House has such a committee and receives that type of information automatically.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind comments. As to my predecessors, perhaps I may tell my noble friend that they were all quite outstanding and all played their part in leading to today's decision. I hope that that answer satisfies my noble friend.
So far as concerns the changing of requirements. in this instance I have no need to offer a classified briefing because I can explain the position to the House. I am always happy to provide classified briefings to noble Lords who are interested. However, in this case, I believe that I can satisfy my noble friend. There has been no derogation. The requirement for operational capability has not changed. We have traded some of the more demanding technical aspects in order to maintain affordability.
In December 1999, when we first placed the programme on a Smart deployment footing, we diluted some of the more demanding specifications that appeared in the original requirement; for example, allowing United States rather than European levels of electro-magnetic protection, and continuing the use of current standards of antennae rather than developing new ones. There may be other examples. If there are, I shall inform my noble friend of them. However, he can remain content that the requirement for operational capability has not changed.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, first, I welcome this very encouraging announcement. However, perhaps I may press the noble Lord to deal further with the question of inter-operability raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I believe that the noble Lord's response was not quite complete. Therefore, I should like to give him another opportunity to deal with that matter, particularly in relation to the United States armed forces. We have experienced trouble in the past and it would be a great reassurance to know that when we have Bowman we shall be much better placed.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not sure that I can be of much more assistance to the noble and gallant Lord, except to say that the new system that we intend to adopt meets all the necessary NATO standards. It does not go outside or beyond them, but meets all existing standards. There is no reason to fear that, if we adopt this system, somehow we shall not be able to work with our colleagues in NATO.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the announcement will be very much welcomed in the

1599
Armed Forces and especially in the Army? I congratulate the Government on bringing this long saga to a successful conclusion. It is easy to talk about the past with the benefit of hindsight, but the Government deserve to be congratulated on this occasion. I also congratulate them and their chosen contractor on the inspired choice of South Wales as a base for the operations.
I have another question, which follows on from other points that have already been made. Although it would be foolish to expect any guarantees from the Government about in-service dates, would the Minister be prepared to tell us, on a scale of one to 10, how optimistic he is about bringing this excellent new system into operation by 2004?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind comments on the Government's decision and I am delighted that he is pleased about the part of the country in which the headquarters will be sited. However, I emphasise that there will be sustained and new jobs throughout the United Kingdom—in Scotland, the South West, the South East and, of course, in Wales. This is a particularly "good news" story for that part of Wales, which many of us think has suffered much in recent years for various reasons. I turn to the noble Lord's second question. On a scale of one to 10, the answer, he may not be surprised to hear, is nine.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I want to pursue the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with whom I agree entirely. The announcement is good news for South Wales. I hope that the scheme will be part of the regeneration programme for Wales as a whole and for South Wales and the Valleys in particular. That brings me to my question. Will the Minister confirm that a large proportion of the jobs that he said would come to South Wales will be allocated to the Valleys where, as he well knows, there have been massive job losses in the coal and steel industries? That would be of great assistance to the Valleys, and the eastern Valleys in particular.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who, through his distinguished career, has vast experience of industrial matters in South Wales. I confirm that the Valleys of South Wales will be among the main beneficiaries of the decision that the Government reached today.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power of court to order entry]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 18, line 36, leave out "have overriding priority" and insert "rank in priority ahead of such estates, interests and claims as are specified in the order, if it is necessary or desirable to give such a direction for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)"
The noble Viscount said: The amendment is designed to clarify the extent of the "overriding priority", which is not a defined term, that a court can give to a restriction that it orders under Clause 46(1). For example, if a registered title were subject to a registered charge created long before the events giving rise to the court application and if there were a recent estate contract that was protected by a priority search, the circumstances might be such that it was appropriate to impose a restriction that prevented completion of the contract but there would be no justification for interfering with the exercise of a chargee's powers of realisation, if occasion for such exercise arose.
The amendment also makes it clear that the power to freeze the register with "overriding priority" is to be exercised in accordance with the general law. It should not be taken as conferring any wider power to make an asset- freezing order in respect of registered land rather than in respect of any other assets in relation to which a claimant alleges that the defendant is about to dissipate or conceal his property.
The report discusses overriding priority for restrictions in paragraphs 6.52 and 6.53. Paragraph 6.52 indicates that consultation produced a slight preponderance among responses in favour of a power to give an order such priority,
"if it was coupled with straight safeguards".
There do not appear to be any such safeguards in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the concern that the noble Viscount outlined but I may be able to assist him. It may help if I explain what "overriding priority" in Clause 46(3) refers to. Members of the Committee know that that can be found on page 18 at line 35. "Overriding priority" is not a free-standing statement about priority. That is because Clause 46(3) has to be read with Clause 72(4), which can be found on page 25 at line 35. Both provisions are new.
Subject to rules being made as to detail, Clause 72 will (as under the current Act) enable a buyer of registered land to apply for priority protection. That will give the buyer a priority period. If he or she lodges a transfer application within that period, any entry made in the register during the same time will take

1601
second place to the entry made in respect of the transfer. The clause also provides for priority protection in other circumstances.
Clause 72(4) sets out an exception to priority protection. If the earlier entry is one to which a direction under Clause 46(3) applies, the entry will not have priority over the earlier restriction entry.
To make that a little easier to comprehend it might be of assistance if I give an example of the way in which that arrangement may work. A claimant seeking substantial damages in a court case is anxious that the defendant does not dispose of assets, including a house which has a registered title, so that if the claimant wins, the defendant will have the means to pay the damages. The claimant believes that the defendant intends to sell the house and to place the sale money in a bank account overseas. He or she is aware that an intending buyer has priority protection under an official search. So the claimant applies to the court for a freezing order to prevent the defendant disposing of the house.
If the court makes the order, it might, as ancillary to it, order that a restriction be entered that prevents the registration of any dealing with the registered estate of the house. The court might go on to direct, under Clause 46(3), that the restriction overrides the priority protection enjoyed by the intending buyer.
Once the restriction was registered together with an entry as to its overriding priority, the direction would prevent the registration of any subsequent transfer to the intending buyer. That would be the practical effect that would he brought into play as a result of Clause 72(4).
So, to the extent that the amendment seeks to empower the court in relation to restrictions and priority periods, we genuinely believe that no amendment is required in view of the interaction between Clauses 46(3) and 72(4).
If, by referring in the amendment to ranking in priority ahead of estates and interests, the noble Viscount has in mind priority ahead of existing entries, we consider that that would amount to a form of rectification, and any order for rectification should be in accordance with Clause 65 and Schedule 4.
We know that the two clauses are new, but they work together. Although we understand the concerns expressed, we respectfully suggest that they are met by those two clauses working together.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her about rectification and whether one is talking about safeguards, which is really what we are asking for, and which is also referred to in the consultative document.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We would argue that Clauses 46(3) and 72(4) operate as safeguards. I also invite the noble Baroness to look at Clause 65, which refers to Schedule 4. She will know that it is possible to apply for alteration of the register under Schedule 4,
1602
which is on page 49 of the Bill. I suggest that those three clauses together give the assurance that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness seek.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful for that full explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Tacking and further advances]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment. No. 69:
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) This section applies to the priority of further advances on the security of a registered charge—

(a) as against a subsequent charge notwithstanding that it is either registered or protected by a notice under section 32, and

(b) as against any other subsequent disposition, notwithstanding that it is either registered or protected by such a notice, as it applies to the priority of such advances as against a subsequent charge."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to ensure that the new and improved tacking rules apply uniformly in favour of the proprietor of a registered charge against all other interests in the land which are created subsequently, of whatever sort, and whether they are substantively registered or protected by notice. It is important to make it clear how far a chargee may tack as against the holders of derivative interests which are not charges, for example, tenants or contracting purchasers, because their interest in the proprietor's equity of redemption entitles them to redeem the charge. They may wish to do so in order to avoid being sold up by the chargee if the proprietor fails to repay what he owes. To give effect to their rights to redeem, it is necessary to work out how much of the amount secured in favour of the chargee has priority to their interests. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I can assist the noble Baroness. I can deal with paragraph (a) of the amendment relatively briefly. It is intended to apply the provisions relating to further advances to all subsequent charges. However, we respectfully suggest that this is already the effect of Clause 49(1) because it refers to a subsequent charge. Clause 129(1) defines a charge as
"any mortgage, charge or lien for securing money or money's worth".
It therefore appears that paragraph (a) of the amendment is unnecessary.
With regard to paragraph (b) relating to further advances to all subsequent dispositions, it is not clear which dispositions are covered. For example, is the paragraph limited to registrable dispositions, or will, say, a contract for the sale or an option on such dispositions be covered? It is difficult to see how the amendment will work. In any event, it appears to be unnecessary.

1603
Let us suppose that Miss Smith charges her land. The legal charge is registered and she subsequently grants Mr Brown an easement over the land. Clearly, if Miss Smith fails to keep up with her mortgage payments, the lender can exercise its power of sale and sell free of Mr Brown's easement. But let us also suppose that there is a further advance, subsequent to the grant of the easement, and Miss Smith then repays what was due under the legal charge at the time of the grant of the easement, but not under the further advance. The chargee could still sell free of Mr Brown's easement. In other words, the lender will always have priority for everything that is advanced under its legal charge over any subsequent disposition that is created after the legal charge.
I am assuming that if disposition includes a subsequent registered disposition, the legal charge is registered before then. The lender could ensure that such a legal easement is not entered as benefiting another registered estate and that it was not the subject of a notice against the borrower's title. That could be done by the legal charge providing that a restriction should be entered in the ownership part of the register, prohibiting the registration or noting an easement without the lender's consent.
If the amendment were capable of working, it would go beyond the provisions of the present Act and could lead to injustice, particularly as there would be no provision for the person granted the interest under the disposition to serve notice on the proprietor of the charge even if it were practicable.
I hope that that helps to explain why we say that it would not be a helpful amendment and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it. I hope that I have dealt with the concerns that she expressed.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendment. On reflection we almost questioned ourselves whether paragraph (a) of the amendment was strictly necessary in view of the definitions of "charge" and "registered charge" under Clause 129(1). We were more hopeful about paragraph (b), but having listened to the Minister, I would now like to consider what she has said. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Overriding statutory charges: duty of notification]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 20, line 7, after "effect" insert ", or is claimed by that person to have effect,"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would require the registrar to give notice, to the persons affected, of a claim that a statutory charge had priority over existing entries where priority is unclear or disputed, as may happen. Paragraph 7.38(2) of the Report refers to the existence of situations in which the relevant statute makes no express provision as to priority. If the proprietor, and especially chargees with
1604
securities that are earlier in date than the statutory charge, are given notice of claims for statutory priority, it will be possible to resolve any disputes forthwith. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the reasons for tabling these amendments as it is important to have clarity as to what these provisions mean. I hope that I can again assist the noble Baroness. It seems that the amendment's intention is to relieve the registrar of the need to satisfy himself that the statutory charge has postponing effect before giving notice. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding.
Clause 50 is an important provision relating to the interaction of the different statutes. Statutory charges arise over a person's land. For example, a local authority may carry out work to protect public health or safety and then charge the land so that the money can be recovered. The charges arise under a variety of statutory provisions, and those provisions govern whether or not a charge has priority over existing interests in the land.
Clause 50 ensures that where the priority of existing rights is affected, the people affected are told of the application to register the statutory charge. They can then respond if they feel that the statutory charge has not arisen or they do not believe that the charge affects the priority in the way indicated.
I am able to reassure the noble Baroness that the clause as originally drafted will operate to cover the situation envisaged by the amendment. It is also open to those affected, even at a later stage, to contest the issue of priority should that become material to them. That would be achieved by an application for rectification of the register.
As I say, I quite understand why the noble Baroness and those opposite have tabled the amendment. It is helpful for us to have clarification on how the Government believe that the measures interact. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that very helpful clarification of Clause 50 on that particular point. I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Effect of completion by registration]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 20, line 17, at end insert "(no account being taken for the purpose of this section, and of section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) as applicable for the purpose of this section, of the prohibition in section 23 of this Act of the creation of mortgages and sub-mortgages by demise or sub-demise)"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, in relation to Clause 51, is a technical amendment. We hope to prevent any difficulty or confusion arising from the fact that the meaning of a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage is not directly defined by the Bill but must be derived from Section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. That section specifies the effect of

1605
such a charge by reference to a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. But Clause 23(1) of the Bill will forbid such mortgages in relation to registered land.
There appears to be a logical difficulty in defining the effect of a permitted dealing with registered land in terms of the effect of a disposition of a type which is not permitted. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government believe that this amendment raises an interesting point on the wording of Section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. As Members of the Committee will know, that subsection puts a mortgagee in the same position as if there was a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. As the Bill abolishes mortgages by way of demise or sub-demise, it is a good idea to amend that subsection if suitable wording can be devised. I shall return to that point on Report. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing that matter to our attention.
I turn now to the amendment. Clause 23 abolishes mortgages by demise and sub-demise. The Law Commission's consultation exercise found that they are no longer used. If that is the case, then there is no need for the saving provision proposed by the amendment.
There is also a more important issue. Clause 23 should not be robbed of its teeth. If such mortgages cannot he granted then they should be completely ineffective. They should not be given legal effect because they have been inadvertently registered.
I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment but obviously we shall return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her very positive response to the amendment. I understand entirely what she said in relation to, first, Section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. I am grateful that on Report she will return to that point. I am grateful also for what she said in relation to Clause 23(1). On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 to 58 agreed to.
Clause: 59 [Dependent estates]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 21. line 24. leave out "that" and insert "the registered"
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may read out Clause 59(1) to clarify the purpose behind the amendment. The subsection states:
"The entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate which subsists for the benefit of a registered estate must be made in relation to that estate".
Simply put, this amendment seeks confirmation as to which estate is being referred to; namely, whether it is the legal estate or the registered estate. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It gives me great pleasure to say that I absolutely agree with the noble
1606
Baroness. I am grateful to her for her helpful suggestion. We believe that it improves the clarity of the Bill. It gives me even more pleasure because we seem to be celebrating comity, which is very good.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her very positive response to that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Boundaries]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 22, line 2, after "determined" insert "on an application to the registrar"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is not, I am afraid, very obvious on the face of the Bill. Its purpose is to obtain clarification of the jurisdiction of the adjudicator.
Under Clause 106(1), the adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine matters which are referred to him under Clause 73(7). Clause 73(7) requires a registrar to refer to the adjudicator any objection to an application made to him, the registrar, unless that application is either groundless or disposed of by agreement.
Most clauses in the Bill which refer to applications refer specifically to an application being made to the registrar; for example, Clause 3(2) is the first example of that in the Bill. But Clause 60 simply requires rules to be made enabling boundaries to be determined. It is true that Clause 60(3)(c) refers to procedure in relation to applications for determination but it does not refer to applications being made to the registrar.
It is my understanding that it is the Government's intention that the determination of fixed boundaries, as opposed to general boundaries, should be made by the adjudicator, and that is certainly an objective with which I entirely agree. But I suggest that as drafted Clause 60 is not adequately clear about that. For example, it is not clear that any application must be made to the registrar and unless that is clear it is uncertain whether the adjudicator has jurisdiction. I suggest that my amendment, which would simply insert the words,
"on an application to the registrar",
would clarify that situation and would make it clear beyond any doubt that the adjudicator will have jurisdiction to determine the question of fixing of boundaries. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. This was a point I raised on Second Reading and received a favourable response from the Minister. I believe that the noble Lord's words make the matter somewhat clearer and every bit of clarity will help.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, it may be necessary to reconsider this matter to ensure that it is absolutely clear. We believe that it is clear, but the aim, as the

