Sitting of 23 March 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day

  National Lottery (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard on my wireless this morning references to a statement in the House by the Deputy Prime Minister about the Marchioness tragedy. It was obvious that a number of people expected the matter to be brought to the House, and revealed to the House. Can you give us any indication, Mr. Speaker, of whether you have been asked to make provision for a statement by a Minister? It would be helpful to know that at this stage.
  Mr. Speaker: There will be a statement at 11 am. Let us now return to the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill.
  9.34 am
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill seeks to give the National Lotteries Charities Board an additional power to consider and, indeed, award grants towards the endowment of charities under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, as amended in 1998.
  The board was established as a non-departmental public body. The Act specifies the share of the national lottery to be received, and regulates the appointment of committees for grant-making. It gives the Secretary of State power to give directions relating to the matters to be taken into account in grant-making, and the conditions on which the money is to be distributed. This, then, is a permissive power, and the board thus has an opportunity to make the grants. The provision raises policy issues, but they would be for the board to consider, both in principle and at the point at which one of its grant-making committees received an application for funds for endowment of a charity.
  The Bill has the support of all party members in Norfolk, some of whom are present. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). I also convey the apologies of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who has supported a charity that I am about to mention to the extent of working his socks off to secure
  580
  money for it. I pay tribute to him for that: he survived. I doubt whether he will survive a general election, however, as his seat is very vulnerable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) has supported the Bill as well, and others have shown great interest.
  Let me begin by explaining how I came to be interested in the issue, and why I think that the 1993 Act needs to be adapted. With the support of the Eastern Daily Press, the "We Care" appeal 2000 was set up in Norfolk to endow the Norfolk millennium trust for carers. It aimed to raise £1 million in cash to establish the trust—which is registered as a charity—and enable it to become long-lasting, and to provide financial help for an estimated 130,000 unpaid carers in the county. Its purpose was to respond to the identified need of such carers. It sought to help with the purchase of equipment, and to improve the quality of life for carers.
  I need not describe the emotional, financial and physical burden endured by carers, or the loneliness, frustration and sheer exhaustion involved.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the valuable work done by 6 million carers in this country, but does he think that £1 million would be sufficient? He will know of the economic difficulties now being encountered: the country is going rapidly from boom to bust. Would £1 million be enough to generate the same amount of income, given the likelihood of a fall in interest rates aimed at stimulating the economy during the period of bust?
  Dr. Gibson: That is a reasonable question, but I think that the sums needed to change the lives of many carers are quite small. I believe that, as long as investments were made properly, with good investment policy and advice, the money generated by an endowment fund over a long period would be enough to deal with many problems.
  Investments are not made only by charities, however. The Government also invest money to help carers, and there is a genuine partnership between different organisations. The money does not supplement, but goes along with, other sources of finance. I doubt that we shall ever have enough money to deal with all the problems of carers, but by gosh, the Bill would go a long way towards doing so.
  At a meeting that I had with the General Medical Council this week, we had a long debate about the withholding of support and help for terminally ill patients. It was pointed out—surprisingly—that carers would have a crucial role in determining some of the matters that exercise the minds of members of the GMC and the British Medical Association. Carers see, in the front line, the support that they receive from the medical services. In a world in which people are becoming litigious, some of the evidence that they muster and the experience that they gain might be important to the fashioning of the changes that the GMC and the BMA realise are needed. The media have now taken up the issue as well. Carers play an essential role and we must ensure that they are recognised not only as individuals helping others who are having problems but as professionals.
  With the help of the Eastern Daily Press, the public in Norfolk have responded magnificently. Many events have been held, such as jumble sales and, as I said, walks round

  581
  the county of Norfolk. Hon. Members distinguished themselves—or did not distinguish themselves—at a concert entitled "Aristosquits". The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk told a lusty tale or two about his time in this place. I am really hoping that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and I will be able to perform at a concert this June, when we shall sing,
  "We are public guardians bold yet cheery".
  I believe my hon. Friend is up for that, although we may have to adapt the words to reflect the political times. In short, many hon. Members have been involved in the concerts, where our enjoyment of inter-party discipline is magnificent.
  As I said, some hon. Members in the Chamber have played prominent roles in the effort, and the money raised has been invested in an endowment fund. The money generated by that fund is given to carers. Yesterday's Eastern Daily Press carries the headline, "Justice for Jemima", with the "We Care" appeal symbol underneath. It states that
  "Smiling Jemima Hutson's courage and compassion will be revealed to the House of Commons tomorrow".
  I am now doing just that.
  Jemima Hutson received £100 from the Norfolk millennium trust for carers, which, as I said, was established with £500,000. With that money, she is buying a tumble dryer which, according to the article,
  "means no more damp clothes hanging about their Norwich home aggravating Jemima and her brother and sister's asthma while they get on with their remarkable job of caring for their disabled mother.
  Every day Jemima, nine, and Jessica, 14, along with four-year-old JB cook meals for the family, bathe their mother and help look after her."
  What reason could hon. Members have for entering politics other than to change things for people like Jemima? The support, help and interest in other humans shown by people like Jemima is amazing. If we can help such efforts by providing lottery money, we should do it.
  Money is not being provided for every soft case that is presented; there are a fair number of rejections. A serious analysis is made of whether money will really help and support caring efforts. As I said, however, the sums required to change people's lives for the better are often quite small.
  The charity has trustees who decide on grants. Paddy Seligman OBE is the appeal's chairman and was a leading light in Norfolk in establishing it. The other trustees are Barry Capon CBE, DL; John Alston CBE, DL, who is known to many hon. Members; Ann Mullender, from the charity Crossroads; and Dr. Jenny Blyth, a consultant in palliative care at the Priscilla Bacon lodge who looks after terminal cancer cases; Peter Furnivall, an eminent local solicitor who has helped me very much with the wording of my Bill; and Alastair Fish, a prominent local accountant. They provide a wide spectrum of excellence and professionalism in assessing applications, and they do a sterling job.
  Letters have appeared in many publications describing the professionalism and work done by carers. However, I am sure that many hon. Members are already aware of that work from their surgeries and their daily work. I note
  582
  that Mr. Speaker has also shown an interest in the functions performed and the role played by carers. The appeal is doing very prominent and important work.
  The appeal is also working with other organisations. My Bill has received support from National Schizophrenia Fellowship; west Norfolk carers project; the Families' House organisation, in Norwich, which is concerned with the adoption of young people; and the Norfolk Eating Disorders Association. They represent a wide spectrum of good activities. The appeal committee takes no expenses, and administrative help has been provided free by Mills & Reeve, Norwich solicitors and by the Norfolk health authority. Additionally, the National Lottery Charities Board millennium festival has given £23,000 to cover the appeal's running costs.
  I need not point out to right hon. and hon. Members that the number of carers is almost certain to increase, largely because of the increase in the elderly population. I should like to quote from a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from the Eastern Daily Press editor, Peter Franzen, who was fully supported by his deputy editor, James Ruddy—both of whom have worked day and night on publicity for the appeal in the Eastern Daily Press and on television in the East Anglian region. Peter Franzen writes:
  "We appreciate that the Government has in place a highly developed carer support strategy with many facets. Indeed carers are one of the few groups with national standing under the Carers' Recognition and Services Act 1995 and qualify for a specific carer's grant. Their rights and powers will be further expanded next April when the Carers and Disabled Children's Act becomes law.
  There are a number of other Government moves geared to supporting the complex array of carers who now exist in our society. The King's Fund initiative is widening the net to further categories, including ethnic minority carers, and the DfEE Challenge Fund is targeting work life balance, giving carers support in, for example, balancing work with caring.
  Ultimately, in a country where people are living longer and health advances are restoring the lives of many more of the sick and injured, the Government has carefully developed a partnership strategy in caring which recognises that the statutory services cannot cope fully with delivering all possible needs.
  Our appeal is already delivering the social inclusion 'medicine' which the Government has prescribed to ensure carers do not miss out completely on mainstream life. In cost-effective, yet significant, ways we are providing labour-saving and other methods of support to help carers to regain some of their normal life".
  I should like to set the appeal's aims against those of the National Lottery Charities Board. Page 1 of the recent annual report from the National Lottery Charities Board talks of
  "funding groups which help those at greatest disadvantage to improve the quality of life …measures which will have long-term advantages rather than address short term issues",
  and of the fact that
  "money wisely distributed can make a real improvement to the quality of life for vulnerable people who have little support and have significant needs".
  The board has an impressive record, which I shall not cite in detail as it is described in the report for hon. Members to peruse at their leisure. In one year, it has provided £450 million to 11,347 charities and voluntary groups. That is an impressive record and highlights the fact that administering the board's functions must be an awesome feat. I congratulate it on its fine work.

  583
  Page 36 of the annual report states:
  "The 1998 National Lottery Act gave us the power to delegate our grant making to other organisations. This is an exciting opportunity which could enable grants to be awarded by more specialised or more local groups. We are currently consulting with the sector to see which organisations may be suitable and willing to take on these demanding responsibilities."
  There is obviously a case for the "We Care" appeal to be included among those organisations. The "We Care" appeal objective meets the stated funding criteria of the National Lottery Charities Board. The main grant programme criteria include the following statement:
  "We aim to improve the quality of life of people and communities experiencing disadvantage and the effects of poverty. Projects we expect to fund include health projects and projects to support carers".
  The mission statement of the "We Care" appeal closely, if not exactly, fits those criteria. Its mission is to relieve the elderly, infirm, sick or disabled in Norfolk by providing financial aid and practical support to carers, either individually or through carers' groups.
  It is not unprecedented for an endowment fund to be set up with major financial support from the national lottery. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did just that when, in 1998, he revised the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, providing expanded powers and allowing the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts to be funded by a one-off pay-out of £200 million from the national lottery. That was the first endowment fund of its type to be supported in that manner. The fund derives an income of about £10 million from the trust, and, like NESTA, it was established with the objectives of supporting and promoting "talent, innovation and creativity" in those spheres.
  The fund was conceived as an endowment because the Government decided that it should be different from established lottery distribution bodies—which rely on fixed shares of funds held within the national lottery distribution fund that are issued with policy directives on distribution determined by the Secretary of State.
  NESTA trustees have considerable scope to establish strategy and policy for an organisation that can be innovative and bold, take risks, act with flair and adapt quickly if necessary. Having endowment status gives it a sense of continuity and freedom from rigid external interference. It can also look ahead. Surely with an increase in the elderly population, carers in the voluntary sector will also increase in number and continue to perform their excellent task for many years to come.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that there is at least one possible down side to his proposals? In order to raise the very large amount of money that would be required for such an endowment to be viable and to produce the necessary income stream, one would have to deny my many other good causes that money in the short term. So at the very least some difficult choices will have to be made, and in order to achieve long-term benefits many short-term sacrifices will potentially have to be made.
  Dr. Gibson: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that choices and assessments will have to be made to decide who will gain the money and so on. However, my proposals will not deny any organisation
  584
  the right to apply for those grants, however big or small the need might be. The only factor is the distribution of the money and the competition for it. That will be determined by the trustees and the boards and the information that they receive about different charities—such as how well they are organised and the expertise of their trustees. There will always be such choices and they apply to these issues too.
  NESTA is free from regular cash rounds or agreements with any Government Department. The programmes have to be in line with statutory mission statements. NESTA has a board and has tax status similar to a charity's. Its trustees are appointed by the Secretary of State, who has powers to issue directions to the endowment in respect of its financial conduct. The similarity to the "We Care" appeal is obvious. Both organisations target areas, groups and individuals where there is a need for support.
  It is interesting that out of eight national lottery distributing bodies, only the charities board is prevented outright from granting endowments, although others are given guidelines that they should carefully consider such requests.
  So what precisely is the difficulty, and how should we overcome it? There is an ambiguous clause in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Section 38 (1) states:
  "The National Lottery Charities Board may make out of any money it receives grants for meeting the expenditure of charities."
  The guidelines to other boards state that they may "fund or assist in funding" projects. Clearly, an endowment fund is not regarded as expenditure of a charity.
  I have not been able to unearth the reasons for this anomaly, but I understand that when laws are drawn up, consideration of every event and every detail cannot always be scrutinised and we learn by operating Acts over a period of time. The result is that the board can only make specific grants over a specific period of time. The "We Care" appeal sets out to give moneys to various projects without a fixed time dimension.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said:
  "The National Lottery will now be able to respond more effectively to the needs of every community. I had two very single aims in reforming the lottery—to ensure people have confidence in the way it is run and to ensure that the money it raises is allocated fairly and goes where it is needed."
  Mr. John Greenway: As we have discussed the matter, the hon. Gentleman knows our view on the Bill and I commend him for his support for the charity that he has espoused. As he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion, can he tell us how far the appeal has progressed in trying to raise £1 million and what sum of money it might apply for in grant from the National Lottery Charities Board were the Bill to be enacted?
  Dr. Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. So far the appeal has accrued something like £550,000. Of course it would love to get the rest through a lottery grant. However, it continues to receive support and help and in a month or three months' time after Members of Parliament strut their stuff at local concerts and so on, who knows how much more will come in? [Interruption.] Our side will certainly be there. An all-Labour all singing, all dancing Aristosquits concert is a wonderful idea. I think that the appeal will be asking for at least £200,000 to spin out over some time.

  585
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that my proposed changes appeared to be sensible. The amendments would allow endowment-funded charities to apply. We believe that endowments must be restricted to charities rather than extended to similar benevolent or philanthropic institutions. That is because English law does not recognise purpose trusts unless they are also charities and therefore does not recognise gifts to such institutions unless they are used for charitable purposes. Grants to such institutions or charitable projects for immediate expenditure are still acceptable, as countenanced by the 1993 Act, so they are not excluded, but the retention of grants by such bodies for purposes which are not desirable is a problem.
  Let me define "charitable", "benevolent" and "philanthropic" as they have been addressed in court cases. There are differences between charitable and benevolent. I have really enjoyed getting into the legal processes and definitions. Thank goodness I never wanted to be a lawyer, and I would never let any of my children be lawyers. There is an absolute mish-mash of definition and counter-definition.
  "Picarda", a famous legal publication, contains the following definition:
  "The word 'benevolent' is a word of somewhat shadowy meaning. One thing, however, is certain. There is judicial unanimity that `benevolent' goes beyond what is charitable in law. It is not synonymous with 'charitable'. For that reason, as noted elsewhere, gifts for charitable or benevolent purposes have failed as going beyond what is exclusively charitable, even though gifts for `charitable and benevolent purposes' have been upheld."
  I am absolutely certain that hon. Members understood that
  perfectly.
  Mr. Fabricant: On the subject of "benevolent", I have one little reservation about the hon. Gentleman's Bill, although I broadly support it. He will be aware that there are private benevolent organisations. In his own area, Bonds of Norwich, which is part of the John Lewis Partnership, gives to charity. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if the Bill is enacted. organisations such as the John Lewis Partnership may no longer feel the need to give, as they will assume that there is already a structure in place to replace the good works that they do?
  Dr. Gibson: I should stress that there is nothing to prevent organisations from applying for lottery money. They are not restricted by the provisions of the 1993 Act. That will not change, but the problem will persist. I shall address the hon. Gentleman's point later in my speech.
  I return to the standard legal definitions which demonstrate the nonsense of how the whole process operates:
  "In Income Tax Comrs v. Pemsel (1891), Lord Bramwell, attempting to draw the distinction between charitable and benevolent, said: 'I think there is some fund for providing oysters at one of the Inns of Court for the Benchers. This, however benevolent, would hardly be called charitable'. It may, however, be hyperbole to classify such a purpose as benevolent. And his example of a trust to provide a band of music on a village green is probably charitable rather than benevolent.
  The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the word in relation to persons as connoting of a kindly disposition, charitable, generous, and its Latin origins indicate a notion of well wishing. An appeal to send a particular child abroad for a medical operation has been instanced as directed to a benevolent rather than a charitable end."
  586
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are now much more aware of the definitions. I dare not penetrate into the definitions of philanthropy as they would confuse us even more at this stage.
  Section 38 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 requires adaptation. I have had advice from Government lawyers and from Mr. Peter Furnivall of Mill & Reeve solicitors in Norwich, which has been most welcome. Section 44 of the Act describes charitable expenditure as expenditure by charities or similar bodies, as compared, for instance, with investment of moneys by charities in order to produce an income stream for future expenditure. Section 22(3)(d) restricts the use of lottery money to charitable expenditure. If we want money to go to charities such as the "We Care" appeal, the definition of charitable expenditure will have to be changed or the terms of section 22 will have to be extended.
  The Bill adds a new subsection (1)(b) to section 38. Perhaps there was no need to repeat the whole section, but the key aspect is that the additional words extend grants to endowment, which means a gift that can be used for expenditure or for retention as capital. The Charities Act 1993 says that a permanent endowment is money held by a charity subject to the restriction that it must be expended for the purposes of the charity and that only the income from it may be so expended, and the capital must be retained permanently. That is clearly defined in the Clergy Orphan Corporation case of 1894 and reaffirmed in the Charities Act 1993. The case of Smith v. Kerr of 1899 cross-refers to the Charitable Uses Act 1601.
  We have amended the definition of charitable expenditure, so there is no need to make any change at all to the wording of section 22. Charitable expenditure will no longer mean expenditure by charitable or similar bodies only but will extend to expenditure on grants to such bodies. That is an essential change, meaning that endowment can be retained as capital rather than spent from year to year. Indeed, if the endowment is defined as permanent, it cannot be spent at all, and must be retained for as long as the charity exists in its present form.
  There is a difference between an endowment fund and a permanent endowment fund. When Opposition Members want to endow universities, they had better get the type of endowment right.
  This is a complex area, but I have had good legal advice and choices have been made. I want to give the charities board more flexibility. The change may open the floodgates to requests for endowments from a host of charities, but it is already open to all charities or benevolent or philanthropic institutions to apply to the board for money for immediate charitable expenditure. The legal change that I seek makes no difference to that. The board already has complete discretion about what grants to make to which bodies and under what terms. It may be asked how charities are to be dissolved and whether the trustees have legal responsibilities.
  The Charity Commission document CC3 defines the trustees' duties very carefully. It refers to trustees' fundraising responsibilities and their powers in respect of investments, property, accounts and so on. If a charity is permanently endowed and the governing document contains no power of dissolution, it cannot usefully be wound up, but if the trustees are satisfied that it no longer serves a useful purpose—the one for which it was established, and which is now fulfilled by other means—

  587
  the commissioners can make a scheme to amalgamate it with other charities. The trustees are under a duty to apply to the commission for a scheme to change the purposes of the charity. The five commissioners are appointed by the Home Secretary and are answerable to the courts, the Home Secretary and Parliament.
  The Bill gives the charities board more flexibility in supporting both short-term and long-term projects. People will be aware of the problems for carers. As they increase in number, in line with our increasing elderly population, their organisations will need the support of lottery money. People feel that the lottery money is theirs and they want to see it coming their way. It is our duty to find ways of overcoming the restrictions. I am sure that the measure will be popular and will help to support this amazing group of people who do so much for our country. Eventually, it will also open up help to other groups that want to retain their presence in our communities in the long term, providing much-needed support and help.
  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. We thought that he had made his last speech, but I look forward to his making a further speech in support of the Bill. He has done a marvellous job for Norfolk.
  I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it will find support.
  10.6 am
  Mr. John MacGregor: I thank the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for his very kind remarks. He is right, in that when I spoke in the Budget debate, I said that, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), it might be my last speech in the House. I am delighted that it was not. Indeed, there may be many more—I do not know when the election will be.
  The Bill is of great significance to Norfolk, and indeed the whole country. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in the ballot, and I am delighted that he has chosen this subject. I agree with everything that he said, apart from two points. In his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), he suggested that his seat might be in jeopardy. I assure him that that is not the case. My hon. Friend has done remarkable work for his constituency, which will be well rewarded by an increased majority.
  The other point on which I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman was when he said that he hoped to be performing in one of the appeal's charitable concerts in the summer. I do not know when the election will be, but I am sure that he is hoping that it will be way beyond the summer, because I am sure that he will not want to participate as an ex-Member. However this is very much a bipartisan occasion, so I will not continue on that tack.
  I strongly support the appeal, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk would have been here had it not been for their constituency duties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the latter's remarkable sponsored walk efforts. I, too, have supported the appeal by action as well as words. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and I took part in what used to be called a variety concert, in Wolterton hall in north Norfolk last summer, and we raised more than £1,000.
  588
  In my constituency, in a new restaurant in part of an old agricultural building owned by my constituent Mr. Ben du Brow—a remarkable example of farm diversification—my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and I did a cabaret last November. She and I have participated in the palace of varieties in St. John's Smith square on three occasions, on two of which we did a mind-reading act. On those occasions we were very much limited in time, because of the number of acts, but I am glad to say that in the cabaret for the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal, we were able to demonstrate our mind-reading skills at greater length and managed to raise £11,400. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest for participating in that. I want to pay a warm tribute to Mrs. Paddy Seligman for her remarkable enthusiasm and leadership and to the Eastern Daily Press for its constant support, which has been so important.
  What is interesting about the nearly £550,000 that has been raised is that it is the result of a variety of fund-raising events. In addition to the event in which I participated, which raised a substantial sum, countless small events have taken place all over the county. They have involved all age groups, including many young people and school children. That shows how remarkably good the appeal and cause are.
  Norfolk has an above average proportion of elderly people, because it is an attractive place to which to retire. Many people are dependent on carers. The hon. Gentleman referred to my good friend and constituent, Mrs. Ann Mullender, who for many years has done a splendid job in the caring sector. She has often talked to me about it. All Hallows hospital in my constituency provides respite care for a large number of people and many constituents have told me how that seven-days respite care is enormously appreciated. The service has been under threat in recent years and I hope that the appeal will enable All Hallows to continue to provide it.
  I am in no doubt about the importance of the appeal and of its significance to many people in Norfolk. The hon. Gentleman mentioned small improvements, such as a dishwashing machine, which can make a remarkable difference to the lives of the people he described. Respite care is another example. The East Norfolk health authority recently commissioned social research for its intermediate services review. Support for carers was one of the top five priorities for action identified by all the audiences that took part.
  The hon. Gentleman has considered the subject in detail; indeed, his legal research was most interesting and enables me to avoid asking the Minister one or two questions, for which I am sure she is grateful. However, I remain puzzled by some definitions in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and why a contribution from a charity to an appeal does not count as expenditure for charities. Other charitable bodies are able to provide contributions for endowment funds. It must be an historical anomaly. I have been told that the reason that the National Lottery Charities Board cannot make grants to endowment trusts has been lost in the mists of time. We are talking about not a principle or precedent, but an exception. I did not speak in earlier debates, so I do not understand why that exception has been made.
  On NESTA, the House has accepted the principle for a substantial endowment fund as part of the activity of lottery charities. The Bill to establish that got through the

  589
  House quickly and, I think, with all-party support. That might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman. We are dealing with an anomaly and there are clear precedents for what the Bill is attempting to achieve.
  Endowment funds are common in charitable activities. John Lewis has been mentioned. Many charitable trusts have endowment funds for the good reason that they are enabled over many years to go on making a considerable contribution for the purposes for which they were established and not just in the early years or in the first year. It is true that current interest rates mean that not a great deal of income is coming from the funds, but that is not an argument against the principle because at other times the returns will be much higher. Many trusts have been set up with such funds, so they obviously fulfil an important purpose.
  Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend concede that when the yield from an endowment fund is low—like now, and rates could get even lower—it might bias the difficult decision on the use of such funds towards using the money for the immediate benefit of a much larger number of causes?
  Mr. MacGregor: That is an interesting issue. I have been involved in discussions about whether, in the case of educational endowment funds, there should be a relaxation of the restrictions on income, especially in a period of high total returns because of the behaviour of the stock market or substantial capital gains. I accept that there are other issues to consider. There will be fluctuations in interest rates, but the continuation of the funds is more important than the concern that my right hon. Friend raises. If he is right, why, after centuries, would so many endowment funds still be in existence and providing such significant benefits? The Oxford and Cambridge colleges are a good example of that. The principle behind such funds are well accepted and the benefits well understood.
  I mentioned the tremendous activities of the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal, which are largely due to its splendid leadership and the obvious acceptance of the worthiness of the cause. However, it will not be possible to have a major fund-raising activity every year, because it has involved a massive amount of work by many people. Thus to argue that the establishment of an endowment fund means that it is impossible to direct the moneys raised to a specific cause does not hold water. The advantage of an endowment fund is that it continues to provide income for causes for many years.
  The general principle is the need to match funds, which applies to the National Lottery Charities Board. It gives individual grants for one-off purposes for one year only, usually when an organisation to which it is giving the money has demonstrated by its own efforts that it has raised a good deal of the sums itself. That same principle will apply under the Bill; it is not true that organisations such as John Lewis will be prevented from continuing to give. The body to which it is suggested that charitable money should go as an endowment will have to demonstrate, as the EDP appeal did, that it has put a huge effort into the process and has raised a great deal of money. All we are doing is continuing the principle of
  590
  lottery funding. We are giving the same incentive as we give to endowment funds to those bodies that are trying to secure money from the board.
  I am delighted to delay returning to my constituency to support the Bill and, again, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his achievement. For all the reasons that we have given, I hope that if the Bill is not enacted in this Parliament, the winner of the election will pick it up and make it law. The hon. Gentleman has done Norfolk and the House a great service by introducing the Bill.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am happy to support the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for introducing it and I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. It is heartening to see hon. Members from both sides of the House who represent Norfolk constituencies in the Chamber and it is always a pleasure to speak about a Bill that has all-party support. I hope that the Bill also has the Government's support. It has the backing of the local media, and a consensus appears to have been reached.
  Having mentioned the media, I should, of course, make it clear that I am talking about the Eastern Daily Press, which has already done such sterling work, with its "We Care" appeal. It is through the newspaper's campaigning zeal that the anomaly in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which this Bill seeks to correct, has been brought to public attention. I pay tribute to the work that it has done. Clearing up the anomaly that prevents the National Lottery Charities Board from making grants to endowments is long overdue.
  Norfolk Members of Parliament have also done their bit. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North for introducing the Bill, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) for the large sums that he has raised and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who has already raised many thousands of pounds for the appeal with a sponsored walk around his constituency. I, too, was invited to do something along those lines, but I am afraid that I did not at that time consider myself to be at peak fitness—not that I can remember when I was at peak fitness. However, all right hon. and hon. Members may soon have the opportunity to do a lot of walking around their constituencies, and if that is the case, it should prove good fitness training for taking part in a sponsored walk for the appeal in the not-too-distant future, and I certainly intend to be a part of that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North listed the reasons for the Bill. I would like to highlight the Bill's relevance to my constituency of Great Yarmouth, particularly to three constituents. Recent statistics have shown that Great Yarmouth is the fifth most deprived area in the United Kingdom. That measure of deprivation takes in many factors, but it is undoubtedly true that many people in Great Yarmouth will benefit from the aim of the Norfolk millennium trust for carers, which is:
  "to relieve the elderly, infirm, sick or disabled in Norfolk by the provision of financial and practical support to their carers either individually or through carers' groups."
  There are carers the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, all doing a fantastic job, but I know from my experience as Great Yarmouth's MP just how many people there are on my own doorstep, often unseen or

  591
  unheralded by the rest of society, who are caring full-time for loved ones. Indeed, only this week I received a letter from a constituent who gave up her well-paid job as a geologist to look after her disabled mother full-time. She asked a perfectly reasonable question about whether anybody could really live properly on the £66.35 a week that she is paid.
  There is still much more for the Government to do on this issue, but the Bill could make an immediate impression by allowing endowment trusts for carers, such as that established by the "We Care" appeal, to benefit from lottery funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North spoke about carers, but there is no harm in reiterating just how big a contribution the army of carers in our midst makes to society.
  It is estimated that nationally one in seven of the population is an unpaid carer. In the county of Norfolk, that comes to approximately 110,000, which translates to around 13,000 in my constituency. Depending on the condition of the individual who is being cared for, round-the-clock care can easily cost £500 a week. Therefore, any carer who is receiving, for example, the £66.35 a week, such as the constituent I mentioned earlier, is saving society more than £400 a week. It has been calculated that, nationally, carers save the Government approximately £34 billion a year.
  As a way of illustrating the ceaseless work that so many carers undertake, I would like to concentrate on the experiences of two constituents whom I have come to know very well over the past few years. Even before I became Great Yarmouth's MP, I knew of Tanya and Christine Harrison. Tanya is a bright, intelligent and charming young lady who was tragically struck down with myalgic encephalomyelitis, otherwise known as CFS—chronic fatigue syndrome. It took five years to diagnose her condition. Christine is her mother. Some right hon. and hon. Members will know that I am the chairman on the all-party group on ME, and through that work I have come to know much more about these remarkable ladies. Indeed, only on Wednesday of this week 1 received a report from the Action for ME charity highlighting the shortcomings in NHS treatment for those who are most severely affected by that debilitating condition. Inevitably, the task of providing full-time care for these unfortunate people, many of whom are still very young, tends to fall on their families.
  Tanya is currently completing her degree course at the university of London, a remarkable achievement for someone so severely affected. The only reason that she has been able to do that is because Christine lives with her on the university campus and is there for her 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, as she has been for the past 10 years, since she was forced to give up her job working for Mencap. Tanya has been bedridden for those past 10 years.
  I was speaking to Christine about it only this week. There is so much that can be said about the emotional, physical and financial stresses that she, her daughter and the rest of the family have been through. However, Christine said that it is possible to sum it up in one sentence:
  "I've given my life up to enable Tanya to have a life."
  She said:
  "The effects are simply endless; it is just impossible to have a normal family life. I have to cook all her meals and take them to her in bed. There is no such thing as the whole family sitting down
  592
  together for a meal. If Tanya is lonely I have to go and sit on her bed to talk to her. Christmas time can be very difficult. This Christmas my 80-year-old mother was ill with flu, but I couldn't go and visit her because of the devastating effect it would have if I picked up the virus and transmitted it to Tanya. We live very near the beach, but it is impossible for Tanya and I just to go for a walk on that beach. My son has been marvellously understanding and has a great relationship with Tanya, but as a parent you sometimes can't help but feel guilty that you aren't giving him the same attention."
  I could say much more about the physical and emotional stress that Christine and Tanya have dealt with over the years, but I should like to say a little about their financial circumstances, as the Bill could make a difference. As Christine says:
  "It's not that you don't want to be a carer for your daughter: of course you do, but the financial impact is very great.
  I give her 24 hour care 365 days a year. If I didn't give up my whole life she would be in a home and the Government would have to pay. I receive £40.40 a week for being a carer. Over the 168 hours in a week that works out to 24.05p an hour …168 hours at the previous minimum wage of £3.70 an hour is £621.60.
  Giving up your job and career has massive financial implications in itself, but then you face other expenses such as extra heating bills and in our case we've still had to pay for things such as medicines and eye tests at full rate. You also worry about things such as your pension arrangements as well.
  We seem to have had a constant battle with doctors and social services to get benefits. It hasn't just been a case of waiting, but of fighting. It can really wear you down constantly having to reiterate to others the seriousness of the situation and always having to explain how ill Tanya really is.
  The emotional, physical and financial impact on the carer can be very hard. I think sometimes respite care can be needed as much for the carer as for the patient. It would be great to have a break and to have a meal cooked for me just for once."
  There is much more of Tanya and Christine's story that I could tell, but I am sure that I have given right hon. and hon. Members a flavour of it. However, I hope that their story demonstrates not only the terrific devotion and dedication of one particular carer—a story that is repeated millions of times up and down the land—but the need for further financial and practical assistance for these selfless people.
  Initiatives such as the "We Care" appeal provide for the endowment of charities. That is so important because it enables secure and long-term funding arrangements to be put in place. There is nothing wrong with the National Lottery Charities Board making one-off grants for various charitable expenditure as it does at the moment, but the continuing and permanent nature of the work of carers requires financial and practical support over a far longer time scale and it is clearly wrong that the lottery cannot at the moment provide that. For that reason, the Bill has my wholehearted support.
  10.28 am
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on having secured a high place in the ballot and on his perspicacity in introducing this Bill.
  As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, there has been a touch of common cynicism in the belief that most of the private Members' Bills in this Session would be killed off, not in the massacre of the innocents by the Government Whips on a Friday, but by the onset of a general election. Indeed, I suppose that until almost the beginning of the week, that would have been the