1607
noble Lord rightly says, is to allow jurisdiction for both the registrar, the adjudicator and other proceedings, which we intend to do.
This clause seeks to address the difficult matter of boundary disputes. We hope that the mapping techniques that even now are being developed will improve with time, and that they will make it easier to overcome such difficulties in the future. One of our concerns is that we should not restrict, too rigidly, this provision so as to prevent the required flexibility to enable that technical advancement to take place. As the noble Lord has put his finger on an interesting point, we shall reconsider it. If it has to be overcome, we shall try to ensure that it is overcome.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. One or two other clauses raise this problem, although not quite as acutely. In one, there is a reference to an application without mentioning that it is an application to the registrar. No doubt if the Government feel that there is a point here, they can deal with the other references to "application" as well. In view of the Minister's reply, I am more than happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Accretion and diluvion]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Subject to any agreement to the contrary, accretion or diluvion do not alter the boundary of a registered estate."
The noble Lord said: We now come to the arcane world of accretion and diluvion. Accretion is the addition to the bank of the river or the shore of a lake or sea of soil that raises it above the water level and, in effect, creates new land out of what previously was water. Diluvion—a word with which I am sure all noble Lords are familiar—describes the opposite process by which banks or shores are washed away by the action of water so that they disappear under the water.
It is desirable that the boundaries on the register should be conclusive unless there is strong reason to the contrary. Allowing accretion and diluvion to change boundaries will mean that boundaries on the title plan are not decisive, at any rate on inland waters. I believe that this process is fairly rare but it does happen. I believe that the operation of this clause could be reversed: unless the parties on opposite banks of the river agree to allow accretion and diluvion to affect their boundaries, and that agreement is entered on the register so that any purchaser is aware that accretion or diluvion may have changed the boundaries, it should not apply.
As the law is proposed in Clause 61, that will produce uncertainty as to the validity of the plan boundaries whenever there is a water boundary, even if it is quite a small stream. In such a case, the boundaries will need to be inspected, even if the result shows that there is no accretion or diluvion. So far as transactions are concerned, I believe that it would be
1608
simpler to accept the amendment that I have proposed and reverse the effects of accretion and diluvion on boundaries so that it takes effect only if there is an agreement between the owners of the opposite bank. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for including in the amendment an issue of such enticing complexity. I shall first give a short answer, but the point raised by the noble Lord deserves a longer answer with which I shall weary the Committee in a moment.
This issue is one of great importance, particularly when one considers coastal erosion and accumulation. An example of that is if X owns the coastal land, but not the foreshore—the noble Lord knows that in most cases the Crown owns the foreshore—and in time erosion occurs. In such a situation, that which appears on the register will, of course, not be accurate, because it will not reflect the fact that there has been movement of the land. If the amendment were allowed, the owner would own not only the land, but also the land under the sea, which would mean that the owner would also own the foreshore.
Members of the Committee will know that the Crown is zealous in its protection of the foreshore, not least for the protection of the public, so that piers, and other constructions that may encroach on the foreshore, will be subject to regulation. I do not mean the Peers in your Lordships' House, but the more wooden, steely variety or perhaps I should say inanimate variety, which could never describe Members of this House.
A great difficulty would be that, if the amendment of the noble Lord were accepted, the Crown would not be able to protect the foreshore, in the interests of the public. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would not contemplate that because he would not want any of us to engage in such a sin.
Clause 61, as the noble Lord rightly says. deals with accretion and diluvion. The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who is not in his place, but who is with us in spirit, are important. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will remember what he said in the Privy Council case of Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v. State of South Australia:
"The doctrine of accretion recognises that where land is bounded by water, the forces of nature are likely to cause changes in the boundary. Where these changes are gradual and imperceptible, the law considers the title to the land. as applicable to the land as it is changed from time to time. Except where a substantial and recognisable change has suddenly taken place, it is both convenient and fair to regard the boundary between land and water as being where it is from day to day or year to year. If part of an owner's land is taken from him by erosion, or diluvion (that is by the advance of the water), the landowner is treated as losing a portion of his land. So, if an addition is made to the land from what was previously water, it is only fair that the landowner's title should extend to it. The doctrine of accretion, in other words, is one which arises from the nature of land ownership from, in fact, the long-term ownership of property inherently subject to the gradual processes of change".

1609
The Bill gives effect to those well and long-established principles. Subsection (1) provides that the registry's plan showing a particular boundary, whether a fixed or a general boundary, does not affect the operation of the common law principles of accretion or diluvion.
I respectfully say that the effect of the amended clause would not, however, be totally clear. It raises questions as to the ownership of coastal land that has emerged by accretion, as I have already indicated, and it suggests that areas of foreshore could fall into private hands— I have already referred to this—rather than to the Crown Estate.
That uncertainty would be likely to cause real problems for a significant number of people. It would be very easy to think that the changes brought about by accretion and diluvion are comparatively minor and comparatively slow. But that is not the case. One has only to think of Poole Harbour where a significant amount of land has been reclaimed from the sea, both by human intervention and accretion, to realise that there are major and sometimes catastrophic situations to be dealt with.
I am able to tell Members of the Committee that five or six years ago a number of disputes arose in the Poole Harbour area with which the Land Registry had to deal. They centred around a retained footpath from which the sea had receded. Indeed, the boundaries of the properties along many large estuaries are changing all the time. In the past few years, several disputes have been heard by the Solicitor to Her Majesty's Land Registry arising from such boundary changes. The floods of recent years give every reason to think that it may be more, rather than less, important that the law should be able to provide a quick and clear answer to the effect of accretion and diluvion.
One of the principal aims of the Bill is to clarify and improve the law. In this clause it achieves those aims by allowing the familiar common law principles to be applied to registered land. The Land Registry's practice in this area is well established and has been effective for some time. Title registers will record in appropriate cases that the boundary of the property is the high water mark as it exists from time to time. Current Land Registry practice is to record on the register when an alternative arrangement, disapplying the normal principles, has been entered into by the local landowners. The Bill also allows landowners the freedom to come to an alternative arrangement, provided that that arrangement is clearly recorded on the register.
The Government believe that in order to achieve both fairness and convenience, that is the most appropriate way forward. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, although I thank him for giving the House such rare entertainment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a full answer to this interesting question which is of wide general concern to the Committee. I recognise the importance of maintaining the rights of
1610
the Crown to the foreshore in the public interest. I am not so sure that the same problems arise in connection with inland waters, where there is no foreshore.
However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. It is unlikely that I shall want to bring it back again; it has had its outing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Use of register to record defects in title]:
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 23, line 18, after "become" insert "and remains"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment. No. 75 is intended to clarify that even if the right to determine has become exercisable, if that right has been waived or relief against the determination or forfeiture has been granted so that the right to determine can no longer be exercised, no power remains to enter the fact on the register.
Put another way, the right to determine has arisen, but supposing that it comes to an end because, for example, there is a waiver or acceptance of rent by the landlord. Why then should the registrar enter that right to determine in the register, given that it has been satisfactorily dealt with? As currently drafted, the registrar can therefore put a blot on the title, even if the blot has been erased. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. As she says, Clause 64 gives the registrar a new and significant power to record on the register any right to determine a registered estate which has become exercisable.
We respectfully agree that the amendment draws out an important issue. Before making the entry, the registrar must be satisfied that the right to determine is still exercisable. It is unlikely that in practice the registrar would record a spent right on the register, but the clause as drafted does not make that clear. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness for having raised the issue.
I hope that she will not mind if, having said that I take her point, I prefer to take the matter away. I believe that there is scope to improve the drafting of the Bill still further and on that basis I am not able to accept the amendment in its present form. I accept the need for it and the principle behind it and therefore undertake to introduce a government amendment at Report stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that explanation.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I am grateful to her for taking the point on board. I understand that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect and I know the

1611
Minister appreciates that we were under great pressure of time. On that basis, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Compulsory registration of grants out of demesne land]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved. ]
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Electronic dispositions: formalities]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 77, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 78 or 79 because of pre-emption.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 33, line 6, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 have been grouped together and relate to the same subsection of Clause 91. However, they have been tabled for different purposes and I shall deal with them successively. I can do so briefly.
As regards Amendment No. 77, the Law Society has expressed concern about Clause 91(6). It says that it is wholly unacceptable because it will not be possible to raise any question as to whether an agent had written authority to make the authentication.
Having attended the exhibition last week and heard the discussion, it may well be that there is an answer to that problem. If so, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain and put on record in the Committee why the concern of the Law Society is ill-founded.
Amendment No. 78 raises a different but small point. Why does Clause 91(6) apply only where the agent is an individual? Corporate bodies can be agents just as much as individuals. Although it is intended that the agents in this case will be conveyancing practitioners, if the agent is to be a solicitor the agent might well be a firm of solicitors incorporated as a limited liability partnership rather than an individual solicitor. I should have thought that in that case to avoid any problem it would be appropriate to delete "an individual" and insert "a person" to make sure that a corporate body can, if appropriate, be an agent. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before I deal with these issues in detail, the authentication of documents will be scrutinised with great care by the rule committee. As the Committee will be aware, on that committee will sit representatives of the Law Society, conveyancers, members of the Bar, mortgage lenders and consumers. As a result of a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord
1612
Goodhart, earlier in Committee, we intend to add surveyors to that list. That committee is chaired by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Blackburne, who is known for his impeccable judgment and the care with which he scrutinises rules generally. Historically, we have found that the committee jealously guards the efficacy of the rules and generally has been able to ensure their very high quality. We have no reason to believe that it will relax its attention to detail. I make that comment in parenthesis before I turn to amendments.
I deal first with Amendment No. 77. I am grateful to the noble Lord, first, for his presentation and, secondly, giving me the opportunity to put on the record the Government's response to this issue. The Committee will be aware that Amendment No. 77 seeks to remove in its entirety subsection (6) of Clause 91. Perhaps it is helpful to explain what Clause 91 is intended to achieve before considering the specific and rather narrow role of subsection (6). Clause 91 is part of the preparation for electronic conveyancing. Under that clause electronic documents will be introduced into the conveyancing process gradually. At first, there may be only a few electronic documents. Perhaps the first will be charges which are signed only by one party and do not give rise to stamp duty. The idea is to learn through that limited experience as we move further into the electronic world.
Eventually, we may all have our own electronic signatures. That appears to be the way that it will develop in future, but we are not there yet. That is, however, too far into the future for that contingency to be built into the first electronic conveyancing process. We may, therefore, have to rely in the early stages on the authentication of electronic documents by the person who has been instructed to carry out the conveyancing process on an individual's behalf, typically a solicitor or licensed conveyancer.
The prospect of professionals having their own electronic signature is not quite so far into the future. We believe that that will happen relatively soon. The professionals will have access to a secure network established by the Land Registry. Access will be permitted by means of a network access agreement between the professional and the Land Registry. The terms of that agreement will regulate the conduct of electronic transactions. The standards of conduct required will be high, whether the party to the transaction electronically signs in person or through his or her agent.
We appreciate the concern that to permit agents to sign electronic documents on behalf of their clients where those clients would themselves sign the equivalent paper document will increase the opportunity for fraud. However, perhaps I may assure the Committee that proper procedures to ensure that the terms of the agency are clearly understood will be necessary. The terms of network access agreements will provide an opportunity for control, and rules of professional conduct may well need to be developed. The detailed terms will be worked out in consultation with professionals and the industry.

1613
We are not yet in a position to cross every "t" and dot every "i". Therefore, I am not able to explain precisely how it will work. However, I am happy to outline the area with which we are dealing. At the moment a significant and thorough development process is being undertaken. Constant vigilance will be required to ensure that standards are maintained.
If a transaction involves the authentication of an electronic document by an agent to prevent difficulties for the agent and the system as a whole, it is important, subject to proper safeguards, to minimise the occasions on which the action taken by the agent can be questioned. For example, electronic transactions will be made more cumbersome if an agent must supply hard copy evidence that his or her authority was given in writing. Whether or not the agent is acting within his or her authority will, as now, be a matter for the general law of agency. In this context Clause 91(6) is intended to facilitate electronic conveyancing in a very specific way. It makes clear that where statute requires an agent's authority to be in writing objections cannot be raised as to whether a solicitor or licensed conveyancer who had signed an electronic document had written, as opposed to merely oral, authority to do so. The agent will need authority from his client before proceeding with authentication, and he can be held to account to his client if he fails to acquire it. However, this subsection prevents the need for other parties to investigate if the associated formalities that should be observed have been complied with.
I hope that my comments have clarified why there is a need for this assumption to be built into the provisions relating to electronic documents. I also hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised by the Law Society and enabled the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment No. 78 moves in the opposite direction. It seeks to extend the benefit of the deeming provision in Clause 91(6) from individuals to both individuals and artificial legal persons, such as companies incorporated under the Companies Acts and other bodies corporate. Clause 91(6) was drafted with the authentication of electronic conveyancing documents by solicitors and licensed conveyancers very much in mind, because, as I have said, it is expected that in the early days of electronic conveyancing electronic signatures will not generally be held by members of the public. Signing electronic documents is, therefore, likely to be one of the services that professionals providing conveyancing services will offer to their clients. Under present dispositions those professionals are likely to be individuals.
However, I believe that the noble Lord has a point in relation to corporations. I am very grateful to him for pointing out in his amendment that it is possible that in the future corporations may offer the service of authenticating documents on behalf of others. Whatever kind of person authenticates the document, it is important to remember that he will be required to comply with the terms of the relevant network access agreement to be able to send the document to the Land Registry. These agreements are likely to include
1614
provisions to ensure that proper procedures are followed by agents in regard to authentication. There may well also be professional rules which better support that.
The detailed terms of these arrangements will be a matter for consultation and careful consideration in the coming years as electronic conveyancing is developed, and they will have to change and he flexible to respond to those needs.
I understand the concern expressed about electronic signatures. It is our belief that the security and safeguards which will be inherent in the electronic system will be far greater than are currently available with a paper signature. Many of your Lordships will know that, regrettably, people are often asked to sign documents. Those signatures are not witnessed but are transposed. It is very difficult to have a proper trail to be able to verify whether that signature is actually the signature of the person signing. Therefore, it is our reasonable expectation that whatever the difficulties that may be inherent in the electronic system, it is likely to be much more secure than the present system.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was also concerned about the authentication not being capable of being challenged at all. His concern was that the agent's principal, in this case the conveyancer's customers, could not challenge an erroneous, negligent or fraudulent signature. We can reassure him that this will be possible and does not affect the law of agency, although the rules under the Bill will state how authentication should be done. The clause merely stops a buyer challenging the seller's authorisation. We believe that the Law Society will be reassured once it has seen the demonstration that the noble Lord had the advantage of seeing earlier. I hope that what I have said in relation to Amendment No. 77 assists. We shall consider Amendment No. 78.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply to both amendments. Obviously, I want to hear further from the Law Society on Amendment No. 77 before deciding whether to bring it back again. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved. ]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 33, line 8, leave out "written authority of his principal'. and insert "authority of his principal conferred by deed"
The noble Baroness said: An electronic document under Clause 91(5) is treated as a deed for the purposes of any enactment. Under the general law an agent can only make a deed if authorised to do so by deed. The amendment avoids a doubt about whether subsection (6) is sufficient to treat an electronic document made by an agent as authorised to take effect as a deed.
It could be argued that the amendment is not necessary because the electronic document is not actually a deed; it is only treated as one. However, the amendment saves having to be certain about a not entirely straightforward point. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government believe that the amendment is not necessary. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Baroness why. Amendment No. 79 relates to the authentication of electronic documents by agents, as outlined by the noble Baroness. But it seeks to upgrade the deeming provision in subsection (6) of Clause 91. It would provide that where an electronic document permitted by Clause 91 is authenticated by an individual as an agent, the agent's authentication is to be regarded for the purposes of any enactment as having been carried out under the authority of his principal conferred by deed. As drafted, subsection (6) deems only written authority. It therefore operates at a lower level of formality.
The reason that this lower level is more appropriate is that the electronic document under Clause 91 is not a deed; it is only to be regarded as a deed for the purposes of any enactment. That is provided for by subsection (5) of Clause 91. The common law rule that an agent can only execute a deed if he or she is authorised to do so by deed is therefore not applicable. All that is required to facilitate electronic conveyancing in this respect is therefore an assumption that the document was executed under a written authority. I hope that on the basis of that explanation the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw Amendment No. 79.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I think that I understood it. I am not sure that I entirely agree with it. On that basis I would prefer to read what she has said in Hansard. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Supplementary]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 34, line 13, at end insert "including documents relating to the conduct of electronic land auctioneering"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81. In addition, I declare an interest as a surveyor and a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. In the briefing that we received on the Bill and in the letter that the noble Baroness kindly wrote to me, it is said that the Land Registry wants to introduce a world-class, up-to-date and modern system. We are all in favour of that. However, I detect a slight lacuna in the Bill; it omits electronic online auctions of land. That
1616
system will become increasingly used in the future but I cannot find anything in the Bill that deals with it. That is the purport of Amendment No. 80.
I raised this point at Second Reading and received a kind letter from the Minister. That allayed my fears somewhat; nevertheless I felt that it was worth tabling the amendment. It is also a matter of concern to the RICS property auction group. It has approached the Lord Chancellor's Department for clarification of the impact of the law on this particular sector of the property market. Currently, English law allows online auctioneering until the stage of exchange of contracts. That action must still be done in the traditional area of the auction room. The RICS and others are keen to develop electronic auctioneering to its fullest potential and has established guidance for its members on the best practice in undertaking such transactions. Amendment No. 81 refers to the rules concerning this measure and states that no rules should be brought in without the RICS and, indeed, the Law Society being consulted by the Lord Chancellor in order to develop the best practice.
Having listened with care to our discussion on Clause 91, and indeed the rest of the Bill, it occurs to me that it is time that I beat another drum. It is rather an old drum; nevertheless, it is a tune that is growing increasingly loud.
Given the responsibility that there will be on agents—I do not use the word "agents" as did the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 91, but "estate agents"—they will have huge responsibilities and access to a great deal more information than now. They will be dealing with matters which traditionally have been handed straight to solicitors. If I am instructed to sell a property now I immediately advise the owner to start getting his documents in order and contact the solicitor. The more that that is done online, the quicker the process will be and the more the agents will able to do for themselves without bringing in solicitors. But the agents are not licensed and it terrifies me that some of my fellow agents will have this power and responsibility. I therefore hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to implementing the licensing of estate agents. As the noble Baroness will know, provision is already made for that under the 1979 Act. Given the added responsibilities that agents will have, particularly with regard to online auctioneering, I hope that we, too, can be licensed. That would add a good deal to our credibility and ease some of the concerns of those who will be using our services. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Caithness. To repeat what he had to say would be otiose, but it is important to him and to all of his profession that we understand the Government's intention in relation to the auctioneering of land.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for returning to the topic of electronic auctioneering that he raised at Second