  593
  inevitable fate of this Bill. However, I suspect that many of us are no longer sure that that will be so. I understand that the Prime Minister is now taking command of the foot and mouth crisis—the advisers and spin doctors have been banished, at least for this week—and if he decides to postpone the election, one plus would be that the Bill may have a fair wind and become law. Most Members present would fully support that.
  Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I think that the outstanding work of the Eastern Daily Press, and especially of its deputy editor, James Ruddy, and his colleagues, has massively boosted the appeal. I also pay tribute to the hard graft of the appeal's director, Paddy Seligman. I do not want to embarrass her, but the analogy that I would use is that she is a larger than life, Mo Mowlam character with a serious dash of Margaret Thatcher on top. She is like a gutsy, explosive culinary dish. It takes such people to drive things through and energise local businesses and voluntary organisations.
  We are discussing in general terms a private Member's Bill that will have an effect across the board, but like others who have spoken I want to talk about the particular. The hon. Member for Norwich, North is trying to correct an anomaly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said. The Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal has two aspects.
  The first is a general principle. As a Conservative, I believe in smaller government and in rigorous control of public expenditure. However, when public expenditure is required, every effort should be made to use it in the most useful and expeditious way. Having established the principle, the practice is also important. The most important practice in this case should be seen from a narrow Treasury point of view. We should make every effort to encourage voluntary organisations.
  What makes the United Kingdom different from many other countries is not necessarily language and history, but the marvellous British tradition of volunteering. Without the hundreds of thousands of unpaid volunteers, not only the caring sector but all parts of our society would grind to a halt. Under our current party political organisation, most of us rely on the voluntary spirit at that most narrow basic level.
  Attempts should be made to ensure that moneys raised can be used more expeditiously. The irony is that that saves public expenditure in the long term. In Norfolk, there is a core of 110,000 carers—relatives and others. Those people fulfil a fundamental role, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) graphically described. If they did not do so, the people whom they look after would either suffer or, more likely, would be an even greater burden on the local authority social services. The social services budget for Norfolk county council is more than £2 million in the red.
  I support the Bill because it addresses both principle and practice. I pay tribute to the work of my parliamentary colleagues in Norfolk. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth and I are both built more for comfort than speed—I hope he takes that remark in the spirit in which it is offered—whereas the hon. Member for Norwich, North is built more like a racing snake and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk has feline body language. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the
  594
  Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who is an outstanding MP. His constituents will want to return him with an even bigger majority. He did a long walk along the north Norfolk coast and raised a remarkable £10,000.
  I hope that that was not the valedictory speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. He is a distinguished member of the Magic Circle, and as a magician—pouf, just like that—he may reappear in a few weeks' time if we do not have a general election. He has been an outstanding Member for South Norfolk, and has supported many of the charities that we are discussing.
  I hope that my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), will give general and generous support to the Bill. I realise that, as with all private Member's Bills, it is not a belt-and-braces measure and does not meet all the Government's requirements, but the Secretary of State gave warm consideration to the proposals of the hon. Member for Norwich, North when a delegation of us met him several weeks ago.
  I hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind by the House. It addresses an anomaly that affects a number of charitable organisations, especially the Eastern Daily Press appeal in Norfolk.
  10.37 am
  Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing such a high place in the ballot, which many of us would cherish but few achieve, and on using the opportunity to advance support for such a worthy cause, not just in his constituency, but in those of many right hon. and hon. Members, as we have heard.
  The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised deserve detailed scrutiny. However, we are not here to discuss the merits of the charity or to second-guess whether, were it able to do so, the National Lottery Charities Board would support that charity. I pay tribute to him for the way he researched the Bill and the issues surrounding it. He mentioned the NLCB's current programme and the work that it is doing to provide funds for various projects that support charitable groups. The question for us is whether the proposed change is desirable, whether it would improve the workings of the NLCB and provide greater equity of opportunity to obtain grants from the board, or whether it would have adverse consequences for the work of the board or the operation of the lottery funding bodies.
  Our role in the limited time that we have to look into the matter is to give our views in principle on the aims of the Bill. We should discuss policy on the NLCB funding of endowments, and the impact of any change in the national lottery legislation on the funding bodies and the distribution of funds to them by the lottery.
  There is no point in widening the remit of a funding body if the funds available are insufficient to meets its programme of work. We should not oppose a change that would allow the NLCB to provide grants to endowments where the endowment was the vehicle being used to deliver a charitable project that it would otherwise have supported. If the point is that a problem in the current legislation has prevented support for a particular charitable project because it was being funded by an endowment, we feel that a change in law would be entirely reasonable. A difficulty would arise, however, if the NLCB felt obliged to fund endowments that would deal with the money as grant-making bodies.

  595
  We all know of charities in our constituencies that have received revenue funding for fixed periods, perhaps three years. I can think of two such charities in my constituency. The Ryedale detached youth work project is a street-level support project for youngsters in rural Ryedale and reaches out to youngsters who take drugs, suffer alcoholism or are homeless. We have received funding for three years, but there is nothing beyond that. Similarly, the NLCB has funded a national charity that happens to be based in Ryedale, the Encephalitis Support Group, which helps families in which a member—often a child—suffers from a difficult virus about which little is medically known. Again, the money will be exhausted at the end of a specified
  period.
  When charities are funded, they usually receive money that will enable them to carry on their work for an appreciable period. That differs, however, from providing an endowment that could be invested and used to provide grants to individuals in perpetuity. The NLCB is right to be concerned that that might be an adverse consequence arising from the change proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. None the less, if the law as it stands prevents the funding of a charitable project simply because the vehicle delivering the funding is an endowment, we should think it wholly reasonable for the law to be changed.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the different legislative provisions of section 33(1) of the 1993 Act, which restricts the NLCB to grants for charitable expenditure, as opposed to funding projects. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) commented that it is difficult to understand why the NLCB was treated differently and why endowments were excluded. In the most charitable way possible, I have to point out that he was a member of the Cabinet at the time, which just goes to show the extent to which the detail of proposals can go beyond what we can possibly cover on Second Reading. These are technical and complex legal issues.
  My right hon. Friend also highlighted the success of endowments in general. As we prepare to be the next Government, we think that endowments should indeed be an important vehicle by which to deliver a number of projects. We have drawn up detailed plans on how endowments could be used to fund arts, cultural and sporting organisations in order to give them the financial base that they need.
  We are not likely to resolve such technical issues today. The NLCB has had legal advice that there are technical deficiencies in the Bill, particularly as concerns philanthropic and benevolent bodies. The hon. Member for Norwich, North made a good fist of trying to explain the technical difficulties of the law in that area, but the problems reinforce the need to review and reform charity law in general. The lottery legislation reflects charity law and case law, and there is a growing sense that we need to reconsider the position in collaboration with the Charity Commission as well as the NLCB.
  We should remember the point about interest rates referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, and about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) expressed his concern in an intervention. That is not an argument against endowments, which we strongly favour. We need, however, to bear it in mind when we consider the best use of the NLCB's limited resources.
  596
  In a Committee earlier this week, the Minister and I had a discourse on the Government's proposals for the funding initiatives now available to the new opportunities fund. I mentioned that the NLCB's share of lottery funding had been reduced from 20 per cent. to 16.67 per cent. I understand the Government's view that the lottery was so much more successful than everyone imagined that all the funding bodies received more money than they expected. However, their funding has gone down.
  This is neither the time nor the place to debate the way in which lottery funds are distributed among bodies, but we all know of many charities that have applied for lottery funding and been refused. All kinds of reasons are advanced for that—including the argument that a charity is an endowment and, therefore, does not qualify—but one reason why the NLCB must decline many applications is that it simply does not have the funds to meet all the demands placed on it. The resources of the NLCB are by far the most stretched of all the lottery funding bodies.
  We should need reassurance on the technical issues if the Bill were to proceed. Normally, such issues could be explored in Committee, but we suspect that they will be left to the next Parliament. The lottery has been a major success, indeed one of the major—in two senses of the word—successes of the final years of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). None the less, it needs further reform, and I assure the hon. Member for Norwich, North that if it falls to us to be the next Government, as I sincerely hope that it will, we shall take the matters that he has raised into account in the review of lottery legislation that we intend to conduct early in the next Parliament.
  10.49 am
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), although I am not sure that he was right to say that these matters may fall to the next Parliament. I suspect that the general election may well be delayed. The Prime Minister has a difficult choice to make. He knows of the crisis that faces farmers the length and breadth of our country. At the same time, he will be conscious of the economic crisis that faces the world and our country. He will be only too aware that, while he has boasted that his Government have presided over boom and boom, if we are heading for a bust, it will not say much for his understanding of economic policy.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the factors that the Prime Minister will have to take into account when considering whether to call a general election will be private Members' Bills such as this one? If he calls a premature election a year ahead of when he need do, this Bill, along with many others, could become a victim of that decision.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There has been so much speculation that there will be a general election in May that people do not realise that constitutionally, under the Parliament Acts, the Prime Minister could leave it until June 2002.
  My purpose today is to talk not about the date of the general election but about this admirable Bill. I feel that I have to rise as a non-Norfolk Member of Parliament.

  597
  There has been much talk about the importance of the Bill to Norfolk charities, but we should make it clear that the same applies to charities throughout the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is right and proper to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I congratulate him on having the good luck to be drawn so high in the ballot that he can present a Bill, and on his good intentions and good judgment in presenting this one.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) spoke about the excellent work of Paddy Seligman. If I were her, I am not sure that I would be so pleased with his description of her as "gutsy but explosive". I am a fan of Indian cuisine, and it sounds like a description of a Sainsbury's vindaloo, which I tried last night and can confirm was indeed gutsy and explosive.
  It has been a unique experience for me to see how so many people and organisations have worked together for good common purpose to see this Bill become law. It is extraordinary that the provision applies only to the National Lottery Charities Board. I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that only the NLCB is affected by the Bill and that the lottery boards for sports, heritage and the arts are not constrained in the establishment of endowments. If they are so constrained, ought not the Bill to be expanded so that those boards also have the freedom to do so if they see fit?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised an important point. He said that, although it might not be wrong to set one up, an endowment would create difficult choices for the relevant lottery board. Interest rates are low at present. We may be heading for a period of economic decline over the next few months as the Stock Exchange collapses and the boom that has lasted since 1993, although the rate of growth of the economy has slowed since 1997, comes to an end. If we are entering a period of bust, interest rates will go even lower, unless of course we join the euro.
  If we join the euro, we will not be in a position to decide our interest rates. We will be in a strange position. If Germany were enjoying a strong economic position, the interest rates set in Frankfurt would not apply to the position in the United Kingdom. I digress; I will not further consider whether we should enter the euro.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Surely those who make the decisions, be it anonymous boards of bureaucrats or the charities, to go for an endowment approach to take money now for immediate benefit will have to factor in forecasts of trends in interest rates, which is a hazardous business. Does he think that that has been brought out sufficiently in the debate so far? We have heard glowing accounts of how wonderful endowments are, but there is a down side.
  Mr. Fabricant: There is always a down side. Money does not grow on trees, and difficult decisions always have to be made. The NLCB will have to bear it in mind
  598
  that if it establishes endowments for tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds, that money, as my right hon. Friend says, will not be available to give in grants for day-to-day expenditure in a particular year. However, that is not an argument for saying that endowments should not be established. He is right that there is a down side as well as an up side.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) raised an interesting point when he said that, at a time of economic downturn when interest rates are low, it might be necessary to draw on capital sums from the endowment. Presumably, charities would pay back into the endowment when interest rates were higher. Will the Minister confirm that such flexibility will be possible? Will the boards be able to draw on the capital amounts set on the endowment at times of low interest rates in order to return the sums at times of high interest rates? Such flexibility will be important if lottery funds are not to be irrevocably damaged.
  There are many examples of organisations that have been funded with large capital grants by various lottery boards. In my constituency, the heritage lottery fund has given large sums of money to a series of projects. I live next door to the Erasmus Darwin museum in the centre of Lichfield. Erasmus Darwin house was severely damaged by earth subsidence some years ago and lovingly restored with a grant from the fund. It is now an open secret that the museum is having difficulty funding its day-to-day operations.
  If a lottery board felt that it was worth continuing with such projects—projects throughout the country are experiencing difficulty with their day-to-day funding—provided that the difficulty was temporary, it would be right and proper to provide assistance with the day-to-day running of an organisation. I make it an important proviso that the difficulties should be temporary. An endowment might be the ideal way to do that, but it is important that endowments should not be used to prop up lame ducks. If they are, the money will not be available to fund programmes such as those that the hon. Member for Norwich, North has already spoken about, or other worthwhile projects.
  The Bill has exposed an anomaly in the way in which the lottery funding boards were established. It seems strange that the sport, heritage and arts lottery boards are impeded by the problem. I think that the Minister will confirm that that is the case. This admirable Bill will ensure that the anomaly is corrected and in that respect, I support it.
  10.59 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: I must admit that I am torn by the Bill. I see a number of aspects to it. It is in many ways the ideal private Member's Bill. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for presenting it to the House. It is focused and deliberately narrow in its intention, although much broader in its potential effect. It is on the face of it—
  It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

  Marchioness Inquiries
  11 am
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Marchioness inquiries.
  In the early hours of 20 August 1989, 51 people tragically lost their lives in the Thames following a collision between the dredger Bowbelle and the pleasure craft Marchioness. Many members of the public were profoundly shocked that such an event could happen in the centre of London, on a warm August night.
  Since the tragedy, the survivors and families of the victims have campaigned for a full public inquiry. On 14 February 2000, I reported to the House Lord Justice Clarke's conclusion—from his Thames safety inquiry—that a formal investigation should have taken place soon after the incident. He recommended that I should now order one, and I agreed to do so.
  I also established a non-statutory inquiry into the identification of victims following major transport accidents. I thank Lord Justice Clarke for undertaking those difficult tasks so well. At the outset, he clearly indicated that the purpose of the investigation and inquiry was not retribution, but to establish what had happened and to learn the necessary lessons for the future. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library of the House, together with our response to the 30 recommendations made in the formal investigation report.
  The exact circumstances of the collision have been a matter of dispute for more than a decade. Never before have all the relevant documents been assembled and subjected to such scrutiny.
  The formal investigation finds that responsibility for the accident lies with the master of the Bowbelle, Captain Henderson; the Bowbelle's owners, East Coast Aggregates Ltd.; its managers, South Coast Shipping Ltd.; the skipper of the Marchioness, Mr. Faldo; and its owners, Kenneth Dwan and William Ludgrove of Tidal Cruises Ltd., because of their failure to establish and maintain an appropriate lookout on their vessels.
  The investigation finds that both vessels were in breach of collision regulations and of Port of London authority byelaws. It finds that Captain Henderson of the Bowbelle was in breach of his obligation to broadcast a mayday and to launch life-saving equipment.
  The investigation also criticises the Port of London authority and the former Department of Transport. The Port of London authority failed to require vessels with limited visibility forward—such as the Bowbelle—to locate a lookout with an effective means of communication with the bridge. The Department failed to apply its policy that all pleasure craft on the Thames should have all-round visibility from the bridge, and did not give adequate thought to means of escape when the Marchioness was converted in 1980. The Department also failed to ensure that a condition requiring an extra lookout was imposed each time the Marchioness passenger certificate was renewed. As Secretary of State, I apologise unreservedly for the past failings of the Department—especially to the relatives.
  The investigation deplores the amount of drink Captain Henderson had taken before he rejoined his ship. However, expert medical advice at the investigation
  600
  indicated that he would not have been adversely affected by alcohol at the time of the incident, although his rest may have been disturbed. The report concludes that Mr. Faldo, of the Marchioness, who unfortunately lost his life, had not been drinking alcohol that night, although he may have been fatigued by the long hours that he had worked.
  During the investigation, Captain Henderson of the Bowbelle admitted that during the 1980s he had forged a signature on watch-keeping certificates and his discharge book in order to gain his masters certificate. Captain Henderson did not volunteer that information to the marine accident investigation branch in 1989.
  Having considered the legal arguments advanced during the investigation, including Captain Henderson's entitlement to have his civil rights determined within a reasonable time, Lord Justice Clarke did not take disciplinary action against Captain Henderson. That is a shameful consequence of the failure to hold a formal investigation following the disaster. Nor has Lord Justice Clarke recommended that action be taken against any other party found responsible for the accident.
  The preliminary advice that I have received is that there is little prospect of a successful prosecution of Captain Henderson. However, I am referring the entire formal investigation report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for him to consider what action would be appropriate against Captain Henderson or any other party. I have also asked the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to undertake an urgent review of Captain Henderson's fitness to hold a British masters certificate of competency under the Merchant Shipping Acts.
  Lord Justice Clarke previously reviewed safety on the Thames and made 44 recommendations; we have acted on all of them. He makes 30 further recommendations in this report; we will take forward all of them and our detailed response to those recommendations has been placed in the Library with the reports.
  Lord Justice Clarke warmly welcomes my Department's decision to undertake a comprehensive formal safety assessment of small passenger vessels. Work is already under way.
  Although drink-driving is an offence on the roads, it has not been on the river. We recently announced our intention to introduce, in the forthcoming safety Bill, an alcohol limit for those in charge of vessels. We also strongly support the recommendation that all shipping companies should have a clear policy regarding both alcohol and drug taking by their crews and the means to monitor its observance.
  We are also putting in place new arrangements to co-ordinate search and rescue and to provide additional rescue facilities on the Thames, including three permanently manned lifeboats provided by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The coastguard accepts overarching responsibility for search and rescue on the tidal Thames—as elsewhere in the UK.
  Lord Justice Clarke singles out the role played in the rescue by the Metropolitan police officers. He commends their efforts and those of members of the public—including the so-called Hurlingham boys—who came to the rescue. I am sure that the House will want to join me in supporting those comments.
  I now turn to the non-statutory inquiry that I ordered at the same time. It is hard to envisage the distress that relatives must have felt when they learned that hands had

  601
  been removed from the bodies of some of those who died. Lord Justice Clarke considered the concerns of the relatives, including the removal of hands for identification; the failure to inform relatives that hands had been removed; and the refusal to allow relatives to view the bodies.
  Lord Justice Clarke finds that the removal of hands for identification purposes should not have happened, except as a last resort. The responsibility for authorising the removal of hands lay entirely with Dr. Knapman, the coroner. He is criticised for failing to make it clear that this was to be an action only of last resort.
  Lord Justice Clarke stressed the importance of respecting the dead and their relatives and of working with sensitivity throughout; of ensuring that full, honest and accurate information is given to the relatives at every stage; and of respecting the request of a relative to view the body. I am sure that the House will be in accord with those sentiments.
  The Government are acting on Lord Clarke's recommendations. With advances in DNA techniques, it is now rare for hands to be removed. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided to ask coroners to report to the Home Office any future cases where hands are removed.
  The inquiry revealed a failure, in three cases, to reunite the severed hands with the bodies, as Dr. Knapman should have required. Westminster mortuary is also criticised for its procedures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has agreed that the review of the Human Tissue Act 1961, following the Alder Hey inquiry report, will be widened to cover Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations.
  Today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is announcing the terms of reference of a fundamental review of the coroner system, which will now also reflect these recommendations. Moreover, a copy of the report will be sent to every coroner. I ask them to consider it carefully, to see whether existing practices can be improved. The police service is also developing guidelines to improve its own procedures.
  After the hearings, it emerged that tissue samples taken from four of the Marchioness victims had been found 11 years later in Westminster mortuary. Post mortems were carried out on all 51 victims after the tragedy and small samples of tissue removed, in accordance with normal forensic practice. Most of the samples were destroyed after six months, but four remained at Westminster mortuary. I should emphasise that, contrary to newspaper reports, these were small amounts of tissue, not the organs themselves, and that the material was not used for research.
  Lord Justice Clarke wrote to the Secretary of State for Health about those samples, and my right hon. Friend has agreed to refer the matter to the newly established Retained Organs Commission for further action, in consultation with the relatives. The Home Secretary has also agreed to undertake a review of practice and procedures in all public mortuaries in England and Wales, to ensure compliance with best practice.
  After 11 long years, Lord Justice Clarke has provided the definitive account of the Marchioness tragedy. Responsibility has at long last been attributed and laid at
  602
  the door of the skippers, the owners and the managers of both vessels. Criticism has been levelled at the Department of Transport, the Port of London authority, the coroner and the mortuary.
  The lessons of the accident continue to be learned. The Thames is a safer place than it was in 1989. It can and must become safer still. The sinking of the Marchioness profoundly shocked the nation. A full public inquiry should have been held years ago. Lord Justice Clarke states that he hopes that his inquiry will help to ensure that nothing like this happens again. He says that his report may not satisfy everyone, but he hopes that the inquiry will have played a small part in helping the relatives and survivors to put the appalling tragedy behind them and contributed to improving safety on the Thames in future. The reports provide a chilling reminder of the need for vigilance and will stand as a permanent rebuke to those found at fault.
  Finally, I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the tenacity and courage of the relatives for their tireless campaign to secure a full public inquiry. The improvements that we have seen to river safety are a lasting testament to their commitment. I commend the reports to the House.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of the report and of his statement—and I thank Lord Justice Clarke for his report.
  No one can who reads the files and recalls the memories of this terrible tragedy can fail to be moved. The loss of so many successful and talented men and women, destroyed in the prime of their lives, can leave nothing but an inconsolable sense of waste. From the moment that the accident was reported, it became apparent that it should have been avoidable.
  There were failings, and I join the Deputy Prime Minister in saying that I am very sorry for those failings, which are underlined in the recommendations arising from the marine accident investigation branch report. Subsequent inquiries have produced further recommendations, including those in the Hayes inquiry under the previous Administration, and Lord Justice Clarke's. interim recommendations.
  Does the Deputy Prime Minister have confidence in the safety management and procedures on the River Thames today? He has announced further improvements, but river traffic is growing rapidly. Is he confident that safety management is matching that growth? May I ask him to express confidence in the marine accident investigation branch in respect of its role in river safety? Does he think that it has learned the lessons from the episode?
  Is not the overwhelming lesson that safety management must be proactive and that every vessel must be constantly capable of navigating safely at all times? Following the recommendations, what procedures will the right hon. Gentleman's Department pursue to keep river safety up to date-for example, to make maximum use of technology? Can he confirm that those recommendations will be extended to other similar waterways in the United Kingdom?
  On the non-statutory report, everyone will share the right hon. Gentleman's sense of revulsion at the treatment of the dead and bereaved after the accident. We can ensure that those events are never repeated. I welcome

  603
  the action that the right hon. Gentleman proposes and the widening of the Alder Hey inquiry to consider them, but is that expected to delay the Alder Hey inquiry in any way?
  Finally, I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to the relatives of those who perished. They will never be able to draw a line under the episode. They will live the nightmare of that night for the rest of their lives. The improvements to river safety a announced today and since the disaster will provide some comfort, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they are a lasting testament to the relatives' commitment to river safety.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and for welcoming Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations. May I also say, together with him, how much the House appreciates the very hard work that Lord Justice Clarke put into the inquiry? It was essential that he defined what happened on the night because previous Governments had failed to do so. He restored confidence in the type of investigations that can take place in the event of such tragedies, which we all want to avoid. I am grateful to him for his support and congratulate him on all that he has done. The report is a remarkable piece of work.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the recommendations. Our views on them can be read in the document that has been placed in the Library. We always need to be vigilant about safety management on the river, whatever rules and regulations exist. Individuals often take decisions in difficult circumstances, which can contribute in some way, but we have to be assured that we have a regulatory framework that can ensure that the best standards are applied. Anyone reading Lord Justice Clarke's report will find out about the sloppiness that existed in the companies, as well as on board ship, for which responsibility has to be taken. No doubt we shall come to that argument when we discuss corporate responsibility in the near future.
  We all welcome the fact that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is now in charge of search and rescue and of imposing good safety standards. The House will generally welcome the fact that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is very much involved. We have ensured that the standards are applied to other rivers around the country. A review is taking place to ensure that the same standards are maintained in other rivers.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about whether the marine accident investigation branch has learned its lessons. The report shows what can happen when discretion is involved in deciding whether there should be an interim inquiry and a public inquiry. It is necessary to hold the interim inquiry first. The record of the past 10 years clearly shows that people were making decisions and recommendations, but did not exercise the right to hold a public inquiry.
  I would not want people to think that the marine accident investigation branch was the only means of conducting an investigation. It was thought in the Department at the time that the MAIB could act in the same way as the air accidents investigation branch. I am not sure that that is the right way to proceed; the MAIB can be involved but, ultimately, discretion on whether to hold a public inquiry lies with Ministers.
  Those who look at the record can decide for themselves, but, frankly, I think the process failed. The marine accident investigation branch cannot be totally totally to
  604
  blame. Its terms of reference required it to discover what happened, not to look behind that to find out what the faults were and whether there was any blame. In any inquiry involving a vessel that has gone down with the loss of 55 lives, that should happen. That gives me the opportunity to deal with the controversial issue of whether an inquiry could be held up because of the possibility of legal prosecutions. I think that the inquiry should continue, whatever is happening with prosecutions, but we are discussing that matter at the moment. The Lord Chancellor is addressing himself to that problem, about which the House has from time to time expressed concern.
  On whether the Alder Hey inquiry will be delayed, I shall ask the Secretary of State for Health to write to the hon. Gentleman with a response. I do not think it will be delayed, but I would prefer to allow my colleague to respond.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the people who have had to carry this heavy burden for so long. They demanded a public inquiry, and Lord Justice Clarke has responded to them. He has made his recommendations and I have given the House the Government's view of them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Since 1989, I have been the constituency Member as well as the party representative most associated with the tragedy, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his unique commitment to ensuring that there was an inquiry. I thank him for that without qualification. He knows that both the families and I respect him greatly.
  I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in paying tribute to Lord Justice Clarke and those who helped him. They did an excellent job. I also join in the tributes to the families of those who survived and those who did not. The families did not give in, in spite of the amazing obstacles that were placed in their way. They and the so-called Hurlingham boys—the people on the other boat that night who came and saved lives—deserve unqualified thanks. I hope that this statement is some consolation to them above all.
  The conclusion of these two full reports is that terrible and fatal failures took place before, on and after the night of the sinking. Those failures led to the tragic and unnecessary deaths of 51 people with huge potential. I share the view of the hon. Member for North Essex. The obvious conclusion is that this sinking should not and need not have happened, and all those responsible should have been held responsible.
  I choose my words carefully, but I think that the previous Conservative Government made the disgraceful decision not to hold the inquiry that was asked for from the beginning. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman played no part in that decision. However, if an earlier inquiry had taken place, many of the remedies that are not now available would have been available. Unfortunately, that failure cannot now be put right.
  I shall not do anything other than welcome all the Secretary of State's recommendations—I support them. However, I wish to ask some specific questions. Can he assure the House that, in addition to the referral of the Captain Henderson case, he will satisfy himself that any other legal action that can be properly and fairly taken will be considered and, if appropriate, taken?