1617
Reading. It provides the common theme for Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. At Second Reading I promised to write to the noble Earl about the topic and, as he indicated, I have done so. In my letter I explained that the full details of the actual electronic conveyancing systems and services that are to be used to carry out transactions have not yet been settled.
The present position is that the Land Registry has built a model demonstrator of a potential electronic conveyancing system for consultation purposes. The current model was of course demonstrated on the committee corridor of the House last week. I am very sorry that for quite understandable reasons the noble Earl was not able to be with us. The current model is creative and effective and demonstrates how quickly and easily the system could be made to work. But the final system will be the product of detailed consultation with stakeholders in the professions, the IT industry and consumers over a period of years. Experience suggests that the only certainty is perhaps that the final system will be different from the model. We hope that the prototype will be the basis for creative discussion which will better hone the system in the long term.
The Bill provides the primary legal framework for the development of electronic conveyancing. It does not specify either the particular transactions that may, in due course, be carried out electronically or the method by which those transactions are to be carried out. Those details will be contained in secondary legislation and the network access agreements referred to in Schedule 5. However, auctions have special requirements and I quite understand why the noble Earl therefore raises them. In relation to sales of land, the most striking is perhaps that the contract is formed on the fall of the hammer rather than by exchange of written, signed documents. Fully electronic auctions will presumably require instantaneous electronic commitment by the successful bidder on the fall of the virtual hammer.
In traditional auctions the bidders are quite likely to be unknown to the seller and the auctioneer. Whether that will also be the case in electronic auctions remains to be seen. The pattern of an auction sale is therefore very different from that of a sale negotiated by private treaty. Electronic auctions in England and Wales are still in their infancy but electronic bidding over the Internet is growing in popularity. The noble Earl indicated as much in his earlier comments. At present, the creation of the sale contract still occurs in the real auction room. Electronic signatures seem to offer a way in which the small, but crucial, step to electronic auction contracts could be taken.
Auctions can be a very efficient way to sell property. We certainly do not wish to impede their operation by the creation of electronic conveyancing. Rather we will have to accommodate them within the systems to be created. We believe that the legal framework created by the Bill is sufficiently flexible to achieve this and we have therefore no reason to think that electronic auctions will need separate treatment in the Bill to fit within the new systems as they develop.
1618
These systems will, of course, relate to contracts for the sale of registered land. In so far as auctions of unregistered land are concerned, the Land Registry's systems will not be appropriate. It may be the case that if it is necessary or desirable to make general legal provision for online auctions of land a different legislative vehicle may be required. I can assure the noble Earl that the Government are giving the matter detailed consideration. He may be interested to know that our officials will be meeting in early August with representatives of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors to discuss the issues. I shall consider the amendment and the issue of online auctions generally between now and Report. I hope that on the basis of my reassurance the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 80.
Amendment No. 81 is intended to ensure that appropriate representative organisations, including in particular the Law Society and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, are consulted by the Lord Chancellor before any land registration rules are made relating to online auctions. While I wholly agree with the sentiments underlying the proposed amendment, I do not think that it is necessary. First, as a matter of general policy electronic conveyancing will be developed in collaboration with the stakeholder organisations. Secondly, land registration rules, such as those to be made under Clause 94, are already subject to a requirement of consultation with the rule committee established under Clause 124. That committee includes representatives of the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Council of Licensed Conveyancers. There is also provision for the Lord Chancellor to nominate additional members for specific purposes. We are very happy to do that. I can think of few more obvious uses of that power than to obtain expert representation from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in relation to any rules that may be made regarding online auctions. That is entirely sensible.
In relation to the noble Earl's final point, the licensing of agents is well outside the scope of the Bill, though I understand that the temptation to raise it was irresistible. We hear what the noble Earl says and we understand his concerns. The quality of service is a matter for network access agreements. That may meet some of the noble Earl's concerns. I can certainly reassure him that network access agreements will be entered into and then completed only by those who satisfy the Land Registry and others that they are competent and have the necessary skills to have that facility. As the noble Earl may know, the Land Registry has jealously guarded that in the past and I do not feel that it will change very quickly.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that full reply. Perhaps I may he a little pernickety and take up on one point: she might think that I belong to an institute—I probably deserve to do so—but in fact it is an institution. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady

1619
Buscombe. How nice that she is feeling 100 per cent better than was the case two days ago and to hear her in fine voice.
The Minister mentioned that the legal framework is already contained in the Bill. I am reassured by that. However, she went on to say that if it is not, there would be different legislation. Does that legislation already exist or will further primary legislation be required? Alternatively, could this be achieved under the secondary legislation provisions of another Act of Parliament?
I should like to take this opportunity to apologise for being unable to attend the demonstration. I wrote to the noble Baroness to explain why I could not do so. It is clear that I missed an important meeting which would have helped me with this amendment.
Perhaps the noble Baroness could respond to the question that I have put to her in the fullness of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Duke of Montrose: Before we agree to the inclusion of Clause 94, I should like to ask the Minister for clarification. This clause deals with the storage of documents. I should like to know whether what might be contained in the rules will be adequate and whether a further amendment should be considered at a later stage.
First, I apologise to Members of the Committee for the fact that, owing to other duties, I was not able to attend the Second Reading debate. Furthermore, I should declare my interest as a landowner with an interest in land registration.
I shall paraphrase Section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000: "The Minister is not to authorise electronic communication or electronic storage unless he considers that … the extent to which records will be available … will be no less satisfactory in cases where use is made of electronic communications or electronic storage than in other cases". This seems to suppose that electronic recording could be the only form of recording under the provisions of that Act.
So far as I understand the Bill before the Committee, it does not depend on the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act, although it runs on fairly similar lines to it. Furthermore, it does not require that electronic recording should be no less satisfactory than in other cases, as stated in Section 8 of the Act. In the question of land title, a great deal of satisfaction comes from being able to go back to the deed in 50 or 100 years' time.
I was grateful to be able to attend the demonstration which took place on the committee corridor. From what I saw, in the initial stages a paper document will be produced by the Land Registry. However, so far as I can see, there is no requirement for it to do so.
1620
Problems may arise in that electronic communication, as well as being subject to the usual hazards of fire, water, civil disturbance and a number of other risks, faces other dangers. In particular I refer to the continual updating of operating systems—something that I have come across even with my own limited experience. In 50 years' time a situation could arise where a problem occurs when attempting to interpret an electronic document. The outcome could be unfortunate: "We had a man here who was very good at updating this system, but he died 10 years ago". I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it might be better, possibly when the rules are framed or at another level of authority, to lay down some requirement and status for an old-fashioned paper record which could be consulted if the electronic version had become garbled.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway that I understand the noble Duke's concern. In particular for those of us who have grown up with paper, there is something reassuring about holding it in one's hand. I can sympathise and empathise with that concern. However, the whole purpose underlying electronic transmission is that all the records will be held electronically. Back-up systems will also be available so that we shall not have to rely on only one. We all know how dangerous that can be. That is particularly the case for any noble Lord who knows the feelings of joy when one's PC crashes. I can certainly reassure the noble Duke that the intention is that any system put in place will have proper back-up.
Although a paper record will not be kept, the computers will still be capable of creating paper. Anyone will be able to request a paper copy of their entry in the register. Indeed, for only a very few pounds anyone can request such a record. We have taken on board any concerns that might be felt in this area.
The Bill stands on all fours and its provisions are free of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 mentioned by the noble Duke, although it is right to say that this legislation is better informed by virtue of the fact that an Act similar in nature had already been passed to which reference could be made. For registered conveyancing, ultimately it will be the register and not the original deeds that will matter. The register already is almost wholly electronic.
I should like to take this opportunity to applaud the Land Registry for having achieved a great feat. It has converted many of those beautiful but dusty and deteriorating documents into electronic form. We now have a safe record of them. I am sure that many historical libraries will be happy to have other records in due course. Guidance will be made available from the Public Record Office. We respectfully hope and suggest that a paper back-up will not be necessary. However, I understand that for those of us born before 2001, we shall probably bemoan its passing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): The Question is whether Clause 95 shall stand part of the Bill?
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Registration of adverse possessor]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Schedule 6. Amendment No. 89, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Goodhart: I think that the noble Baroness wished to oppose the Question that Clause 95 shall stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 95 shall stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have already dealt with Clause 95 stand part.
Baroness Buscombe: I am sorry.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have already called Clause 95 stand part and the Committee agreed that it was content. I have also put the Question whether Clause 96 shall stand part and the Committee agreed that it was content. We have now reached Schedule 6 and Amendment No. 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Goodhart: I think that this problem has arisen because the Question whether Clause 94 shall stand part was not put to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Yes it was.
Lord Goodhart: The question was put to the Committee, but I do not believe that the Members of the Committee were asked to say "Content". I shall proceed with Amendment No. 89.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No 89:
Page 56, line 11. leave Out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out paragraph 5(4) to Schedule 6. This sub-paragraph confers a right to registration on the traditional basis of adverse possession where a boundary on the ground does not coincide with a boundary on the register. The report from the Law Commission refers specifically to this. It may happen in the course of the development of a new estate. Frequently the developer of the estate may draw up a plan which is divided into neat plots. The plan is then used as the basis for registration, but the boundaries between the different houses on the estate do not coincide with the boundaries as shown on the plan. I understand the thinking behind paragraph 5(4), but I do not agree with it.
The reason I do not agree with it is that if the boundary as shown on the register is paramount, it reduces the chances of boundary disputes arising. Speaking from personal experience, I can remember a case in which I had a marginal involvement which appalled me. It concerned a dispute over a boundary which had arisen in exactly the circumstances where the boundaries on the plan did not coincide with the boundaries on the ground. There was therefore a claim based on adverse possession.
The dispute involved, I think, some 10 days of hearings in a county court, spread over a period of 18 months. This was followed by an application for leave to appeal, which was rejected by one judge at the Court of Appeal. But there was then a re-application to a three judge court, which gave leave. That appeal was subsequently successful.
There were three parties involved, the two landowners and the developer, who was brought into the case. At the stage at which I was involved—which was after the county court decision but before leave to appeal had been given—each party had already incurred costs of approximately £40,000 over a strip of land worth at the most a few hundred pounds. If the landowners in that case had been told that the boundary on the register was decisive, there would have been no litigation.
Of course there may be cases where, for example, a garage has been built on land which one owner believes to be his but which was in fact on the wrong side of the boundary as shown on the plan. In such a case, it would obviously be undesirable that the boundary should be changed and that a garage—and possibly, in some circumstances, even a building—should have to be knocked down at great cost because it had been built on the wrong side of the boundary. But that particular problem is covered already by subparagraph 5(2) on the ground that it would be unconscionable for one owner to claim land from his neighbour where the neighbour had spent a substantial sum in the belief that he owned the land, and where no objection was made at the time the building was going on.
Boundary disputes are the worst kinds of litigation. It is always difficult to find clear evidence and it leaves neighbours in a state of permanent hatred and warfare. I believe that the elimination of subparagraph 5(4) would make boundary disputes significantly less likely because there would be less opportunity to challenge the plain boundary shown on the plan. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have listened with considerable sympathy to the circumstances described by the noble Lord. It is not surprising that his experience in that case stays forever in his memory. It is certainly an excellent illustration of the problems that can arise when boundaries are fiercely disputed. However, we believe that the solution proposed by the noble Lord would lead to many more disputes and, indeed, to some considerable injustice.
Perhaps I may start by explaining the problem with which the paragraph deals. The Land Registry has found that it is very common indeed for there to be small differences between the legal boundaries of an estate and those laid out on the ground. Much more rarely, as we have heard, the differences are significant. Problems are often particularly marked, in number and in kind, in relation to new estates, where, I am advised, it is rare indeed for properties to be exactly in the spot marked on the original plan. It is quite usual for a developer to have built a whole estate some three

1623
or four inches or three or four feet in the wrong place. That causes the quite significant difficulties that we are talking about changing.
The most obvious example is a series of fences put up in the wrong place. Those who move into a new house tend—perfectly naturally—to take their new fence as the boundary of their territory. Few will go to the trouble of comparing their new property in detail with its entry on the register. One can see how that occurs. If one has a 50-foot garden, and one measures it and it is 50 feet, one tends to think that it is the 50 foot garden one purchased, as opposed to thinking it is three inches the wrong side of a particular fence. Certainly such persons do not go to what can still be a matter of considerable inconvenience and expense of getting the general boundary of their property fixed by the land registry.
Such new owners, having made assumptions about the location of their boundaries, proceed to treat all the land within the fences as theirs. They will often plan their gardens accordingly; they may build garden sheds and greenhouses against that boundary. A position can then arise where, for whatever reason, one party examines the actual boundaries, and the legal position turns out to be something very different from what it had up to that point been thought to be. In the circumstances I have described, it is simply unreasonable that someone who has enjoyed territory through a mistake which was no fault of his or her own, should not be able to apply to have the position regularised.
The best assessment we can make—and this is clearly not capable of being precisely quantified—is that there are a large number of boundaries which may be in the wrong place. There could therefore be a large number of strips of land, which could be subject to serious dispute, without means of acquiring the title contained in the sub-paragraph. But—and this must be emphasised against the exceptional example described by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—the overwhelming majority of these estates involve comparatively small error.
Without the simple procedures of the kind laid out in the schedule, the only recourse would be expensive litigation, with all the uncertainty and stress that that would bring. One envisages, for example, an estate with 20 houses, where all 20 houses are one foot in the wrong position. Although all 20 houses have got the direct proportions the owners thought that they were buying, the man or woman on the end could say "You have got a bit of my land". To get his or her bit of land back, everyone would have to perform a very interesting dance.
That is the kind of situation which the Land Registry, which sees documents all the time, knows is likely to occur. As it is currently phrased, the Bill takes that kind of situation into account; it is an attempt to operate a degree of balance. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
1624
I should add one point. The noble Lord is saying in essence that the boundary should be paramount. I gently remind him that it is not paramount under the law as it currently stands, and it will not be paramount under the terms of the Bill. The registry operates a general boundary rule and, unless there has been an application to fix detailed boundaries, that avoids many disputes. We believe that the provision in the Bill deals with the matter efficaciously.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her full reply. I shall consider what she has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 57, line 24, after "charge" insert ", and of any charge protected by a notice under section 32,"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to ensure that where an adverse possessor is registered as proprietor, the extent to which he takes free of a charge is not affected by whether that charge is substantively registered or merely an equitable charge protected by notice. The way in which a particular security happens to have been protected is irrelevant to the substantive issue of whether the adverse possessor should take subject to it or free from it.
Paragraph 14.74 of the report—relating to registration of the squatter and the effect on registered charges—points out that registered chargees are to be notified of an adverse possessor's application to be registered—paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 6—and are therefore able to object to it. Paragraph 2(1)(e) of Schedule 6 allows rules to be made for notice of such an application to be given to other persons; it will be possible and appropriate to require such notice to be given to a chargee whose security is protected by a notice rather than by substantive registration. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Under the provision in the Bill, a squatter who has made a successful application for registration is registered in place of the registered proprietor. Unless the Bill provides otherwise, the squatter will take subject to the matters which affect that registered estate.
The effect of paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 6 is to make the registration of an adverse possessor as proprietor of a legal estate free of any registered charges which affect that estate immediately before the registration, subject to one qualification. I shall explain the reason why this exception has been made.
When an adverse possession application is lodged, notice of the application will be served on both the registered proprietor and the registered chargee. As that chargee has the right to possession, his position has been improved under the Bill, since he will have two years in which to take action to evict the unlawful occupier (the squatter). If he does not do so, however, he loses his charge.