  605
  If there is no election this year or if the Secretary of State and the Labour party are in government after an election, will he undertake that legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to cover corporate responsibility for deaths and manslaughter? Such legislation should have been introduced a long time ago, but the sooner we get a law on the statute book, the better.
  The Secretary of State made the welcome announcement that the Home Secretary will consider the provisions for coroner's inquests. However, will he undertake that that consideration will cover the issues to which he referred? Coroner's inquests, calls for a public inquiry and criminal and civil proceedings often all come together, so a co-ordinated and sensible approach must be taken to them.
  The Secretary of State said that the coastguard will take responsibility for search and rescue. Does that mean that, in future, in every search and rescue operation on inland waterways, the coastguard will direct the police, the river police and the appropriate port or river authorities? One of the lessons of this case is that no one took ultimate responsibility, but someone should ultimately be responsible for what happens on the Thames and other inland waterways.
  The lessons of Lord Justice Clarke's second report appear to be that no one had clear responsibility for looking after the victims and their families from the moment of the accident, and the bodies of the dead were not sacrosanct. I hope that the Government are saying that, in future, anyone who ever loses a relative in such a tragedy will know that limbs, organs and body parts cannot be taken without the authority of the family. That conclusion must be drawn from this and other cases; I hope that the Government will make that the legal position from now on.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my personal involvement in this matter. In these difficult times, we have had to make difficult decisions and have had to ask relatives to trust us. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has given me in securing the trust that has enabled us to make a definitive statement of what happened on the night of the accident. I am also grateful that he expressed appreciation and paid tribute to the relatives, and to Lord Justice Clarke for his report.
  I agree that much needs to be done if we are to learn the lessons. The recommendations that have been made represent a major step towards doing that and I want them to be implemented as quickly as possible and without delay.
  On the hon. Gentleman's question about Captain Henderson, I am referring the whole report to the Director of Public Prosecution, and I have not limited my request for advice to Captain Henderson. I would like advice about any party who has responsibility in this matter.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to the delays that occurred and they relate to other pieces of legislation and the human rights of the people involved in this case. However, as Lord Justice Clarke has pointed out, the delays have meant that we cannot take any further action. In addition, the two or three court cases delayed the proper inquiry, and one court did not come to a decision,
  606
  which prevented any secondary charges being made. All those events have added to the complications, which is why my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is reviewing the business of the inquiries and prosecutions that can take place when there are such conflicts. Delays are unacceptable to the relatives and those who are interested in these cases, so we are addressing ourselves directly to that point.
  On corporate responsibility, the Home Office has conducted a review, which was finished in September. We have said that our conclusions will appear in a new safety Bill that will be introduced if we are re-elected.
  The way in which coroners deal with such cases is actively under review. Indeed, the report makes a number of specific recommendations which we have accepted. A review is being conducted by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health to improve the position.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the coastguard. We have introduced for the Thames provisions similar to those for most of our estuaries and rivers, but the coastguard does not operate in every river where there are passenger boats. We are therefore conducting a review of what are called the class 5 vessels that are found in rivers and estuaries throughout the country. We want greater uniformity in the system and I shall report to the House when we have completed the review.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the trauma that the victims have suffered, and that has been a feature of all the accidents that have occurred in the past couple of decades. Our provisions for handling trauma have improved, as we can see from the fact that companies involved in railway tragedies are better informed. Local authorities are also more helpful. However, if a post mortem is necessary, nothing should be done to the bodies of the loved ones without the agreement of the relatives. That recommendation has been made strongly, but Lord Justice Clarke makes it clear that, for obvious reasons, coroners have a right to conduct post mortems; however, we must achieve a better balance and I think that the recommendations achieve that.
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and, more important, for initiating the two inquiries.
  Much safety legislation reaches the statute book only when lessons are learned from transport and fire tragedies. That has happened time and again and it appears that we react to tragedies instead of being proactive. Surely any multiple loss of life should automatically lead to a full public inquiry to ensure that the causes are completely examined and to obtain public confidence. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that future Governments will act as he has done in promptly calling for a public inquiry when there is a tragedy? In the case of the Marchioness, families and others encountered difficulties because the then Government blocked the initiation of a public inquiry. Can he assure us that public inquiries will take place if there are disasters and tragedies in future?
  Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He makes a powerful point about the circumstances that should lead to a public inquiry. He mentioned one of the criteria; the loss of life. In the

  607
  terrible train tragedy at Great Heck, lives were lost, but no one disputed the facts behind that accident: it was not the fault of the railway system, but a combination of circumstances. I use that example without passing judgment on what happened at Great Heck. Sometimes a public inquiry is needed to find what happened and, if necessary, to apportion blame. There is an element of discretion in that difficult area.
  The then Government started properly, with a preliminary inquiry into the sinking of the Marchioness. The first decision was taken by the Prime Minister herself on the day. She had a meeting at No. 10 with the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) —then the Minister of State, Department of Transport—because the Secretary of State was out of the country. They decided, first, to hold a preliminary inquiry, and to leave open the option for a full inquiry. The problem was that people began to find different reasons for not having a full inquiry. That led to suspicion among the relatives and to bad feeling; particularly as the Government had ordered a full inquiry into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise without such consideration.
  I want to be fair to the previous Administration. It is proper to have a preliminary inquiry, but eventually discretion must be used by Ministers about whether there should be a public inquiry. As a result of the recommendations, we are reviewing the rules governing inquiries with the Lord Chancellor and others. As Lord Justice Clarke said, loss of life is one of the criteria when deciding whether to hold an inquiry, but there are others and we have to make judgments.
  I cannot envisage a system in which discretion is not exercised, and, if it is, Ministers should be accountable to this House for their judgment. On balance, that is the better way of dealing with these matters and we can, I hope, come to the best judgments. Sometimes we cannot; if so, we are accountable to this House. If we do not settle the issues, such terrible matters could go on for years with nothing being done. That in turn leads to arguments because, when so much time has passed, it is impossible to pursue a proper prosecution or any further action.
  In this case, there was a desire for a maritime accident report. However, when 10 or 11 years pass without a public inquiry, there is a chance of misinterpretation. People then believe that there is bad will and bad feeling, and that those involved are not doing enough. Public inquiries clear the air, with Ministers being answerable to this Chamber.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister very much for coming to the House so promptly and for making such a full statement. Is he satisfied—as far as he reasonably can be—that after learning the lessons from what has happened and from the report, we now have the combination of onshore and on-vessel systems and equipment that are necessary to provide the guarantee of safety that we need, given the welcome increase in traffic on the Thames? That is obviously important not just for Londoners, but for tourists. Is not the main thing that can come out of this process the maximum reassurance that I hope the Deputy Prime Minister feels able to give today, as that would be a fitting testament to those who died in the tragedy?
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The question that he poses is the one that every
  608
  one of us should ask. Looking at the statistics about the increasing traffic on the river, I cannot say that there has been a tremendous drop in the amount of incidents. They may not be the most serious types of incident, but the Thames is a busy river and traffic on it is growing all the time. The report showed not that there was a failure of manning or of competency, but that recommendations were just not observed. There was a certain sloppiness in the system which I believe contributed to the collision of the two vessels, although the main cause was that neither maintained lookouts, as was required under the Government's regulations on safety on the river. It is question of vigilance and accountability.
  We have instituted some new checks and controls and, along with the 70-odd recommendations in the report, I believe that these will cause improvements. However, I have been involved in transport safety for a long time and I know that we can never be sure. All we can do is make sure that the checks are done properly and that vigilance is maintained. We must allow people to enjoy the river, but remind them that it can be dangerous. I would like to be able to say that there will never be another incident, but it would be foolish of me to do so. However, we are doing all that we can to prevent another one.
  Mr. Chris Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal commitment to the issue, without which we would not have learned the lessons from Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry. Clearly, those lessons—if, as he has said, they are implemented in full—will make the Thames a safer place. I also endorse my right hon. Friend's tribute, repeated by other Members, to the families, relatives and survivors of the Marchioness disaster. I have worked closely with them for the past four years, as has the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). My admiration and respect for the families, and for their determination and courage, has increased year by year.
  I understand the families' anger that it has taken so long to find the answers to their questions. I note that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) is unable to be in the Chamber this morning, although, as we have heard, he was the duty Minister at the time, and was responsible for the decision that the inquiry should not take place. Would it not be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to come to this House to give his own apology for not having an inquiry? That inquiry would have allowed the families and the relatives to put to rest their loved ones and would have allowed us to learn lessons which, if implemented, could have made the river a safer place over the past 11 years.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, especially those concerning the families. With regard to his remarks about the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, I said at the beginning that he met the Prime Minister on the day, as I would have expected; particularly when one considers that the Secretary of State was out of the country. It is a question not of individual responsibility, but of collective responsibility. A number of different Ministers and Secretaries of State have replied to the House on the subject over the past 10 or 11 years. Each came to the conclusion that there should not be a public inquiry. They may have made that decision for different reasons and at different times, but they all arrived at the same conclusion. That conclusion, in my view, was wrong.

  609
  The maritime accident report said that no fault had occurred that could result in disciplinary action. That was wrong. The body responsible was in constant discussion with Ministers. Lord Justice Clarke's report states that the recommendations from civil servants—arising out of an exchange in the Hayes report, which came after the maritime accident inquiry set up by the Government—were that perhaps Ministers should not have a full inquiry, but that if they did, they, the civil servants, would not be surprised. That is where discretion comes in.
  Although my hon. Friend talks about individual responsibility for the matter, each must make his own decision about how he deals with the matter. I am in the unfortunate circumstances of apologising for a previous Administration but, in the circumstances, it is right for me to do so, as I have responsibility now. There was collective responsibility and, frankly, there was collective failure. That is brought out by Lord Justice Clarke's report, and that is where I would address my remarks about the failure to hold a public inquiry.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: None of us should pay too much attention to the cheap remarks of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on this serious occasion. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the benefits to be derived from a public inquiry must be balanced against other considerations; for instance, the need to collect evidence for a criminal prosecution. In that context, could he tell the House whether Lord Justice Clarke has identified any recommendation which, had it been acted upon earlier, might have averted subsequent tragedies on the Thames?
  Mr. Prescott: It is a matter of balance; I am faced with striking a balance on the recommendations that I have received from Lord Justice Clarke, and deciding whether I take further action. I am trying to be fair to everyone concerned. I know that the relatives feel strongly that the human rights of those who say that they should be immune from prosecution must be balanced against those of the 55 people who died. That is a difficult balance to strike, and Lord Justice Clarke addressed the point.
  On whether we have learned lessons, what contributed to the accident was a failure to observe the law of the land: under the collision regulations, there should be a lookout on a vessel on the Thames. We have not changed that law; it is just that it was not observed. The Clarke report states that individuals, such as Captain Henderson, did not observe the regulations. Some may face charges. Tragically, the captain of the Marchioness died in the accident. Companies also have responsibility. Because our law is not adequate to take action against the companies involved—to be fair, some of the relatives did take action—the courts were not prepared to entertain corporate responsibility or corporate manslaughter charges. Therefore, we are back to changing the law.
  Great sloppiness is evident, and it is probably a criticism of the Department at the time that there was not just one accident. A few years previously, the Bowbelle was involved in similar collisions when it did not keep proper lookout. That should have alerted the Department to the need to take more action against such companies and the individuals working for them. It did not.
  610
  The matter is not one of improving the regulations, although we are making improvements, but of ensuring that they are observed.
  Fiona Mactaggart: There are obviously many lessons to be learned from the inquiry, particularly for those who are concerned with safety on the river. The lesson about which I am most concerned is the one for us as politicians: how do we deal with matters such as this?
  I have read the report of the marine accident investigation branch inquiry, and particularly in view of the latest report, it seems a seriously deficient piece of work. It suggests that there was
  "no wilful misconduct in either vessel contributing to the collision",
  yet later it finds that there was a failure to provide lookout. Indeed, as the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, at least one of the vessels was involved in another incident because of that failure. As the Clarke report suggests, Captain Henderson was in breach of his obligation to call a mayday and to launch rescue vessels.
  It seems that there has been a degree of complacency about accepting the MAIB inquiry without seeing in it some very clear signals, in the historical context, that a better piece of work was required. Can I be assured by the Deputy Prime Minister that while we are in government, we will never be guilty of such complacency?
  Mr. Prescott: I must tell my hon. Friend that such circumstances often occur and Secretaries of State appear at the Dispatch Box to explain why, but I will do everything that I can to ensure that complacency does not have an effect on our regulations.
  My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the MAIB report. Since it keeps coming up, I shall quote from it:
  "The inspectors' final finding that there was no wilful misconduct in either vessel contributing to the collision, foundering or the loss of life is fully borne out by the preceding sections of this report and I make no recommendations for any disciplinary action to be taken."
  That was not published until two years after the event, and 12 months later it was delivered to the Department.
  Anybody reading Lord Justice Clarke's report will see that lookouts were not maintained, and that that was following two or three similar events in preceding years. That raises the question whether that was wilful misconduct on behalf of the captain or the companies. They certainly were not carrying out their responsibility. Their attitude was very complacent; I say no more than that. I shall do all that I can to see that we learn the lessons, and the 70-odd recommendations aim to do that.
  I should make one correction. I made a mistake in talking about 55 deaths, when I should have said 51. I apologise for that. All in all, there are many lessons to be learned. At the end of the day, that was what Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry was about—to find out the truth, what went wrong and to see what we could do to prevent such an accident from happening again.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: May I say how much I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement that there will be liaison and discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department on whether there can be a public inquiry while there may also be criminal prosecutions.

  611
  The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his statement the question of visibility. Has his Department given any thought to the use and compulsion of use of proximity radar, which would automatically sate whether another vessel is nearby? The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that an assessment is being made of all small passenger vessels in use on the Thames. When will that assessment be completed?
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. He makes an important point. If he looks at Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry, or the Hayes inquiry, which the previous Administration set up, he will see the difficulties with communication—whether vessels are located by radio, as normal, or by radar. Such vessels have those facilities.
  As has been pointed out, the disco music on the Marchioness was so loud that the radio could not be heard. That is of serious concern. Visibility from the bridge was another matter of concern. As I said 10 years ago, somebody must have made a mistake. When the vessel was given a second deck on which passengers could dance, lack of visibility was obvious. When the vessel's stability was changed and it was given another deck, somebody must have agreed that it was safe and that there was full visibility. Clearly, it was not safe. That applied not only to this accident—similar incidents were reported concerning restriction of visibility on a number of vessels two or three years previously. So, it is not as if we did not know about such matters.
  I am in a way risking my hand in saying that the real problem is that sometimes, recommendations are made but, on receiving them, people sit back. When asked why the owners did not implement them, it was simply said that they just did not do so. There was an argument over whether the lack of visibility required another crew member, which presumably had cost implications.
  Either way, too many people looked in different directions and did not deal with the problem. That is at the heart of the matter. We must ensure that inspections systems are reviewed regularly. By the way, such systems were checked on this occasion, but nobody said that there was anything wrong. There was something wrong, and there is evidence to that effect. The case reveals sloppiness in the Department, but we are doing everything to see that that is corrected.

  National Lottery (Amendment) Bill
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Forth:—uncontroversial.
  Having said that, the question is whether that point applies simply to the Bill or to the context in which the Bill is promoted. Although the Bill focuses on a particular element of the availability of lottery funding, I am always nervous when there is apparent unanimity on a measure. That bothers me greatly. I am also nervous when, obviously with the best possible motives, Members seek to build on one particular worthy cause or case and then claim that that legitimises taking the matter more widely. The Bill's contents raise several much wider questions about which we should at least satisfy ourselves before we allow it to make progress. I suspect that the Bill will be given a Second Reading today, but enough has already been said by my hon. Friends and in my few remarks to suggest that it will need careful scrutiny in Committee and on Report.
  The first question is the role of Government and taxpayer funding relative to moneys channelled through the lottery. That is not a new question, but we should keep a close eye on it.
  When the lottery was set up, I remember well that the philosophy behind it was that lottery funding should be available for matters that did not or could not attract Government—I prefer to say taxpayer—funding. As the years have passed, however, the distinction has been constantly blurred—especially, it must be said, under the present Government—to such an extent that it is now almost non-existent. The Government are using—I might even say plundering—the substantial lottery funds to do many things that we have thought hitherto should be done with Government, or taxpayers', money.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has raised the important question of additionality. When the lottery was established, we looked at examples in France, where the state—the taxpayer—traditionally funds grandiose projects of a kind that we in this country do not generally fund, at least not since the Victorian era. When the millennium fund was set up, it was planned that on its closure the money would be distributed among the existing funds. Is he aware that it was this Government, and this Government only, who decided that the money—money normally spent by the taxpayer—should instead be spent on health and education?
  Mr. Forth: I think that we should emulate very little of what happens in France, although one exception might be, funnily enough, the French health service. We should perhaps look closely at that, not least because it was recently rated the best health service in the world. It is odd that we do not take a closer look at what the French apparently do better than we do: there may be lessons to be learned.
  My hon. Friend's point reinforces my concern. I understand, for example, that the new opportunities fund has already been used to finance a network of healthy living centres, out-of-schools learning, out-of-schools child care, information and communications technology

  613
  training for teachers and librarians, and the improvement of cancer prevention, detection and treatment. No one would claim that those were not the worthiest causes, but we must still ask why we have slid away from the proposition that the Government of the day should accept responsibility for such matters through, say, the national health service or the Department of Social Security. The Government look increasingly to lottery funds for those purposes, which is a radical departure from the philosophy that originally underpinned the lottery.
  Let us leave aside the question of whether the lottery itself is a good or a bad thing. I think that we have largely finished with that argument, although there will always be echoes of it. We are now in danger of accepting that lottery funding is to be subsumed in general taxpayer, or Government, funding, and then used for what Ministers, bureaucrats or boards consider worthy purposes.
  I say all this because I think that the Bill takes it for granted that the process is complete, and that there can be no further controversy about it. I am not ready to accept that proposition; I put it no higher than that. It appears to blur seriously the relative roles of Government and taxpayer, of the lottery and ticket buyers—what ticket buyers think is happening to their money is an important consideration—and of charities and community-based local activities. That last element was described eloquently by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. The Bill entails a risk of continued blurring of the distinction between those activities.
  I have another reservation, which concerns the overall principle of endowment. That has been mentioned by other Conservative Members and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. It is apparently taken as read that endowment is a good thing, and the more we have of it the better. Whether private individuals who have taken out endowment policies, or endowment-linked policies, for their private provision would agree with that is an interesting question. Indeed, many hon. Members—probably more Labour than Conservative—have recently expressed reservations about endowment as a principle, mechanism or approach. I am not sure that it is as incontrovertibly beneficial as the Bill seems to suggest.
  As has emerged from our exchanges so far, it is at least possible that from time to time, and in different circumstances, the endowment principle may not be appropriate. It may give rise to difficult choices and decisions. Given the money available to us for good causes now—I shall leave aside the source for the moment; I have already touched on that argument briefly—is it better to put a large proportion into an endowment from which we hope to receive a continuing beneficial income or to distribute those funds more widely among many causes for their immediate benefit? It is not self-evident that the endowment approach is necessarily better in all circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that, through his preferred mechanism, it would be possible to apply for an endowment and the decision involved would be exactly that—a decision. I merely say that, on the face of it, the decision will not necessarily be easy.
  Dr. Gibson: Did the right hon. Gentleman understand what I was saying? I said that it was not a case of
  614
  "either/or"; both mechanisms were available, and the charities board, given its control, would decide whether the relevant endowment scheme, or any other scheme, was the best in the circumstances. We used the case of carers because it was obviously long term, but we are certainly not trying to prevent money from being spent quickly to benefit many people as he describes. Those are both mechanisms that we should use, and the board will control them.
  Mr. Forth: I shall deal in a moment with whether the charities board, or indeed any board, is always the best authority to make such decisions.
  I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is the choice that causes the problem. To make sense, an endowment fund must involve a large sum, especially at times of low yield and low interest rates. All I am saying is that I would not like to have to decide whether to sink a large amount of lottery money into an endowment—however worthy the cause—or to provide it immediately, in much smaller amounts, for the benefit of a much wider range of equally good causes. That is a difficult choice, and I do not envy those who must make it. We are talking about a difficult choice, and not about something that is necessarily obvious.
  Dr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that NESTA's endowment is invested by the national debt commissioners in a combination of cash and short-dated, fixed-interest United Kingdom Government issues? The mechanism already exists, regardless of whether it returns 5 or 10 per cent. annually. We therefore already operate a very successful national endowment fund, which is called NESTA. Although we shall see how it operates over time, it currently yields more than £10 million annually, which by any account is good news for investment in the projects that it supports. It supports, for example, young people who may require only £5,000 to conduct a short-term scientific experiment. We have to meet that type of need.
  Mr. Forth: If one says it fairly quickly, £10 million sounds like a lot of money. However, let us examine the size of endowment fund necessary to yield that £10 million. I would guess that the sum is not unadjacent to £100 million, and may be even more than that. However, what could we do with the £100 million that is yielding the £10 million for the excellent causes that the hon. Gentleman (11 scribed? That is the nature of the decisions that we have to take.
  Mr. Fabricant: I never like to criticise my right hon. Friend, especially for his arithmetic. However, he will be aware that interest rates currently yield 6 per cent. It is therefore more likely that £180 million would be required to yield that £10 million.
  Mr. Forth: I always defer to my hon. Friend in such sophisticated matters. However, he reinforces the point that I am trying to make and illustrates the choice facing us.
  Speaking of wisdom, it was my hon. Friend who mentioned the recent great millennium fiasco. That was, in a different guise, another of the lottery-funded good causes in which boards, bureaucrats and well-meaning people decided what to do with large lottery sums. The result was the dome and a wobbly bridge. That does not

  615
  gives me much confidence that the great, the good and the well-meaning and well-intentioned will always make the wise choices about how to use the money that those of us who assiduously buy lottery tickets—to say nothing of increasingly put-upon taxpayers—expect of them. Those elements are all combined in the Bill.
  I recognise that the Bill is relatively limited in its scope and focused, for which I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich, North. The Bill is, in a sense, uncontroversial in that it is shot through with motherhood and apple pie, which are the type of thing that appeal to the House. However, it also contains important questions that we should resolve before we rush forward.
  I should like to flag up some issues to which we may have to give some attention later. Clause 1(2) states:
  "the Charities Board may impose such conditions as they see fit"
  in making a grant under section 38 of he National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Although I have no doubt that that is a proper approach to take, it places an enormous burden on the charities board to make appropriate and sensible decisions when it is granting the money. That could have considerable repercussions.
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Even with that consideration taken into account, do not all the other lottery boards have the right to grant endowments`? Therefore, is it not anomalous that the National Lotteries Charities Board cannot do the same? The Bill is about remedying that anomaly.
  Mr. Forth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, would not one approach be to remove that discretion from the other boards? If he is saying that we should make the charities board more like the Millennium Commission, I am not sure that I agree. I do not accept his assertion that, because the others do it, it is a jolly good idea for the charities board also to do it. For all I know, that might be a rotten idea. In fact, I suspect that, in some circumstances, it is a rotten idea.
  I do not accept Labour Members' obsession with the one-size-fits-all approach, which they seem to like in the European Union and in all sorts of other things. I am a bit of a flexibility man myself. I like horses for courses. I like discretion and freedom. Such an approach therefore does not appeal to me. The hon. Gentleman, in trying to lead me down that road, asked, "Because the others do it, should not this board be able to do it?" To my mind, that is not a compelling argument.
  As I said, the Bill states:
  "the Charities Board may impose such conditions as they see fit".
  I should like to flag up an issue that may be more for Committee or Report—whether the board can subsequently alter those conditions if it sees fit, and in what circumstances.
  Clause 1(2) also states:
  "The Charities Board may acquire and dispose of land for the purpose of enabling them to exercise their functions under this section."
  I confess that such provisions always make me feel nervous. Although I shall for the moment leave to one side the matter of whether the Millennium Commission acquired the land on which the dome sits, or the dome itself, I am not convinced that it is necessarily a good thing that a body such as the charities board should be
  616
  able to become a landowner or landlord. That is not self-evidently wise in such cases. Indeed, I can imagine that there may be some circumstances in which such an arrangement could be grotesquely unwise.
  Dr. Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that such an arrangement is not new, but already exists in the National Lottery etc. Act 1998?
  Mr. Forth: Again, that does not make it good. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that just because something has happened, we must repeat it in his Bill, that may be his judgment, but it is not necessarily the right approach. There may have been errors from which we should learn. We should not seek to repeat a mistaken approach simply because it has been done before. I do not find that argument compelling. What worries me about bringing the ability to acquire and dispose of land into the provisions is that it introduces a greater permanence and inflexibility that may not be entirely desirable. Certain elements of the Bill need further consideration.
  I am sure that the Bill should receive a Second Reading so that we can consider it in more detail. I hope that it receives proper scrutiny in Committee and on Report as it involves such large sums of money. The fact that it is lottery money does not make that less important. These days we have to be accountable not just for taxpayers' money, but for the disposition and use of lottery money because it is our money, although, as we have given it voluntarily through buying tickets, it is a slightly different category from taxpayers' money. Nevertheless the sums involved are very large indeed, so it is incumbent on us to satisfy ourselves as far as we reasonably can that there are mechanisms to ensure that the funds are properly disposed of and accountable and that the flexibility allowed to those who make the decisions is appropriate. Having said that, I shall watch the progress of the Bill with interest to see that we all discharge our duty to make sure that it is fit for the purpose for which it was intended.
  12.7 pm>
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I begin by apologising to the House for my absence at the start of the debate. I had to host a meeting between the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and my local authority in seeking to persuade my right hon. Friend of the rightness of Harrow's case for more funding for a CCTV bid.
  I support my hon. Friend's Bill and welcome the fact that it seeks to close a loophole and allow the National Lottery Charities Board to make grants to endowments of charities and other organisations. I know that the background to the Bill is the difficulties faced by the "We Care" 2000 appeal in establishing and getting lottery funding for an endowment fund to support carers in Norfolk. I should like to mention another example of an excellent community project which may well benefit from an endowment fund provided by the National Lottery Charities Board and to support the purpose of my hon. Friend's Bill.
  I have six or seven district centres in my constituency, all of which have a strong sense of community. The people of Pinner have had to endure the sight of West

  617
  house, a property that is surrounded by parkland, being in a dilapidated condition for much of the past 20 years. It is close to a residential area and the excellent West Lodge school. The fact that the premises have been dilapidated for so long undoubtedly spoils the amenity of the area. Clearly if West house could be brought back into community use it would be of enormous benefit to the people in the immediate environs of West house, the Pinner Memorial park and the school.
  The house was originally owned by the Cutler family and was acquired by public subscription in the late 1940s as a memorial to the war dead of Pinner. The money was collected by subscriptions from local people, and there was a real sense of community ownership of the house.
  The upstairs room was used as a shrine to the war dead, with a war memorial book recording on vellum the names of those who had perished in the two world wars. The rest of the house was used for a wide variety of community purposes, not least by the Workers Educational Association. It was also used as a park cafeteria. I have distant recollections of having attended band practices there in my youth.
  In 1991, the then Tory-controlled Harrow council took the decision to close West house because of its unwillingness to put in the funds to restore it from its state of dilapidation. The building looks out over the heart of Pinner. From it, one can see the parish church, the station and the shopping centre. Since 1991, the excellent Pinner Association has been campaigning to get it back into use. It has been working in partnership with the council to improve Pinner Memorial park and has established a peace garden.
  Various options for West house have been considered. One possibility that was canvassed for some time was to convert it into an exclusive restaurant. Another was to use it as sheltered housing. For a variety of reasons, neither of those ideas came to fruition. In 1995, the council, in partnership with the Pinner Association, established a West house working party, of which I was privileged to be a part in my former role as a Harrow councillor.
  The working group drafted in consultants from Prometheus to produce a feasibility study on a proposal to establish a museum and art gallery on the site. With the work under way, the house has been used very occasionally, for instance for VE Day and millennium celebrations. The most significant progress was the approach by the William Heath Robinson Trust, which was seeking a location in Pinner for the artist's 500 to 600 works. Heath Robinson was an international artist, a humorous book illustrator famous for his cartoons and drawings of mad inventions. If he were alive today, he might design, as one of my constituents suggested, an instrument to allow a Member of Parliament to eat smoked salmon sandwiches while twisting the Prime Minister's arm to get more funds for Harrow.
  Heath Robinson's ingenuity gave great enjoyment to many people. I am delighted to say that he lived in Pinner from 1912 to 1918, and the trust is keen to bring his collection back to Pinner, primarily for the enjoyment of the people of Pinner and Harrow, and to give the works a permanent home. Sadly, there is nowhere in the borough at present properly to hang an exhibition of either his or any other artist's works. We have the slightly bizarre
  618
  situation of Harrow council and Harrow Heritage Trust having secured lottery money to create storage space at the nearby Headstone manor for all the works but still not having a permanent place in which to house them.
  The consultants have drawn up plans of what a refurbished facility might look like. Stage one is to raise about £350,000 to bring West house back into permanent use, with a gallery for temporary art exhibitions, community rooms and a public cafeteria. Some £2 million is needed to complete an education centre and the permanent location to house more of the Heath Robinson collection.
  The Pinner Association and Harrow council have undertaken a considerable amount of work. The Charity Commission has confirmed that a charitable trust to manage the West house estate will be established, and the association has organised a fund-raising campaign. I pay tribute to Martin Verden and Keith Schofield, the chair and vice-chair of that campaign, which in a short time has raised £35,000. If the Bill becomes law and the National Lottery Charities Board makes a grant towards an endowment, that will help those people who want to bring West house back into community usage. It will be good to have the funding to put the collection of the William Heath Robinson trust on public display.
  I pay tribute to the Pinner Association, which has campaigned assiduously on the issue during the past 10 years, and, in particular, to its secretary, Cynthia Wells, for whom the project has been especially important. I know that the Bill's purpose is to remedy an anomaly and a problem that is faced by people in Norfolk who want to support carers. However, it holds out the prospect for people in Pinner of seeing West house brought back into use, as a museum for the Heath Robinson collection, helping to educate future generations of people who are born in my constituency. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
  12.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Kate Hoey): I, too, congratulate my hon Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his success in introducing the Bill and in bringing together so many people from all parties to support it. It is pleasant to spend a Friday morning dealing with a Bill that has such support, which is especially strong among MPs with Norfolk constituencies. I know how much work my hon. Friend has put into the project and recognise that it means a great deal to him and other hon. Members from that region. I am also grateful for his interpretation of the legal difficulties with benevolent and philanthropic law. As I am not a lawyer, I am pleased that my hon. Friend gave a detailed and incisive explanation of the differences. If the Bill goes into Committee, his work will be useful.
  The Bill has been inspired by the "We Care" 2000 appeal, launched by the Eastern Daily Press in October 1998 with the aim of raising £1 million to establish an endowment fund—the Norfolk millennium trust for carers. I commend the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in the campaign, especially the staff and readers of the Eastern Daily Press. There is a huge number of unpaid carers and we would surely all agree that they are unsung heros and heroines who merit our admiration and support. I was struck by the way in which

  619
  my hon. Friend read out the article about his constituent, Jemima Hutson. That strongly conveyed the huge amount of work, effort and love that carers put in to what they do, and the attention that their work requires.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) gave a moving account of his constituents, Christine and Tanya. We all have constituents who fit that bill. Perhaps that is one reason why there is cross-party support for my hon. Friend's Bill.
  I want to point out how much national lottery support is going into Norfolk and how much the lottery is doing across the country to help carers and other groups of volunteers. Although it is only six years old, it has had a tremendous impact on our national life and is one of the most successful lotteries in the world. More than £8.8 billion has already been awarded to more than 82,000 projects across the country. The National Lottery Charities Board has made more than 40,000 grants, worth nearly £1.9 billion, to help meet the needs of those at greatest disadvantage in society and to improve the quality of life in our communities.
  In Norfolk alone, the board has made nearly 500 grants, worth more than £19 million, to voluntary and community groups. They include a contribution of some £23,000, as has already been mentioned, towards the administrative costs of the "We Care" 2000 appeal. Across the United Kingdom, the board has already made grants worth more than £15 million to projects related to carers.
  The current wording of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 allows the National Lottery Charities Board to help fund expenditure by charities or similar organisations but not to contribute towards endowment funds. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate, asked if all the other distributors could do that. They can, which is why the situation is, in some senses, an anomaly.
  The Government sympathise in principle with the changes proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), which would help to put the NLCB on the same footing as the other lottery distributors, enabling it to make grants towards endowments when it wished to do so. However, it is important to point out that the NLCLB, in common with all the other lottery bodies, makes its own decisions on individual grants, independent of Government. Should the Bill become law, it would therefore still be up to the board to decide how to use this new power. That might answer one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), although it is always very difficult to satisfy him completely.
  The board would have a number of issues to consider carefully before deciding how to use the new power. An endowment must be of a considerable size to yield a reasonable annual income. Sometimes it is felt that lottery funds can provide greater benefits by directly supporting activities through specific, time-limited grants. In a way, the board would have the discretion to decide about that. Those running the "We Care" 2000 appeal clearly feel strongly that they could satisfy the National Lottery Charities Board if they were given the opportunity to do so. It is not really for us to be pedantic about whether the board would give an endowment grant to a particular charity, because such matters would have to be taken into account by the board. However, it does not seem sensible
  620
  to me that one distributing body has different rules for a particular function and can do something if it thinks it right when another cannot.
  Mr. Forth: Is there any appeal mechanism against decisions? The board could decide to put a very large amount of money indeed into an endowment—it would have to be large to yield any meaningful income—and a lot of other good causes would feel that they had been unreasonably and unfairly deprived of what they could otherwise have had. Do they have any appeal mechanism once the decision has been made and the money committed?
  Kate Hoey: There is an appeal mechanism to the lottery distribution boards if a body or group does not get money. In the sports lottery distribution, for example, a number of groups make appeals and elicit the help of Members of Parliament in doing so. Much as it would be nice as a Minister to be able to decide where the money is to go, I am glad that we do not have to make that difficult decision. Through the powers that Parliament gives us, we appoint the members of these bodies, and we expect them to weigh things up and to realise the importance of their task.
  Anyone who is against the Bill must say why the National Lottery Charities Board should be treated differently from the other lottery distributors under the current law.
  Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree that that is an anomaly. Does the Minister agree with me that if the £1 million target is achieved, about £50,000 a year—even at today's interest rates—is a significant sum for carers every year?
  Kate Hoey: The right hon. Gentleman is right, it is a significant sum. The point about endowments is that they provide long-term benefit, sustainability and certainty. That is why they are an attractive mechanism for charities and other bodies.
  The technical points will have to be dealt with in Committee. The Government recognise that the funding of endowments can be an appropriate use of lottery funds. We have already established the National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts under the National Lottery Act 1998 as a national endowment with £200 million of lottery funds. NESTA was set up as an independent, permanent fund to support and promote talent, innovation and creativity. It has so far provided funding for innovations in a wide range of areas, and for talented individuals in areas as diverse as interactive technology, poetry, film-making and science centres.
  In addition, the Millennium Commission is establishing a £100 million endowment fund to ensure a permanent future for its highly successful millennium awards scheme. The scheme helps individuals to undertake projects that fulfil a personal ambition while benefiting the wider community. By 2004, 40,000 people will have benefited from that scheme, and the endowment will ensure that it continues to help individuals, which is what it is envisaged the millennium trust for carers and the "We Care" 2000 appeal will do.
  I have no idea whether the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) was making his last speech to the House. He has had a long and distinguished career,