1625
The position of a chargee whose interest is noted on the register is, however, significantly different. Even if notice of the adverse possession claim is served upon that chargee, he is unlikely to be able to take any action against the squatter. It is unfair that he should be singled out to lose his charge when he can do nothing to stop the squatter obtaining title. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I have listened to the noble Lord's response. I am not sure that I am entirely happy with it; however, I shall read his words in Hansard and give them careful consideration. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 57, line 25, leave out from beginning to "in" and insert "Where a person is registered as proprietor"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 92.
These amendments are intended to ensure that when an adverse possessor is registered as proprietor because he establishes one of the conditions in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6, he takes free of registered and noted charges which on general principles would not bind him, because they were created by the proprietor at a time when the adverse possessor's claim had already acquired priority.
It is doubtful, at best, whether the adverse possessor can claim priority over chargees because he had an overriding interest as an occupier of the land at the relevant time, as the report suggests (at paragraph 14.76, note 258). Before being registered, the adverse possessor's interest is the independent "wrongful" fee-simple which arises from the fact of his possession; but when he is registered, that interest is extinguished by the provision in paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 6; therefore, it cannot subsequently be relied on, even if at some former time it was an overriding interest. If in a "paragraph 5 conditions" case the adverse possessor cannot rely on having had an overriding interest, paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 6 will make him subject to all charges whenever created—even the day before the application under paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 is made— because paragraph 9(3) will be disapplied by paragraph 9(4).
Again, we are not entirely certain that the amendment is ideally drafted in the terms necessary to achieve our intention. However, I hope that my remarks have made clear the purpose and intention behind both amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In discussing this amendment we are concerned with only one specific instance of an adverse possessor being registered as owner of the land. That is when the adverse possessor is registered after only 10 years, having successfully established that one of the three conditions set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 applies.
1626
The combined effect of sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 9 of the same schedule is that the adverse possessor, in this instance only, does not automatically take the estate free of any registered charges which affect that estate immediately before his registration.
I understand the concern that has been raised. Taking paragraph 9 in isolation, it seems that an adverse possessor can be registered as proprietor after 10 years, but only by paying the penalty of being subject to existing charges over the estate. I can reassure the noble Baroness that that does not reflect the complete picture.
At first sight, every adverse possessor, whether registered as owner after 10 years or after a further two-year period has expired, should take free of all registered charges and, as we discussed in relation to the previous amendment whether he or she should take free of any noted charges as well.
However, if the adverse possessor does not take free of the charges under paragraph 9, it does not mean that the story ends there. If the basis of registration is one of the first two conditions set out in paragraph 5 there exists an independent right or other reason justifying the squatter's registration as owner. That independent right or justification will, under wider property law principles, either have priority over the charge or it will not. The fact that the claim to registration has been made by way of the adverse possession procedure should not affect that priority. In such cases the apparent unfairness that the amendment seeks to address does not arise. The scheme does not make an arbitrary decision as to whether the charge still bites, but leaves the general law to determine the answer to the question. I suggest that this is probably the fairest solution to apply.
This leaves the third condition in paragraph 5 to be considered; namely, where there is a boundary dispute. In such cases, the claim relates to only part of the property. The adverse possessor may have successfully claimed a very small part of a very large estate; and that estate could have a substantial mortgage on it. The provision in paragraph 10 deals with the practical problem that this may cause: it enables the proprietor of the land to seek an apportionment of the charge between the land acquired and the remaining land. This is an important point. I say that because, in most normal circumstances, lenders would seek repayment of the entire loan before releasing any part of the property from their charge. In some cases, the apportionment exercise will result in a charge being secured entirely on the remaining land.
In the light of that slightly complex explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the unfairness that the amendment, understandably, seeks to address has already been considered and that it is, indeed, covered by the Bill's provisions. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for a very full response to the proposed amendments. Indeed, his

1627
reply will certainly help to clarify and reassure us on the points raised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 58, line 21, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete paragraph 12 to Schedule 6, which says:
"A person is not to be regarded as being in adverse possession of an estate for the purposes of this Schedule at any time when the estate is subject to a trust, unless the interest of each of the beneficiaries in the estate is an interest in possession".
Therefore, in a situation where the property is held on trust for a parent for life and then, on the parent's death, for a child, it is not until the death of the parent that the time for adverse possession would begin to run.
I see no justification whatever for including paragraph 12. One of the benefits of registration is to make it easier to ignore the interest of beneficiaries under a trust. Indeed, that has been the aim of property legislation since well into the 19th century when the existence of trusts of land was making it increasingly difficult to sell such property.
Why should the interests of beneficiaries be relevant to the question of whether or not there is adverse possession? Land will be registered in the name of the trustee. The trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of a beneficiary. If the trustee has failed to prevent someone acquiring trust land by adverse possession, the trustee is in breach of trust and is liable to make good the loss suffered by the trust fund. Under existing law, there is a problem; namely, that land may be in the personal occupation of a current beneficiary, who has only a life or rather limited interest. In those circumstances, the trustee is unlikely to pay any close attention to what is actually going on as regards the land, and may not be aware that adverse possession has taken place.
However, the new system set out in Schedule 6 requires a notice to be given to the proprietor—the trustee—before registration of an adverse possessor can take place. At that point, the trustee will have notice of the adverse possession and it is not too late for him to act; indeed, he has two years within which to put an end to the adverse possession. The trustee can and should take the necessary action at that stage. As far as I can see, paragraph 12 is entirely unnecessary under the new system. I can see no good reason why land held in trust should be any harder to acquire by adverse possession than land which is in absolute ownership. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I listened with particular care to the comments made by the noble Lord. This is certainly a difficult and complex area of property law. However, I am very far from being
1628
convinced that the noble Lord is right in this instance; or, indeed, that his amendment is in tune with the general scheme created by the Bill.
As the noble Lord rightly acknowledges, under the current law it is not until all the equitable interests under the trust of land have been successfully barred that the legal estate of the tenant for life, or, as the case may be, the trustees of land, is extinguished. Where there are successive interests under the settlement or trust, a squatter must, therefore, bar each equitable interest in order before he or she can claim the legal estate.
In accordance with this rule, the registrar will not register as proprietor a squatter who has take adverse possession against the tenant for life under the Settled Land Act 1925. The registrar will only do so when satisfied that all beneficial interests under the settlement have been barred.
I am a little troubled in this respect because the noble Lord said that he cannot see why the beneficiaries in such a situation should be given protection. Perhaps I may give the Committee a not too far-fetched example because, regrettably, this kind of situation arises from time to time. Let us take, for example, a couple who are involved in a car or an aeroplane crash. Unfortunately, the husband dies, leaving property of some considerable nature in trust for his wife for life and for his child upon her death. The wife, who is distressed and overcome by what has happened to her husband and, indeed, to her situation, becomes mentally ill. As a result, the child is removed from her care and placed into the care of the local authority. This tragic situation continues for some time.
During the time that the child in question is in the care of the local authority and the wife is housed in an appropriate mental institution, squatters take up residence on the child's property and remain there for some considerable time. Nothwithstanding the fact that the person with the life interest has done nothing wrong—or, indeed, has not been able to control the property—and the fact that the child is also innocent of any wrong, the noble Lord's amendment proposes that the squatter who takes up adverse possession of the property should thereby deprive the rightful beneficiary of his or her interest. That has never been our law; it is not our law now; and it is not proposed that that particular injustice should be visited by the Bill.
The Bill's provisions aim to fit the situation of trusts into its new scheme. It provides wholly new arrangements for squatters to apply to be registered as the proprietor of a registered estate in place of the existing proprietor. The application will succeed in the limited circumstances set out in the schedule. But the provisions of the Bill should not prejudice the rights of beneficiaries who are not yet in possession. We must have a balance: a squatter will not be regarded as being in adverse possession at any time when a registered estate is held in trust, as long as there are successive interests in the land. It is only when the interest of all of the successive beneficiaries of the estate have actually taken possession that a squatter can begin to clock up adverse possession that will qualify under the Bill.

1629
The effect of the noble Lord's ammendment is very different. Squatters would be able to count time against the 10 years of qualifying possession as soon as they entered the land. They would be able to apply for a first time to be registered as proprietor after 10 years, against whichever of the beneficiaries under the trust was then entitled. If the beneficiary failed to remove the squatters after an unsuccessful application, they would be able to apply again two years later and their application would succeed.
We could apply the latter situation to the example that I gave earlier to the Committee. If, tragically, the mother was still in the care of an institution of some sort and the child was also not of age—he or she being of tender years when the father died—both the mother, suffering from her incapacity, and the child would be deprived of their rights by virtue of the noble Lord's amendment. That situation would be very much easier to achieve, as the noble Lord said, than under the provisions in the Bill, or indeed under the current law. It would represent a very significant shift of the balance of interests away from the successive beneficiaries of the trust, in land which is registered, towards a squatter. That is very much against the general scheme of the Bill, which sets out to clarify and strengthen the position of a registered proprietor.
It also significantly shifts the balance between current and future beneficiaries. The general law would serve to prevent a tenant for life acting in a way which would frustrate the trust by alienating the land by normal means. I used the example of a mother suffering from incapacity because it does not even go to the situation where the tenant for life has behaved badly. But if a tenant for life took no action to resist an application for registration by an adverse possessor, the life tenant would lose not only his or her own but their successors' rights as well.
Indeed, it is perhaps not too fanciful to envisage circumstances in which the amendment if accepted might create a loophole in the law which would enable a life tenant to bring the trust to an end in favour of the selected ad verse possessor, frustrating the intentions of the trust. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, notwithstanding the initial attraction of his amendment, it would be undesirable, and quite possibly unjust, to amend the Bill in that way. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the answer of the noble Baroness. However, it is not an answer to my amendment. What it does is to raise a different problem. Let us take the example that the noble Baroness has raised of a car accident in which the husband is killed and the wife to whom he has left a life interest in his property is severely injured as a result of which she has to be confined in an institution. Even if the wife has been named as the sole executor of the estate in the will, she would probably be unable to take out a grant and someone else would have to be found to take out a grant of representation to the estate. That person would
1630
become the trustee and it would be that person to whom notice would have to be given. That person would be the person who would be in a position to remove the people in adverse possession.
The point raised by the noble Baroness would therefore only arise in the somewhat improbable situation where the wife, having been fit to take out a grant as sole executor of the estate, then. as a result of delayed reaction, becomes unfit and no steps are taken to remove her as trustee of the estate. The problem that that throws up is that of the trustee who becomes unfit. Just as much injustice would be caused if the property had been left outright to the wife, so that she is the absolute owner of the estate, but, as a result of her injuries, she is unable to authorise action to be taken against the adverse possessors.
What one needs here to protect the situation is not paragraph 12 at all. What one needs is some provision for preventing adverse possession being acquired in cases where the registered proprietor is under an incapacity. That is the problem. What is needed here in my view is not paragraph 12—I believe that paragraph 12 can safely go—but something which will ensure that adverse possession cannot be acquired in cases where the registered proprietor, whether a trustee or an absolute owner, is incapable of taking action within the two-year period. In the case of absolute ownership, it would be just as much an injustice for the registered proprietor to be deprived as it would for a beneficiary to be deprived because of the incapacity of the trustee. If there is a trustee and if that trustee has full capacity, I continue to be of the view that paragraph 12 is unnecessary. In the circumstances, although I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment today, it is one which I may well bring back on Report, coupled, perhaps, with a further amendment to ensure that time does not run against a proprietor who is suffering from an incapacity.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the noble Lord sits down, I used that extreme example to soften his heart in relation to some beneficiaries. The noble Lord will know that we have made provision in terms of a disability in paragraph 8 to Schedule 6. However, the comments I made in relation to beneficiaries and tenants who have full capacity stand. The law as it stands is the law we intend the Bill to reflect.
Lord Goodhart: I respond to that point briefly. The fact is that nowadays under a trust of land it is very rare that the person who is the tenant for life—in the perhaps technically inaccurate sense of being a person who has the current life interest under the settlement—and has the current life interest under the settlement is also the sole trustee of that settlement. I simply do not see that where there is a settlement of that kind that situation is likely to arise.
Although I did not expect the noble Baroness to raise the point that she did I take the point that paragraph 8(2) to Schedule 6 deals with the question of incapacity. I accept, therefore, that no further

1631
amendment is necessary. However, that strengthens the case for saying that paragraph 12 is not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 97 and 98 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 100 [Annual report]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 36, line 10, leave out "must" and insert "may"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 100 imposes a duty on the registrar to produce a report. However, it also gives him a discretion as to its form. In that context, we suggest that the word "may" is more appropriate. Clause 100(2) states:
"The registrar must publish every report under this section in such manner as he thinks fit".
It is the intention of the Government that the registrar has a duty to publish a report but that the report itself should be produced in such a manner as he thinks fit, thereby giving him discretion as to its form and content. We propose that the registrar may publish every report under this section in such manner as he thinks fit. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the import of the noble Baroness's remarks. Clause 100 provides that the registrar must publish an annual report in the way that he considers appropriate. That is already what happens. Although it occurs at present without the benefit of statute, the Lord Chancellor lays that report before Parliament. So that reflects the current position.
The annual report is distributed widely to many organisations interested in the way in which the land registration system works. Those who are stakeholders in the registry use the information to monitor how the registry is functioning and to raise issues on its performance. The publication of information about the land registry's operation as a business is, therefore, important. Although it can be left to the registrar to decide the method of publication—for instance, in addition to printed copies the report is currently made available through the registry's website—the registrar should be obliged to publish that information. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and clarification that the registrar should be, rightly, under a duty to publish a report. However, the English is not clear. I suspect that I shall bring forward a different amendment to clarify the use of English and retain the meaning that the registrar is under a duty to
1632
produce the report but that he may do so in such a manner as he thinks fit. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clauses 101 and 102 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Indemnities]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 60, line 35, at end insert "or section 86, or
(i) any other negligent act or omission on the part of the registrar in the performance of his duties under this Act"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 97.
The amendments are directed to a similar point. Members of the Land Registry enjoy immunity from suit save where bad faith is proved. Perhaps I may direct the Committee to paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 which re-enacts, albeit in slightly different language, the provisions of Section 131 of the Land Registration Act 1925. In principle it is objectionable that the Land Registry cannot be sued for negligence. By contrast a local authority may be liable for the negligent acts of its employees in carrying out local searches. I draw attention to the Ministry of Housing v Sharp. This means that the scope of the indemnity provisions in Schedule 8 are of critical importance. At the moment they are not wide enough to protect the innocent citizen in all circumstances in which the registry has been negligent.
One example is provided by Clause 86(2) and (4) which impose a duty on the registrar to enter in the register relating to registered estate a notice of a bankruptcy petition which may affect it and to enter a restriction where a bankruptcy order has been made, in both cases as soon as practicable. Clause 86(5) provides that where no such notice or restriction has been entered in the register and a registered disposition is made in favour of a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the bankruptcy petition or order, the title of the bankrupt's trustee is void as against the purchaser.
What if the registrar negligently fails to enter a notice or restriction as soon as practicable and the bankrupt's creditors lose? No rectification of the register is appropriate so that paragraph 1(1)(a) does not apply and the other sub-paragraphs do not seem to apply either. If so, there is no remedy. The proposed amendment to paragraph 1(1)(h) of Schedule 8 is designed to cure this defect. But there may well be other situations in which there should be a remedy and there is not. The suggested new paragraph 1(1)(i) is a "mop up" provision designed to cater for these. This is not a particularly elegant solution but it will at least serve to raise this important point of principle.
I turn to Amendment No. 97. The references to "mistake" in Schedule 8 are ambiguous in that they do not in terms refer to intentional as distinct from unintentional error. The position under the 1925 Act is much clearer. Section 82(1)(d) permits rectification where the court or the registrar is satisfied that an entry has been obtained by fraud and Section 83(1) provides

1633
for any person suffering loss by reason of any rectification to be indemnified. A person suffering loss in consequence of the register being rectified by reason of fraud is thus clearly entitled to be indemnified. The proposed amendment is designed to produce the same clarity. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the difficulties she outlines are already covered. The issues involved in relation to Amendments Nos. 95 and 97 are the same. I shall therefore deal with them together.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 sets out the circumstances in which a person who has suffered loss can seek to be indemnified for that loss by the registrar. This is an important area. It was considered by the Law Commission fairly recently and the law changed by the Land Registration Act 1997. Although the Bill recasts these provisions into the current style, it makes no significant change to the provisions that were contained therein.
The fundamental premise on which the title guarantee system is based is that it is a no-fault indemnity system. The underlying policy is that no one has to prove that someone is at fault. All that has to be shown is that, first, a mistake exists in certain documents kept by the registrar; secondly, a mistake exists in the search, result or register created by the registrar; or, thirdly, a document lodged with the registrar has been lost. The only exception to that is the failure to serve notice under Clause 50.
Clause 50 is a special case. Under that clause, a lender may lose out as a result of the registrar's failure to serve notice but not because an incorrect entry has been made. I absolutely appreciate the concern behind the amendment: that failure to enter details of a bankruptcy petition or order, or a negligent act or omission on the part of the registrar, may result in loss for which indemnity is not payable.
I share the belief that people who suffer loss in either of those circumstances should be compensated for that loss. However, I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill already addresses those concerns to the extent that it needs to do so.
If the registrar fails in his duty to make an entry in relation to bankruptcy matters, a resulting error will appear on the register. In other words, if a bankruptcy entry of some kind should appear but does not, that will be the error. The registrar's failure would therefore be a mistake, the correction of which would involve rectification of the register. Such a mistake entitles the person who suffered loss to claim the indemnity.
I now turn to the question of negligent acts or omissions by the registrar. Perhaps I may say respectfully that issues of this kind have no place in a no-fault indemnity scheme. If the negligent act or omission results in a mistake in a document or in the loss of a document, then indemnity is payable. It is not a matter of how the mistake or the loss arose. If a negligent act or omission does not fall within the indemnity scheme, the complaint is likely to be based
1634
on delay in achieving the right result. The registry is, and will be, held to account for maladministration through its complaints procedure. In such circumstances, compensatory payments can be made outside the indemnity scheme. It is certainly our view that it is more appropriate to handle those payments in that manner.
In the light of those comments, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the amendment is not needed and that, without it, the system will operate fairly in a similar way to the current system. The interpretation of Schedule 8 defines the scope of the term "mistake" for the purposes of the payment of indemnity under the schedule. Again, I appreciate the concern behind the amendment. For these purposes, a mistake should include one that results from forgery or fraud. It is only right that a person who has suffered loss should be able to claim indemnity if the mistake results from forgery or fraud.
However, as I have already said, the fundamental principle on which the success of the indemnity system is based is that it is a no-fault system. Indemnity is payable however the mistake that gave rise to the loss was caused. It would cover mistakes resulting from the two specific types of event described as well as mistakes caused by other factors. As I said earlier, the important and legitimate concern raised by the amendment is already addressed in the Bill. I hope that I have been able to clarify that for the noble Baroness, and I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full and helpful response and reassurances in relation to both Amendments Nos. 95 and 97. I should like to consider with care what she said in Hansard and study the references that she made covering the points that we have raised. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 105 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 106 to 115 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 116 [Power to reduce qualifying term]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 40, line 9, at end insert "the Rule Committee and".
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 98 relates to a very important power under Clause 116 in Part 12—that is, the power of the Lord Chancellor to reduce the qualifying term. It is our belief that that power must be exercised with great caution. We discussed in some detail its implications in relation to earlier amendments.
This clause puts one in mind of the Regulatory Reform Act. A significant power exists here without, we fear, sufficient constraint because the Lord

1635
Chancellor need only consult as he considers appropriate. I say that with all due respect to the current noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, I am sure, would consult all appropriate parties. However, we must remember that this Bill replaces an Act that has lasted since 1925. Therefore, we are looking to cover all eventualities for the long term.
We believe that it is simple to do so because we have a ready-made rule committee that is, we are assured, constituted to reflect upon and take account of all interests affected by the Bill. Yet, when it comes to an issue that goes to the heart of the Bill and, indeed, as we stated when dealing with earlier amendments, affects so many people who are involved in conveyancing, small business, farm tenancies, and so on, that important committee will not be consulted. We believe that to be a serious omission. We hope that it is accidental, but, if the omission is intended, I hope that the Minister will explain to us the policy behind it.
Perhaps I may refer the Minister to col. 1395 of Hansard wherein she makes reference to an earlier amendment dealt with in Committee. Perhaps I may repeat her words:
"Confidence in the system is necessary. Once that confidence has been established, it will be possible for the Lord Chancellor of the day to look again at whether a further reduction"—
that is, in the qualifying term—
"is merited, but that would be done at a time that was in line with what the market, the profession and the registry could tolerate with ease". —[Official Report, 17/7/01; col. 1395.]
We on these Benches believe that that test would be met if properly applied by consulting fully with the ready-made rule committee. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I believe that the noble Baroness has made a rather good case for what has not been done—that is, that an order made under this clause should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that there is a strong argument for that— perhaps stronger than the argument for requiring consultation with the rule committee, whose field of action in this case is slightly different.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As Members of the Committee will know, the Bill was drafted on the basis that leases of seven years or more will be subject to compulsory registration. In the longer term, it is intended to reduce that period to three years or more. The Committee will already be aware that that will happen only when both the registry and its customers can cope with the change, as the noble Baroness reiterated from our earlier deliberations.
As the noble Baroness said, Clause 116 enables the Lord Chancellor to substitute in various clauses throughout the Bill a shorter qualifying period for leases. That will enable related provisions to dovetail with each other by adjusting the length of the leases to which they refer. The clause imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult before that change is made. That will be a significant change and a wide consultation exercise will be undertaken with all representative groups.
1636
Members of the rule committee have professional expertise and experience of serving on that committee and they will undoubtedly have a valuable contribution to make in this area. However, the rule committee as a committee has a very specific function in relation to land registration rules and fees orders; namely, to ensure that the procedures that are set down function well and operate fairly for the benefit, ultimately, of the Land Registry's customers. It is not the committee's function to represent the public interest generally in relation to changes to primary legislation; as Members of the Committee know, that is the role of Parliament.
Orders that are made under the clause will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, in the same way as orders to extend compulsory registration in relation to shorter leases will be. I give proper weight—I am very much thinking on my feet—to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the proposed change. I cannot give a positive answer on that matter but it needs—or deserves—further consideration.
The approach throughout the Bill has been to impose on the Lord Chancellor a duty to consult without attempting to list all the different bodies and stakeholders that might have an interest. As Members of the Committee know, that list may change from time to time. It might be inelegant and inappropriate to prescribe or limit it in any fixed way. It may also depend to some extent on the proposed change. It would be very unlikely that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would wish to consider the exercise of the power in the clause without considering whether he—or she—should consult the rule committee. Equally, I should expect the answer usually to be, yes. However, that does not make it necessary or desirable to single out the committee in the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I can say that the matter will be given further consideration. At the moment we believe that that arrangement suffices and that it would be inappropriate to so restrict it, but the matter perhaps needs more thought. However, I obviously cannot guarantee that I shall come back with a positive answer.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and her assurance that more thought will be given to this matter. I do not quite understand why the rule committee's remit could not be extended to include such an important issue as the power to reduce the qualifying term. We should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consult the rule committee as a minimum and, in addition, as much as possible with other organisations that and individuals who will be affected by such an important issue, which will go to the heart of conveyancing. I wait to hear what proposals the Minister will return with on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clauses 117 to 123 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 124 [Exercise of powers]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 41, line 39, after "Conveyancers," insert—
"( ) a person nominated by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors,
( ) a person nominated by the National Consumer Council,"
The noble Lord said: The proposal in the amendment has already been touched on in this debate; it is that—in addition to representatives from the Bar Council, the Law Society's council, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, a judge from the Chancellery Division and the registrar—the rule committee should include a person nominated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. If the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, were in his place, I should apologise for getting its title wrong. The amendment also proposes that the committee should include a person nominated by the National Consumer Council as a representative of consumer interests.
I should mention that when, some years ago, I was a member of the conveyancing committee of the Law Commission, that committee included a representative from the National Consumer Council—she was a valuable member of the committee. I presume that that is the appropriate body to represent consumers' interests. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It should be plain that we have some sympathy with the amendment. Clause 124 deals with the membership and role of the Land Registry Rule Committee, which assists the Lord Chancellor with the development of land registration rules and fees orders. As the committee is currently composed, it is chaired by a High Court judge. He in turn is supported by the Chief Land Registrar and representatives from the Bar Council and the Law Society. Additionally, a surveyor is appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was then called.
As it is drafted, the Bill will remove the requirement for the appointment by what was called the Ministry of Agriculture and extends the committee to include a person nominated by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Council of Licensed Conveyancers. That reflects the impact that the rules have on the different stakeholder interests. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of representation by consumers and surveyors. It must be right that in important discussions about the content of land registration rules the interests of both should be represented. I have in mind the large number of rules that will need to be made following the Bill's enactment.
In addition, the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to appoint to the committee anyone who it appears to him can make a valuable contribution on any matter. I am beginning to think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, might fit that bill, as would the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Including in the Bill those two additional nominees as members of the
1638
committee will enable them rather than the Lord Chancellor to decide on which matters they wish to be heard. That is an important point in this regard. It seems to us to be the most appropriate way forward.
However, I have concerns about the way in which those additional members are identified in the amendment. I have therefore turned to the legislation relating to the membership of the rule committee overseeing county court procedures, which is perhaps the nearest equivalent body to this rule committee. One of their members is chosen for his or her knowledge of consumer affairs. I prefer that more generalised wording. I am also attracted to that approach for the selection of the surveyor. I should prefer it if the Bill stated that the Lord Chancellor will appoint someone with experience in surveying matters. That would cover the point. I say that because even now the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is not the only eminent body in the surveying profession. The change of wording is not intended to prevent the Lord Chancellor from consulting the RICS on the appointment. It is likely that a nominee from RICS will be best placed to sit on the committee while the vast numbers of rules that will come into force alongside the Bill are made. The revised wording is designed merely to provide and ensure greater flexibility in future. The specific areas covered by rules might be more specialised. I have mentioned the additional power given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint other members of the committee in relation to specific matters. That power can be used to ensure that the relevant interest groups in the surveying profession are represented whenever the need arises.
To conclude, the amendment is accepted in principle and we undertake to table a government amendment on Report, incorporating wording along the lines that I have suggested. In light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, says about the position of representatives of consumer groups, but I have difficulty about not including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the Bill. That body is incorporated by Royal Charter and while I accept that there are other associations involving surveyors, they are mostly organisations of a different kind. They are not groups of surveyors who deal regularly with conveyancing issues. I should have thought that the RICS was plainly the pre-eminent body with regard to surveyors involved in conveyancing and that it was an appropriate body to include. It is somewhat inappropriate to specify the four named organisations in the clause without including the RICS.
The matter is not vital, but I should like to hear the views of the RICS before deciding whether to table another amendment naming that organisation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Rules, regulations and orders]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 42, line 17, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 20 and insert "made under this Act"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendments is to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which recommended that the rule-making powers should be made subject to parliamentary procedure through the negative resolution procedure.
In my enthusiasm, I went a bit too far. The effect of my amendment would be to require a parliamentary negative resolution procedure for matters such as fee orders and commencement orders, which are not customarily subject to such procedure. That was not my intention and I do not wish to press that issue.
With regard to the rule-making powers, there is provision to lay statutory instruments before Parliament but to provide for no other parliamentary procedure. That procedure seems to be unique to the Land Registration Bill. I recognise that some Acts of Parliament have provisions requiring certain documents, such as codes of conduct, to be laid before Parliament. Those are not statutory instruments, of course, and do not contain rules. We in the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee believe that the land registration rules should be brought into line with the general practice of rules of court and should be made by statutory instruments which are subject to the negative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 101 and 103A. I thank the Minister, representatives of the Land Registry, Charles Harpum and others for an informative demonstration of the electronic conveyancing model. It is always helpful to have in one's mind's eye some practical experience of how a system will operate. There is no question but that we are very supportive of this development, which will, when it is fully operational and the teething problems are ironed out, clearly transform conveyancing for the benefit of all.
Part 8 and Schedule 5 of the Bill set out the principles and outline the parameters of the new system which, to a large extent, are welcome. It is clear that the detail of the system and its operation will be covered by rules under Clause 93 and Schedule 5. It is our view that the detail, when drafted, should be discussed in Parliament because it will be of such fundamental importance to the operation of electronic conveyancing, and thus everything that impacts on the future of land registration.
It would be nice to discuss today the regime that will be in place for the next 100 years, but we cannot. It was conceded during the demonstration of the e-conveyancing model that a pilot study will be crucial to ensure that the current system is workable in practice for a multitude of applications. It must be said that it is extraordinary the speed with which the
1640
Government have brought the Bill to Parliament in contrast with the lack of detail with regard to the most important point.
We know that the pilot scheme is expected to last for five years, which is a sensible period. We hear the Government's argument against specifying the detail in the Bill because technology may, and probably will. progress in that time frame. However, whatever process is finally determined by the Land Registry to be the right one following the pilot scheme, that is no argument for not allowing us the opportunity to debate the finer points in Parliament. The detail is too important.
I refer the Minister to her speech on Second Reading when she stated:
"The power referred to exactly replicates the current law".—[Official Report, 3/7/01; col. 798.]
That is true, but we are now introducing a very new system which requires new law. We therefore believe that we should not be bound by current law that relates back to 1925.
Amendment No. 103 is consequential on Amendment No. 101. Clause 129(1), referring to general interpretation states:
'"land registration rules' means any rules under this Act, other than rules under section 93, Part 11. section 119 or paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule 5".
All the rules that are specifically excluded relate to rules for electronic conveyancing. Clauses 123 and 124 relate to land registration rules. Clause 124(1) provides that,
"Power to make land registration rules is exercisable by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and assistance of the Rule Committee".
Therefore, all land registration rules can be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as the Minister made clear when speaking to a previous amendment, but only with the advice and assistance of the rule committee and excepting those rules relating to electronic conveyancing.
Why is that? Our amendment would remove that exception because it is entirely consistent, logical and sensible for rules relating to electronic conveyancing to be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in conjunction with the advice and assistance of those who understand the market and who are in touch with the practicalities of operating the system.
Remember that it is the Government's intention to have comprehensive electronic conveyancing in a few years from now. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his advisers, it is a nonsense to exclude the advice and assistance of the rule committee regarding the most important elements of this new system.
I respectfully remind the Minister of the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading. He stated:
"The Land Registry has now begun an intensive campaign of consultation with conveyancers and with all other people involved in buying and selling property. That is necessary because conveyancers themselves must work with the system". —[Official Report, 3/7/01; col. 778.]

1641
We are pleased that there is now a campaign of consultation. However, that consultation should continue for the long term because, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognised, it is those who are and will make up the rule committee who must work the system and who will best understand its strengths and shortcomings.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall now reply to Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 103 and 103A. It may be for the convenience of the House if I start by explaining that I have listened very sympathetically indeed to what has been said, and, as I mentioned when we last met in Committee, I shall be undertaking to bring forward amendments at a later stage.
As the Explanatory Notes on the Bill and the Lord Chancellor's Department's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee explained, the Bill has adopted an improved version of the approach to rule making to be found in the current legislation.
As Members of the Committee will already know, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has recommended a different approach. It points out that the general power to make rules regulating land regulation procedures dates back to 1925, and has always been subject only to the requirement of their being laid before Parliament after being made. It points to the example of rules of court, which are subject to negative procedure, and suggests that all land registration rules should be so subject. The committee also recommends the extension of that procedure to rules under Clauses 107, 108 119, regulations under Schedule 9, and orders under Clause 99.
The Government are happy to agree that the rule-making powers should be modernised. We are of the opinion that the Committee's comparison with rules of court is appropriate, and we think that the model which should be adopted is the one which is now followed for the civil courts, and which has recently led to the wholly reworked civil procedure rules. The Government will therefore bring forward amendments which would subject all land registration rules to negative procedure.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, clarify that he did not intend to include fees orders and so on. There are, however, some aspects of internal court administration which, as the noble Lord knows, are not subject to that procedure, but are simply laid before Parliament after being made. Although fees orders are made on the advice of the relevant rule committee and with the consent of the Treasury, they are also simply laid. There are powers of this kind in the Bill: for example, the powers under Clause 99 to make provision on the carrying out of functions during any vacancy in the office of the registrar. Clearly, any delay in such regulations created by the procedural requirements of negative procedure could have a very serious operational implications for the Land Registry. The Government's provisional view is
1642
therefore that the regulations which are brought forward should follow as closely as possible the scheme of rules for the civil courts.
Amendment No. 101 would go considerably further than the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. The Select Committee did not recommend that any of the delegated powers under the Bill should be subject to affirmative resolution. Apart from subjecting the great majority of delegated powers under the Bill to negative procedure, this amendment would also make the most important rules relating to electronic conveyancing subject to affirmative procedure.
Rules under Clause 93 would prescribe the transactions for which the use of electronic conveyancing would be made compulsory. Rules under the first three paragraphs of Schedule 5 would govern not only who was allowed to have access to the Land Registry electronic network but also the terms on which that would be permitted. Those rules will therefore be central to the regulation of the system. It really is fundamental to the success of electronic conveyancing that it should be able to command the confidence of customers, and of conveyancers. The noble Baroness acknowledged that those rules may need to be changed rapidly if technology improves and I thank her for that acknowledgement because it is quite clear that that is the way we shall go in the future.
The Government certainly see the value of ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny, and a full public airing, for the draft rules. The amendments which the Government will bring forward at a later stage will therefore include provision for affirmative resolution in relation to rules dealt with under the current amendments. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not press their amendments.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 103A. It seeks to remove certain words from the definition of the phrase "land registration rules" in Clause 129, which is the general interpretation clause to the Bill. As drafted, the phrase "land registration rule" is used to identify the rules which must be considered by the rule committee before being made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In the form of the Bill as introduced, those rules were to be made and then laid before Parliament.
As we have already indicated, the Government will be reconsidering the degree of scrutiny to be applied to the rule-making procedure. The effect of Amendment No. 103A would be to extend the rules that must he considered by the rule committee to include rules relating to simultaneous completion and registration in electronic conveyancing under Clause 93 and network access agreements under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 5 to the Bill.
It would also draw into scrutiny by the rule committee rules under Part 11 of the Bill relating to the proceedings before the adjudicator and rules relating