  621
  and he was supportive of my hon. Friend's proposal. Indeed, it is amazing how the Members of Parliament in Norfolk work closely together in charitable giving and get involved in activities such as singing for charity. I am sorry that neither the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) nor my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) feel that they are physically active enough to participate in sport. I hope that the Government's policies on sport will help them to do so in future.
  The right hon. Member for South Norfolk said that the NLCB offers grants for one year only. That is not right. Grants can be time-limited, and some are for two or three years. The NLCB will consider a maximum extension of up to six years.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I have similar views on this issue. We support the Bill in principle, and the Government sympathise with the concerns expressed given what has happened. The hon. Gentleman will want to take up the technical suggestions that he has made when the Bill goes into Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) expounded on the value of one of the many projects in his constituency, at West house, providing an illustration of the difference that so many hon. Members have seen the lottery make in their communities. I am grateful to him for supporting the Bill.
  The Government sympathise in principle with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North is trying to achieve. We may wish to offer technical improvements should his Bill make further progress, but we shall not oppose it today.
  12.30 pm
  Dr. Gibson: With the leave of the House, I thank all those who have spoken so confidently and well about what I am trying to do. The Bill would be valuable to the people whom we represent, and I appreciate the support given to it. I hope that the speech made by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) was his last. This is the second time that I have had to compliment him, and I should not want to have to do so again.
  Mr. MacGregor: In my youth, there were, on the variety boards all around the country, several farewell appearances from someone called G. H. Elliot, the chocolate-coloured coon. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that I may repeat that process.
  Dr. Gibson: That might be quite enjoyable.
  The principle of the Bill, which appears to have been accepted, is that the National Lottery Charities Board should consider short and long-term money and benefits. I accept that the technicalities need to be hammered out in another arena, but the additional flexibility that the Bill will give to the board will enrich its work and be much appreciated by all the people who pay their pounds every day of the week to support lottery funding. I thank all those who have turned out to support the Bill. I cannot wait to get into Committee, though my haste has nothing to do with the date of the general election. Sooner or later, we shall go into Committee, and I hope to see all those present today on that occasion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Railways Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.32 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Railways Act 2001 would sound very grand, though many hon. Members would like such an Act to be passed in a more radical form than my Bill. Many would support a Bill that would take Railtrack back into the public sector, but, because it is a private Member's Bill, the aim of my Bill is much more restricted than that. That said, it is a good Bill all the same.
  My Bill would set up an inquiry that
  "shall examine the effects of the existing system of ownership, control and management of the railway infrastructure".
  It adds that that inquiry should look into alternatives to the existing structure, and that its results should be placed before both House of Parliament within two years.
  We need that because there is great concern throughout the country that Railtrack—any reference I make to the rail infrastructure refers to Railtrack—is failing to deliver in so many ways that we need to seek alternatives.
  Mr. Eric Forth: It is customary for the promoter of a private Member's Bill to hold discussions with the Government on their attitude to the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman share with the House the result of any such conversation with the Government? Does he believe that he will have their support for his Bill?
  Mr. Martlew: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to hear the Government's reply for an answer to that question. I am conscious that he was one of those who pushed the privatisation of Railtrack through. I hope that he will have time to apologise to the House before we rise this afternoon.
  The reason for the Bill is that the railways are in a mess. There is no doubt about that. We have almost a wartime service throughout the United Kingdom. If we had criticised the planned privatisation of the railways when we were in opposition by predicting that there would be speed restrictions throughout the country and that the railway infrastructure would fall apart, we would have been accused of scaremongering. When the Conservative Government introduced the Bill to privatise the railways no one believed that things would end up so bad.
  My Bill asks the Government to prepare a report on the current ownership, control and management of the rail network and the alternatives. In my constituency, the fact that the railways are not working to anything like their former efficiency is a disaster. It is impossible to travel from London to Carlisle, do a day or half a day's work and come back on the same day. Yesterday, I went up to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the serious problem of the foot and mouth outbreak in Cumbria. It took me six hours to get to Carlisle. I had to catch a train two hours before I needed to. During that time, I could not do work that I would otherwise have done. It then took me six hours to get back. That was not so bad because I was on the sleeper. My father used to drive steam trains on the west coast main line, and train journeys took that time in his day.
  624
  I wrote to various organisations and interested parties about my Bill. I can put on the record some of the responses. I received one from the chief executive of Great North Eastern Railway. He wrote a thoughtful letter that was critical of Railtrack, but said that all that was needed was that Railtrack should appoint a first-class chairman. I do not accept that that is all that we need, so I was a little disappointed with that response.
  I wrote to the managing director of Virgin Trains, Mr. Chris Green, a man whom I admire greatly. If we had more professional railwaymen like him in charge, we would not have the problems that we have today. He did not agree with my Bill and specifically opposed the option of giving the Government a golden share. He went on to list the things that were wrong with the railways and Railtrack in particular and how they should be put right. He said that things had to change and various adjustments had to be made to the system because it was not working.
  I wrote to the RMT, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and ASLEF. They came back with a united voice; their campaign to take back the track is well known. They believe that the creation of Railtrack and the privatisation of all of the old British Rail has been a disaster. They believe that privatisation and the creation of Railtrack has reduced safety and siphoned money out of investment for profits, and that it has not worked.
  I also received a letter from Tom Winsor, the Rail Regulator, for whom I have great admiration. He said that it was difficult for him to comment on record because several inquiries were going on into crashes. However, he sent me a copy of a letter in which he argued strongly against the regionalisation of Railtrack. He argued that it was not the right way to go.
  I then got what I think was a letter from Sir Alistair Morton, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. It was one paragraph long. I do not want to be over-sensitive, but it was an impertinent letter. I understand that several hon. Members have received impertinent letters from the SRA. I suspect that it will not do it any good in the long term to correspond in that way.
  The final response was a two-paragraph letter from Mr. Steve Marshall, the new chief executive of Railtrack. The only defence he offers against changing the system is that further reorganisation of the railways at present would create more disruption. Surely, the chief executive of Railtrack could have made a clearer case as to why we should not have a report into alternative structures for the railway system. However, his sole defence was that it would cause more disruption so we should not consider it.
  Most of those responses accepted that something radical needed to be done. Some accepted my Bill, while others opposed it.
  What are the options? Transport 2000—a transport charity—commissioned six essays on the railway. The essays were issued last week; anyone who is interested in the railway should read them. I shall not go into them in detail, as I do not want to take up too much time.
  The first argued for evolution rather than revolution. The author stated that, yes, there had been problems due to privatisation, but it had resulted in increased investment and more passengers. He argued that evolution rather than major structural change was needed.

  625
  Jimmy Knapp, the general secretary of the RMT, put the case for public ownership. He argued strongly that Railtrack had failed; there were safety problems and we should divert money from the shareholders either to be invested in the system or as profit for the Government.
  A third essay argued for regionalisation of the railways based on the German model. That is a difficult idea to accept because we do not have the same structures in this country—we do not have regional government. Such a system would fail and create even more problems than there are at present.
  The chairman of the train operators organisation argued that train operators should be given control of the system. I think the reason for that is that, under the original private railway system, the same companies owned the trains and the tracks. However, that, too, is not an option that should he taken up.
  An interesting proposal was that Railtrack should become a non-profit-making trust with several stakeholders. I think it was based on the same principle as the Canadian air traffic control organisation. Safety would be given priority and any profits would be ploughed back into the infrastructure. That is a sensible alternative to bringing Railtrack back into the public sector.
  The final essay argued that we needed fewer companies. Fewer players should be involved; we should simplify the system and go for bigger and better. Today, I do not argue for any of those options, but that the existing system needs serious examination. My Bill does that.
  If I were the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), I should argue that the proposals in my Bill on the SRA are premature. The Government have set up the SRA and it is implementing policies that the Government want to see. To some extent, I accept that argument. That is why my Bill specifies a time scale of two years—that is important. The public—especially the travelling public—are angry about the current state of the railways; they want a commitment from the Government to bring the system back into the public sector although they accept that that will not happen. However, if the SRA solution does not work within two years, a radical alternative will be needed.
  There are indications that the SRA is having problems. I read in the press today that one of the retiring members of the SRA has decided that he can stay there no longer and that Railtrack is
  "holed below the waterline".
  That is a very serious statement. I accept that the SRA has not had the time to carry out the work that is needed, but the Minister should consider that if it is no better in two years, a plan B must be ready to be implemented. I suspect that if the Minister accepts the Bill, that alternative will exist.
  As the chairman of the west coast main line group, I have great admiration for Tom Winsor, whom I have met on several occasions. He is dynamic, and he wants to make progress, but there is a sense of frustration. He said again, only this week, that Railtrack should meet some deadlines and that he would force it to do so, but when
  626
  asked whether he would fine it, he realised the pointlessness of the situation. If he fines Railtrack, it will have to ask the Government for more public money.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Rail Regulator, but will the Bill affect the regulator's role in any way? I can see no explicit reference to that in the Bill. I should not have thought that the references to the
  "ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure"
  would necessarily encompass the regulator's role, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help me.
  Mr. Martlew: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that if the Rail Regulator were included, it would impinge on the final outcome of whatever decision the Government decide to take on the Bill. Obviously, if we decide to move forward, beyond the Bill, we will have to take a serious look at whether we need the Rail Regulator. I am sure that the provisions are correct in that context.
  I do not know whether the Government will argue against the Bill, but they will argue against taking the railways back into the public sector, and I accept many of their arguments. For example, they say that it would cost £4 billion to take back Railtrack. The figure was £5 billion, but that was before the price of the stocks reduced considerably.
  I met the previous chief executive of Railtrack before he resigned, probably last summer, and he suggested that he would be willing to accept a Government share in Railtrack. There is an argument that, without the Government, Railtrack is a bankrupt company; it depends totally on Government subsidy to keep going.
  Mr. Harold Best: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a feeling among the public that such a Government share in the present arrangements might improve not only the efficiency and management of the railways, but the social responsibility to those for whom the service is supposed to be provided?
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend puts that argument well. The Government's argument is that if they had, for example, a 25 per cent. share, they would be involved in Railtrack, but not in control. A while ago, when deciding who should become the chairman of Railtrack was an issue, the Government were told to keep out and that the company would decide. The suggestion is that if the Government owned 25 per cent. of the share, they would still not have the necessary influence, but I think that we might be better able to control Railtrack in those circumstances.
  The major disaster that took place after the Hatfield crash was Railtrack's response to it, because a very junior official in Railtrack closed the west coast main line, which runs through my constituency and into Scotland, without telling anyone. That created chaos for more than 24 hours. If the Government had been involved, I suspect that the decision on speed restrictions would also have taken account of the consequence of people using cars instead of trains. Car use is likely to lead to many more deaths than people travelling by train.
  Railtrack took no consideration of that point; it took a very narrow view. It was shell-shocked at the time. The Transport Committee has recommended that someone on

  627
  the board of Railtrack should know something about railways. That case made it apparent that no one did. There is a case for Government involvement, but my Bill is not about that; it is about considering that possibility.
  I know that other Members wish to speak about the other Bills on the Order Paper and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) realises that it is very frustrating not to be able to speak on the Bill that one has introduced. Many years ago, I introduced a Bill dealing with the export of veal calves to the continent and some hon. Members read out the telephone directory in an attempt to stop me speaking on that Bill. I do not intend to do that.
  A Minister has been prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to argue about this Bill. That is fine. We shall debate its provisions and come to a decision. However, the public demand that, once again, a Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and take responsibility for what is happening on the railways. Although we would not consider privatising the roads—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might—that is exactly what we did to the railways. That was a disaster and it must be very frustrating for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that he is not able to get to grips with Railtrack and instruct it on what to do. That problem might be overcome by the Strategic Rail Authority, but the public and, I think, the House would like the Government to be involved. My Bill would not do that in itself, but it is a paving measure.
  I know that other hon. Members with to speak about other Bills and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants to say something about this one. However, I make it clear that it is not my intention to divide the House, because I am sure that there are not enough Members in Parliament to get my Bill through. I think that this is a good Bill, but I do not want to waste time. Other Members should be able to speak about their Bills.
  12.52 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: That was an interesting conclusion to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Part of me hesitates to intrude on private grief among Labour Members, because, in a sense, this is an internal argument for them. However, it raises much wider issues and I take seriously the role that private Members' Bills play in our proceedings. Fridays such as this are parliamentary sitting days, the House is sitting and we are potentially making law. In fact, a short time ago, the House gave an unopposed Second Reading to a Bill on a completely different matter. The hon. Gentleman has brought his Bill to the House and it deserves the same attention as any other Bill.
  Mr. Martlew: If my Bill is likely to receive an unopposed Second Reading, I shall not withdraw it.
  Mr. Forth: Of course, it is for any hon. Member to promote a Bill and decide whether to seek to divide the House on it. The promoter of the Bill has certain privileges, but he does not have a monopoly of them. Therefore, the House is entitled to take its view as to whether a Bill should proceed. I want to consider the Bill to see what I make of it.
  628
  The hon. Gentleman's Bill makes some interesting assumptions about the railways. Like a lot of Labour Members, he seems to look back to what he regards as the golden era of British Rail. That has always intrigued and fascinated me.
  I am old enough to remember travelling on steam trains, which I used to do in my youth in Glasgow. It was an exciting experience for a young person. However, I have little memory of British Rail in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s being a paragon of efficiency and a model to which we would all aspire. Yet this has become the atmosphere in which Labour Members would like these debates to take place. They want us to have a fond memory of British Rail, as opposed to what they would say are the evils of privatisation.
  Figures that I have suggest that in the 40 years from 1952, the share of passenger journeys made by rail fell from 17 per cent. to just 5 per cent., while the percentage of goods moved by rail dropped dramatically from 42 per cent. to 7 per cent. Even if one measures the success of the publicly-owned, state-run British Rail against the sort of criteria that Labour Members mention, British Rail failed dismally in almost every respect. It is common ground between us that there was a lack of investment in the railway system throughout those decades, when government oscillated between the Labour and Conservative parties. If there is shame or something to be admitted, we must all share in it. That, I suspect, is common ground. We must look at what the Bill proposes against that background.
  As recently as 1995, the Labour party opposed rail privatisation, which is the Bill's target. In 1995, no less a figure than the present Prime Minister said that privatisation
  "would replace a comprehensive, co-ordinated national railway network with a hotch-potch of privatised companies, linked together by a giant bureaucratic paper-chase of contracts, overseen, of course, by a clutch of new quangos".
  There were some good Blairite soundbites there.
  However, by the 1997 Labour election manifesto, the line had changed completely to say:
  "The process of privatisation is now largely complete. Our task will be to improve the situation as we find it."
  I do not sense that the spirit of the Bill is to improve the situation as the hon. Member for Carlisle finds it. I doubt whether that would be satisfactory to him. The whole thrust of the Bill suggests that he wants something more radical.
  Mr. Martlew: During what will probably be a lengthy speech, will the right hon. Gentleman outline whether he is happy with the fact that he voted for privatisation and whether he thinks it is a success? If it is not a success, why not? What are the alternatives?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me prompts, which are always useful. I am an avid supporter of private ownership and control as opposed to state ownership and control in all respects. I believe that private ownership is morally and operationally superior. I strongly supported the privatisation of the railways, as I supported the privatisation of so many other things undertaken by the Conservative Governments of Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). However, I will concede, with

  629
  hindsight, that the way in which rail privatisation was carried out was not ideal and could have been better. In that respect, there is scope for revisiting the issue to see whether a better regime could be devised. Funnily enough, if I thought that that was the object of the Bill, I might be prepared to give it some positive consideration. However, since I suspect that that is not its motivation, I cannot support it.
  I can see that it is a difficulty for the hon. Gentleman and his Front Benchers, rather than for me, that the Labour party felt obliged—apparently—to change its hostility to rail privatisation in 1995, as articulated by no less a person than the Prime Minister, to an acceptance of reality in 1997. I welcome that. It provides the background to the Bill.
  I would claim that, in many respects, the railway network has improved considerably since privatisation. For example, the number of passenger journeys has increased, which, ironically, is one cause of the present problems on the railways. The system is almost a victim of its own success.
  Mr. Martlew: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those data are now out of date?
  Mr. Forth: Because of the Government's recent cock-ups, the trend has been momentarily interrupted, but until their grotesque overreaction to some tragic accidents on the railway, which I submit is the cause of most of our current problems, there had been a steady and welcome increase in the number of passengers and rail mileage after privatisation. The trend was there for all to see. In addition, domestic rail freight has increased, more trains are being run, rolling stock is being dramatically modernised and there are new stations and freight terminals. I will not go all the way through the catalogue, but it is an early indication of the justification for private, as opposed to public, ownership.
  The whole reason the Conservative Government considered private ownership, control and management of the railway system was systematic under-investment over several decades. Indeed, the Bill, to which I will come shortly, makes mention of
  "levels of investment in railway services".
  To that extent, the outcome of the investigation and analysis proposed would be interesting. My submission would be that it is already evident, even without the proposed inquiry, that investment in the railways has improved significantly since privatisation, and continues to do so. The difficulty for those who argue for a return to public ownership and Government control is that history shows that rarely do a Government consistently over a period of time set aside sufficient funds for investment.
  The background to the Bill is muddled. I am clear about my position and that of my party. We believed in the 1990s—and believe now—in the merits of private ownership, management and control. The governing party's position is not at all clear, although the Minister will no doubt shortly help us. The hon. Member for Carlisle and I await with bated breath his comment on the Government's attitude to the Bill. I am disappointed for the hon. Member for Carlisle that either he could not
  630
  extract the Government's view from the Minister, or the Minister is too coy to tell the House. One way or another, all will be revealed when the Minister gets to his feet. Knowing him as I do, I expect that we shall hear a blunt and forthright expression of the Government's views. But, he should not rise just yet, because I shall now analyse the Bill.
  My first problem with the Bill is that I am not sure that it is a proper role for statute to do what the very first line of clause 1 seeks to do and use the law to require the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry. Interestingly, that is an echo of the statement made not two hours ago by the Deputy Prime Minister on a different matter altogether, in which the very subject of inquiries and their status and relationship to Government came up. The Deputy Prime Minister, no less, said in his excellent statement—and in the course of his excellent replies to the questions that followed it—that he believed that the relevance and appropriateness of inquiries must always be a matter for proper discretion and judgment on the part of the Government and Ministers of the day. I agree with his view.
  If that is indeed the case, I suspect that the Government will have a problem with the very first line of the Bill, which is at odds with what the Deputy Prime Minister told the House. I can see immediately that there is a potential conflict between the thrust of the Bill and the view of the Government, as expressed by no less a figure than the Deputy Prime Minister.
  The Bill proposes that the Secretary of State "shall hold an inquiry". That, I feel is the wrong way in which to use statute. It goes on to say that the inquiry would be
  "into the ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure"
  in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman explained why he considered that necessary, but I do not consider it necessary.
  I have said that I support privatisation as a concept and a policy, and I certainly do; but I am not necessarily prepared to defend the way in which railway privatisation was carried out. We knew at the time that there was a spectrum of possible methods. One method was selected, and, with hindsight, we may not consider it to have been the best.
  Mr. Martlew: The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Government. Did he make private representations about his reservations at that time? Will he give us more information about where the privatisation went wrong? Could it be that the Government pushed it through too fast because they wanted to get it through before the general election?
  Mr. Forth: All those things are possible.
  My role was not particularly glorious. At the time—around 1994–95—I was a relatively junior Minister working in the foothills of the Department for Education, which became the Department for Education and Employment, and doing my best for the country's schools, colleges and universities. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that a junior education Minister has a relatively minor input in matters such as privatisation of the railways. I am sure that if he consults the Minister later, he will learn that that is the case even now.

  631
  If we were to quiz the Minister about the niceties and intricacies of, say, the hospitals system or overseas aid, we would probably be given a dusty answer. The Minister would tell us, quite rightly, that he spends all his time looking after such things as the railways. I have no difficulty with that, or even any embarrassment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am unembarrassable anyway. However, the second part of his question is important and relevant.
  I mentioned hindsight. We should probably look at the arrangements again, but not by means of an inquiry of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We should examine them in the normal way in which Government should examine how arrangements are working—perhaps even with the advice of the regulator. We should always be prepared to look again at the way in which matters as important as the railway network are structured, organised, managed and so on, but we should do so more through the regulatory regime than through—as the Bill suggests—a radical investigation of the
  "ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure".
  I have real difficulty with clause 1(1), which I believe is significantly misdirected.
  The Bill goes on to set out in detail what would be, in effect, the terms of reference of the inquiry that the hon. Gentleman seeks by law to establish and impose on the Secretary of State of the day. He proposes that the inquiry
  "shall examine the effects of the existing system of ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure"—
  in other words, privatisation and Railtrack, very largely—on, first, public finances.
  That is the crux of the matter. What the Government will have to grapple with, and what the hon. Gentleman rather slid over, are the implications of a radical change to, in particular, the ownership—let us leave aside control and management for a moment—of the railway infrastructure in terms of public finances.
  The hon. Gentleman should come clean, and I shall give him the opportunity to do so if he wishes to take it. Is he suggesting in any way that the railway infrastructure should be taken back into public ownership? If so, there would be a very considerable implication for public finances. Does he want his inquiry to examine that issue? Some people would think that that is the hidden agenda behind the Bill.
  Some of the people whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech are enthusiastic about that idea. I do not have much to do with trade unions in the usual course of events, although I suspect that he has much to do with them, and good luck to him if he does. However, I wonder whether they are urging him, through the Bill, to press the Government to bring back into public ownership the railway infrastructure.
  Mr. Martlew: I thought that I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that I wanted to introduce a Bill to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman has described. However, my constituents, and not the trade union movement, are behind the Bill. I represent a city with a tremendous railway history, and the railway people in my city realise that we now have a mess that makes BR look very good in comparison. I suspect that his constituents also are behind the Bill. I imagine that his constituents
  632
  who are delayed on commuter lines on their way to work are fed up with current arrangements, and that they are among those who want the railways taken back.
  Mr. Forth: I would be astonished and profoundly shocked if the people of Bromley and Chislehurst wanted BR back. I also doubt that socialism has lingered sufficiently in Carlisle for the good burghers of that city to want BR back.
  I am surprised at this, because I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge in these matters, but I think that he is confusing the effects of privatisation as such with recent events in which Government mismanagement—probably coupled with a combination of some mismanagement by Railtrack, pressure by Government and Railtrack, and the intervention of the regulator—has led to lamentable railway performance. That is not the result of privatisation as such. He and I will have simply to disagree on that.
  Mr. Best: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a reason other than privatisation for the lamentable performance? Privatisation has created the difficulties and utter chaos that I have to face when travelling from Leeds. Privatisation is the reality that we have to manage. Railtrack would have difficulty organising—I do not know how best to say this—a short period of intoxication in a brewery, and it is certainly having difficulties in organising its railway services.
  Mr. Forth: That may be true. I do not want to digress unduly, and the matter may be for another occasion, but I suspect that that has everything to do with the Government's tendency to micro-manage, overreact and panic, and the relationships that they have developed and imposed on the regulator, Railtrack and the operating companies. Those are complex relationships, and I believe that the Government have got them completely wrong. I suspect that the blame—if we are going to get into this ghastly blame culture, in which we all wallow almost constantly these days—has to be shared among all those participants. That is why I am resisting the suggestion which Labour Members seem to want to make that privatisation per se is responsible for the current poor performance of the railways. On that, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) and I will have simply to disagree.
  I was talking about clause 1(2)(a), which explicitly mentions the public finances. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will tell us whether the Government believe that the public finances could be used to bring back the railway infrastructure into public ownership. That is obviously what some Labour Members—perhaps many Labour Members, for all I know—want. We have to know right at the start whether the inquiry that the Bill would impose on the Government would have any chance of succeeding in relation to clause 1(2)(a) on the public finances. There is no point in our proceeding much further than that until we have some indication from the Government about whether that is case.
  Clause 1(2)(b) refers to the levels of investment in railway services. Unless the hon. Member for Carlisle corrects me, I assume that the provision widens the scope of the Bill to include railway services. It could apply to rolling stock and so on, and rightly so because in making an assessment of management, ownership and control we

  633
  cannot divorce the infrastructure from the services. However, the provision broadens the scope of the Bill considerably and must inevitably bring in considerations affecting the operating companies as well as those affecting Railtrack.
  The levels of investment are a crucial consideration. Apart from the moral case for private ownership that I mentioned earlier, the primary purpose of privatisation was to attract investment. Without doubt, privatisation—whether it involves telecommunications, railway services or anything else—has demonstrated over the decades that if an industry is turned over to private ownership and control and properly managed, it can attract a higher level of investment and therefore provide a much better service. So, an interesting question to pose in respect of clause 1(2)(b) is what are or have been the levels of investment in railway services. The Minister's response will be helpful in assessing whether the Bill is necessary.
  When we talk about public finances or levels of investment, we are on relatively firm ground, but clause 1(2)(c) refers to the efficiency and effectiveness of railway services and that is much more difficult territory. A common fault in government—and even here in the legislature—is to use such terms as efficiency and effectiveness as if we all knew exactly what they meant. However, I am not sure that that is entirely clear in the context of railway services. Recent events have illustrated that all too well—some may say all too tragically. For example, how does one balance considerations of frequency of service, timeliness, promptness of arrival and passenger security with passenger safety? Let me make a distinction. When I talk about passenger safety, I refer to the traditional approach to the number of deaths and injuries that are caused per passenger mile.
  We do not often talk about passenger security, but I believe that one factor that deters many people from using the railway services on short-haul commuter journeys and long-haul intercity journeys is the risk that they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they may be subject to abuse or attack. That particularly affects women and those travelling late at night. How does one factor all that into efficiency and effectiveness? They are very real considerations for passengers.
  As a railway passenger, I am interested in a variety of different factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the railway services. I certainly take into account the frequency of the services. The hon. Gentleman complained about the infrequency and unreliability of the service from Carlisle, but he did not complain about feeling threatened. It may be that the service runs so rarely and so few people use it that he is almost on his own and there is nobody to threaten him. I am much more familiar with the commuter services, on which such matters are a real consideration, particularly late at night.
  Am I looking at the issues as a taxpayer or as a passenger? Inevitably, we are all both and we want the facility to take into account as taxpayers and as rail users what we would like in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, frequency, timeliness, security and safety and fares. They are all important considerations. Therefore, I am at a loss as to just how efficiency and effectiveness will be defined in the Bill without knowing a lot more about what is in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, the Minister.
  634
  The Bill then moves on to the cost and safety of railway passenger services and services for the carriage of goods.
  Cost is a simple word, but it encompasses some complex notions and variables. The cost to whom—the taxpayer, the community at large, the environment, the passenger or all of those? Logically, it must be all of them. The scale of the inquiry is starting to burgeon, so one wonders how long it will take—we will have to consider further the time limit suggested in clause 2.
  What I had intended to call the hidden agenda is in fact contained explicitly in clause 1(3):
  "The inquiry shall consider whether alternative systems of ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure would provide greater benefits."
  Let us examine what that might mean. "Alternative systems of ownership" is a dead giveaway. The idea is to take the railway infrastructure back into public ownership. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of the likely cost and of where the money would be found? The Chancellor keeps boasting about how much extra money he has. We all know that, because he has taken it from us in tax, and we feel every penny of it. Then he says that much of it has gone into national debt repayment. Lady Thatcher must be delighted. Having spent all that money, is he going to re-borrow it to fund railway infrastructure renationalisation?
  "Alternative systems of ownership" conjures up intriguing possibilities. Are we talking about variations on the theme of private ownership or about full-blown public ownership? The clause also refers to "control and management". Does that allow the inquiry to extend to the role of the regulator? Whether the regulator controls or manages is open to question. If the inquiry does not cover the regulator, we cannot have a comprehensive look at the system. There is an unfortunate element of doubt about what was intended.
  All that pales into insignificance when one comes to the phrase "would provide greater benefits". That may seem easy enough to assess, but such a simple phrase usually conceals more than it reveals. Benefits to whom: the passenger; the taxpayer; people who do not use the railways; or someone else? How on earth does one provide a framework in which greater benefits can be assessed? Given the role that the railway network and infrastructure play in our daily lives, all or any of us can be affected in many different ways. We have to consider the cost of moving freight; the cost to passengers; our safety and well-being; and the claimed environmental advantages of rail. How much do we take such matters into account and what weight do we give them? People do not often rate them equally. For example, if I rarely used the railway system, as a taxpayer, I might want less of my taxes going to subsidise it, and passengers to pay more. However, a regular passenger would be entitled to take the opposite view. Someone who is concerned about the environment and pollution would have a different view of the railways from a person for whom those are not important. I might be indifferent to the railways.
  I accept that it is the Government's role to make a judgment about such matters. I hope that the Minister will help us when he responds. We need to know how the Government interpret the simple phrase "would provide greater benefits". Where will their emphasis lie when they approach that difficult problem? We have our own preferences. I suspect that mine are different from those