1643
to the forwarding of certain applications by the Land Registry to the registrar of companies under Clause 119.
We do not believe that that would be appropriate. Applications to the registrar of companies are matters of joint interest to Companies House and to the Land Registry. Therefore, we suggest that they should not depend upon the advice and assistance of the rule committee alone. Similarly the new adjudicator to Her Majesty's Land Registry is an independent office and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for consideration by the rule committee to be a formal stage in the creation of rules applicable to proceedings before the adjudicator.
As originally drafted, the Bill subjected the rules to be made in relation to electronic conveyancing under Section 93 and paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 5 to a negative resolution procedure following consultation by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is required to consult on the rules governing electronic conveyancing, and that would include the rule committee where relevant. However, the amendment would have the effect that the rule committee would include the Chief Land Registrar in the rules governing the adjudicator, and that may not be appropriate for reasons of independence.
Given the wide and important ramification of the rules, we consider that the wider provision of general consultation is more appropriate. I have already indicated that the Government will bring forward amendments to include provision for affirmative resolution procedure. Clearly, we could not involve the rule committee as a formal step in the making of the rules if this higher level of parliamentary scrutiny were adopted.
In the light of those comments and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. In view of what she has said, I shall ask for the leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment No. 100 and I shall not move Amendment No. 102. As I understand it, the Government agree to most, although not quite all, the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The outstanding one is orders under Clause 99. I am unsure whether there are any others. Having had a quick look I believe that Clause 119, which simply deals with transmission between two registrars, perhaps falls into the same category. No doubt the delegated powers committee will have a chance, before the Bill is dealt with on Report, to consider the arguments put forward as to why there should be no changes in those limited respects. I cannot speak for the Committee, but I do not have any particular problems with those. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 100.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 101:
Page 42, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) No rules under section 93 or paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule 5 shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(5) An order under any provision of this Act other than section 99, 101. 111, 131 or 133 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister for a full response in relation to Amendments Nos. 101 and 103A. I am pleased by her undertakings in relation to Amendment No. 101 and look forward to considering the government amendments on Report.
I also want to consider with care what has been said in relation to Amendment No. 103A and earlier amendments in relation to the remit of the rule committee and its relationship with the Land Registry. Of course, the matter of independence is important, but on that basis I shall not move Amendment No. 101.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clauses 126 to 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [General interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 103A not moved.]
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 131 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Transition]:
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 108 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 80. line 40, leave out "section" and insert "paragraph"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to correct what appears to be a minor drafting error. The word "section" appears in the Bill and I believe it should read "paragraph". I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have arrived at the final amendment. I am delighted that it has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Again, he has demonstrated that even the smallest of drafting slips in any part of the Bill are not safe from his keen eye. As he has noted, the reference in paragraph 18, subparagraph (3) to "this section", should read "this paragraph". I am pleased to accept the amendment.
It has been a pleasure to participate in the second day of the Committee stage. The amity with which the Bill has been dealt with is a matter of some pleasure. We have had a good debate today and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I thank the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 133 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Multi-ethnic Britain
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Uddin Baroness Uddin rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the recommendations of The Parekh Report: The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the time of the Parekh report going to press, the Government declared that they are committed
"to creating one nation … [where] every colour [is] a good colour … every member of every part of society able to fulfil their potential … racism is unacceptable and counteracted … everyone is treated according to their needs and rights … where racial diversity is celebrated".
A year is an eternity in politics—it was last year that I tabled this Question for debate—and events have overtaken my initial thoughts and my genuine search of the Government's agreement to consider the recommendations of the Parekh report. In doing so today, I cannot ignore the events of the past weeks in Oldham, Burnley, Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent. Now that we have the debris of these events lying in the ashes of deprivation, isolation, fear and hatred, I have to say that the evidence of inequality, discrimination and exclusion is so pervasive that it would be a dereliction of duty to the truth not to give it prominence.
In the period leading up to the prolonged election campaign, I had numerous conversations with many honourable and noble friends about the state of race relations. I said the same as has been said by many for more than 20 years and as was stated in the Parekh report: "Do something about the underachievement, the poor housing and education and apartheid in town halls and, above all, do something to redress the issue of representation and leadership not just in local and central government but, more importantly, in the boardrooms and on the quangos. And we need to widen participation in the decision-making structures of this country".
I also talked about the visits I made last year to the North of England and, as usual, I talked about Tower Hamlets. I have to say that I used the word "apartheid" on our doorsteps and raised serious questions about the effectiveness and performance of local authorities in engaging their citizens.
The past few weeks have revived all the fear, hopelessness and soul-searching of the 1980s when the Scarman report was left to rot on the shelf. What is the difference? None, according to the delegation I met yesterday from Oldham, Bradford and Burnley. Twenty years ago young people claimed that they were defending their community and they make the same claim today. And the allegation made 20 years ago was—and it still stands—that the police failed to protect the community. Throw in racially segregated
1646
estates, schooling, unemployment and lack of access to prosperity on your doorstep and you have a recipe for grief and tension.
After decades of hard work, it must be admitted that community work in Britain is in disarray. There is a big gap between intention and outcome and promise and delivery. Oldham and Bradford are today, as they were 25 years ago—ghettoised housing and education. Yesterday, the members of the delegation said that there is no shortage of initiatives but there are few tangible results. Their despair is made even worse by a feeling of marginalisation and a lack of any genuine partnership with the authorities. They say that the experts who rule all the decision-making structures have no affinity of any kind with their plight and dilemma.
The Parekh report is an important milestone in the collection of evidence on which to base a strategy for some equalisation of services and for addressing some of the questions arising out of the events of last week. Anyone who remembers the reception the report received when it was launched in October last year should have heard alarm bells ringing about the state of race relations in Britain.
Some of the extreme media response was the usual blurring of the fine line between advocating balance and freedom of speech for everyone and damning confession of belief in true blue history and justification of the "rivers of blood" speech. But if perception is two-thirds of the truth, two-thirds of the country must have been totally confused about the subsequent discussion on Britishness. The same media, throughout last week, remained trapped in its own definition of "freedom of expression" and raised new heights by giving a platform to the defence fascism.
Suddenly every newspaper and journalist wants to give the so-called "Cambridge-educated fascist" a platform. Really, my Lords, the "old boys' network" works even for those who are advocating race and religious hatred. The master prosecutor sat fixated in his chair allowing viewers to believe that the "Cambridge-educated fascist" had the upper hand. I hear that in response to complaints from the CRE, the BBC's explanation was that it had given the matter careful consideration and it was duty-bound to be fair, even though it may find some of what it has to broadcast unpalatable.
The comments of politicians and the reporting of the incidents in the media dramatically highlighted the phenomenon of bipartisan political consensus on race. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there is no dialogue between those who make decisions and those beneath them.
An editorial in the Yorkshire Post of 12th July reminded its readers of the words of one Marsha Singh, who in the 1980s defended Asian activists who had stockpiled petrol bombs for use against the National Front and who was now making a plea for the police to be given water cannon to quell the predominantly Muslim rioters. And now the Member for Keighley has similarly broken with old socialist

1647
Labour rhetoric, and perhaps even risked the wrath of the Labour Whip, by calling for restrictions on the influx of husbands and wives from the subcontinent who cannot speak English. Now, wait a minute, we are not talking about the "river of blood" or the dark days of the cricket test. Are we not referring to second and third generation British citizens?
These are trying times for our good will and our Government and it is time for a genuine and deep-rooted assessment of community relations in our country; time for bold action. For a long time, individuals in the Labour Party such as myself have argued that efforts aimed at creating modern Britain need to go beyond the rhetoric and tokenism of past years. Just when we think that there is progress, we dig ourselves into a corner where even Enoch Powell may not have dared go; making a sin and a crime of not speaking English.
Coming from one of the wealthiest parts of London, I despair every time I come across the frustration, sense of helplessness and marginalisation that people within my own community continue to feel. It is not that money has not been poured in, but that the division has continued to be widened; ghettos have effectively placed their people into an apartheid system of governance; and the race relations organisations have become more elitist and have failed to become more inclusive. We are no longer talking about immigrant communities but about second and third generation British citizens. That is where the Parekh report's recommendations in their fullest are applicable. Perhaps the Minister will say why he believes the democratic movement of our country has missed these young people who have been burning their community, smashing it, and making a mockery of democracy.
The young people of Bradford and Oldham came to London yesterday seeking to retrieve their hopes. We have to signal that hope, fairness and justice. The problems in the North of England affect all young people; the lack of jobs and prosperity, poor quality housing with racism just added on. Only the fascists are gaining from the violence that has occurred. The solutions lie in establishing dialogue. The Parekh report is a testimony to the many possibilities. The British citizens of Bradford and Oldham are seeking explanations and justice, not condemnation.
Under the new Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, public bodies must work through their statutory functions to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, direct and indirect, and, most poignantly for the moment, to promote good race relations across and between people from all backgrounds.
These are trying times. Ultimately, the choice is stark. Difference can continue and citizens be damned, or the diversity of all our communities can be embraced, for the failure to be wise may lead to an abyss from which none of us can claim victory. The recent Bradford race review could apply to any place I have mentioned so far with far-reaching consequences for the Government. The necessity for reversing the
1648
segregation and apartheid in the heart of our democracies is imperative and we cannot stand by and allow the destruction of communities to continue.
The Parekh and Lawrence reports give us a means of putting long-standing rhetoric into meaningful action. The Parekh report is not just a statement on race relations in Britain, but raises questions about the legitimacy of a significant group of British citizens hitherto denied equal rights in Britain. It is none of us who occupy these Benches, but those who occupy the ghettos of Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Tower Hamlets.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this interesting report. I resisted with great difficulty a wish also to speak about Bradford, but I believed that I did not know enough about it. The report contains some interesting ideas, notably a recognition that,
"it is legitimate to bar female circumcision, forced marriages and repressive and unequal treatment of women. even though these practices may enjoy cultural authority in certain communities".
It also recognises that society,
"may rightly insist that parents should not deny full-time education or opportunities for self-development to their daughters".
I feel strongly about that. When I was principal of Somerville, to which from time to time clever Asian girls applied to read medicine or law in particular, because it was then a single sex college, and thus acceptable to Indian or Muslim fathers, I visited many comprehensives to meet such girls and encourage them to apply. But at one large school I found no girls in the sixth form. The head explained that, naturally, they had been withdrawn by their fathers at the age of 13 to go into purdah and then to be sent back to their villages in Pakistan to marry and bring back with them young husbands who often spoke no English.
I asked what the girls felt about it. They were, after all, British subjects who were entitled, and required by law, to stay at school until the age of 16. I was told that they had begged to be allowed to stay but the local council felt that it was vital to respect the culture of their community. I said then, as I say now, that we cannot hope to achieve a healthy, integrated society while such procedures are tolerated and even encouraged. Those young women have been excluded from their rights as citizens and their children will suffer too. Therefore, I warmly agree with the report's view on that issue and its suggestion that,
"a more ceremonious form of welcome for new British citizens—as in the US—might help everyone to reflect on the value of citizenship and to appreciate diversity".
However, I regard some of the rest of the report as misguided, not least because it has confused expression of the proper indignation that some members of ethnic minorities are entitled to feel over

1649
perceived injustices, which need recognition, and letting itself be used as a vehicle for intemperate, untrue and unjust attacks. I want to know when we,
"colonised three-fifths of the world with unspeakable barbarism, occasioning several holocausts in the process".
One wonders whether the Commonwealth thinks that.
The report's eight pages of recommendations include such proposals as demanding that the Qualifications and Standards Authority should require that all exam boards offer only syllabuses in which it is possible to gain at least a C grade at each tier and that all schools monitor tier entry by ethnicity. The issue should not be to demand special treatment for members of ethnic minorities, which all those with spirit will resent, but a major investment in good teaching right across the board in areas where children, black and white, live in bad circumstances. They need to be taught together. How else will they ever become truly British? They need to be taught in English because they are all citizens of this country, and they need to be taught an equal pride in its past and future. That does not prevent those with family ties to other cultures and histories from learning to be proud of them too. The Poles who settled here after the war have carefully taught their children their history and culture, but it should not be to the exclusion of their loyalty to the country whose citizens they are.
We are speaking of the needs of some 6 per cent of the population which is an important group that is capable of enriching our society in terms of literature, music and many other things, but I suggest that the report should be more concerned with how to encourage it to integrate than to demand that every institution and business—every part of society—should be policed to ensure that ritual numbers of members of ethnic minority groups are to be found there. It urges that in any one year for the next five to six years a t least one-sixth of new Members of this House should be from Asian and black community backgrounds. I value the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, because of his great wisdom. I value the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for her work among women and her community in general. But each happens to be a member of an ethnic group, just as hereditary Peers are valued not for their birth but their knowledge of forestry, medicine or the arts.
The report is full of restrictive and even punitive proposals, such as that broadcasters should be required to provide statistics broken down by ethnicity and gender in relation to grades and categories, such as producer, editor and camera operator, and by management level. That is only one such restrictive and prescriptive requirement. When asked whether she felt proud of being a great woman writer, Iris Murdoch replied that she was proud to be a writer. The clever Asian and black graduates of Somerville have made successful lives on the same basis; they are neither gender nor race-conscious.
Finally, I believe that to confuse patriotism with nationalism shows a failure to understand the nature of the people of this country. We are justly proud of much that our forebears did, just as any nation is, and
1650
critical of other things. Robert Gardiner, a very great Ghanaian who became head of the Economic Commission for Africa and a good friend of mine, said that the British left two infinitely valuable legacies behind in the countries that they colonised: the rule of law and the English language. Our greatest opponents, men like Gandhi, Nehru, Nyerere and the Zulu chiefs, respected us even as they fought for their independence, and men and women from the Indian sub-continent, Africa and the Caribbean were proud to fight by our side against a common enemy.
The report quotes a young woman as saying that,
"Britain is populated with many races but the feeling that the whites reign supreme never goes away".
Since 94 per cent of the population—among them many who were originally Poles, Czechs, Latvians and others, not just the deplored English—are white, this does not seem unreasonable. What matters is that we are all equal as citizens. We all have the vote and a voice in a free society. We must fight injustice, poverty and cultural divisiveness wherever we see it and ensure that all our people have an equal chance of education, employment and freedom of worship. While we must work to resist injustice, the authors of this report should understand that they will not achieve it by attacking our national character and pride m our history. I am tempted to end with the old cockney saying,
"If you know a better 'ole, go to it".
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, we should thank not only my noble friend Lady Uddin for securing this debate and for the depth of experience that she brought to her introduction of it but also my noble friend Lord Parekh who took time off from pressing academic work to chair, on a voluntary basis, the commission which produced this brilliantly analytical but also practical report. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, the parent body of the commission.
On publication of this report, the media concentrated on their own misreading of what remains a seminal analysis of the nature—its tensions and glories—of life in multi-ethnic Britain., and largely ignored the range of expert recommendations on how to secure a fairer and more harmonious and productive future.
I shall concentrate on the employment recommendations. The distinguished black American academic, William Julius Wilson, proposed that paying attention to the poor would incidentally and without backlash deal with racial discrimination. But the stark facts of race discrimination in employment are race-specific. They are not poverty-specific.
The Higher Education Funding Council's report last April showed that black and Asian graduates are up to three times as likely to be unemployed as white graduates. The skin colour of graduates dwarfs all other variables put together, and this is in the context of proportionately more graduates—about 12 per cent—than among white people.

1651
If we look more generally at all kinds of work, the position is no different, except that the various communities within our minorities are more sharply differentiated. Men of Bangladeshi and rural Pakistani family origin—a common background in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford—had, at the last Labour Force Survey, a 24 per cent unemployment rate, compared with the overall national rate of under 6 per cent. But the unemployment rate for men of Indian background is, at only 7 per cent, close to that of white men. Women of Afro-Caribbean background are less likely to be unemployed than their menfolk, particularly young men. There are obviously different factors at work here—perhaps different local school standards, different family patterns and the decline of traditional industries. This has also had an effect on the employment of our Irish minority. But these different factors add up to a single unfair outcome, evident in getting jobs, in earnings and in levels of promotion. Is not this a cause of shame to any patriot?
The best recent thing the Government have done to tackle this dangerous unfairness is the Race Relations (Amendment) Act's new duty to be accountable for promoting race equality, as my noble friend Lady Uddin said. This was a great step forward by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's predecessor. It goes far to implement the Parekh report's recommendations in the public sector. We could with advantage include the chartered professional associations, in respect of their members. But the requirement does not apply to the private sector.
The report proposes similar provisions for the private sector. They show the hand 'of Professor Bob Hepple QC. I cannot do justice to his thoughtful and detailed measures in the time available, but I would add that the Runnymede Trust's work on the FTSE 100 companies found that only 27 monitored their workforce by ethnicity and only four set targets for fair representations. The former chairman of the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland has described how, since companies were required to report the percentage of Protestant and Catholic employees—only report, my Lords; no restrictive requirements—after such reporting, Catholic participation in the workforce rose until it was only 2 per cent less than their workforce proportion as a whole. Law has been helpful here I suggest.
The report's recommendations for labour market programmes prompts one to ask: what was the fate of the Employment Service's "Closing the Gap" project to remedy its lack of success with New Deal entrants from ethnic minorities, even those with higher qualifications? The Social Exclusion Unit recommended a year ago that the New Deal should test the effectiveness of positive action training. Has this worked? Have modern apprenticeships now remedied their racial imbalance? The European Union funds the "EQUAL" Community Initiative, to promote innovation in combating labour market discrimination. How has the UK used this opportunity?
1652
I understand, from when I worked in the then Employment Department, reluctance to festoon coherent standards like Investors in People with added requirements. But is compliance with the standard now interpreted with regard to race equity? And I also remember, when I was chair of Camden's Racial Equality Council, we could not get the Single Regeneration Budget to recognise that its outputs should include fairer employment chances for London's minorities. Does it now address race discrimination?
Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister, in responding to the employment recommendations of the Parekh report, will he say how the new work of the Performance and Innovation Unit on ethnic minority communities will deal with discrimination in employment?
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I, too, wish to acknowledge a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. However, in saying that, I see him as a guru of race relations who, over time, has helped me with his insight and his wisdom. I only wish that at this stage I could whole-heartedly subscribe to the concept in the report, which, sadly, I cannot. My vision of British society is very different from the one that the Parekh report tries to put forward.
Seventeen years ago we were working on a report on the education of ethnic minority children. It was called the Swann report. I remember that I shocked my fellow members by changing the introductory chapter called the "Nature of Society". If your Lordships who are interested in this subject have not read that chapter, I would commend it to you. That was 17 years ago. In that I put forward a vision of British society as being one where the mainstream culture will evolve and change and encompass other cultures and their diversities. It will not be pockets of multi-culturism, but it will be the mainstream British culture which will undergo the change.
After 17 years, even I am surprised at how much of that has happened. We only have to look at dress, food, music, dance and sport. Everywhere there is diversity. There is richness. There is a shared belonging. It is something which actually fills me with a huge deal of hope for the future.
Cultures are dynamic. When they come into contact with each other they evolve. Any part of our culture which we value we shall maintain and share with others. That applies both to the mainstream and minority cultures. As they rub against each other they evolve, grow and become an event in themselves.
It was very unfortunate that there was an attack on the term British and the concept of being British. Unlike most of the people here of Indian origin, I am probably the only one who actually remembers and grew up in India when it was part of the British Empire. I remember how unbearable the racism was. I remember the marches. I remember all kinds of things. There is no doubt that the original concept of being British was racist because we were the British

1653
subjects, although we accepted that at the time. But there was definitely a racist connotation. But now we have to take back that concept. We have to make sure that we are included in that Britishness, not excluded. By excluding ourselves from Britishness we do no justice to ourselves or our second and third generations.
If we have no concept of Britishness, what is our concept of a cohesive society, of a country and of belonging to some place? Our children do not belong to their country of origin. If they are not going to belong to this country, where are they going to belong? We came here to improve our future. What right have we to ignore entirely the attitudes and opinions of the majority? We have no right. We have a duty also to acknowledge and change to fit in with what this society wants. That is not to say that we have to forego what we value. It is not necessary. This society does not demand that of us. It does not demand that we reject our culture. It does not demand that we reject our religion.
Certainly, it demands that we reject some of the nastier things mentioned about discrimination against women. The report should have gone much further than it did. Those are all against the law; and we all have to obey the law. Where are the recommendations for treating ethnic minority women with respect and with equality? These are matters that are absolutely against the law. I see no plethora, if I may use that word, no huge number of recommendations to protect the women from the discrimination they have to suffer every day of their lives in minority communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, read out some statistics. If I remember correctly, she said that Indian men, and possibly women, have the same kind of unemployment rate as white people. Why is that the case? Is it not because there is better educational achievement and a better understanding of what is required of them? Is there no responsibility on the minorities to do something about their own situation? I do not believe that one can have rights without responsibilities.
We have heard that in Bradford there is a great division between the different communities. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that we have to fight against that separation. What is this about paying more money to community leaders? Why do our third generation need spokesmen who belong to the first generation? They have nothing in common with their young people who are fighting in Bradford.
My time is up. My vision of Britain is of a cohesive society that is open enough to enjoy and respect what is within us and where no one is treated as a separate or less good or less able person.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating this debate on the Parekh report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain. I spent the first six years of my life in India. I have visited many countries in the Commonwealth and I have worked in universities with
1654
many colleagues from Asia and Africa. I have heard about some of the bad experiences they have had. But I am pleased that many have really appreciated coming to this country, and in ways that would surprise noble Lords. One of the most interesting examples was Japanese colleagues referring to the British culture of the Grand National. Some of my colleagues have even taken out British nationality.
I have a little experience of sonic of the extraordinary problems faced by our ethnic communities. In the 1960s my wife and I tried to get a flat. I put down on the application form where I was born. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I completely failed to find a flat until I appeared and tried to get one in person. So I do know a little about what happens.
The Parekh report records a sombre situation in the UK, with the widespread feeling among ethnic minorities that the general ethos in this country is not sympathetic to their interests, their communities and their culture. This debate is particularly timely following the recent urban riots in Lancashire and Yorkshire and the realisation that the remedies must have several elements—more resources, new governmental and community organisations, new ideas for running business, education and government and, above all, fresh approaches to how different ethnic communities see each other. I should like to comment on those points and make some suggestions.
In order to give the House an idea about an ethnic community, I once showed some colleagues from the Philippines The Penguin Book of Jokes. They said, "Ah, ethnic jokes". Of course, they were all English jokes; but they were very ethnic. The report refers to the experience of and the policies adopted by other countries. I know something about that subject. Inadvertently, by turning right instead of left in New York, I witnessed the riots in the United States in the 1960s. I was not a very good navigator. It was a frightening experience which I hoped not to see in the UK. I believed that, with our welfare state, our special provision for the poorest communities and, most of all, our gun-free culture, it would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, I think I was wrong.
Our present Government are greatly increasing the funding and focusing of welfare provision but ethnic groups quite rightly expect more. One hopes that we can also move back to more gun-free policing, following recent legislation. The UK is learning from the organisational measures taken in the United States to overcome some of those difficulties. The Government have taken welcome steps which one hopes will be extended and taken in new directions. A determined effort will be required to change bureaucratic rules.
In school education, the Government are allowing funding of new types of school. The House has heard, particularly from the Bishops' Bench, about some of the results of improvements in that direction. In higher education, we heard today how universities are being funded to bring school students from ethnic minority groups into colleges over the summer period to

1655
familiarise them with the advantages and enjoyment of higher education. Such initiatives of internships for minority groups, as recommended in the report, could be vastly extended but would not require huge additional expenditure. It would be a highly effective use of funding and it could be provided to government, agencies, non-governmental organisations and business. As a director of a small company which certainly employs interns, some of whom are from minority groups, I believe that such a scheme is practical. In the United States it is standard that everyone having a research grant or having funding from the government for a research project would have some element of that kind. It is a matter of looking at all the forms and applications used by quangos and other organisations. I therefore believe that that recommendation in the report could be implemented.
There is considerable scope for positive discrimination along such lines. The report recommends that government agencies could do more to recruit in that direction. I believe that the report is quite right. As a former chief executive of a government agency, I encouraged my personnel staff—it was something of a surprise to begin with—to advertise in minority newspapers. We were also encouraged by circulars from the Ministry of Defence to have representatives of ethnic minorities and women on our board. We did that. We just needed the letter and we did it. But the report underlines that much more could be done. I wonder how many senior managers in government really have such an obligation in their job description. It is certainly not in the framework document.
As I noted this week in the International Development Bill, government departments and agencies have enormous powers to direct their purchasing of services. As a civil servant, I struggled with a previous government on that issue. A Minister in that government said that that was the kind of thing they did in France, not the UK. Such a break with traditional bureaucratic methods must happen and such powers could be used to purchase from companies employing or owned by minority groups, whether ethnic, disabled or poor communities in overseas countries. At the moment it is exceedingly difficult with the best will in the world for an executive to apply those concepts. That has to change from the very top.
As the report emphasises, the media are essential. There should be more financial and technical assistance to minority groups to allow them to develop their own media. That would empower them, as happens all around the world.
Finally, asylum is a key issue. It is essential that our leaders should acknowledge the enormous contribution to this country made by minority groups. There has been such acknowledgement in today's debate. It is important that that should happen. I should like to draw an invidious distinction between the recent visit of President Bush to New York—President Bush would not be particularly welcome on these Benches—and a highly regrettable event during
1656
the general election when the leader of the Conservatives went to Dover. During President Bush's visit he spoke to a group of people who had just emigrated to America. He referred to the enormous value of those people to that country. He greeted and met some of those who had just arrived. But the leader of the Conservatives did not go to Dover to meet new asylum seekers. He went there to make an announcement. It was not a helpful announcement.
I look forward to hearing from the Government what plans they have to introduce new arrangements at Folkestone. If the United States Government can, as the Tube advertisements for Air Lingus tell us, have immigration facilities at Dublin Airport, surely the UK should have immigration offices in Calais. That would avoid the nightly scenes of people crawling through cages and risking electrocution on railway lines. It is a desperate situation. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, we cannot shake hands with a clenched fist. The recent riots that we witnessed in Bradford, Oldham and other towns can only damage race relations. Riots grab headlines, but when the TV cameras move on, it is the local community that is left to sweep up the debris. The riots caused millions of pounds' worth of damage. People who fight fire with fire usually end up with ashes.
But these episodes are a warning which we must heed. If we cannot prosper as one nation, in time we may become no nation. Racist groups thrive on ignorance. They would have us believe that the riots were caused by the inability of white and Asian communities to live together. That ignores factors such as unemployment and poverty which are major causes of the discontent. It is on such unhappy social conditions that the racist vultures target and feed.
I welcome the Parekh report on the future of multiethnic Britain. I pay tribute to the commitment which the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his colleagues clearly gave to producing this work. There is time to highlight only a few of the recommendations that I support. For example, I believe that a truly independent mechanism to investigate complaints made against the police is long overdue. This in itself may also encourage more black and Asian recruitment, which is needed in the police service.
The report rightly urges deeper thinking about the policy of exclusion of pupils from schools. This is a particular issue in the black community. A balance needs to be struck between maintaining school discipline and offering support to pupils who display problems. The majority of youngsters that I have represented in criminal courts had already been expelled or excluded from school, with little or nothing to occupy their time. Criminal prevention is the best crime prevention. It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.
As vice-president of the National Small Business Bureau, I welcome the call for more support for black and Asian business. This must incorporate a review of

1657
banking and mortgage codes. Building a business is not easy, whatever your colour or your background, but racism is an added factor which can inhibit growth and enterprise.
I share the view expressed in the report that publicly funded organisations like the BBC need to encourage the promotion of suitably qualified black and Asian employees to positions of authority. Some years ago I was a television producer at the BBC. I did wonder, sometimes, whether the building I worked in was called "White City" on the basis of the fact that I appeared to be the only black person working there above kitchen level. At the time, little interest was shown towards encouraging ethnic minorities into mainstream programme making. I left the BBC, rather disillusioned, to return to the law. Things have improved at the BBC since then, but a great deal more needs to be done.
I agree with the call for the asylum system to be improved. Reducing the delay in dealing with cases should be a top priority. It has been too easy for asylum to become a political football, especially during election campaigns. By reducing the inefficiencies in the system, there is more chance of the main issues being debated fairly.
The report rightly urges that more should be done to make public the positive aspects of immigration. The issues of asylum, immigration and race relations are easily intertwined and confused. Journalists, broadcasters and political parties all have a responsibility to shed light, not heat.
None of the mainstream parties can feel satisfied about its track record when dealing with these issues. But I shall say a brief word about the Conservative Party. This is designed to help and not to harm. Whoever becomes the next leader, the Conservative Party needs to take a long look at itself in the mirror. It needs to ask itself whether it is ready to extend the hand of welcome, rather than point the finger of blame, towards ethnic minorities.
While there is a legitimate distinction between the issues of race relations and asylum, the tabloid tone adopted over recent years by some Conservative spokesmen has not been helpful. Before the last general election, I criticised the Tory leadership over its weak response to the racist comments of one of its own MPs. Some commentators were convinced that I was being fed these lines by Millbank. They were totally wrong. These are my own views. If some in the Conservative Party now choose to rebuke me rather than heed my words, it will again waste a chance to modernise and broaden its appeal. You cannot win until you know why you lost.
In the 1980s there were riots in places like Brixton and Tottenham. I was one of the defence barristers involved in the court cases which followed the Handsworth riots. It may well be that the crisis of identity which some young Afro-Caribbeans felt then is being repeated among their Asian counterparts now. But it is important to note the many examples of success in those same areas since that time. Local
1658
people have worked hard and have turned things around. We need to create a bank of best practice of what works in the inner cities.
Finally, I hope that the Government and other decision-makers will learn from the Parekh report. Success is a journey, not a destination. So we must not forget the earlier submissions in the Swann, Scarman and Macpherson reports. Those are all valuable, eloquent studies. But ultimately the finest eloquence is action.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for introducing a debate on this interesting report, one which has been produced not only by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, but also by a commission containing an impressive list of members. My only regret is that we do not have more time in which to debate the matter. However, the contributions that we have heard from all sides of the House well vindicate the decision to table this Unstarred Question.
Under the present circumstances, there is a topical temptation to spend our time discussing Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and others have rightly referred to the matter. All that I wish to say is that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, focuses specifically on the situation in Bradford. I hope that the House will find an opportunity to debate that report as soon as possible after the Summer Recess. The job for the summer facing those of us who might have a little influence in their local areas is to stand firm against any rise in racism and fascism in our communities and to talk to and work with others as much as we can to prevent what may be seen as justifiable anger by young people from erupting into counter-productive and destructive riots.
I wish to address my main comments to the Parekh report itself. It contains two distinct sections. Parts 2 and 3, covering "Issues and Institutions" and "Strategies for Change", culminate in a checklist of 140 recommendations divided into 13 groups. Each of those groups would sustain a debate in this House. Many of the proposals are extremely sensible. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to some of the proposals made under the section covering employment. Some of them are debatable and should be debated further. In such a list, inevitably one or two are nonsense. But as a whole, it is an extremely valuable checklist and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consider the list and decide what they wish to do about each recommendation.
The interesting section of the report is contained in Part 1 which seeks to set out a vision of a multi-racial society which is based on basic human rights and which will work. The vision is interesting and worthy of careful consideration. It is a vision of,
"communities of citizens and communities",
based on,
"a pluralistic human rights culture".