  635
  held by the hon. Gentleman and the Government, but we should know where we stand. We do not even know whether the hon. Gentleman's view of benefits is the same as the Government's. He did not spell that out because he was so anxious to sit down and let other debates take place, in his typically generous way. We are no further on with regard to that matter.
  Clause 1(4) is a seductive subsection. The stipulation that
  "The inquiry shall take into account the views of … users of railway passenger services … users of services for the carriage of goods … operators of railway assets"
  and other such persons is an attractive notion. It has become fashionable in government to take account of the views of surveys, focus groups—referendums even. They could all he covered by the broad phrase,
  "shall take into account the views of".
  However, it would be difficult to take account of the views of users of railway passenger services because I imagine that they vary enormously. Suppose that I travelled on the train to Carlisle with the hon. Gentleman and we went up and down the carriages asking people about their priorities, and that the hon. Gentleman then travelled with me on the swift and efficient service between central London and Bromley and we asked fewer questions—because we would have much less time. I suspect that we would get different responses.
  It is taken as read that everyone would like a service that is fast, cheap, safe and arrives on time. However, to get underneath that, we would have to ask people how much they were prepared to pay, how crowded they were prepared to be and how they rated safety and security over price. There could be an armed guard in every carriage to make people feel really safe, but that would be expensive. Each lady passenger could be personally escorted by a railway employee, if that made her feel better, but that would also be expensive. Simply to say that we will take account of the views of users of railway passenger services does not take us as far down the track as the hon. Gentleman imagines.
  That is even less true when one considers the
  "users of services for the carriage of goods by railway"—
  freight, in other words. There must be interesting different views about priorities with regard to the scale of the network. As a layman, I have always suspected that more freight is not moved by rail because the rail network is limited and inflexible in comparison with the road network. One way to deal with that would be to reverse Beeching. There are probably not many other hon. Members present who can remember the good Dr. Beeching. I studied his report when I was at university, which was between 1962 and 1966. Dr. Beeching had become famous not long before for wielding his axe and reducing dramatically the scope of the rail network. One of the results of that process was that the level of service that could be offered to freight users was severely limited and the amount of freight carried was therefore reduced.
  Against that background, a lot of the
  "users of services for the carriage of goods by railway"
  as clause 1(4)(b) so quaintly puts it, might have a very different view. Some might want their goods to be taken on a much more comprehensive rail network to all conceivable parts of the British Isles. Some might want a
  636
  very fast service, while others might want it to be as cheap as possible. One can imagine a wide variety of views. Where would that leave us in trying to take those views into account?
  The operators of railway assets will have different views altogether. No doubt they would see the matter, quite properly, in terms of their shareholders, their profitability, their ability to reinvest in the service and their ability to attract greater numbers of passengers and a greater volume of freight. Those would all be relevant considerations for the rail operators who would rightly and legitimately have a different perspective from that of the passengers and the freight users.
  Clause 14)(d) refers to the old favourite:
  "such other persons or organisations as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate."
  The mind boggles, but the Minister may be prepared to lift the curtain and allow us to peep through into the Secretary of State's mind as to what other persons or organisations the right hon. Gentleman might see fit to consult. The number of organisations could, on the one hand, be fairly limited, such as the rail users' organisations or simply people closely related to the rail system. On the other hand, almost any organisation could be included, such as environmental organisations, local authorities—goodness knows who. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an idea of how far he believes the scope of clause 1(4)(d) might take us in finding out views on these matters.
  Once we had taken into account the views of all these different people, how would we put those views together and make sense of them, particularly if they were—as inevitably I think they would be—in conflict with one another? I know that it is trendy, modern and inclusive to use phrases such as
  "take into account the views of"
  but I have always had my doubts as to whether doing so would be of real value.
  It has just occurred to me that the one group with probably more influence than any others would be the focus group. We know that focus groups largely determine what the Government do and think. We know that they decide, very substantially, the thinking in No. 10. Would focus groups be included in the list, I wonder? There must be somewhere to fit them in. Yes, it would be under clause 1(4)(d):
  "such other persons or organisations".
  Is the Minister going to tell us when he sets about interpreting clause 1(4)(d) that he believes that focus groups would have a proper and legitimate role in deciding what should be done?
  Then we come to clause 2. The good news is that when all this excellent work has been done, the Secretary of State will lay copies of the report before each House of Parliament. We should be grateful for that. He will also
  "make the report of the inquiry publicly available by such other means as he sees fit".
  I still believe in the good old printed page. I hope that by the time this happens, if it ever does, there will be no nonsense about websites and the like. I have never consulted a website in my life—I do not know how to and I hope I never have to. I hope that instead we will have a nice chunky report, printed on paper and available in the Vote Office. At least Members of Parliament will then be

  637
  able to have a good look at it on the written page. I hope that it will be properly available to the public on the same basis.
  It worries me that clause 2 says that the report should be laid before Parliament and made publicly available
  "within two years of the date of commencement of this Act."
  The hon. Gentleman wants the result of his excellent Bill to be available as soon as possible, but I am worried about the placing of such an artificial time constraint on this important work. Is two years enough to do justice to the work that I have described? I have skipped through the Bill only in the most skimpy detail. I could have spent much more time on each of the provisions in clause 1, but I did not want to delay the House unduly. In the brief and sketchy summary that I have given, there was more than enough scope for an inquiry to last a considerable time. If it is to be done properly, an artificial time limit of two years from the outset is a misjudgment.
  The hon. Gentleman desperately wants the inquiry to be carried out as quickly as possible—presumably he wants to put the Government on the spot—magically to improve the service between Carlisle and London. He would argue that if we changed the ownership of the railway infrastructure he would have a better time travelling from Carlisle to London. The hon. Gentleman may not have to travel from Carlisle to London for much longer. I saw him on television last night, and an insensitive person from the television station referred to his majority and an upcoming election. I would not dream of doing that.
  Mr. Martlew: I am sure that I shall be re-elected. I have no intention of joining the chicken run.
  Mr. Forth: I am sure that that is a relief to every other constituency in the country. We shall leave that judgment to the people of Carlisle in the election, which is or is not about to happen. No one seems to know because the Prime Minister cannot make up his mind.
  I was querying whether two years is a sufficient time in which to conduct such an important and comprehensive inquiry. I have serious reservations about that. I do not think that it is.
  Clause 3—"Inquiry procedure: supplementary"—bothers me somewhat, because it says:
  "The Secretary of State may by direction make provision supplemental to that contained in sections 1 and 2 in relation to the procedure to be followed by the inquiry."
  I am not sure whether the clause is necessary. I do not believe that Bills that could become law should contain otiose provisions. If the Secretary of State is required to hold an inquiry, as set out in detail, I doubt whether we need to say that he may make provision supplemental to that contained in clauses 1 and 2. Those clauses contain catch-all provisions such as subsection (2)(e), which refers to
  "such other matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe"
  and subsection (4)(d), which refers to
  "such other persons or organisations as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate".
  Given the scope of those provisions, I doubt whether clause 3 is required.
  638
  The Bill may seem innocuous at first glance, but it provides for a wide-ranging and costly inquiry that I do not think would be very fruitful. We already have mechanisms, such as rail users consultative and representative bodies, the Rail Regulator, company law, which provides a framework within which the railway operators work, and the Health and Safety Executive. Whether such an inquiry would bring any improvement at all remains to be seen.
  Although the hon. Member for Carlisle was a little too coy to say so, I am sure that he is really after the return of British Rail. If that is so, it is incumbent on the Minister to be open about how the Government see that idea and about where it might lead us. I have already quoted the Labour party manifesto from the last election, which said:
  "The process of privatisation is now largely complete … Our task will be to improve the situation as we find it".
  Those words are not at one with the aims of the Bill before us.
  I have, I hope, raised a few pertinent questions and given the Minister some material to get his teeth into. look forward to hearing what he will say so that the House of Commons may judge whether the Bill deserves our support.
  1.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): This has been an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke with obvious conviction, and I thank him and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for their contributions. I recognise the concerns so clearly articulated in the debate, but the Government cannot support the Bill. I will clarify why that is so. Some, though not all, of the reasons for our response became apparent during the debate.
  Since Hatfield, several options for restructuring the management and operation of the national rail network have been put forward, particularly in relation to the future ownership of Railtrack. I shall deal with each of them in turn. The Government have made it clear that we have no plans to bring Railtrack back into public ownership. To do so would probably take a couple of years and involve complex and controversial primary legislation. During that time, the industry would effectively be paralysed.
  Bringing Railtrack back into public ownership would cost the taxpayer around £ 4 billion at the current stock market valuation—I appreciate that the stock market is a movable feast at present. but that is the approximate price. None of that would be spent on rail investment, since it would all go towards compensating shareholders.
  After years of instability caused by the break up of the railway system into more than 100 separate companies, the Government do not wish the industry to undergo further years of upheaval. That would be in no one's interest. It would divert valuable public resources that would be better spent on direct investment in improvements and expansion. We believe that over-hasty privatisation left the system with real problems, but our task remains to deal with the railways as we found them and to make sure that they operate in the public interest.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seemed anxious that we should all share in the blame for what happened, but invited us to accept that he himself

  639
  was guarding the foothills of the Department for Education and Employment at the time. He was not, he implied, responsible—his way of saying with a bit of extra flair, "Not me, Guy". The right hon. Gentleman was, however, a member of the then Government, and I believe that collective responsibility was supposed to apply. He should at least be prepared to accept that he was part of the process. If he wants to share the blame with anyone, he should share it with the people with whom he was in power.
  Mr. Forth: Oh, all right then.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Thank you.
  The Government's present stance reflects the decision taken at the last Labour party conference. Acquisition by the Government of a minority shareholding in Railtrack would not give us control over the company's policy. Under company law, stakeholders have a fiduciary duty to put the interests of the company first, not their own.
  The Government would not be able, for example, to use a 25 per cent. stake in Railtrack to force decisions in line with Government policy. As a minority shareholder, we would not have control of the company or its policy. We would therefore have responsibility without power. Rather than increasing control over Railtrack, an equity stake in the company could result in the Government seeming to be complicit in all Railtrack decisions—including those taken in the interests of the majority of shareholders, which may be at odds with public policy. It is better management and planning which will deliver improved performance for the company.
  Support has been articulated today for converting Railtrack into a public non-profit stakeholder trust. Under this option, the company would be run by a Government-appointed stakeholder board of train operators, the Strategic Rail Authority, customers, employees and so on, with no single party exercising majority control.
  However, a public trust would almost certainly be subject to public expenditure controls. It would not guarantee the necessary investment without having to find it from public resources, which we believe would be better invested in education and health, for which no alternative sources are available.
  The requirement on the Government to underwrite the bond issue to purchase Railtrack from the current shareholders would impose a further potential burden on public expenditure. Buying out shareholders would divert funds earmarked for investment. The costs of non-commercial projects, cost overruns and poor performance would fall to the taxpayer, rather than to operators and customers. The inability to offer a return to investors would reduce Railtrack's current access to private investment capital.
  It is far from clear that the proposed composition of the stakeholder board, in which none of the partners has a majority, would facilitate policy agreement or decision making, or that the engineering and asset management skills fundamental to improving safety and raising train performance would predominate.
  There is a role for stakeholder input, but this is at the strategic level when plans are being drawn up by the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority. The role of the Railtrack board is to deliver the infrastructure element of these plans, not to decide what they are.
  640
  Splitting Railtrack geographically would produce further fragmentation at a time when it is generally accepted by the industry that the overriding need is to achieve coherence. It would further reduce the company's ability to raise capital for investment.
  The concept of vertical integration—to enable franchises to include operational responsibility for track—has also found recent support. However, this would reduce the autonomy of franchisees and undermine the current and proposed franchises. It would complicate the role of the Rail Regulator and might result in the promotion of regional interests ahead of the delivery of a national strategy for a renaissance of our railways. It is not clear how vertical integration of passenger franchises would help cross-franchise operators such as freight.
  I share the conviction of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that mistakes were made in the privatisation process. Indeed, since Hatfield the architects of that process have admitted that they got it wrong. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst came pretty close to admitting it today. But after years of fragmentation and instability, the answer is not yet more upheaval. What we now need is evolution rather than revolution.
  The Government believe that the major changes proposed today to Railtrack's ownership, operation and accountability are not necessary to ensure that the company meets its public service obligations. We have appointed a tough Rail Regulator to ensure that Railtrack delivers on its licence requirements and does not abuse its monopoly position.
  We are not keen to implement options that entail reorganisation, upheaval and the loss of management focus and strategic direction, or increase the Government's costs as a result of compliance with market rules governing share acquisitions—knowledge of our intention to acquire Railtrack stock would drive up the company's share price. Instead, the Government have decided that the time is better spent putting in place the new coherent industry arrangements contained in the Transport Act 2000 and that the money is better spent as part of the £60 billion provided for in our 10-year plan for transport, published last July.
  The Prime Minister made it clear last month that the only way to cure the problems on the railway is through proper strategic control and urgently needed investment. We have created the Strategic Rail Authority to tackle fragmentation and to provide strategic leadership. We are working hard to correct decades of underinvestment through our 10-year plan.
  The Government's interest is to ensure that Railtrack implements the national track recovery plan as it has promised, following the disruption from gauge corner cracking, and that it invests in a safer, punctual and efficient railway, backed by the massive investment programme in the 10-year plan.
  The issues proposed for review by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle have already been covered by a recently undertaken parliamentary inquiry—that of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs into rail investment—to which my noble Friend the Minister for Transport gave oral evidence on

  641
  12 December. The Transport Sub-Committee's report is expected shortly. Because of that and for the reasons that I outlined, the Government will oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Martlew: In view of the Minister's response, but, more important, for reasons of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.51 pm
  Mr. Tony Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is simple in intent—even though it has a long title. Although the Opposition Benches are sparsely attended, I hope that no Members on either side of the House will oppose the measure. In essence, it corrects an injustice that should never have arisen.
  The purpose of the Bill is to permit a man's name to be entered as a child's father on the birth register and on the long birth certificate when a child has been born following infertility treatment or in vitro fertilisation after the man has died. For example, that may be because the man's sperm or an embryo created using his sperm was stored before his treatment for cancer or other medical conditions and he died subsequently. Another reason may be that infertility treatment had already begun, the man died suddenly but the treatment continued.
  I can give the House no clearer example of such circumstances than those of Stephen and Diane Blood. In 1995, Stephen lost his fight for life after contracting meningitis; he was 30 years old. He had given consent for his wife, Diane, to undergo fertility treatment, using his sperm, after his death. Diane fought for the right to receive that treatment. It was almost four years—after numerous legal battles and much anguish—that her son, Liam Stephen, was born on 11 December, just before Christmas 1998.
  Diane's fight for the right to have Liam Stephen drew widespread media attention and public support. Indeed, in opinion polls—we are all keen on them in this place—on whether Diane should be allowed to continue her treatment, she received 90 per cent. support for that right.Hansard records the involvement of the House on several occasions.
  That fight was not limited only to the right for treatment. Even after Liam's birth, his father's name could not rightly be recorded on the birth certificate. The effect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is that it does not allow a man to be treated as the father of a child where his sperm, or an embryo created with his sperm, is used after his death.
  Currently, the birth certificates of children born in such circumstances show a blank entry or a line alongside the mother's name. A letter from Joanne Tarbuck—a mother thus affected—to the Department of Health in April 1999 points out:
  "Despite undergoing two years of counselling before I was allowed to try for mine and Martin's baby, I was unaware that my husband's name would not be permitted on the birth certificate. I was therefore extremely upset to learn of this for the first time when I went to register Jonathan's birth. This does not seem fair on him or on other children born in similar circumstances."
  That is the injustice which we seek to address under the Bill.
  Although the Bill would amend the 1990 Act, it is not in essence deeply involved in the ethics or the moral debate that surrounds such procedures. It is a simple and

  643
  straightforward measure, in which the rights of children to have their fathers properly recorded in the birth register are recognised as foremost.
  We may ask why the anomaly was not discovered during the consideration of the 1990 Act. Under that Act, sperm can be stored for 39 years. It was thus recognised at the time that if legal rights—for example, those involved in succession or inheritance—were to accrue and a child was born perhaps many years after the death of the father, it would become almost impossible to wind up that man's estate. Under the Bill, therefore, the needs of those children and their families would be addressed without affecting the current law on succession and inheritance.
  There are 30 such children today, but that number is expected to grow at a rate of at least 10 a year—it could be much higher—and the Bill is of considerable importance to their mothers. Two of the mothers affected-Diane Blood and Joanne Tarbuck—are with us in the House today, together with their children and families. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their resilience over the years.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who has championed the case of her constituent, Marion Jordan, and her son, Daniel, in the House on numerous occasions. I thank her for the work that she has done in allowing us to get this far.
  Following the case of Diane Blood, the previous Government instigated a review of the 1990 Act. The review was undertaken by Sheila McLean, who is professor of law and ethics in medicine at Glasgow university. Professor McLean made several recommendations in her report, among which was the proposal that the father's name should be allowed to appear on a child's birth certificate. In recommending that course of action, Professor McLean considered that the current restriction may not be compatible with the 1979 United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
  Article 2.1 of the UN convention states that the rights accorded to each child, as set out in the convention, should be respected without discrimination of any kind, including that involving the child's birth or any other status. I share that view.
  Ms Debra Shipley: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about myself in relation to my constituent Marion Jordan and her son Daniel. Does he agree that the rights of the child should be paramount and that the Labour Government have put child-friendly policies—and, indeed, money—where their mouth is? However, there has been no movement on this issue to date, so my hon. Friend's Back-Bench initiative is to be welcomed. Does he also agree that the proposal is the morally correct, the legally correct and, frankly, the humane thing to do?
  Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. This is more than simply a moral question; legal questions also need to be answered. The Bill, if passed, would easily answer the challenges that may accrue from those parents if the Bill is not successful.
  In addition to my reference to the UN convention on human rights, I shall comment on the issues that may arise under articles 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. Those articles deal, respectively, with the
  644
  rights to choose or discover who one is and the enjoyment of rights without discrimination at birth. Those concerns would be dealt with under the Bill.
  The suffering caused to those families is unnecessary and avoidable. We must remember that those women suffer not only from the bereavement of their husband or father of their child, but because they feel that the absence of the father's name on the child's birth certificate robs those men of legitimate recognition.
  To assist the House, I shall outline the circumstances in which the Bill can be applied. It mirrors the current provisions in the 1990 Act that provide for a man to be treated as the father of the child when he is still alive. The four circumstances outlined in the Bill are as follows. The first relates to when the couple were married before the man's death and the woman uses his sperm or an embryo created with his sperm to conceive a child after the man's death. Diane Blood would have fallen into that category, and that is covered by the proposed subsection (5A).
  Secondly, the circumstance in which a couple were not married but were being treated together before the man's death and the woman uses his sperm or an embryo created using his sperm to conceive a child after the man's death is listed as the proposed subsection (5B). Alternatively, the circumstance in which a couple were married and the embryo was created before the man's death using donor sperm and the woman uses the embryo after the man's death to conceive a child is covered by proposed subsection (5C). Finally, the circumstance in which the couple were not were married but were being treated together in the United Kingdom at a licensed clinic where an embryo was created using donor sperm and it is used after the man's death to conceive a child is covered by the proposed subsection (5D).
  Under the Bill's provisions, the mother may elect, within 42 days of the child's birth, for the man to be recorded on the birth register. The registrar will require proof of the treatment undertaken and that can be provided by any medical practitioner. The provisions are also retrospective and can be satisfied in any case, where relevant, on or after 1 August 1991, which is when the 1990 Act came into force.
  The Bill would also amend section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, adding to the categories covered by that Act. That simply means that on a certificate of birth, after the father's name, the words "pursuant to section 10" would be added. Anyone looking at the register in future would be able to discover from the wordings of the proposed subsections (5A), (5B), (5C) and (5D) the reason why the birth was registered under that section.
  The Bill would extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. I am glad to say that it has been welcomed by the devolved Parliament and Assemblies.
  Under the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministers are required to make a statement expressing whether the Bill is compliant with the convention. I believe that the provisions are not only compliant but support the Act's intentions.
  I have sought to highlight the unusual case of families, who under the current provision, are not permitted to write and record the name of the husband or father alongside the name of the child's mother on a certificate of birth.

  645
  It would be of great comfort to the child's wider family and to future generations of the families that the truth should now be recorded.
  I leave the penultimate words on the matter to Diane Blood. In a letter sent to me, she said:
  "Those who have lost someone dear to us know how precious time is. You only get to live once. Why grow up being officially recorded as illegitimate, when the alternative has been agreed? When Liam is asked, say maybe at school, for a passport or for hospital records, 'who is your father?' I'd rather he wasn't left confused by what answer he is allowed to give."
  I firmly believe that it is right and fitting that we should support the Bill. I commend it to the House.
  2.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The Government strongly support and welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) and I commend his clear and well-argued speech in favour of it.
  The Bill would bring into effect some of the recommendations in the McLean review that the Government accepted last year. We set out then our intention to introduce legislation, but we have a tight parliamentary timetable this Session. That is why I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend has taken up the issue and introduced the Bill.
  The Bill provides for the father's name to be entered on the child's birth certificate when his sperm or an embryo created with it is used after his death. These are not common circumstances; we should be thankful that they are not, for they are inevitably tragic and difficult for the few families concerned. For those few families, this is an extremely important issue about which they feel passionate. The obstacles placed in the way of getting legal recognition for the father of the children are unfair and insensitive.
  To be faced with that insensitivity, as well as the frustration of what is in effect an outdated law, can only compound the distress that those families face at a time when they are trying to look forward and celebrate the new life of a child. That is why it is right to change the law. That is why the Bill is right and why we wish it a speedy passage through the House.
  Ms Shipley: Is my hon. Friend aware that visiting the House today are two little boys to whom, as the law stands, we are legally saying, "You do not have a father"?
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I pay tribute to her for her work on the issue and the representations that she has made on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the existing law. That is why it is right to make the Bill retrospective, and not simply so that it affects future families facing those circumstances.
  The Bill applies where couples have decided to have children through IVF but when the man, sadly, has died before the treatment is completed; perhaps when he has stored sperm or where the embryos have been created but not yet implanted. Their intention to start a family is clear but, sadly, the man has died through illness or accident before the embryos can be implanted.
  646
  In the circumstances, the widow faces a double loss; the loss of her partner and of the shared plans for their lives together and their future family. The law allows women in that situation to use the stored sperm or embryo to have a child, provided the father has consented to that. Despite having a child that they both wanted, he cannot be recorded as the child's father on the birth certificate. If the embryo had been implanted before his death, his name could have been on the birth certificate. If they had conceived the child in the normal way before he died, his name could go on the birth certificate. In the specific circumstances that I have described—and despite that man being intentionally the father of the child—he is not recognised on the birth certificate because, effectively, of the date on which he died.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I thought I heard the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) refer to whether the treatment had been carried out in the UK or not, or at a licensed facility or not. Does the Bill seek to make any distinction as to where the treatment may have been carried out? Are there circumstances in which that would invalidate the provisions of the Bill?
  Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I understand it, the Bill would apply to treatment in a UK licensed clinic only for those families who have used donor sperm, rather than the sperm of the father. If that is incorrect, I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Tony Clarke: The reference to clinics in the UK would be of relevance only to the final category where, as my hon. Friend rightly said, donor sperm is used and the couple are not married. It is only in that last category that we sought, rightly, for treatment to be carried out in the UK.
  Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification.
  We should be clear that the Bill will not allow the child succession or inheritance rights. The reason for that is that the child could be born many years after the father's death. If those rights were granted, it would be impossible to wind up the father's estate until all the sperm or embryos had been used or destroyed. Clearly, that is impractical.
  The Government set out our intention to go further than the McLean report and the Bill does that. The problem with the recommendation in the McLean report is that it is not retrospective. It would have applied only to new families facing such difficult circumstances, not to those who have already experienced them and who are now bringing up children whose fathers have died.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South has described the case of Diane Blood. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) has raised in the House the case of her constituent, Marion Jordan, and has campaigned on the issue. The Government felt that it would be wrong not to extend provisions, under the Bill or in similar legislation, to include families who have already experienced so much and who have campaigned so hard for changes to be made. It is unusual to make laws retrospective in this way, and the Government have given

  647
  the issue great consideration, but we think that it is the right thing to do in the circumstances. That is why the Government are supporting the Bill.
  It is true that many of the measures made possible under the Bill will have a symbolic value, but it is an extremely important symbolic value, particularly to the families involved. I join my hon. Friends in paying tribute to the mothers who have campaigned for this Bill for so long on behalf of their children.
  Ms Shipley: The Bill is about more than the circumstances of one or two families who are affected. The law might be out of kilter with international conventions which we have signed. The UK might be in breach of United Nations conventions on human rights and on the rights of the child, so it is incumbent on the House to tighten up legislation on this important issue.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that concerns have been raised about the compatibility of the law in this area with European conventions. However, it is also simply the right thing to do to support the Bill, and that is why the Government are doing so. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House. As it is in the interests of families and of children being brought up today, I hope that it receives cross-party support.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: It is obvious that the Bill deals with a difficult area, not least because it reflects all too well the extent to which it is incumbent on us to try to ensure that developments in the law keep pace, where appropriate, with developments in technology. It is entirely owing to the fact that medical technology has advanced as it has over the past few years that we are faced with this problem.
  Fortunately for us, the Bill does not deal with the ethical and other considerations that surround the techniques involved. They are entirely separate. However, it is worth remembering that the techniques that allow the process to take place and so put people in this position are not without an ethical dimension.
  I am not sure that I fully understand why this need be so, but great care is taken to distinguish between those who are married and those who are not. The modernisers among us—I am not one for this or indeed, most other purposes—constantly try to establish that marriage is becoming less and less important and that partnerships and long-term relationships matter more and more. Intriguingly, in operating in a difficult and sensitive area, the Bill goes to extraordinary lengths to make such a distinction, which I find reassuring even though I am not entirely clear about the reason why. That is even more true of the distinction that apparently must be made about whether the treatment took place in UK-licensed premises. The question of whether there are any UK-licensed clinics outside the UK might be relevant.
  Mr. Tony Clarke: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's interest, and the matters that he raises are important, but the Bill simply mirrors provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. We are dealing with a minor issue: the right of children to have their deceased fathers recognise I on their birth
  648
  certificates, as fathers who are still living can be under the 1990 Act. I see the point of his technical questions, but does he accept that they are not relevant to the Bill?
  Mr. Forth: I do not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to be helpful, but we have already had this discussion once today, in the context of an earlier Bill. It is not good enough to say that because a provision already exists, and has existed for a long time, a similar measure can be nodded through, especially when we are operating in an environment of rapidly changing technology and circumstances. He suggests that because a provision has been in statute law since 1990, we need not pay close attention to it; the reason for the Bill, however, is the rapid march of technology. Are not those two facts slightly at odds?
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I do not accept the basis on which he offered it. He seems to be saying, "Don't worry, folks. It's been around for a while, so it's almost certainly OK".
  Surely the whole point of the opportunity that the Bill gives us to revise the law is that it allows us to consider whether any other matters need to be dealt with. That is verified by the lengths to which it goes in amending earlier legislation. The schedule, entitled "Consequential amendments", requires consideration to be given to the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 and the Adoption Act 1976, among others.
  The issue may be relatively narrow, and the Bill's intent may, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, be simple. By the standard of many private Members' Bills, however, it is lengthy and detailed. That, and the fact that the schedule seeks to amend consequentially a number of other statutes, suggest that there are ramifications that we nod through at our peril.
  I concede that in many cases of this kind the principle, or the specifics, that gave rise to the Bill concerned make it, in one sense, relatively uncontroversial; but the consequences may not be uncontroversial. This Bill has ethical and other dimensions that, in my view, require close consideration—not least the element of retrospection that is explicitly included.
  We are talking about unusual circumstances, including the circumstances of those whose lives the Bill seeks to improve. Perhaps, in that context, the element of retrospection is inevitable and desirable, but I am always nervous when Bills contain a retrospective element. When I studied politics at university nearly 40 years ago, I was told that changes in the law should never be retrospective: that was the doctrine on which I was brought up. When I arrived in this place, as recently as 1983, that was still the prevailing philosophy in matters of legislation. I now find that—rather surreptitiously, if I may say so—more and more elements are being introduced into legislation in a way that I, for one, consider undesirable.
  Ms Shipley: Surely retrospection is the right course in this instance, because written consent will definitely have been given. My constituent Marion Jordan and her husband wanted children, and had planned to have them. Her husband died of cancer before they could have them, but he had consented. The child is his, but he cannot be registered on the birth certificate. Retrospection must be right when consent has been given.
  Mr. Forth: Consent may well legitimise retrospectivity in that case, but it does not necessarily legitimise it in the

  649
  absolute sense that the hon. Lady suggests. I do not agree with the proposition that I think she is making that it is acceptable in every case.
  Given the Bill's unusual and relatively narrow confines and the circumstances with which it and the case that the hon. Lady described deal, I may be able to accept that retrospection is justified. However, I am trying to lay down my own ground rule that states that retrospection has to be justified fully in every case and not introduced as a much more general proposition. Her response has helped greatly in that. The elements of the Bill that would usually cause me unease might be much more justified in this case than in many others.
  I notice that there is a retrospectivity cut-off date of 1 August 1991. Limiting retrospection is an interesting idea, but I have no doubt that there is a very good reason for it.
  Mr. Tony Clarke: The date was chosen simply because that was the date on which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 came into force.
  Mr. Forth: Again, that does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. It may well be that, in some cases, a specific retrospection date should be determined in relation to, for example, a technology or the nature of a consent. However, in this case, I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  I hope that the Bill is as simple and limited in scope as the promoter has suggested. In this case, I shall overlook the fact that it has the Government's fingerprints all over it—although I usually take a dim view of the Government trying to sneak Bills through in the guise of private Members' Bills. However, perhaps there should
  650
  be exceptions to every rule, and it may well be that this is one of them. All I am saying is, do not think that it has not been noticed.
  Consideration of the Bill in Committee will allow hon. Members to scrutinise it much more closely. It will also require further scrutiny on Report. At this stage, however, accepting what the promoter and the Minister have said about the Bill, and in view of the circumstances of the families it seeks to help, I see no reason why it should not be read a Second time.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. Tony Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his brevity and kind wishes for the Bill's passage. I am sure that the issues that he raised will be addressed in Committee.
  I am grateful also to the Minister—as I know that the families, who are in the Gallery, will be—for saying that the Bill has the Government's full support. I ask her to join me and do everything in her power to ensure that the Bill is passed in this Parliament. The families have had an extraordinarily long wait for justice. Their children are in the Gallery today, although they will probably have no reason to remember today other than as a day out in London and a visit to a strange old building that my daughter describes as an old church.
  Perhaps one day in the future, those children and others like them will look back on a day when legislation was debated that made it possible for their rightful father to be recognised on their birth certificate. It is for those children, both born and unborn, that I promote this Bill. I thank the Minister for her comments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Register of Drug Trafficking Offenders Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.24 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am grateful for the opportunity at least to talk briefly about the Bill. Drug dealing is a pernicious evil that destroys the health and hopes of thousands of our young people. Daily, I read of tragic tales of what drug dealing has done to families and communities across the United Kingdom. That tragedy is exacerbated by the fact that those who deal in that deadly trade flaunt their wealth and power in the very communities that they are destroying. Many millions of pounds of drug money is successfully laundered into respectable businesses, property and investments. It is also used to buy high-value goods. In all those transactions, those who work in financial services and related professions of in commerce are unwittingly handling the proceeds of crime.
  For about 12 years, we have had legislation designed to help confiscate the assets of crime, particularly drug trafficking, but it is ineffective. It was designed to provide a punishment, to deny criminals access to the funds that they need to continue their criminal activities, to deter others by showing that crime does not pay and to take criminal money out of circulation. Its effectiveness has been assessed recently, both in the report of the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit published in June 2000 and in Scotland by the report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, entitled, "Making Crime Pay: Confiscation of Criminal Assets in Scotland" published last year in response to a request by the Scottish Deputy Minister for Justice.
  The former report, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in late 1999, concluded that criminals and their associates can often retain the gains that they make from their criminal activity even when they have been convicted and imprisoned.
  The latter report contains statistical evidence for Scotland that shows just how unsuccessful the current legislation and its implementation is in taking criminal money out of circulation.
  I know that I am not telling the Minister anything that he does not know already or that is not already documented in the PIU report. I am aware of the proposal in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is a major initiative to deal with some of the problems that arise from the status quo.
  I do not propose to go into all the reasons why the present legislation is considered deficient, but the proposal in this Bill for the establishment of a register of drug trafficking offenders is a practical addition to that set of tools. It would amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by inserting a new section that deals with the establishment of the register and its maintenance and sets out the circumstances in which the register may be consulted and by whom.
  The Bill is designed to target money laundering and to assist existing legislation in seizing the proceeds of drug dealing. Its principal purpose is to help the Government and the devolved Administrations, the police and the
  652
  business sector to share important information to help them work together in a concerted way to tackle and disrupt the supply of illegal drugs.
  Since the Bill was presented to the House on 26 February, it has attracted support from surprising corners, but I shall not go into that now.
  The proposed new section of the 1971 Act is divided into four subsections. Subsection (1) sets out the offences for which the punishment of recording the fact of conviction on a register may be imposed. The offences set out are those that are generally described as drug trafficking offences. They are all very serious offences and can attract significant periods of imprisonment on conviction, up to life imprisonment. Subsection (1) also allows the court to order the recording of the conviction on a register to be established and maintained by the Secretary of State.
  Subsection (2) describes the persons who may consult that register and the circumstances in which they may do so. It draws heavily on the provisions of the money laundering legislation and it is designed to provide to people in commerce or in financial services an opportunity for convenient and quick access to information about those who present them with substantial amounts of money where there is no clear legitimate source of such wealth.
  Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to lay regulations of an incidental nature and relating to any fee for access before Parliament within three months of the Bill being enacted.
  Subsection (4) limits the type of offenders to which the Bill's provisions relate. As I have explained previously, it is only a register of serious drug dealers. By limiting it to them, those who deal for commercial gain and who have a track record that suggests that they will continue to do so in the future, the proposals in the Bill are a proportionate response to the threat to human rights posed by crime and criminality and are no more draconian than is necessary.
  By preventing criminals from profiting from crime, we create a powerful deterrent to criminality. I am grateful for the support that this modest proposal has generated. I await with interest any further comments and I commend the Bill to the House.
  2.29 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) has invited further comments, which are appropriate when we have only six minutes to do justice to a Bill with such ramifications.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 30 March.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 April.