1659
These concepts are relatively new and deserve careful consideration. The report rightly emphasises quality and diversity and the concept of people being equal but different—or, perhaps, equal and different.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the debate among liberals—I use the word with a small "l", across all parties—was about the concepts of assimilation and integration between immigrant communities and host communities. Integration, quite rightly, came out on top because it accepts that people and communities are different.
The report challenges us to a new debate between "integration", which it describes as
"a liberal theory of society"
as a "community of citizens", and "pluralist theory", which it describes as a "community of communities". The report argues for a combination of the two. Reading between the lines, one gets the distinct impression that there were some fairly vigorous debates within the commission on these matters.
As a liberal—with a small "l" and a capital "L"—I believe that fundamental human rights belong to individuals. Communities as such do not possess rights; any rights that they do possess, they possess because of the rights possessed by the sum of their members. For example, there is a reference on page 37 of the report to the "rights of communities". There are major question marks about Part 1 of the report which, at the very least, deserve debate.
The diversity of individuals, which many of us welcome—the more the better—may follow from their membership of communities, or it may be that some of us are a bit eccentric. The report rightly points out that people must be free to leave their communities if they wish to do so. But fundamental human rights are not different for different people. What we do with our human rights may well be very different—and that may lead us to have very different lives—but fundamental human rights are not different for different people.
Some parts of the report appear not to accept that and try to suggest otherwise. For example, paragraph 7.3 states:
"Human rights need therefore to be interpreted and applied in a culturally sensitive manner"—
which I do not think any of us would disagree with. It goes on to state:
"and may sometimes entail different responses in different individual cases".
I have collected a whole series of quotes from Part 1 of the report which suggest that there is an interesting debate to be had about the nature of human rights in relation to communities. I say no more than that, although the suggested declaration of cultural diversity on page 277 seems to be a good basis for such a debate.
One of the difficulties with the report is that the interesting discussion in Part 1 does not relate clearly to the checklists in Part 2, which seem to have been put
1660
together by subject specialists rather than related to the rest of the report. That is a problem with the report itself.
However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his team have done us all a service in stimulating a debate on vital issues such as what we mean by "national identity" in the modern world; what we mean by the "nature of community"; what are the fundamental rights of individuals within a multicultural society; what is the nature of a multi-cultural state serving a multi-cultural society; and what is the nature of the links between racism and inequality in general. And that leads us back to the problems in places such as Bradford and Burnley.
The report is stimulating; in places it is troubling—it certainly troubles me as a liberal and causes me to think hard—and in places I think it is wrong. However, it would be very surprising if a report of this nature was not wrong in some places. The important thing is that it is, I hope, the start of a debate. I hope that the issues which it raises will continue to be debated, not only in your Lordships' House but widely within this country. It addresses issues which are vital to the future of this country.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for a thought-provoking report. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick finds that it has many positive aspects.
The theme of positive discrimination runs right through the report. In my view, this is, in reality, a very blunt instrument. Its effect is to divide people into categories when the desire is to unite them. Applied in a racial context, where the categories are difficult to define at the margins, it can act as a disincentive for the integration of communities to evolve naturally, and it can provoke unnecessary resentment from parties excluded from it. I do not say it can never be used, but it is, in my view, a way of last resort.
I deplore the recommendations of the report that, for instance, 30 per cent of the Members of this House appointed in any one year should be of ethnic origin. Applied to your Lordships, it could diminish the standing of the significant body of Members of your Lordships' House of ethnic minority background who make such a distinguished contribution to its working and, if I may say so, the high standing in this regard of the House. Their ethnic origin is sometimes relevant to the contributions they make, but often it is not at all, and their high standing rests on their other contributions as much as on their representative capacity.
How far are we to go? Is the House to have appropriate quotas of those who regard themselves as Cornish or Welsh or Jewish? Are we to distinguish between the origins of the Chinese who live here? And

1661
what about the Americans among us. Logically, I suppose, that any group which had a one-690th part of the population should have a Peer.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but does he accept that the report nowhere advocates quotas—that is, positive discrimination—but targets, that is, aiming at a balance.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I accept the comment of the noble Baroness. Thank you.
If minority groups are to be over-represented, as the 30 per cent target suggests, it will be difficult to fit us English in.
I note that the report specifically recommends that the Irish community should be included in such positive discrimination. This is in respect of health service bodies. All I would say is that the Irish have been established in this country in numbers since the famine 160 years ago. They are usually not in communities. The Anglo-Irish relationship at personal level is a pleasant fact of life. The suggestion that, after this period, they should be the subject of positive discrimination, I find frankly patronising.
My noble friend Lady Flather referred to the concept of Britishness, which the report deplores. In my view, that is evidence of the nanny state attitude. You are not allowed to use a perfectly acceptable word in the English language because, in the mouths of some, it has racist overtones. While there are manifestations of this in certain aspects of government policy elsewhere, which we deplore, certainly I and my party agree with the comments of the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, in an interview with the Daily Mail on 12th October last, where he made a very robust comment on the report. He said:
"Unlike the Runnymede Trust I firmly believe that there is a future for Britain and Britishness. I do not accept the arguments of those on the Nationalistic right or the liberal left that Britain as a cohesive whole is dead".
We all take pride in seeing British athletes of whatever ethnic origin win at the Olympics or at football. In the same interview, Mr Straw went on to say:
"I am disappointed that the commission is so grudging in recognising what we have achieved already. I do not I regret find the Runnymede Trust of particular help in that regard".
I turn now to the sad events of the recent riots in Bradford and other northern cities. These have brought into focus the one word which is central to the debate—namely, "multi-culturalism". If there is one thing to come out of these events, it is the need to strike the delicate balance between intensive segregation on the one hand and total assimilation on the other. The former leads to the ghetto; the latter to extinction of national subcultures. As an article in this week's issue of the Economist points out, for a society to be truly multicultural some degree of assimilatory mixing is necessary. This is borne out again by the report chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on the situation in
1662
Bradford. It is certainly a vindication of the stance taken by Mr Ray Honeyford in his campaign to desegrate the Bradford schools, for which he lost his job.
My party opposes racism in any form. We believe in an inclusive Britain. To achieve that, we need an approach based on the British tradition of tolerance one of respecting people for their character rather than their colour—not an approach based on a panoply of patronising and politically correct nonsense. While we agree with a number of the recommendations in the report, we believe that there is a missed opportunity to highlight the very real progress that has been made in making Britain more inclusive.
In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his committee for this comprehensive report. It has prompted a very British response—a debate on the subject. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
8.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Uddin for introducing the debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his team for preparing the report. This has been an interesting debate. I agreed with virtually every word of many contributions from both sides of the Chamber, although there has been no tension.
I must say one thing to my noble friend Lady Uddin. I have not yet read all of the detailed contributions of my honourable friend in another place, Ann Cryer; however, I did hear her on the radio and I agreed with everything she said. She was not talking about compulsory English; but she was talking about importing poverty—as has happened in my former constituency. She made a fair point. It touches also on some of the points raised by the noble Baroness Lady Park. She referred to what happens to young girls of 13 or 14 who think that they are being sent on holiday; they do not know that they are being sent abroad in order to return with a husband. I have dealt with dozens, if not hundreds, of such cases over the years. It is a tragedy. It is a question of civil rights.
Not wishing to employ a stereotype, there is a divide in terms of educational achievement. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is absolutely right. I did not note down all the figures mentioned by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, but they indicate that those of Indian origin are close to whites in terms of educational achievement as opposed to members of other ethnic groups. We must ask why that is. We cannot lump people together. Whites are not a homogeneous group. When I use the word "Asians", I do not know what I am talking about. They are not a homogeneous group. On the sub-continent they are split between different countries, different faiths and different cultures. Their religions come from an absolutely different standpoints. Lumping people together is a big mistake, particularly when we white leaders do it because we think it is politically correct. Going along with political correctness is part of the cause of the problem.

1663
I was at Aston University yesterday, where I studied 40 years ago. They brought me in to correct my misdemeanours in the past and to give me an honorary degree. The multicultural efforts of the student population in which I took part bore testimony to the fantastic variation that we have from all social groups.
But let us not beat about the bush. Only three or four years ago, a young women in my constituency said to me: "Jeff, some of my friends are not allowed to put the milk bottles on the doorstep. My mum is not allowed to travel on the bus to town on her own". There are girls who are not allowed swimming lessons, even fully clothed, with female instructors. That is a denial of civil rights—which are non-negotiable. In relation to domestic violence the Parekh report states that there is a non-negotiable bottom line: people's individual civil rights. Then you can build around those rights and maintain the culture and the heritage as one generation succeeds another; greater assimilation is inevitable. You maintain the culture of diversity; you maintain the religious differences. But the bottom, non-negotiable line is the civil rights of our fellow citizens.
I shall not defend political correctness. I never have done. It has caused me a few problems. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I once walked the streets together in Perry Bar in Birmingham. We did not see a divide; we saw exactly the points that the noble Lord made. People have gradually built a way out of the difficulties that occurred in the Handsworth riots.
There is no question that we must do a great deal better in terms of economic performance and job discrimination. There is clearly rampant discrimination in some areas. Some people think that it is not worth obtaining qualifications. They make a big mistake.
I do want to cause anyone to take umbrage, but two speakers referred to asylum and immigration as though they were interconnected. They are completely different. President Bush did not go to welcome asylum seekers; he went to welcome new immigrants to the American economy. That is exactly what we ought to do, would do, and do do. But it is a massive mistake to equate asylum with immigration. The two are not the same. We must run twin-track policies. Mixing them up, as happens in the media, is causing massive problems for communities that are settled here and for those who come to join them, whether under the terms of work permits or settlement permits for marriage or merely to join their families. That has nothing to do with seeking asylum. We must never make the connection between seeking asylum and economic prosperity; otherwise, we could rule out those who genuinely fulfil the United Nations' requirements for asylum. That is what it is about. It is not about economic migration. We must adjust to that. We must examine our own economy, as other countries in Europe are doing, and plan for that; but we must not use asylum as the back door for doing that. If we are not careful, we shall make the wrong decisions. As likely as not, we shall not give asylum to those who can genuinely meet the demands of the United Nations
1664
resolution which are uppermost in our mind. That is the centre of asylum policy. We are not confusing the two. The present team at the Home Office is determined not to go down that road.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to complaints against the police. I hope I have got this right, as I believe I said in my maiden speech, the police Bill that we shall bring forward this Session will set up a truly independent police complaints procedure. That has always been a bone of contention. The Bill is some way away from publication and it will probably go to the other House before it comes to this place, but it will certainly tackle that problem.
The noble Lord referred also to speeding up decisions. In one year, the number of decisions has risen from some 50,000 to 130,000. However, I must warn noble Lords that some people do not like decisions to be speeded up. By "decision" I mean a firm, quality decision; otherwise it does not work. But some in the industry do not like that. The inevitable consequence of speeding up decisions means that you have to face the consequences four-square: 80 per cent of applicants are found not to have a well-founded fear of persecution under the terms of the UN convention. As a result, action has to be taken. Some people preferred the old, inefficient approach, whereby sacks of mail remained unopened, the Home Office was incredibly inefficient, and no one knew about the matter, took any decisions, or read any papers for years. That situation is changing radically, but the consequences are such that it will make unpleasant reading for some.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, touched on forced marriages. It goes without saying that there is no justification for this practice. I need go no further.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker asked specifically about the Performance Innovation Unit project. The project's central objective is to increase the achievement of ethnic minorities in the labour market; and to do it under a better and shared understanding of what are the current differentials within ethnic groups and what causes those differentials, drawing on the existing research. It will undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of different approaches to increasing the achievement of ethnic groups and will examine the impact of existing action by government, in the private and the voluntary sector.
We shall also consider a clear policy recommendation for building on existing work and adopting new approaches to address the causes. Indeed, that will help to develop a fresh intellectual policy approach to the issues regarding the ethnic minority differential performance in the labour market. The project will examine such issues as the role of employers, both public and private, in shaping the labour market, as well the role of private services—such as banks and financial institutions—the impact of discrimination, the effect of economic conditions, and working patterns. Those issues must be tackled. I expect the PIU report to be a really valuable document in that respect.

1665
We are also considering the effect of the SRB, and its successor "Neighbourhood Renewal". The money—literally, hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into the 88 areas defined by the census information. In order to deliver, the money must have a consequence at the end of the process. Indeed, it will have to deliver to narrow the gap on many of the measures of disadvantage, worklessness, crime, health, skills, housing and the physical environment of some of these areas. We must tackle all of those issues. However, ultimately we shall want to know what difference the money made. It must make a difference to people's lives. We need, if you like, to look at the "footprints" of people's lives and see that they have been vastly improved by us through targeting resources in this way. We have found that the old way of spreading the money thinly did not work.
I hope that I dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt. in fact, one of the issues raised was the work between the English and French regarding the Channel Tunnel. I shall be visiting Dover and Coquilles tomorrow to review some of these issues at first hand. We are doing everything that we can to work together in this difficult situation. There is no question about that. It is causing problems for both countries. It is causing great hardship for people. It is causing deaths: people are incredibly brave, but they are also incredibly stupid. Nevertheless, some people are pushed to such action because they have already spent so much money on getting this far. Therefore, they are now in bondage and have to take incredible risks.
The issue of positive discrimination was raised—I am sorry, but I have forgotten which speaker did so. I have considered the matter over the years, as, indeed, have many other people. All the projects come along with big new investment. You think, "Right, this is a great opportunity here to get local firms and local people involved. There will be new training for the community with this project". However, we come up against the problem in the process of having to address some of the rules from the European Union, especially if we are talking about large projects. We could not do it with the national indoor arena or the international convention centre in Birmingham. There is a difficulty with positive discrimination in that it can be held to be unlawful.
However, the Race Relations Act does allow us to take positive action in certain areas. Therefore, in those areas where it is possible to do so and where we can gain a big advantage from it, we want to ensure that we take such action. But, of course, there is nothing to stop companies in, say, Bradford and Burnley, or other parts of the country, investing in those areas. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, a few weeks ago when I made a Statement to the House. After the Liverpool riots, Michael Heseltine took a coach-load of businessmen to the area and asked, "Are your companies buying from these local subcontractors? Are they employing local labour?" By just asking the question, sometimes you can solve the problem. It does not need a government-driven plan to achieve that end. You have
1666
only to observe what cars the French people drive. It is almost ingrained in them. I do not believe that there is a law that requires them to drive Renaults and Citroens made in France, but they look at what is available on the market and draw the obvious conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned the report of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on Bradford. We are extremely grateful, as, I am sure, is the whole House, for that report. I certainly look forward to the contributions that the noble Lord will make in this House. I am sure that he will bring great wisdom to our proceedings.
I turn to the report that forms the subject of this debate. I am well aware of some of the history involved; that is why I have not gone into the detail. I remember the publication of the report and the debate that followed; and, indeed, some of the newspaper headlines that were not very productive. Nevertheless, there were 130 recommendations, which, as a package, are broadly in line with what the Government are trying to do and have set out to achieve. I am not saying that that applies to every one of them, because there are the odd one or two that go right against what we are trying to do in respect of certain aspects of policy. But as regards what we are trying to achieve with the "Neighbourhood Renewal" strategy, with building citizenship and with community awareness in the national curriculum, we are bang on.
I understand that the previous Home Secretary met the chairman of the group that produced the report, my noble friend Lord Parekh. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett has already fixed a meeting for a specific date in September. There is no need for me to put the specific date on the record, but the meeting will take place in about the third week of September when we shall discuss the issues involved. I hope that I shall be present. During the intervening period, I am obviously prepared to discuss some of the issues that come from the report with both my noble friends and noble Lords on both sides of the House.
We shall certainly take forward the recommendations that we can, but I shall do more work on these issues than I have been able to accomplish in the short time that I have been at the Home Office. I have read only the press reports issued at the time that the report was published. I remember that the debate about Britishness took away the focus from some of the key issues, which I believe this House would want to take forward. Indeed, I am sure that the House would certainly want the Government to report back on what we are doing in this regard from time to time. The debate will not go away—rightly so.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may express my thanks to him and to the other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and made it most meaningful. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Parekh, perhaps I may tell the House that he was unable to attend today due to a longstanding commitment elsewhere.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  BSE: Horn Report
  BSE: Horn Report
  Intervention Board Executive Agency: Annual Report
  Intervention Board Executive Agency: Annual Report
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report
  Veterinary Laboratory Agency
  Veterinary Laboratory Agency
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Revocation of Rights of Way Closures
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Revocation of Rights of Way Closures
  Central Science Laboratory: Annual Report
  Central Science Laboratory: Annual Report
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Autumn Livestock Movements
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Autumn Livestock Movements
  Intermediate Care Services
  Intermediate Care Services
  National Health Service: Cost of Clinical Negligence Claims
  National Health Service: Cost of Clinical Negligence Claims
  Health Professions Council
  Health Professions Council
  Haemophilia Comprehensive Care Centre
  Haemophilia Comprehensive Care Centre
  Healthcare Provision
  Healthcare Provision
  Acute Patient Beds
  Acute Patient Beds
  Civil Enforcement Review, Phase 2
  Civil Enforcement Review, Phase 2
  Research Councils: Quinquennial Review
  Research Councils: Quinquennial Review
  National Postal Museum
  National Postal Museum
  Serious Fraud Office: Annual Report
  Serious Fraud Office: Annual Report
  Director of Public Prosecutions: Annual Report
  Director of Public Prosecutions: Annual Report
  Free Postage for Members of the House of Lords
  Free Postage for Members of the House of Lords
  House of Lords Working Practices
  House of Lords Working Practices
  Criminal Records Bureau: Annual Report and Accounts
  Criminal Records Bureau: Annual Report and Accounts
  Animal Procedures Committee: Annual Report
  Animal Procedures Committee: Annual Report
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act: Statistics
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act: Statistics
  Asylum Support Adjudicators: Annual Report and Accounts
  Asylum Support Adjudicators: Annual Report and Accounts
  Prison Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Prison Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Prisons: Target Costs
  Prisons: Target Costs
  European Refugee Fund
  European Refugee Fund
  Immigration Appeals: Human Rights Claim
  Immigration Appeals: Human Rights Claim
  Asylum and Race Relations: Policy Co-ordination
  Asylum and Race Relations: Policy Co-ordination
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher System
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher System
  Disturbances in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham
  Disturbances in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham
  Voluntary and Community Organisations: Central Government Funding
  Voluntary and Community Organisations: Central Government Funding
  Benefits Policy: Research
  Benefits Policy: Research
  School Ancillary Workers: Poverty Trap
  School Ancillary Workers: Poverty Trap
  Child Poverty Reduction Target: Assumptions
  Child Poverty Reduction Target: Assumptions
  New Deal: Numbers Moving into Work
  New Deal: Numbers Moving into Work
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Annual Report
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Annual Report
  Diplomatic Personnel: Serious Offences
  Diplomatic Personnel: Serious Offences
  Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration: Report
  Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration: Report
  Cultural Property: Ratification of Hague Convention
  Cultural Property: Ratification of Hague Convention
  Teachers' Workload: NAHT Recommendations
  Teachers' Workload: NAHT Recommendations
  RAF Menwith Hill: Construction Works
  RAF Menwith Hill: Construction Works
  US Defence Equipment Supplies to UK
  US Defence Equipment Supplies to UK
  Bowman Radio Communications System
  Bowman Radio Communications System
  Gulf War Veterans: Mortality
  Gulf War Veterans: Mortality