  EDUCATION (STUDENT LOANS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 March.

  COPYRIGHT, ETC. AND TRADE MARKS (OFFENCES AND ENFORCEMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [9 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 30 March.

  DIVORCE (RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second [2 February].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Debate to be resumed what day?
  Ms Debra Shipley: Friday 6 April.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 6 April.

  PRIVATE DENTAL PRACTITIONERS BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [16 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?
  Mr. Eric Forth: Friday 30 March.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Did the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill to move that debate on it be resumed on Friday next?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, but I do not believe that it is necessary.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is indeed a requirement.
  Mr. Forth: Well, I do have permission.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is fine.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 30 March.

  RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 March.

  PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 March.

  CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 March.

  HIGH HEDGES BILL
  Order read for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered upon Friday 27 April.

  LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
  Line 31, at end add—
  '( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
  ( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
  ( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'— [Mr. Dowd.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3] January],
  That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest— [Mr. Tipping.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 52, at the end insert the words: —
  `(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'— [Mr. Dowd.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ms Debra Shipley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that I had the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) to move that debate to on the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill be resumed on 6 April?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Those comments will be noted.

  Criminal Records (Access)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  2.34 pm
  Gillian Merron: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important matter of access to criminal records for universities seeking to recruit lecturing staff. I have been pursuing the issue with Ministers as a result of a disturbing chain of events that took place at the Lincoln campus of the university of Lincolnshire and Humberside. My constituents and I take great pride in the many achievements of the staff and students and in all that the university contributes to our city as an integral part of the community.
  The university in Lincoln regrettably came into the national spotlight last year in connection with the case of Russell Griffiths, a former lecturer who, following acquittal on a charge of raping a student, pleaded guilty to, and went to prison for, obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. He had lied about his previous criminal convictions to get a lecturer's post and it transpired that he had unspent convictions, all relating to ex-girlfriends on whom he had inflicted threats to kill, criminal damage and obscene material.
  I am sure that the House would agree, knowing what we now know, that Griffiths would not have been a suitable person to appoint to the trusted post of lecturer, a job that is performed with much professionalism and skill in universities and colleges across the country. It is important that we record our trust in the overwhelming majority of lecturers who do a first-rate job on our behalf. However, such a case must not be allowed to happen again. I am anxious that confidence among staff, employers and students is re-established and maintained.
  I speak with the backing not only of my constituents, but of Universities UK, the national body that represents vice-chancellors, and the National Union of Students, which has joined forces with university staff to form CAMPUS-the Campaign for the Protection of University Students. To speak with one voice is a powerful and representative position from which to present the case to Parliament. I hope that the Minister will take account of the unanimous views on the matter.
  I pay tribute to the leadership and clarity shown by key players at the university of Lincolnshire and Humberside, including Professor David Chiddick, the vice-chancellor, Verity Coyle, president of the students union, and Debbie Wilson, a senior lecturer. They have my appreciation and admiration for the way in which they have worked to look positively and constructively to the future and have brought their important colleagues on board.
  I am pleased that the university in Lincoln has taken some important steps by strengthening its short-listing and interviewing procedures, including checks on references by telephone rather than relying on letters. However, the authorities are limited by legislative provision that prevents them from obtaining the level of checks on criminal records that they want. They eagerly await the establishment and operation of the Criminal Records Bureau, which will assist them greatly to vet prospective employees.
  The establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau by the Home Office will improve access to criminal records and record checks for employment-related and voluntary

  657
  appointment purposes. In particular, it will provide protection for children and others against those who may wish to harm them. I welcome the fact that the Government accept that the arrangements for access to criminal record checks are unsatisfactory. By setting up a single national contact point, they are helping us to bridge the gap.
  I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you, like me, remember being 18 and being convinced that you knew everything and the world was out there waiting for you. Perhaps you did, and perhaps it was. I would not want to remove that quality, but at 18, only a few months—or, indeed, a few weeks—mark the divide between being legally regarded as a child and living at home and being a legal adult who is in a new environment with full responsibility for one's daily life, decisions and actions. We should support students in their new world of university by making it a place where they can learn and grow, both academically and personally, without fear of those whom they should be able to trust to guide and support them.
  Professor David Chiddick wrote to me saying:
  "I believe we have a duty of care to our students, even though they are legally adults, given the special circumstances and the unique relationship that exists between a lecturer and a student."
  I agree wholeheartedly. A lecturer is in a position of trust, responsibility and, indeed, power, and should not be permitted to take advantage of that.
  Moreover, as the Government press ahead to widen access and participation in university education—something I very much endorse—the increasing number and range of background, age and experience mean that, as with any section of the population, the range of ability to deal with life's challenges will also widen and vary. Whether a student is more or less vulnerable is simply not the issue, as many students are more than capable of looking after themselves. It is the nature of the relationship between the student and the lecturer that we need to consider.
  Of course, perfectly sound, morally acceptable and defensible relationships do exist between lecturers and students, as consenting adults. That is not the area of concern to which I refer. However, we need to bear it in mind that lecturers do not work only with young adults. At Lincoln, for example, a children's university for 12 to 16-year-olds regularly takes place, as do visits of school groups, which is very much to be encouraged. It also provides a venue for the Co-operative Kids Club. Such events enable lecturers to work, unsupervised, with those under 18.
  I urge the Minister to work closely with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that guidance and instruction is issued to universities on requiring a basic disclosure document, from the criminal records bureau, as a condition of employment. That would enable a full check to be made on unspent convictions. I should like to go one step further by asking the Minister to review the exceptions order in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and include university lecturers. They, like teachers, traffic wardens and probation officers would then be required to declare spent convictions according to the Criminal Records Bureau standard level of disclosure.
  658
  I quite understand and endorse the purpose of the 1974 Act—to allow ex-offenders to wipe the slate clean and start afresh. Equally, there are some occupations for which I believe that that is not appropriate, which is recognised by the exemptions that have been made. I also appreciate that there is a delicate balance to be struck between giving ex-offenders the chance to contribute fully to society once again—and having a job is one of the best ways to include rather than exclude people—and ensuring the protection of those they work with, where appropriate.
  The nature of the job of lecturer with its attendant responsibilities and requirements, needs careful consideration. I am in no doubt that if the case of Russell Griffiths is to have a positive outcome and scars are to be healed at the university in Lincoln, we must ensure, as far as possible, that such a case cannot happen again. We need to move that bit further to restore full confidence between students and staff and among each other.
  I hope that this case, which sent shock waves throughout the Lincoln campus, will not have happened in vain. I thank the Government, particularly the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who has been most helpful with this case, for the progress that has been made so far in establishing the Criminal Records Bureau. That is a responsive measure, and will prove highly effective. However, I ask that the Minister seriously consider the request that I have made, on behalf of my constituents, for the benefit of the university community and their friends and families across the country.
  2.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) for raising these issues. Clearly, the case of Russell Griffiths is very disturbing. It gives rise to an important issue of principle—I shall come to that in a moment—but it is essential that the issue is seen in its wider context. I should therefore like to begin by setting out the background in relation to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974—a key consideration in this matter—the current arrangements for police checks, and the new arrangements that we are putting in place through the Criminal Records Bureau. They are due to come into effect during the latter part of this year and the start of next year.
  It has long been accepted that it is important for those who offend to be able to reform, to pick up their lives again after paying the penalty, and to have a fresh start. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has been the key legislation in that respect for more than a quarter of a century, and it will continue to be so under the new arrangements that the Criminal. Records Bureau will operate, to which I shall come shortly.
  The principle underlying the 1974 Act is that once a conviction has become spent it is stale, and a person applying for a job should not need to declare it to an employer. However, the need for rehabilitation must be balanced against the risk to society, particularly its most vulnerable members, from the ex-offender. That is why, for as long as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been in place, there has also been a list of positions for which someone can be asked about spent convictions. People asked about spent convictions have to tell a potential employer what those convictions were for before obtaining the job.

  659
  It is crucial to get that list of positions right. We must protect the vulnerable, but we must not make the list such that an offender who has put his past behind him is disadvantaged if that is not necessary for the demands of the job.
  Employers do not currently have access to police checks. If they ask a job applicant whether he has a criminal record, they have no way of verifying what they are told. That situation is partly a reflection of the sensitivity with which we treat information about a person's criminal record. However, there are also police resource constraints.
  Prioritisation has been essential. The largest demand is for checks to be carried out in cases to which we would all give the highest priority—the protection of children from those who are in the strongest position to do them harm, such as those in positions affording substantial unsupervised access to children.
  Most people working with children in the statutory, voluntary and private sectors are not routinely subject to police checks, and nor are people working with vulnerable adults. Frankly, the situation regarding checks on people working with children and vulnerable adults and the resourcing constraints of the police is not satisfactory.
  The establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau is a major part of a much larger package of measures designed to provide additional protection for the vulnerable. Moreover, the CRB will be specifically resourced to undertake the task, and to do so to high service standards. Although protection of the vulnerable will be the primary purpose of the CRB, its service will be broader. The bureau will provide three different levels of certificates—or disclosures, as they will be known: the basic level of check will apply to the broad generality of jobs, and the other two types will relate to posts, positions and professions that attract greater sensitivity. The key gateway will be the exceptions order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The higher level checks will include people working with children and with vulnerable adults. The highest level will relate principally to those working most closely with children and vulnerable adults.
  I now come to the particular case that my hon. Friend has raised. Let me say at the outset how disturbing I found this case, just as she did. As I said, we must take great care to ensure that we strike the correct balance between protection of the individual—the potential victim—and the rights of a potential employee to be able to live down the misdemeanours of his or her past
  We must be conscious of the danger that our reactions to a particular case could lead us to a position that would upset a careful balance. In the case to which my hon. Friend referred, it was possible for information about previous convictions to be concealed. Under the present arrangements, the university authorities did not have access to police information that would have revealed those convictions. The position will be wholly different once the CRB becomes fully operational. Under the arrangements for criminal records checks that the CRB will operate, the authorities could request that a check be carried out at the basic level. That would have revealed the unspent convictions of Russell Griffiths.
  660
  I understand that officials from the Department for Education and Employment have met representatives of Universities UK—formerly the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals—to discuss arrangements for criminal record checks. Universities UK is considering issuing guidance on strengthening existing recruitment for university staff. It is likely to emphasise the need to verify qualifications and obtain independent references, and to advise universities to obtain a basic disclosure from the CRB, when available, as part of their recruitment process.
  It would be a very large step to contemplate bringing university staff within the scope of the higher level checks that will be available from the CRB. The main practical effect would be to open up to scrutiny any stale conviction that might lie in a person's past, but which, under the tests set in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, should not be revealed unless there are exceptional circumstances. It would also bring to light a caution, reprimand or warning to a young offender. At the very highest level of check conducted by the bureau, it would mean a search of local police records.
  Such information is clearly more sensitive, and making it available remains an exceptional measure under the scheme that the CRB will operate. To warrant such disclosure, the circumstances must be such that the interests of protecting the victim would require that the scales be tilted further in that direction. That has clearly been considered justified in order to protect the most vulnerable members of our society—children, and the most vulnerable adults.
  In an area where striking the right balance is so important, I do not have a closed mind, but would have to be convinced that we need to tilt the scales by making university staff subject to higher levels of checks from the CRB. We take the view that the basic checks that would be provided by the CRB would be likely to be adequate, but we are willing to listen to any argument made by my hon. Friend or others to suggest that we need to go to a higher level. We shall listen to such arguments, but we remain to be convinced by them.
  I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend. She has raised important issues, and the Government will reflect carefully on the strong points that she made. She asked me to review exemptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That will take some time to arrange, but I hope to be able to do it in the summer, and we shall consider her arguments when we do so. 1 cannot prejudge the outcome of that review, and it would require an affirmative resolution of the House if we were to change any of the exemptions. If that becomes necessary, the House will require a further debate at which my hon. Friend could comment further.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising an important issue. I hope that we can respond in a way that ensures that the sort of problems that arose in the case of Russell Griffiths will be prevented from causing distress to universities and students in future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Three o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the review of compensation arrangements for Gulf War veterans will examine the seven-year rule on eligibility for war pensions; and if he will make a statement. [1540491

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 756W. The Ministry of Defence Consultation Document on the Joint Compensation Review is not confined to arrangements for Gulf veterans, but seeks views on the general eligibility for claims under a new compensation scheme. We will give careful consideration to all views put forward during the consultation phase. The proposals resulting from the review do not envisage changing the eligibility for claims under the DSS administered War Pension Scheme.

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what troops and equipment he has available for assisting in the destruction of animals infected with foot and mouth and the containment of the disease. [155041]

  Mr. Spellar
  The armed forces are supporting the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by co-ordinating the disposal of carcases in areas worst hit by the outbreak, and in providing a small number of vets and logistic support at MAFF HQ.

  Although the situation is being constantly monitored and necessary adjustments made, the details, as of midday 22 March, are as follows:
  Four vets from the Royal Army Veterinary Service are assisting, with one located in the MAFF headquarters in London, and the other three deployed as required.
  One logistics liaison officer, based in MAFF headquarters in London is to provide advice and help co-ordinate logistics support.

  Thirty Royal Military Police personnel have deployed to Exeter to form a headquarters, from where they will provide a command and control function for mobile teams engaged in the co-ordination of disposal in Devon. There are 15 such mobile teams comprising a further 30 personnel from the Royal Military Police.

  Thirty personnel of the Prince of Wales' Own Regiment have deployed to Carlisle, from where they will provide a command and control function for mobile teams engaged in the co-ordination of disposal in Cumbria. There are 20 such teams, comprising a further 40 personnel drawn principally from 42(NW) Brigade.
  366W
  The Green Howards have deployed to Worcester to form a headquarters from where they will provide a command and control function for mobile teams engaged in the co-ordination of disposal in Cheshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Herefordshire. The precise requirement for the mobile teams is currently being scoped but they will be manned by the Green Howards.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 633W, on malaria, and his subsequent letter, how many service personnel of the 200 deployed to Sierra Leone without anti-malarial treatment have since been diagnosed with malaria; to which regiments they belong; and if he will make a statement. [155073]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 February 2001,Official Report, columns 609–10W. There are no more than 10 personnel who have contracted malaria among the group who deployed without anti-malaria tablets. These personnel were from 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment and 2nd Battalion Parachute Regiment.

  Service Pay
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many enlisted personnel left each of the three services in the last 10 years, citing pay as the reason for leaving; and if he will make a statement; [153981]

  (2) how many service personnel at officer rank left each of the services in the last 10 years, citing pay as the reason for leaving; and if he will make a statement. [153983]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information is not available as to the specific reasons why each individual leaves the armed forces prematurely. Each service does, however, run leaver surveys. In the past three years these surveys have indicated that, more often than not, it is the cumulative effect of several factors rather than a single item that has the most impact on retention. From these surveys it is possible to say that dissatisfaction with pay is not one of the most influential factors in an Officer's or Other Rank's/Rating's decision to leave.

  MOD Police (Housing)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outstanding total of backdated claims is from(a) serving and (b) former MOD police officers in respect of (i) rent allowances and (ii) housing allowances; and if he will make a statement. [155120]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no outstanding backdated claims from serving or former Ministry of Defence police officers in respect of rent or housing allowance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London borough of Hackney. [155728]
  367W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of the London borough of Hackney and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  The reports main conclusion is that the standard of service provided to benefit claimants over the past three years has been very poor. The council contracted out its Benefits and Revenues services in 1997 and the BFI reports that flaws in the contract coupled with a failure to invest sufficient resources in the client side management, has contributed to the present situation.

  Inspectors found that a poorly designed claim form, considerable backlogs and very poor processing performance was having an effect on other parts of the service leading to significant delays and a sharp increase in the numbers of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman.

  The report notes that some measures were introduced to improve customer service. But the effectiveness of these measures is being seriously undermined by long waiting times and inefficient use of the caller centre.

  Inspectors found that since April 1999 Hackney has failed to comply with the requirement to notify claimants of their benefit entitlement and subsequent changes. The report also noted major concerns in the prevention and recovery of overpayment. In 1999–2000 the HB debt was £17.8 million.

  The report notes the introduction of a strong management structure of the council's counter fraud unit and a number of good practices. But limited resources were resulting in poor quality fraud investigations and a failure to make full and proper use of all investigative practices and powers.

  The report notes, however, that a new Managing Director took up post during the BFI inspection and its clear that considerable effort is being put in to address some of the significant weaknesses in performance.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Glasgow city council. [155729]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Glasgow city council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  Overall, inspectors found a number of weaknesses and poor standards of performance in benefit administration and counter fraud work that needed immediate attention.
  368W
  They also identified inconsistent and ineffective work practices and substantial delays with appeals and review boards.

  The BFI notes the council's lack of effective performance standards and targets, inadequate management information, weaknesses in checks and controls, the poor management in the recovery of benefit overpayments and inadequate standards in fraud investigations.

  The report notes that the council was preparing for the possible bulk transfer of its council housing stock to the private sector. Should this go ahead, the implications for the delivery of benefits service are enormous.

  The report concludes that BFI has serious concerns about Glasgow's performance in managing and delivering a secure benefits service. More positively, however, the report notes that the council has recognised the significant challenges it faces and is committed to and already acted upon a number of BFI's recommendations.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Sheffield city council. [155730]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Sheffield city council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  Inspectors found a number of weaknesses and poor standards of performance in benefit administration and counter fraud work. Performance is failing to meet contractual expectations in a number of key areas.

  The report notes the council is struggling to cope with significant backlogs of work which are resulting in lengthy delays in claims processing and reduced customer services. The council has introduced measures to resolve the backlogs and Some progress is being made towards restoring an effective benefits service.

  Benefits administration needs to be improved with regard to verification, overpayment classification and implementation of effective qualify checking controls. Although some weaknesses were found in the control and management of overpayments work Inspectors found the council to be pursuing recovery of debts effectively.

  The report notes that although there is some good counter fraud work, it is not focused and management controls are largely ineffective and provide little assurance. Inspectors found investigation work to be of poor quality and insufficient to tackle the estimated level of fraud in the council's area.

  Inspectors were pleased to find effective corporate policies and measures were in place to encourage an anti-fraud and corruption culture.
  369W
  The report concludes that the council has shown a positive commitment towards improving its performance and is developing an action plan to address the issues raised by the inspection. Some remedial action had already taken place by the time the inspection finished.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Child Support
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of the additional staff posts allotted to the Independent Case Examiner in September 2000 have been filled; [154510]

  (2) what plans he has for clearing the backlog of Child Support Agency cases awaiting investigation by the Independent Case Examiner; [154509]

  (3) on what basis it was decided to advertise the job of the Independent Case Examiner on a part-time rather than full-time basis. [154511]

  Angela Eagle
  The office of the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) has already recruited two extra staff. A further four staff members will be in post by the end of April 2001, and two more in May 2001.

  All cases referred to the ICE are dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible. Cases are dealt with in the order they are received to ensure that all customers receive a similar service. In exceptional circumstances, such as where a customer's health is being affected by their case, it will be dealt with more urgently.

  The current Independent Case Examiner, Mrs. Anne Parker, was appointed on a part-time basis and the intention is that her replacement will also be part-time.

  Benefit Payment
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will commission research into the practice of commercial operators paying out cash, subject to a substantial charge, for benefit and Housing Benefit cheques; and if he will take action on the findings. [154508]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to commission research into commercial cheque cashing services.

  No benefit recipient should have to pay for benefit cheque encashment. The facility exists for people without a bank account to return crossed girocheques to their local Benefits Agency office and have them replaced by lower value girocheques which can be encashed at a Post Office.

  Most high street banks now offer basic accounts which are free to open and run. These are available to the majority of benefit recipients and can be used to clear crossed benefit cheques or Housing Benefit cheques issued by local authorities.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how changes in Government spending since 1997 have affected the incomes of(a) poorer pensioners and (b) pensioners with low levels of savings. [154281]
  370W
  Mr. Rooker
  Information regarding income gains over the Parliament for poorer pensioners is available in "The Pension Credit: A consultation paper" (Cm 4900). As the document sets out, by next April 1.7 million of the poorest pensioner households will on average be at least £15 a week better off and half of the poorest pensioner households will on average be over £20 a week better off as a result of tax and benefit measures introduced by the Government since 1997.

  The information requested regarding pensioners with low levels of savings is not available.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the level of expenditure on Winter Fuel Payments has been in each year since their introduction; and what the projected level of expenditure is in each year to the end of the public expenditure planning horizon. [155158]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information for expenditure to date is in the table.

  Winter Fuel Payment

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  £200 million

  1998–99

  £200 million

  1999–2000

  £900 million

  2000–01

  £1.7 billion

  Single Room Rent
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he has consulted the Social Security Committee on his proposed broadening of the definition of the single room rent; [155293]

  (2) if he will list the organisations that commented on the proposals relating to single room rent; and how many of these (a) supported abolition, (b) favoured abolition above a broadening of the definition, (c) supported broadening the definition and (d) supported no change to the current definition; [155295]

  (3) which organisations his Department consulted in relation to the proposed new regulations to broaden the definition of the single room rent. [155294]

  Angela Eagle
  We have fulfilled our statutory obligation to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Local Authority Associations on our proposal to broaden the definition of the Single Room Rent.

  The Social Security Advisory Committee was content for our proposal to proceed without the Committee conducting a public consultation exercise. The Local Authority Associations favoured abolition of the Single Room Rent, but they welcomed our proposal as a step in the right direction.

  Our proposal is designed to better reflect the accommodation which is available in the market, based on advice from the Rent Service.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [1553731

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on cancelled and postponed meetings is not held centrally.

  Income Support (Torbay)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of Income Support take-up among pensioners in Torbay. [154291]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimates cannot be produced below national level.

HEALTH

  National Cancer Institute
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what degree of independence the National Cancer Institute will have from cancer charities; [154642]

  (2) if funding for the National Cancer Institute will emanate from Government. [154643]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI), announced today, is a partnership between all the United Kingdom Health Departments, the Medical Research Council, the Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, the Marie Curie Research Institute and the pharmaceutical industry. The greatest benefit for patients is likely to be achieved if all the main funders of cancer research work together to ensure the best use of research resources.

  The NCRI will be established from 1 April. It will provide the focus for cancer research conducted across the UK, and provide strategic oversight of that research. It will take the lead in identifying where further research initiatives are indicated and are most likely to lead to progress. It will also co-ordinate research into cancer genetics in the UK.

  But the NCRI will not be a single, large "bricks and mortar" facility. It will have a core staff of about six people, and total running costs of about £500,000 a year. All the partners have agreed to contribute. The details have to be worked out, but the Government are prepared to underwrite the costs in the first instance so that the NCRI can make progress without delay.

  Government Grants (Central London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each category of grant, and the amount of each grant, paid by his Department to(a) Westminster and (b) Kensington and Chelsea in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [146310]
  372W
  Mr. Denham
  The tables provide a list of the grants paid by the Department of Health to the two local authorities Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster city council for the periods required.

  The grants are as follows:

  AIDS Support Grant

  Paid to local authorities to support social care provision for those with severe HIV disease or an AIDS diagnosis.

  Asylum-Seekers Accommodation Grant (Adults)

  From the 1999–2000 financial year the Special Grant for Asylum Seekers (adults) became the responsibility of the Home Office. The background to these payments was that in 1996, changes in Department of Social Security benefit legislation left some asylum seekers destitute and unable to claim financial support. The then Government introduced Special Grants, administered by the Department of Health, to local authorities towards meeting the cost of providing accommodation for destitute asylum seekers under either the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989. The Special Grant was split between single adults, families and unaccompanied children. Under the conditions of these grants, local authorities have been reimbursed for the direct costs they have incurred in supporting asylum seekers.

  Children and Adolescent Mental Health

  The CAMHS Mental Health Grant started in 1999–2000. It is envisaged that similar sums to those paid for 1999–2000 and 2000–01, will be available in 2001–02 with an additional amount which has yet to be determined—which will be the local authorities share of the national CAMHS MHG.

  Children's Services (Quality Protects)

  The Secretary of State launched the Quality Protects Programme for Health in September 1998. Initially providing funding of £375 million over three years, the programme is intended to improve the management and delivery of social services for children. In October 2000, the Secretary of State for Health announced that the programme would be extended from a three to a five year programme, matched by an increase in the Special Grant from £120 million in 2000–01 to £290 million by 2003.

  Community Care Special Transitional Grant

  This grant was paid to local authorities in England from 1993–99 to enable them to meet their new responsibilities under Part III of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 which was fully implemented in April 1993. Implementation required local authorities to establish arrangements to assess people's needs for community care services. It also placed new duties on social services authorities to purchase independent sector residential and nursing home care for those people who required public support to enter such homes. Social services authorities now assess an individual's needs for services and in the light of that assessment decide whether or what services should be provided.

  Drug and Alcohol Specific Grants

  The background to the grant is covered in the circular LAC (2000) 19 which was issued at the end of September 2000.

  Improving Management Information

  Invest to Save

  No information was available within the time available to complete the response to this inquiry.
  373W
  Mental Health Grant

  This grant is available to local authorities to facilitate the development and improvement of community-based mental health services.

  Persons' from Abroad Children's Grant—(Families with Children)

  The background is the same as for the adults' grant described above.

  Promoting Independence—Carers' Grant

  This grant became available from 1999–2000.

  Promoting Independence—Partnership Grant

  Grant first became available in 1999–2000.

  Promoting Independence—Prevention Grant

  The purpose of this grant is to help local authorities develop, with other relevant agencies, particularly health authorities, preventive strategies aimed at slowing down or preventing deterioration in individuals, who have been assessed as at risk of losing independence and who are able to benefit from lower level interventions, which will prevent or significantly delay admission to residential or nursing care or to hospital and/or improve quality of life. The assessment process should identify possible problems

  Specific and special grants: Westminster

  £

  Description

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  AIDS Support Grant

  800,000

  770,000

  810,000

  798,000

  n/k

  Asylum-Seekers Accommodation Grant

  3,846,920

  25,074,631

  3n/a

  3n/a

  3n/a

  Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  n/a

  n/a

  26,000

  26,000

  n/k

  Children's Services (Quality Protects)

  n/a

  32,500

  755,373

  1,234,000

  3,215,578

  Children's Social Services Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Care Special Transitional Grant

  2,304,652

  2,170,586

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Drugs and Alcohol Specific Grants

  61,744

  27,421

  0

  0

  n/a

  Improving Information Management

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Invest to Save

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Health Grant

  586,048

  556,901

  805,663

  903,647

  1,006,384

  Persons from Abroad Children's Grant

  2,752,307

  3,753,040

  3n/a

  3n/a

  3n/a

  Promoting Independence: Carers Grant

  n/a

  n/a

  137,108

  383,688

  4553,972

  Promoting Independence: Partnership Grant

  n/a

  n/a

  1,754,966

  1,500,289

  51,979,005

  Promoting Independence: Prevention Grant

  n/a

  n/a

  146,487

  222,372

  n/k

  Secure Accommodation (Capital)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Secure Accommodation (Revenue)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Training Support Programme

  215,091

  198,259

  195,665

  6320,532

  n/a

  Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children

  441,179

  1,879,200

  2,695,400

  3n/a

  3n/a

  1Projected

  2After repayment by LA

  3Home Office

  4Indicative—subject to parliamentary approval

  5Includes Prevention Grant

  6Allocations only

  Specific and special grants: Kensington and Chelsea

  £

  Description

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  AIDS Support Grant

  890,000

  760,000

  722,000

  816,000

  n/k

  Asylum-Seekers Accommodation Grant

  2,326,374

  4,603,767

  2n/a

  2n/a

  2n/a

  Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  n/a

  n/a

  20,000

  20,000

  n/k

  Children's Services (Quality Protects)

  n/a

  32,500

  560,122

  916,000

  2,389,814

  Children's Social Services Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Care Special Transitional Grant

  1,509,005

  1,413,818

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Drugs and Alcohol Specific Grants

  68,378

  53,222

  0

  0

  n/a

  Improving Information Management:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Invest to Save

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Health Grant

  470,073

  536,109

  700,324

  760,289

  829,585

  374W
  and possible risks that could lead to dependency. This would include risks associated with the home including the danger of falling and accidents resulting therefrom.

  The Promoting Independence Grant (£196 million)

  This grant subsumes the partnership and prevention grants. The figures provided in the table are indicative and subject to parliamentary approval.

  Secure Accommodation—Capital

  No information available, no facility in these authorities.

  Secure Accommodation—Revenue

  No information available.

  Training Support Programme

  The TSP is paid to local authorities on a 70 per cent. funded grant with authorities contributing 30 per cent. of the total costs. All local authority staff working in and supporting services for adults and for children are eligible for training supported by the TSP. The aim of the TSP is to improve the quality, and management of social services provision to families, individuals and local communities, by encouraging a planned approach to training.

  Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children's Grant

  From the financial year 2000–01 the Special Grant for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children became the responsibility of the Home Office.
  375W

  Specific and special grants: Kensington and Chelsea

  £

  Description

  1997–98

  1998–99

  l999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Persons from Abroad Children's Grant

  1,312,224

  1,549,540

  2n/a

  2n/a

  2n/a

  Promoting Independence: Carers Grant

  n/a

  n/a

  95,156

  270,497

  3393,084

  Promoting Independence: Partnership Grant

  n/a

  n/a

  1,161,961

  1,002,149

  41,324,496

  Promoting Independence: Prevention Grant

  n/a

  n/a

  103,047

  157,006

  n/k

  Secure Accommodation (Capital)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Secure Accommodation (Revenue)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Training Support Programme

  162,939

  160,877

  162,056

  5187,160

  —

  Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children

  255,613

  646,924

  1,540,000

  2n/a

  2n/a

  1Projected

  2Home Office

  3Indicative-subject to parliamentary approval

  4Includes Prevention Grant

  5Allocations only

  Accidents
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) fatal accidents and (b) accidents requiring an overnight hospital stay there have been in each of the last 10 years. [152602]

  Ms Stuart
  The number of deaths resulting from fatal accidents in England for 1989 to 1999 is shown in the table.

  Year of registration

  Number of deaths

  1989

  10,672

  1990

  10,880

  1991

  10,193

  1992

  9,644

  1993

  9,608

  1994

  9,628

  1995

  9,372

  1996

  9,643

  1997

  10,157

  1998

  9,774

  1999

  9,970

  The number of accidents requiring an overnight hospital stay of one night or more in a National Health Service hospital in England for 1990–91 to 1999–2000 is shown in the table.

  Number of admissions

  1990–91

  578,065

  1991–92

  582,474

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Ambulance Services

  0.40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Antibiotics

  —

  —

  —

  0.17

  —

  Blood donation

  0.38

  0.60

  1.70

  20.22

  —

  Children's services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.60

  Drugs

  —

  —

  —

  0.34

  —

  Flu

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.23

  Maternity

  0.10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Health Service including nurse recruitment

  1.43

  1.30

  4.90

  4.21

  4.90

  NHS Direct

  —

  0.12

  0.78

  1.20

  1.15

  Organ donation

  —

  —

  0.77

  0.47

  0.49

  Prescription fraud

  —

  —

  0.38

  —

  1.40

  Sexwise/teenage pregnancy

  —

  —

  —

  0.39

  1.01

  Smoking

  —

  —

  —

  36.18

  8.66

  Travel safe

  0.85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Walk-in centres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.30

  Winter

  —

  —

  —

  1.07

  2.35

  1Planned

  2The Department's spend on blood donation advertising reduced in 1999–2000 because most of this activity was funded directly by the National Blood Authority, who took over full responsibility for this expenditure on 1 April 2000.

  3Prior to 1999–2000 advertising on smoking was undertaken by the health education authority (HEA).

  376W

  Number of admissions

  1992–93

  601,465

  1993–94

  611,502

  1994–95

  624,533

  1995–96

  400,371

  1996–97

  458,632

  1997–98

  462,211

  1998–99

  445,152

  1999–2000

  459,034

  Note:

  Changes in diagnosis coding from 1995–96 mean that data are not directly comparable over the 10 years from 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153412]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 20 March 2001,Official Report, columns 133–36W.

  Major advertising spend on individual campaigns is shown in the table.
  377W
  The figures for the total spend on advertising including promotional campaigns for the Department for the financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01 are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Advertising expenditure

  1996–97

  2.50

  1997–98

  2.27

  1998–99

  8.63

  1999–2000

  14.83

  2000–011

  21.09

  1Planned

  Total spend on advertising by the HEA for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000 and could not be broken down by campaigns is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Advertising expenditure

  1996–97

  9.5

  1997–98

  7.5

  1998–99

  5.2

  1999–2000

  2.4

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated for medical negligence; how much has been top sliced from allocations to health authorities to pay for it in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [155109]

  Ms Stuart
  The allocation for medical negligence, top sliced from health authorities (HA), for the forthcoming year and the last three years is shown in the table.

  £ million

  2001–02

  1498

  2000–01

  2349

  1999–2000

  120

  1998–99

  100

  1The budget for 2001–02 of £498 million includes £65 million transferred from HA baselines for the transfer of liabilities for the existing liabilities scheme from HAs

  2Final figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155360]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to questions tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North on 16 January (Ref. 146310) and 5 March (152273). [155292]
  378W
  Mr. Denham
  I replied to my hon. Friend's question tabled on 16 January today. I shall let her have a reply to her other question as soon as possible.

  Security and Communications Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent in the current and preceding two years on CCTV and other security improvements in hospitals in the south-west; and how much on improved ambulance communications in Avon. [155375]

  Ms Stuart
  As part of the national programme to improve accident and emergency services funded from the Capital Modernisation Fund in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, £417,000 was invested in providing improved security for staff and patients through the provision of CCTV systems in a number of hospitals across the region. £8,000 was spent separately at Crewkerne and Wincanton hospitals. Other schemes funded in this programme included investment on CCTV and security improvements, however, it is not possible to identify separately the expenditure on this element in these schemes. Other improvements to hospital security will have been made locally from National Health Service trusts' block capital allocations.

  In 1999–2000, Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust received £190,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the introduction of an automatic vehicle location system to help improve ambulance response times, and a mobile data system which will provide the platform for telemedicine for better diagnosis and care of patients.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Non-food Crops
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with appointments to the Government-industry forum on non-food uses of crops since the Adjournment debate on non-food crops in Westminster Hall on 11 January. [155720]

  Ms Quin
  I am pleased to announce the following appointments to the forum: Mr. Robert Margetts CBE as Chairman, Professor Dianna Bowles, Dr. David Carmichael, Mrs. Pamela Castle, Dr. Paul Ekins, Dr. Ray Marriott, Dr. Richard Miller and Mr. Andy Taylor. In addition, there will be one member each from MAFF, DTI and DETR and MAFF will also provide a full-time secretary, and two technical advisers.

  The terms of reference of the forum are:

  To provide strategic advice to Government and industry on the development of non-food uses of crops. In particular;

  To keep under review technological developments and market opportunities for non-food uses of crops.

  To make recommendations on policy affecting non-food uses of crops and on R&D priorities.

  To publish an annual report.

  The forum will hold its first meeting as soon as possible.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of total agrimonetary compensation was(a) applied for and (b) received in each of the last 10 years. [151828]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]The UK was first eligible for agrimonetary compensation following currency movements during 1996. Agrimonetary compensation applied for since then is shown in the table. In each case, payment has been made as soon as possible following approval by the European Commission.

  £ million

  Year

  Applied for

  1997

  85

  1998

  48

  1999

  1396

  2000

  100

  1Includes second and third annual instalments of compulsory agrimonetary compensation: one notification covered all three years' payments, from 1999 to 2001

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 28 February that he intended to draw down a further £156 million of agrimonetary compensation for beef, sheep and dairy farmers, subject to Commission approval.

  EU Floods Compensation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what money he has applied for from the EU to reclaim agricultural land affected by flooding; and if he will make a statement. [152293]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]At our request, the European Commission has agreed a number of changes and flexibilities in CAP scheme rules to protect payments to British farmers affected by flooding this winter, details of which have already been announced. EU funding was discussed as a possibility under the England Rural Development Programme but the views of rural stakeholders expressed in consultations were that restoration from flooding was a lower priority in this long-term programme than measures to conserve and improve the environment and to assist the creation of a more productive and sustainable rural economy.

  Illegal Livestock Exports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations he has carried out to determine how many consignments of sheep and lambs have been illegally exported from England and Wales to the Irish Republic during the last 12 months. [153030]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]Exports of sheep from England and Wales to another member state are required to be covered by export health certification under harmonised EU conditions. Under normal circumstances, additional border checks constitute an illegal impediment to trade. However, since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, surveillance at Holyhead Port has been increased. We are not aware that there have been any illegally exported consignments nor have any been reported to MAFF by the Irish Authorities.
  380W
  Less than 1 per cent. of sheep legally moved between Great Britain and Ireland as a whole went direct to the Republic of Ireland between 1 February 2000 and 31 March 2001. A significant proportion of trade to the Irish Republic goes via Northern Ireland. Suspicions of illegal trading of sheep, involving misleading certification, arose there last year; increased port surveillance and tracing of animals to their final destinations were put in place and the trade had in consequence virtually stopped by January 2001. Any evidence submitted to us of illegal consignments between England and Wales and the Republic of Ireland would be carefully investigated.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many geographical locations are associated with the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease announced to date. [153841]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]As of 19 March there are 14 areas within the United Kingdom which are covered by "infected area" restrictions.

  These are as follows:

  Parts of:

  1. Essex, Kent and Suffolk

  2. Devon and Cornwall

  3. Gloucestershire, Gwynedd, Herefordshire, Monmouthshire, Powys, Shropshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire.

  4. Gwynedd and Anglesey

  5. Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire

  6. Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire

  7. Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland

  8. Kent

  9. Cumbria, Durham, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Scottish Borders, South Lanarkshire and Dumfries and Galloway

  10. Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Warwickshire and West Midlands

  11. Somerset

  12. Hampshire, Berkshire and Wiltshire

  13. Dumfries and Galloway

  14. County Down and County Armagh.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the different locations affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Chaddesley Corbett, Worcestershire. [153843]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]As of 19 March, two premises in this area have been affected with foot and mouth disease. They are Longmore Farm and The Woodlands, Chaddesley Corbett, Kidderminster. Details of newly affected premises are listed on the MAFF website and provided to Members of Parliament on a daily basis.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he is examining to help other rural businesses, besides farming affected by the foot and mouth epidemic. [154029]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]I have been asked to reply.
  381W
  The Rural Taskforce has been set up to look urgently at the wider effects of the foot and mouth outbreak on the rural economy. My statement to the House on 20 March 2001, Official Report, column 192, outlined some preliminary measures to alleviate the immediate financial hardship of small businesses in rural areas. The taskforce will continue to look at this issue and I will make further announcements in due course.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to ensure that hauliers do not breach new regulations concerning the length of time over which animals can be transported. [155257]

  Mr. Morley
  Owing to the foot and mouth disease outbreak, movements of FMD susceptible livestock may only take place under licence. We expect all hauliers to take seriously their obligations not to spread the disease. But we will nevertheless arrange for a high proportion of longer distance movements to be supervised and accompanied. In addition, checks are made by the police and local authorities to ensure compliance.

TREASURY

  Finance Bill
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published; and if he will make explanatory notes on the Bill's clauses available to hon. Members. [155578]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Finance Bill will be published on Friday, 30 March. Explanatory notes on the Bill's clauses will be placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses that day. Members of the public will be able to obtain copies of the explanatory notes from the Treasury; these will also be available on the Treasury's website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information on purchasers of stakeholder pensions the Inland Revenue will ask providers of such pensions to provide; and if this information will allow the Inland Revenue to determine whether the target market for such pensions is being reached. [154773]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information requirements for stakeholder and personal pensions are laid out at Part 17B of the Inland Revenue Personal Pension Schemes (including Stakeholder Pension schemes) Guidance Notes—IR76 (2000). I have arranged for a copy to be laid in the House of Commons Library.

  These requirements, supplemented by surveys and with other information held by the Inland Revenue, will enable take up of stakeholder pensions to be monitored.

  Partnerships UK
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for Partnerships UK. [155722]
  382W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Partnerships UK was launched in June 2000 to build upon the success of the Treasury Taskforce and to provide a permanent and sustainable centre of expertise to continue the Treasury Taskforce's role in developing and expanding the Government's PPP programme.

  The Treasury is currently seeking private investors for a 51 per cent. stake in Partnerships UK. The Treasury's aim is to raise at least £22.5 million through a sale of the shares on a competitive basis to qualifying institutions. Each potential qualifying investor is being invited to invest between £1 million and £5 million.

  An Information Memorandum has been distributed to qualifying institutions in connection with this Offer for sale. Further information on the sale can be obtained from the publication copy of the Information Memorandum, which has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Census
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to review the procedures for safeguarding the security and confidentiality of information to be collected in the 2001 Census in England and Wales. [155723]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's White Paper on the 2001 Census, published in March 1999, gave assurances that the well-established traditions of maintaining confidentiality of information collected in the census would be upheld for the 2001 Census, and that the Census Offices would undertake reviews of the confidentiality and security arrangements for the 2001 Census and would publish the outcome of such reviews before the Census.

  Independent reviews of the physical security arrangements for processing the 2001 Census information and the measures to protect the statistical confidentiality of the data were undertaken last year. The outcome of the reviews, including a joint statement from the Registrars General for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, is being published today by the Office for National Statistics, the General Register Office for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  >The Government are satisfied that the measures and procedures in place will protect the security and confidentiality of the 2001 Census.

  The Report is available via the National Statistics website www.statistics.co.uk. Paper copies will subsequently be available on request to ONS, and copies of the Report have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Statistics (Northern Region)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the workforce is unemployed in the Northern Region; [155045]

  (2) what percentage of the workforce in the Northern Region was unemployed (a) in 1996 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; [155049]
  383W
  (3) how many people were (a) unemployed and (b) unemployed over two years in the Northern Region (i) in 1996 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [155050]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Fraser Kemp, dated 23 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about the number of unemployed, those unemployed for over two years and the percentage of the workforce that was unemployed in the Northern region in 1996 and at the latest date for which figures are available (155045, 155049 and 155050).

  Government Office Regions (GOR) are now used as the standard classification for regional analysis statistics. The one used for the Northern Region in the North East GOR

  For the North East Government Office Region, the table overleaf shows the total number of International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployed, those unemployed for over two years and ILO unemployed as a percentage of those economically active in autumn (September-November) 1996 and autumn 2000.

  These figures are obtained from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), in which unemployment is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It counts as unemployed people who are (a) without a paid job (b) available to start work within the next two weeks and (c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  ILO unemployment in the North East Government Office Region; autumn 1996 and autumn 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  1996

  2000

  Unemployed (thousand)

  115

  90

  Unemployed over two years (thousand)

  40

  15

  Unemployed as percentage of economically active

  9.6

  7.5

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many mothers in the Northern Region whose youngest child is aged under one year are in employment. [1550481

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Fraser Kemp, dated 23 March 2001

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about mothers in the Northern region whose youngest child is under one and who are in employment (155048).

  Government Office Regions (GORs) are now used as the standard classification for regional analysis of statistics. The one used for the Northern region is the North East GOR.

  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) sample of mothers in employment in the North East GOR, whose youngest child was less than one year old in autumn (September-November) 2000, is too small to provide a reliable estimate of the size of this population.

  People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they have a job that they are temporarily away from. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included following the International Labour Organisation (ILO) guidelines.
  384W
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of mothers in the Northern Region returned to work when their youngest child was(a) under six months, (b) six to 12 months, (c) one to three years and (d) over three years in each of the last five years. [1550471

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Fraser Kemp, dated 23 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the percentage of mother in the Northern region who returned to work when their youngest child was of a specified age. (155047)

  Government Office Regions (GOR) are now used as the standard classification for regional analysis of statistics. The one used for the Northern Region is the North East GOR.

  The table overleaf shows information on mothers in employment with a child aged under one year in the North East Government Office Region. This is taken from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The other information requested is not available.

  Percentage of mothers whose youngest child is less than one-year-old who are in employment: North East region: autumn 1996 to autumn 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage1

  1996

  39

  1997

  47

  1998

  45

  1999

  50

  2000

  2—

  1Percentages are based on those mothers in employment as a percentage of all mothers with youngest child under one year.

  2Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Parliamentary Questions
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will respond to questions tabled on 26 February 2001, Ref. 0823W/00/01 and 0824W/00/01. [155162]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I shall write shortly.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155368]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not held centrally.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he supported the recent conversion of the venture capital division of the European Investment Bank to the European Investment Fund; and what the reasons were for the change. [151754]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The transfer of the EIB' s venture capital operations to the EIF was part of a rationalisation of activities in the context of the
  385W
  acquisition by the bank of a majority shareholding in the EIF. The EIF is now the venture capital arm of the EIB Group. The UK supported this and is one of the main beneficiaries of its financing activities.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the priorities of the European Investment Bank; what his policy is on them; and what other priorities Her Majesty's Government have been pressing the bank to take on board. [151750]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The task of the EIB is set out in Article 267 of the EC Treaty.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which meetings of the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund are open to citizens from the European Union. [151756]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Meetings of the governing bodies of the EIB and EIF are not open to the public.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which European Union institution is responsible for overseeing the accounting practices of the European Investment Bank; what authority, in this regard, is held by the European Court of Auditors; on what grounds the European Court of Auditors can access the financial records of the European Investment Bank; when this has been done; and for what reason. [151753]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The accounting practices of the EIB are overseen by an independent Audit Committee which is accountable directly to the Board of Governors (EU Finance Ministers). The Court of Auditors has access to the bank, in accordance with an agreement under Article 248 of the Treaty.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the projects and the companies involved that have benefited from investment by the European Investment Bank in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [151752]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is available in the Annual Reports of the EIB. The report for 1999 is available in the Library; the report for 2000 will be published in the summer.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value is of the European Investment Fund; what percentage of shares in the EIF is held by the European Investment Bank; what other shareholders there are in the European Investment Fund; and what proportions of the fund they hold. [151755]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is available on the EIF' s website at www.eif.org

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in each of the last 10 years, what proportion of investment made by the European Investment Bank was made(a) within the EU, (b) within accession countries and (c) outside those countries. [151751]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is available in the Annual Reports of the EIB. The report for 1999 is in the Library. The report for 2000 will be published in June. The hon. Gentleman may also refer to EIB' s website at www.eib.org.
  386W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the UK has contributed to the European Investment Bank in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [151749]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Between 1991 and 1996 the UK paid 145,834,734 euros in direct subscriptions to the EIB. Since 1996, no payments have been made by member states to the EIB.

  Retention System
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to phase out the retention system in respect of construction works procured by central Government; and if he will make a statement. [155265]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A review of contracts is planned this year as part of the OGC' s ongoing performance-related Achieving Excellence in construction initiative.

  GC/Works/1 (1998), the Government standard form of construction contract and its associated sub-contract, allows Departments to forgo retentions as part of their commercial agreements with suppliers. Retentions do not feature in Defence Estate's Prime Contract conditions.

  The move to performance-based partnering type contracts will reduce the need for retentions in the future. The NAO report "Modernising Construction", published in January 2001, gave strong endorsement to the partnering approach, as a means of achieving best value.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ronald Maddison
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the Attorney-General requested further information from Her Majesty's Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon regarding his request for a fresh inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the request from Her Majesty's Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon regarding this case. [154769]

  The Solicitor-General
  Her Majesty's Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon applied for the Attorney-General's consent for an application to the High Court for another inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison. The Coroner has been asked to provide a summary of the evidence given at the original inquest in May of 1953 and to provide the new evidence which suggests that the verdict of misadventure (nowadays termed "accident") at the original inquest was incorrect.

  The procedure for ordering another inquest in these circumstances is governed by section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. Only the High Court may order another inquest to be held. The Attorney-General's consent is required for the application to the High Court for another inquest.

  The Coroner is currently away on holiday. I will inquire of him when he returns and if he has no objections I will place his request in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  New Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will designate the start of trading under the New Electricity Trading Arrangements. [155719]

  Mr. Hain
  On the advice of the Chief Executive of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today designated 00:00 hrs on 27 March 2001 as the time and date for the start of trading under the Balancing and Settlement Code, which commences the New Electricity Trading Arrangements.

  Operating Aid
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if an annual increase in pre-tax profit will cause operating aid to be terminated; and what recovery mechanism exists. [154478]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, aid is payable to loss-making production units only in respect of losses incurred through the production of qualifying (industrial) coal. Thus any reduction in such losses will reduce the level of aid payable, and any mine making an actual net profit before subsidy in any given financial year will not be eligible for subsidy in that year. However, the level of subsidy payable is not directly affected by the overall level of profits or losses made by the applicant company as a whole.

  Applications for aid, and payments of aid if European Commission approval is given, are made on the basis of forecast losses. However, once each of the applicant company's relevant financial years encompassing the subsidy period is over, there will be a reconciliation process in which the forecasts are compared with actuals for the applicant production unit in that subsidy period. If actual losses have been less than forecast, any consequent overpayment of aid will be set off against any further subsidy payments due or otherwise recovered.

  Animal Experiments
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount of money spent on medical research(a) using animals and (b) using alternatives to animals by (i) Government and (ii) industry in 2000–01. [153373]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]It is impossible to put a precise figure on medical research spend that has required either the use of animals or alternatives to animals. All experimental work with animals is subject to approval by the Home Office. The majority of medical research projects do not involve any animal procedures. It is not possible to determine how many of these projects could have been pursued using animal experiments, and would have been issued licences, if the alternative approaches had not been available. Once alternatives to a specific experimental method have been successfully developed and shown to be effective, the Home Office will not issue a licence to conduct the same type of work using animals. All experiments using animals must satisfy the strict regulation of the 1986 Act.
  388W
  Secondly, where research projects depend on some animal experimentation, it is not possible to disaggregate easily the animal-related and other costs of medical research projects. For example, a research group studying how a mutated gene contributes to cancer might gain much information by studying individual cells in a laboratory, but might also need to examine how the gene contributes to disease in a whole animal, such as a mouse, to gain full understanding of the problem.

  Hawley Group
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Hawley group; [154590]

  (2) what plans he has for the future role of the Engineering Council; and if he will make a statement; [154591]

  (3) if he will place a copy of the report by the Hawley group in the Library; [154592]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact of the work of the Hawley group on the engineering and technology base and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [154593]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the involvement in the Hawley group of (a) Ministers and officials in his Department and (b) officials in the Office of Science and Technology; [154594]

  (6) what discussions (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have held on the outcome of the work of the Hawley group since 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [154595]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]The Hawley group was established at the instigation of my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation in October 1999. The group was chaired by Dr. Robert Hawley, Chairman of the Engineering Council, and consisted of representatives from the Engineering Council, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment. My noble Friend received regular progress reports from Dr. Hawley throughout the course of the Hawley Review and also chaired public events on 23 May 2000 and 14 February 2001. DTI officials on the group were closely involved in the development of the review and they consulted colleagues within the Department, including those in the Office of Science and Technology, on a wide range of issues. Significant contributions were also received from officials in the DETR.

  The Hawley group report entitled "Making the Best of Valuable Talent" was published in December 2000 and contained some 43 recommendations for re-positioning the Engineering Council to meet the needs and aspirations of an increasingly diverse and non-traditional engineering community. The report was circulated widely for discussion within the engineering community and the initial response proved most favourable. During the consultation exercise my noble Friend spoke directly to a number of senior representatives of the engineering community, from industry and from many of the engineering institutions, to seek their views on the contents of the report. All were strongly supportive.
  389W
  The culmination of the consultation process was a public event held at the Institution of Electrical Engineers on 14 February 2001 which was attended by senior representatives of the engineering profession, engineering industry, academia and Government. The meeting voiced its overwhelming support for the broad thrust of the report and gave a mandate for the Engineering Council to evolve into the Engineering and Technology Board. The Hawley group ceased to exist as of the end of the meeting and a series of six working groups have now been established to carry forward the process of change.

  We have consistently expressed our support for the aims of the Hawley Review and welcomed the proposals outlined in the Hawley report. However, ownership of the process remains firmly with the engineering community itself and the shape and remit of the new Engineering and Technology Board is a matter for them alone. We are, of course, willing to provide continued support and encouragement during the transitional phase and DTI and DfEE officials will be taking an active role in a number of working groups.

  The Engineering and Technology Board is due to come into existence in October 2001 and it will, therefore, be some time before a sensible assessment can be made of the impact of the new arrangements on the engineering and technology base in the UK. However, the Hawley group, led by Dr. Robert Hawley, can take a great deal of credit for initiating a wide ranging and radical assessment of the current structures within the engineering profession and encouraging a much needed debate on the future of engineering.

  A copy of the Hawley report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Regional Development Agencies regarding clearance by the European Commission of Regional Venture Capital Funds. [155253]

  Ms Hewitt
  Officials in the Small Business Service wrote to the Regional Development Agencies, and other interested parties, to inform them of the European Commission's call for comments on the UK's Regional Venture Capital Fund programme, and the UK Government's view on the issues raised by the Commission.

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the National Radiological Protection Board has made of the study by Sir Richard Doll on a potential cancer link to overhead power line transmission; if he will make it his policy to(a) apply the precautionary principle and (b) impose (i) a buffer zone around the houses or (ii) a rerouting to avoid houses built under the proposed Lackenby to Shipton power line; and if he will make a statement. [154787]

  Mr. Hain
  Sir Richard Doll's Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation published its report "Extremely low frequency Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of
  390W
  Cancer" on 6 March 2001. (Documents of the NRPB Vol 12, No 1, 2001). Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), an independent body set up under statute and who provide scientific advice to Government issued a response statement which can be found on the NRPB website www.nrpb.org.uk.

  The report states that any possible risk of childhood leukaemia relates to those exposed at relatively high levels of domestic exposure but that these are not necessarily associated with proximity to overhead transmission lines. The NRPB consider that the report provides no additional scientific evidence to require a change in the guidelines to limit exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields.

  The Government will consider carefully the recommendations of the NRPB and commission appropriate research with regard to that which is already under way. In the light of the available evidence and the advice from the NRPB it is too soon to state whether particular approaches will be taken.

  The advice of the NRPB is welcomed and will be considered in a Government response to a European Union Recommendation on limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields.

  With regard to the proposed Lackenby to Shipton power line, this has been routed away from communities and individual dwellings on grounds of general amenity and was the subject of an environmental assessment and statement at the public inquiries. There are no houses under the proposed line. The existing 275kV line from Lackenby to Norton—30 km long (around the south and west of Middlesbrough) will be dismantled after the construction of the new 400kV line. There are 5,000 homes within 200 metres of the line to be dismantled compared with 250 homes within 200 metres of the new line. There is therefore a considerable net benefit in terms of general amenity.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days leeway are allowed before a fine is imposed for late submission of company accounts after the due date. [154583]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]The Companies Act allows no leeway for companies filing their accounts late after the due date.

  The scale of late filing penalties, the class of company against which these are levied and the time periods involved are set out in the table.

  Scale of penalties

  £

  Public companies

  Private companies

  Not more than 3 months late

  500

  100

  More than 3 months but not more than 6 months late

  1,000

  250

  More than 6 months but not more than 12 months late

  2,000

  500

  More than 12 months late

  5,000

  1,000

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Motorway and Trunk Road Accidents
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many crossover accidents on(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads there have been in each year since 1992–93. [154470]

  Mr. Hill
  The table shows the number of accidents involving vehicles crossing over the central reservation.

  Accidents involving vehicles crossing the central reservation

  Year of accident

  Motorways

  Trunk roads

  1992

  60

  222

  1993

  52

  177

  1994

  66

  181

  1995

  57

  162

  1996

  52

  152

  1997

  76

  144

  1998

  52

  119

  1999

  55

  129

  Note:

  Trunk roads in this table include only trunk A roads

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fatalities have resulted from crossover accidents on(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads in each year since 1992–93. [154469]

  Mr. Hill
  The table shows the number of fatalities that were involved in accidents involving vehicles crossing over the central reservation.

  Fatalities in accidents involving vehicles crossing the central reservation

  Year of accident

  Motorways

  Trunk roads

  1992

  11

  32

  1993

  10

  28

  1994

  14

  32

  1995

  9

  19

  1996

  3

  16

  1997

  17

  22

  1998

  8

  21

  1999

  12

  30

  Note:

  Trunk roads in this table include only trunk A roads

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is for the use of concrete crash barriers; and if he will make a statement. [154471]

  Mr. Hill
  The criteria for the provision of concrete crash barriers are contained in the Highway Agency's departmental standard TD 19/85 "Safety Fences and Barriers" and Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works Volume 1, Specification for Highway Works Series 400. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Barriers are procured by competitive tender and unless local circumstances indicate, both steel and concrete barrier types may be used otherwise.
  392W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the costs per kilometre are of(a) installing and (b) the whole life maintenance of (i) corrugated steel crash barriers, (ii) steel wire barriers and (iii) concrete crash barriers. [154473]

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

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. David Amess, dated 23 March 2001:

  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill has asked Tim Matthews, Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the costs of crash barriers. I am replying in the absence of Tim Matthews.

  It is difficult to quote precise costs for any of these types of barrier as they will be influenced by both site conditions and the market forces prevailing at the time

  However, the latest information available indicates that combined costs for both supply and installation of normal containment crash barriers are as follows:

  Single sided corrugated steel barriers cost between £28k and £37k per kilometre, with the difference being accounted for by both the frequency of supports and the type of foundations used.

  Steel wire rope safely barriers cost between £13k to £21k per kilometre, again with the difference being accounted for by both the frequency of supports and the type of foundations used.

  Concrete barriers (operating at the same level of containment as both corrugated steel and steel wire rope barriers) cost approximately £45k per kilometre.

  No whole life maintenance costing has been undertaken for any of these products and therefore it is not possible to answer part (b) of your question.

  If you would like any further information about this matter, please contact Brian Hill, in Room 4/30, St. Christopher House, Southwark Street, London SEI 0TE (telephone 020 7921 4936).

  Travellers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2001,Official Report, column 248W, on travellers, what steps have been taken to recover the cost of measures taken, from those who occupied the site at Willington, Derbyshire; and what representations the Highways Agency has made to his Department concerning the legal framework available to prevent and to reduce the impact of occupations of this kind. [154432]

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

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 23 March 2001:

  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked Tim Matthews to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about action taken to recover costs incurred by the Highways Agency in clearing waste, erecting barriers, and maintaining security from its site at Willington, Derbyshire following its occupation by travellers. I am replying in the absence, of Tim Matthews. You also asked what representations the Highways Agency has made to DETR concerning the legal framework available to prevent and to reduce the impact of occupations of this kind.

  We very much regret such occupations of this nature but no recovery action has been taken because the instigation of Court action to have Travellers removed, and the subsequent recovery of costs is extremely difficult.
  393W
  No representations have been made to DETR. Ministers consider the existing legal framework and guidance to be adequate provided the powers are used early enough. They were not used on this occasion because the Travellers moved on of their own accord. Research is now under way to monitor the effectiveness of current guidance and what more might be needed. Consideration will be given to issue revised guidance on particular points such as fly tipping.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to review the operation of the mechanisms available for the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles from(a) public land and (b) certain categories of private land. [154714]

  Mr. Hill
  We are currently considering the arrangements for the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles from public and private land as part of a review of the current legislation covering abandoned vehicles.

  Train Speed Restrictions (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the temporary speed restrictions in force on railways within Scotland on 13 March, indicating(a) their location, (b) normal line speed, (c) temporary line speed, (d) length of track affected, (e) date of imposition and (f) planned date of lifting. [154558]

  Mr. Hill
  As of 13 March, 38 temporary speed restrictions as identified in the National Recovery Plan were in place on five of the eight strategic route groupings of Railtrack's network in Scotland. These were:

  the West Coast Mainline;

  the East Coast Mainline;

  Edinburgh to Glasgow,

  Glasgow and Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness;

  South West Scotland;and

  Strathclyde.

  These 38 speed restrictions had a total length of 6.14 miles. Of these eight (1.05 miles) had a speed restriction of 20mph, a further 15 (2.55 miles) were up to 40mph and a further 15 (2.54 miles) up to 60mph. Normal line speeds on these routes are typically between 35mph and 105mph.

  The speed restrictions were all imposed since the Hatfield accident and are scheduled for removal at various dates over the coming weeks. Railtrack is in regular dialogue with ScotRail and other train operating companies to ensure this work is completed with minimum disruption to passengers and freight customers.

  In addition, as with other parts of the network, routes in Scotland will continue to be affected by other speed restrictions needed to maintain safe operation in adverse operating conditions and to enable normal maintenance activities to be completed. Some of these additional restrictions are imposed because of gauge corner cracking.

  Manchester Airport Company
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what approval
  394W
  was required from the Government for the recent takeover of Bournemouth and East Midlands airports by the Manchester Airport Company. [154710]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The purchase of the shares in the two companies required the consent of my right hon. Friend under section 30(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, with which local authorities may establish and maintain airports, and under section 20(3) of the Airports Act 1986 with which they may acquire shares in airport companies which they do not already control. Manchester city council applied for consent on behalf of Manchester airport's 10 shareholder authorities, and the issuing of the consents to the city council empowered the airport company, which is a subsidiary of the city council, to purchase the shares. The consents were issued without prejudice to any regulatory approval which might be needed.

  In addition my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was required to consider whether to refer the proposed purchase to the Competition Commission under the mergers provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 for a full investigation. He took a decision not to do so, in accordance with the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading. The primary consideration in the Director General's advice, and in the decision whether to make a reference, was the likely effect of the proposed purchase on competition in the market for airport services.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes in the last 12 months the Government have made to the financial guidelines of Manchester airport. [154711]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  None.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the purchase of East Midlands airport and Bournemouth airport by the Manchester Airport Company. [154709]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The New Deal for Transport White Paper (Cmnd 3950) stated that the Government's"new air transport strategy will consider how…regions and their airports, for example in the north and midlands, might work together to realise the potential of airports away from the congested south east of England".

  While the sale by National Express of their UK airports has taken place before the completion of our new air transport strategy my right hon. Friend, in considering the application for the necessary consents, noted that the proposed sale to Manchester airport was the result of competitive tendering and judged that it was likely to bring benefits of the type summarised above.

  Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154536]
  395W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Restormel and Carrick district councils in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is shown in the tables. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Carrick district council

  Revenue Support Grant2

  2.998

  2.824

  2.821

  2.694

  2.927

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates2

  2.684

  2.722

  2.926

  3.248

  3.231

  Housing Investment Programme

  31.357

  1.324

  1.092

  42.885

  53.390

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  2.793

  2.307

  2.122

  82.152

  —

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.206

  0.631

  0.677

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.054

  0.038

  0.000

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.006

  0.006

  0.006

  90.006

  90.006

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  0.077

  0.625

  0.498

  0

  0

  Restorniel borough council

  Revenue Support Grant2

  4.386

  3.784

  3.836

  3.672

  4.057

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates2

  2.863

  2.870

  3.110

  3.476

  3.477

  SSA Reduction Grant (SSA Review)

  0.000

  0.252

  0.055

  0.000

  0.000

  Housing Investment Programme

  31.047

  1.005

  1.007

  42.123

  51.063

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  2.383

  2.514

  2.053

  6n/a

  6n/a

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.212

  0.630

  0.564

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.080

  0.080

  0.000

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.007

  0.007

  0.007

  90.007

  90.007

  Cornwall county council

  Revenue Support Grant2

  129.412

  133.560

  139.493

  135.599

  146.727

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates2

  93.491

  93.02t)

  107.287

  122.050

  120.054

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  3.474

  1.205

  1.631

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  3.474

  1.205

  1.631

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.875

  0.994

  2.472

  7.138

  14.920

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant7

  0

  0

  0.157

  0.845

  n/a

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  1.098

  1.115

  1.221

  1.559

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  2.057

  2.830

  3.013

  0

  0

  1Where known

  2The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Amending Report 2000" respectively.

  31997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98.

  4Single Housing Pot introduced from 2000–01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  5Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. Carrick's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £2.03 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above. Restormel is a transfer authority and is not entitled to MRA.

  6Restormel borough council completed the transfer of its housing stock in February 2000.

  7Rural Bus Challenge figures represent awards—actual spend profiles for schemes may cover more than one year.

  8Provisional

  9Estimated

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

  Truro and St. Austell constituency is not included in awards that have been made since May 1997. Parts of the constituency are included in two SRB schemes, Cornwall Developing in Partnership approved in Round 1 and CHEERS (Restormel) in Round 3. Funding provided for these schemes since 1997–98 is included in the table as follows:

  £ million

  SRB scheme

  Cornwall Developing in Partnership

  CHEERS (Restonnel)

  1997–98

  1.196

  0.043

  1998–99

  1.218

  0.219

  1999–2000

  1.466

  0.181

  2000–01

  1.323

  0.256

  2001–021

  1.540

  0.258

  1Where known

  396W
  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Truro and St. Austell constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  European Funding

  Truro and St.Austell constituency was included in the South West Objective 5b programme that closed for new applications at the end of 1999. Major projects in the constituency which have received funding since 1997–98 include Eden (£10 5 million), Truro College IT Centre (£2.3 million) and Lemon Quay Redevelopment, Truro (£0.5 million).

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly have been designated an Objective 1 area, of which Truro and St. Austell constituency is a part, and stands to benefit from £315 million of European Funds over the next seven years.

  AOA Environmental Guidance Manual
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to monitor observance of the AOA environmental guidance manual. [154828]
  397W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Airport Operators' Association environmental guidance manual is a private publication designed to assist airports by offering guidance on improved environmental performance. What use is made of the guidance is a matter for individual airports. We have no plans to monitor observance of the guidance.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the phasing out of the retention system in respect of new contracts for construction work; and if he will make a statement. [155264]

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to abolish cash retentions in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [155297]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I do not think it appropriate to consider abolishing retentions, or to demand that central or local government clients no longer use them. Retentions are symptomatic of a lack of trust between clients, contractors and sub-contractors that is common in construction. This goes to the heart of the issues raised by the Construction Task Force in its report, "Rethinking Construction".

  There are significant signs of a shift in the construction industry towards a more co-operative, and collaborative approach. If clients and suppliers can build a culture of trust throughout the supply chain, this may lead to a corresponding change in practice on retentions.

  Leading central Government construction clients are moving towards performance based partnering contracts encouraged by revised guidance on procurement from the Office of Government Commerce which should reduce the need for retentions in future.

  The Local Government Task Force which was formed to promote "Rethinking Construction" in local government, has concluded that retentions are not compatible with collaborative approaches such as partnering. The Task Force will encourage authorities to replace retentions with robust quality control assurance systems.

  Waste Strategy 2000
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he is making in implementing his commitments contained in Waste Strategy 2000 to curb junk mail. [155107]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My officials have had a number of meetings with representatives of the direct mail and promotions industry and other interested parties to discuss a producer responsibility initiative. Some progress has been made and I am hopeful that a voluntary scheme to increase the recycling of "junk mail" can be agreed.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his
  398W
  Department and agencies of his Department which have been (a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155374]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested is not held centrally. We would not expect cancellation or postponement of meetings and conferences to be necessary unless in a venue involving contact with susceptible livestock or land used by such livestock, and my Department and its agencies will continue supporting rural businesses in line with the Government's guidelines.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses, broken down by region, have been empty for(a) less than 12 months, (b) 12 months to three years and (c) three years and over; and what percentage of empty homes are eligible for reduction in VAT on conversion costs. [155160]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The available information on empty residential property in England at the beginning of 2000–01 is given in the table.

  Robust estimates are not available of the number of empty homes that will be eligible for the adjustment to the zero VAT rate for the sale of empty homes, nor for the reduced rate for the refurbishment costs of empty homes, but estimates produced in conjunction with the Empty Homes Agency suggest that around 60 per cent. of all long term empty properties (defined as those empty for more than 12 months) in England will be eligible. No estimates are available at a regional level.

  A separate Budget measure was introduced to lower the rate of VAT for dwelling conversions which lead to a different number of dwelling units. This applies to all dwelling conversions, whether the property was previously empty or not, and is expected to lead to a net increase of around 1,000 dwellings a year.

  Vacant dwellings in England by region at the start of 2000–01

  Dwellings vacant for:

  Tenure category

  12 months or less

  More than 12 months

  Total vacant dwellings

  England

  Local authority

  65,700

  21,500

  87,200

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  30,300

  7,200

  37,500

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  16,000

  Private sector

  421,300

  201,900

  623,200

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  763,900

  North East

  Local authority

  7,400

  2,600

  10,000

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,100

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  700

  Private sector

  23,800

  13,300

  37,100

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  49,900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Local authority

  11,900

  3,500

  15,400

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,400

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  1,300

  Private sector

  52,900

  27,700

  80,600

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  99,700

  East Midlands

  Local authority

  5,200

  900

  6,100

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,600

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  1,800

  Private sector

  38,100

  19,400

  57,500

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  68,000

  399W

  Vacant dwellings in England by region at the start of 2000–01

  Dwellings vacant for:

  Tenure category

  12 months or less

  More than 12 months

  Total vacant dwellings

  East of England

  Local authority

  3,500

  500

  4,000

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,900

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  1,600

  Private sector

  44,700

  18,000

  62,700

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  70,200

  London

  Local authority

  8,700

  4,200

  112,800

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  7,300

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  1,700

  Private sector

  57,300

  26,100

  83,400

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  1105,200

  South East

  Local authority

  3,100

  400

  3,500

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  3,600

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  2,500

  Private sector

  52,900

  24,900

  77,800

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  87,400

  South West

  Local authority

  2,400

  400

  2,800

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,700

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  2,300

  Private sector

  40,100

  16,200

  56,300

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  64,100

  West Midlands

  Local authority

  10,100

  2.800

  12,900

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  4,400

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  900

  Private sector

  38,700

  23,000

  61,700

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  79,900

  North West

  Local authority

  13,400

  6,200

  118,500

  Registered social landlords (RSL)

  n/a

  n/a

  10,500

  Other public sector

  n/a

  n/a

  3,200

  Private sector

  72.700

  33,400

  106,100

  All

  n/a

  n/a

  1138,300

  n/a = data not available

  1Excludes LA dwellings situated in another local authority district

  Source:

  DETR Housing Investment Programme returns

  Lacock Post Office
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Lacock Post Office is eligible for the tax and rates relief announced on 20 March. [155345]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Lacock Post Office already receives 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief under the existing village shop rate relief scheme. This scheme gives 50 per cent. mandatory relief to the sole general store or post office in a qualifying small rural settlement. I understand that North Wiltshire District Council has increased this relief to 80 per cent. under the discretionary powers which enable billing authorities to top up the mandatory relief to 100 per cent.

  Water Framework Directive
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). [155721]
  400W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We have today published jointly with the National Assembly for Wales our "First Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)". The paper, which is the first in a series of planned consultations, marks the first stage in translating the Water Framework Directive into practical action in England and Wales. The paper invites view s on our proposed approach to some initial questions and also provides an introduction to the Directive's provisions. I have placed copies of the paper in the House Libraries.

WALES

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152648]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office spent £2,728 on the design for a logo and associated art-work after its creation as a separate Department in 1999. The logo and house-style for the Wales Office, its predecessor Department, was put in place before 1997. Information on other logos commissioned by the Welsh Office or its associated agencies is not available centrally.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155370]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None of the meetings arranged by my Department were in infected areas and access was entirely by metalled roads. In these circumstances, there was no need to cancel or postpone them.

  My Department has no agencies and has not arranged any conferences.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been paid by his Department to(a) accountancy and (b) legal firms in each year since 1 May 1997 in relation to PFI projects. [153264]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]From the best information available, I list the money paid to accountancy and legal firms by my Department since 1 May 1997 in relation to Private Finance Initiative projects. All figures are excluding Value Added Tax.

  £

  Accountancy

  1 May 1997–31 March 1998

  190,046

  1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  1294,855

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  436,802

  1 April 2000–8 March 2001

  675,389

  401W

  £

  Legal

  1 May 1997–31 March 1998

  1191,361

  1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  1792,452

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  1,813,643

  1 April 2000–8 March 2001

  980,142

  1Excludes Quantum project (Prison Service Information Technology (IT) project) costs as these cannot be separately identified for the years in question.

  £

  Financial year

  Project/area

  1 May 1997–31 March 1998

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Accountancy firms

  Quantum

  —

  —

  52,554

  —

  HOCLAS

  87,871

  294,855

  332,048

  427,064

  Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO)

  2,175

  —

  —

  —

  Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND)

  —

  —

  52,200

  248,325

  Total

  90,046

  294,855

  436,802

  675,389

  Legal firms

  United Kingdom Passport Agency (UKPA)

  64,019

  56,813

  150,612

  76,009

  Quantum

  —

  —

  321,984

  108,567

  Youth Justice Board (YJB)

  52,224

  291,070

  26,066

  —

  HOCLAS

  25,808

  188,999

  347,124

  170,631

  Information Technology 2000

  —

  —

  446,079

  288,533

  Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO)

  49,310

  —

  —

  —

  Immigration Nationality Directorate

  —

  —

  13,020

  29,454

  Prison Service

  —

  255,570

  508,758

  306,948

  Total

  191,361

  792,452

  1,813,643

  980,142

  Representation Costs
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the costs of the change in the number of elected representatives in the United Kingdom since 1997. [153406]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]There has been no change in the number of elected representatives to Parliament at Westminster. The costs of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly are a devolved matter and are funded from within the budgets of the devolved Administrations.

  Extradition
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extradition requests were(a) completed and (b) not completed, with non-completed cases, broken down by nature of reason for non-completion, in each of the last five years. [154639]

  Mr. Straw
  Information is not available for the full period or in the form requested. The position in relation to completed cases is as follows:

  Extradition cases completed 1997–2000

  Year

  Requests made to United Kingdom

  Requests made by United Kingdom

  1997

  70

  45

  1998

  90

  59

  1999

  75

  57

  2000

  77

  40

  402W
  Since 1999–2000, the Home Office has embarked upon a number of new major projects to modernise its IT systems, for example the Sirius and Quantum programmes, and its future accommodation the Home Office Central London Accommodation Scheme project (HOCLAS) which accounts for much of the year-by-year increases in costs.

  As at 31 December 2000, 205 requests to the United Kingdom were outstanding. They fell into the following categories:

  Number

  Awaiting a decision on the issue of an Authority to Proceed

  8

  Before the courts

  69

  Awaiting a decision as to surrender

  29

  Others

  99

  Notes:

  1. In the last of these categories were cases in which a fugitive has yet to be traced and arrested; and/or where we were in touch with the requesting jurisdiction. It also included cases where the fugitive was unable to be surrendered because he was serving a domestic sentence.

  2. A reliable statistical breakdown in this form for earlier years is not available.

  A further 99 extradition requests made by the United Kingdom to other countries were outstanding on 31 December 2000. Exact information is not available as to what stage each case had reached in the various jurisdictions to which those requests were made.

  The figures provided do not include cases governed by the provisions of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. Those are not collected centrally.

  Coroner System Review
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has decided on the terms of reference for the fundamental review of the coroner system. [155718]
  403W
  Mr. Boateng
  In consultation with ministerial colleagues, it has been decided that the terms of reference should be as follows.

  In respect of England, Wales and Northern Ireland:

  1. To consider the most effective arrangements for identifying the deceased and for ascertaining and certifying the medical cause of death for public health and public record purposes, having regard to proposals for a system of medical examiners.

  2. To consider the extent to which the public interest may require deaths to be subject to further independent investigation, having regard to existing criminal and other statutory and non-statutory investigative procedures.

  3. To consider the qualifications and experience required, and the necessary supporting organisations and structures, for those appointed to undertake the duties for ascertaining, certifying and investigating deaths.

  4. To consider arrangements for the provision of post mortem services for the investigation of deaths.

  5. To consider the consequences of any changes arising from the above for the registration service and the role of coroners under the Treasure Act 1996, and to consider where departmental responsibilities for the arrangements should be located, having regard both to coherence for bereavement services and effective accountability.

  We are now considering who should carry out the review and I hope to make a further announcement shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Funding (Chatham and Aylesford)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide details of the financial assistance given to schools in the Chatham and Aylesford constituency since 1997. [154912]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Education Statistics (Northern Region)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children there were in infant classes of over 30 children in the Northern Region in(a) 1996 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [155095]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Central Government capital investment in Northern Region

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  17,989

  18,639

  18,629

  21,171

  27,754

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  3,085

  5,165

  5,122

  14,826

  11,499

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  5,774

  4,675

  2,277

  3,314

  5,048

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  910

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  5,698

  15,970

  29,412

  36,980

  School Security Grant

  —

  741

  923

  933

  925

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  621

  —

  —

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  —

  812

  —

  —

  Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  2,232

  2,990

  916

  Schools Access Initiative

  142

  —

  73

  75

  86

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  —

  6,330

  7,203

  9,172

  Early Excellence Centres

  —

  —

  22

  404

  657

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  —

  394

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,896

  404W
  Class size data were published in a Statistical Bulletin "Class Sizes and Pupil Teacher Ratios in England 2000" on 20 December 2000, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Employment statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. Figures from this release show that in September 2000, there were just 30,000 infants in classes of over 30 compared with 485,000 in January 1998. Just 2 per cent. of infants are now in such classes compared with 29 per cent. in January 1998.

  Number of pupils in infant classes over 30 in the north-east region

  Number

  January 1996

  20,999

  January 1997

  23,717

  January 1998

  25,906

  January 1999

  15,305

  January 2000

  7,279

  September 2000

  898

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much capital investment there has been in primary schools in the Northern Region since 1996. [155096]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows a breakdown of central Government capital investment of £314,026 million in all schools in the Northern Region from 1996 –97 to 2000 –01. Information at primary school level is not readily available.

  These allocations include £88.060 million investment made so far in schools under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  The New Deal for Schools was introduced as a new additional progranme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after 18 years of under funding under the previous Administration. It has been in addition to other capital funds made available in the Northern Region.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.5 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £8.5 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.
  405W

  Central Government capital investment in Northern Region

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,805

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,852

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  —

  628

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  257

  Total

  27,900

  34,918

  53,011

  80.722

  117,475

  Note:

  Northern Region defined as the Government Office Northern Region including Darlington, Durham, Gateshead, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, Redcar and Cleveland, South Tyneside, Stockton on Tees and Sunderland local education authorities.

  New Deal
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what mechanism exists for determining whether direct displaccment of existing employees has taken place in firms participating in the New Deal. [155063]

  Ms Jowell
  Displacement is monitored by a combination of macro-economic assessment and employer surveys. Recent research undertaken by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and the Policy Institute found little evidence of displacement. New Deal has already placed 274,000 young people and almost 70,000 older long-term unemployed people into jobs. Unemployment is at its lowest for 25 years and employment is at its highest ever.

  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24-yearolds in Battersea have entered(a) voluntary work, (b) work experience, (c) education and training and (d) unsubsidised employment through the New Deal in the last year. [154790]

  Ms Jowell
  For the period January 2000 to December 2000 in the constituency of Battersea there have been seven starts to the Voluntary Sector Option and 17 starts to the Full Time Education and Training Option. 115 young people have started an unsubsidised job during the same period.

  All New Deal options contain an element of work experience and training. There have been 29 starts to options during the year 2000.

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people on the New Deal 50-plus in Battersea he estimatates will benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee from April; and if he will make a statement. [154830]

  Ms Jowell
  For the Employment Service district of Wandsworth, which covers Battersea constituency, an estimated 100 people are likely to find work with the help of the Employment Credit between April 2001 and March 2002 and so benefit from the New Deal 50 plus Minimum Income Guarantee.

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will undertake a
  406W
  review of the contract awarded by the Employment Service for Adult Training for 1 April; and if he will make a statement; [155019]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of chamber of commerce-run training programmes which are likely to close after the takeover of contracting arrangements by the Employment Service. [155020]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mark Neale to Mr. Hilton Dawson, dated 22 March 2001

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your questions about the contracts which we are awarding for adult training from April 2001 and the number of Chamber of Commerce training programmes which are likely to close after the take-over by the Employment Service of contracting arrangements for the Government's Work Based Learning for Adults (WBLA) programme. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying on Mr. Lewis' behalf.

  It may help if I explain that the White Paper "Learning to Succeed" announced that responsibility for the Government's WBLA programme would transfer to the Employment Service from Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) with effect from April 2001. At the same time the Government has also taken the opportunity to redesign WBLA, in order to better align the training it provides with the needs of employers in each local area. The objective is of course to increase the programme's effectiveness in helping unemployed people to improve their employability and to secure jobs.

  To deliver the best possible training provision of local relevance, the Employment Service ran a full scale competitive tendering round for contracts to deliver WBLA. At the same time, in order to ensure continuity of training for all those unemployed people who are participating in WBLA at the point of its transfer to the Employment Service in April, we have offered all existing providers contracts to support the completion of those courses.

  Clearly, any competitive tendering round will result in winners and losers. I am aware of instances where organisations currently involved in the delivery of WBLA training programmes have not been successful in winning new contracts. I am however confident that, where this has happened, there are sound reasons for it. We have evaluated tenders submitted by organisations wishing to contract for WBLA using clear national criteria which are intended to ensure that successful tenderers are those organisations which can demonstrate the highest quality and who can offer our clients the best opportunities for progression into employment.
  407W
  In regard to the Chamber of Commerce training programmes, we are currently in the process of notifying those bidders who have succeeded in winning contracts and offering those who have not the opportunity to seek feedback on the reasons why other organisations have been selected ahead of them.

  We do not as yet have a full picture of all the outcomes of the contracting round. That said, we are aware that Chambers of Commerce, like other organisations with a national presence, will have been successful in some areas of the country and unsuccessful in others. Where Chambers have not succeeded in winning contracts for the areas in which they currently deliver WBLA, they will have been offered contracts which enable them to complete training courses for those people who are participating in WBLA on 26 March 2001.

  We appreciate that it will be disappointing for those organisations who have not won contracts. As an accountable organisation we will always respond fully and fairly when such organisations write to us to state their case. As I have said, I am confident that the contracting process has been properly conducted, but we would re-examine any individual case raised by an unsuccessful organisation. If we were not satisfied both that the contracting process had been fairly conducted and that the outcomes were reasonable in all the circumstances, we would take appropriate action.

  I should however make clear that the Employment Service's approach is intended to ensure that those organisations who do succeed in winning contracts are those best placed to deliver the highest quality service for our clients and maximise their changes of finding work.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate provision is made for adult training in Lancaster after 1 April. [155021]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]The range and quality of training for unemployed people aged 25 and over is being enhanced across the country next year. We are investing £200 million in improving the New Deal 25 plus. From April it will provide flexible, individually-tailored help, including training and work experience, to all those who have been unemployed for 18 months or more. In England, a re-designed Work-Based Learning for Adults programme will provide a range of job-focused training for those who have been out of work for shorter periods of time. At the same time we are investing heavily in training to help those who need to improve their literacy and numeracy. Taken together, these measures will greatly improve the help on offer to adults who need to improve their skills in order to find work.

  Truancy
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support is available to schools to reduce the levels of truancy. [155725]

  Jacqui Smith
  Truancy has a damaging impact on the educational and life chances of children. We are determined to tackle it. Over the next three years we are investing at least £500 million in projects tackling truancy and school exclusion and other initiatives to get children back into school and learning. In addition, we are giving schools in Excellence in Cities areas funds to recruit Learning Mentors, who can directly help children at risk of truancy.
  408W
  To enable schools to reduce truancy further it is vital that they have accurate and speedy information to monitor attendance of pupils. Where schools have introduced electronic registration of attendance, independent evaluation has shown that truancy can be reduced by 10 per cent. in the first two years. I am very pleased to announce an additional £11.25 million from April 2002 from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund to introduce electronic registration systems in schools for recording pupil attendance.

  Our aim is to ensure that at least 500 secondary schools with poor attendance levels will be able to benefit from this additional funding. The extra money is an important element in our overall drive to reduce truancy in school and get all our children learning and preparing for adult and working life.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the letter dated 7 February from Professor Rebecca Boden, a constituent, of Malmesbury. [155335]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A reply will be issued today.

  Employment Service Overheads (New Deal)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001, Ref. 141694,Official Report, columns 205–06W, what costs have been incurred by the Employment Service in relation to (a) project design, (b) implementation, (c) marketing, (d) publicity and (e) limited refurbishment of some offices for the individual New Deals. [151518]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]The Employment Service funding to date for the project design, implementation, marketing and publicity for all of the New Deals is about £73 million. Around £37 million has been made available to finance the capital costs of refurbishing existing ES offices.

  Employment and Training (Doncaster/Wakefield)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the value was of his Department's financial support for employment and training since May 1997; and if he will list individual projects indicating the value of Government funding in the Doncaster/Wakefield employment district. [149071]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department has invested substantially in employment and training. My Department does not normally present aggregate figures for expenditure on these programmes. Table 1 shows the Department's spending on employment programmes including Work Based Learning for Adults. It shows spending on certain training programmes is including Work Based Training for Young People. Separately, it also shows expenditure on New Deals and other programmes funded by the Windfall Tax. The New Deals offer help and support, including skills training, to people looking for work.

  The table does not include expenditure on further education, some £3.5 billion in the current year, which includes funding for vocational education and training.
  409W

  Table 1

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  2000–011

  Employment programmes, including:

  1,499

  1,338

  1,409

  1,502

  Work Based Learning for Adults

  382

  272

  289

  318

  Other training programmes

  903

  950

  1,015

  1,192

  New Deals and other programmes funded by Windfall Tax

  50

  235

  480

  665

  1Estimate

  Source:

  These figures are taken from the Departmental Annual Report 2000 and Budget 2001

  Table 2 shows total estimated expenditure since April 1997 on employment programmes and New Deals in the Doncaster and Wakefield Employment Service districts. Due to organisational changes, data for 1997–98 are not

  Table 2: Estimated expenditure on DfEE Mainstream employment programmes, New Deal programmes in the Doncaster and Wakefield Employment Service districts

  £ million

  Payments made in

  Employment measures

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  DfEE Mainstream programmes

  n/a

  5.7

  5.8

  5.6

  New Deal

  n/a

  6.0

  8.0

  5.3

  New Deal and Mainstream totals

  n/a

  11.7

  13.8

  11.08

  Employment Zone

  —

  —

  0.3

  2.2

  1Forecast

  Source:

  Figures provided by the Employment Service

  Table 3 shows expenditure figures for training programmes in the Wakefield Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) and the Doncaster part of the Barnsley and

  Table 3: Estimated payments to the Training and Enterprise Councils in the Wakefield and Doncaster areas supporting training activities

  £million

  Payments made in

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Work Based Training for Young People

  9.4

  7.8

  8.2

  9.5

  Work Based Learning for Adults

  3.7

  1.5

  1.8

  2.1

  Competitiveness

  0.6

  0.7

  0.5

  0.6

  Strategic activity/Discretionary Projects

  1.6

  1.5

  1.7

  1.4

  Total TEC payments

  15.3

  11.6

  12.3

  13.6

  1Forecast

  Source:

  Figures provided by the Wakefield and Barnsley and Doncaster TECs

  Nortel Networks, Paignton
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what extra resources will be made available to the South Devon Employment Service as a consequence of the redundancies announced by Nortel Networks, Paignton. [154292]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 20 March 2001:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question
  410W
  available. Due to boundary changes, expenditure for 2000–01 on DfEE Mainstream programmes and the New Deals are not comparable.

  Doncaster TEC. The TECs' figures for Strategic activity/Discretionary Projects may include expenditure other than training.

  concerning what extra resources will be made available to the South Devon Employment Service as a consequence of the redundancies announced by Nortel Networks. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying on Mr. Lewis' behalf.

  In answer to your specific question, all the local agencies, including the Employment Service, the Regional Development Agency and the Government Office are working closely with Nortel to establish the specific help that is needed by the employees. Following a meeting held on 23 February these agencies are in the process of preparing a bid for additional funding via the Rapid Response Fund. By way of background the Rapid Response Fund is held centrally by the Department for Education and Employment and was set up by the Government in 1998. The specific purpose of the Fund is to provide the additional resources necessary to support Large Sale Redundancies in situations such as this.
  411W
  In the longer term the Employment Service may also be able to offer additional support to Nortel employees through the Job Transition Programme. This service is being developed from April to assist employees facing redundancy and is intended to supplement the help available under the Rapid Response Fund.

  May I take this opportunity to assure you that the Employment Service in South Devon will continue to work with Nortel to provide every assistance to the company and their employees.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Funding (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much new(a) capital and (b) revenue funding has been made available to schools and colleges in (i) Liverpool and (ii) Liverpool, Riverside since May 1997; and what the total amount of Government funding of education in Liverpool has been in these years. [154427]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information showing the schools in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency which benefited under the New Deal for Schools is shown in Table A. These allocations formed part of the £16.873 million investment made so far in schools in Liverpool local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  The New Deal for Schools was introduced as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had

  Table A: New deal for schools-allocations to schools in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency

  Year

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  St. Michael in the Hamlet Primary

  New build 2 form entry school

  11,275,000

  Pleasant Street Primary

  First stage of new build school

  11,275,000

  1998–99

  St. Michael in the Hamlet Primary

  Completion of new school

  675,000

  Pleasant Street Primary

  Phase 2 of new build school

  800,000

  Matthew Arnold Primary

  Replacement school

  1,641,000

  1999–2000

  32 Primary schools

  Development cost of PFI bid

  1100,000

  2000–01

  Morrison Junior

  Replacement building

  2,021,071

  Abercromby Nursery

  Part of 117 school package for roof replacements

  15,000,000

  Lidderdale Infant

  Mersey View Special

  Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Primary

  Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Primary

  Our Lady of Reconciliation Catholic Primary

  St. Anne's Catholic Primary

  St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Primary

  St. Charles' Catholic Primary

  St. Finbar's Catholic Primary

  St. Gerard's Catholic Primary

  St. Nicholas' Catholic Primary

  1Denotes total allocations made to package projects covering more than one school Liverpool local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency which benefited from these allocations

  Table B: All capital allocations to Liverpool local education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1958–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  4,957

  6,832

  5,954

  4,968

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  3,134

  2,738

  2,360

  1,330

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  5,809

  5,137

  1,406

  2,272

  New Deal for Schools

  1,275

  4,016

  2,738

  8,844

  School Security Grant

  131

  162

  169

  165

  PFI Credits

  —

  —

  —

  74,300

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  155

  —

  —

  Class Size Initiative

  —

  85

  221

  154

  412W
  built up after 18 years of under funding under the previous Administration. It has been in addition to other capital funds made available to Liverpool local education authority.

  In total, since 1997, Liverpool local education authority has received some £147.253 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings as shown in Table B.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.5 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £8.5 million in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent to her by the Secretary of State of 16 February for details of increases to revenue funding; for schools in Liverpool. An extract covering the revenue funding allocated is shown in Table C. Information at constituency level is not readily available.

  Since 1997, the Further Education Funding Council has allocated £19.37 million of capital grant to the projects at the City of Liverpool Community College listed in Table D. Revenue funding for the college since 1997 is shown in Table E.

  The total amount of Government funding in schools and colleges in Liverpool since 1997 is shown in Table F.
  413W

  Table B: All capital allocations to Liverpool local education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  979

  1,050

  1,649

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  66

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  295

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  3,528

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  296

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  78

  Total

  15,306

  20,104

  13,964

  97,879

  Table C: Revenue funding allocations—Liverpool local education authority

  £ million

  Standard spending assessment

  Grants

  1997–98

  210.2

  8.1

  1998–99

  229.9

  2.8

  1999–2000

  238.3

  7.8

  2000–01

  248.4

  25.8

  Note

  The following revenue grants have been included: DfEE contributions to the Standards Fund; Class Size Reduction Grant; Funding for Education Action Zones; Grant for Nursery Vouchers in 1997–98; School Budget Support Grant; School Standards Grant; and Education Budget Support Grant

  Table D: Central Government capital investment made in the City of Liverpool Community College

  Year/education establishment

  £000

  1997–98

  Myrtle Street Centre for Performing Arts and Media Studies1

  26,541

  1998–99

  Clarence Street1

  24,469

  Refurbishment at the Old Swan and Bankfield sites

  3,100

  2000–01

  Merchants Square—New Build of Service Industry Training and Community Learning Centre and construction of a new Technology Centre at Plumpfields Business Park

  25,260

  Total

  19,370

  1New Build Project

  2These projects are located in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency

  Table E: Revenue funding for the City of Liverpool Community College

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  21,021,505

  1998–99

  19,984,675

  1999–2000

  20,572,499

  2000–01

  20,285,784

  Table F: Total amount of Government funding in schools and colleges in Liverpool since 1997

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Schools

  Capital funding

  15,306

  20,104

  13,964

  97,879

  Revenue funding

  210,200

  229,900

  238,300

  248,400

  FE college

  Capital funding

  6,541

  7,569

  —

  5,260

  Revenue funding

  21,021

  19,985

  20,572

  20,286

  Total

  253,068

  277,558

  272,836

  371,825

  School Playgrounds (Accidents)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many accidents in school playgrounds have been recorded in each year from September 1997. [154644]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Health and Safety Executive collects this information for Great Britain, for each 12 month period from April to March, under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. The figures for reported accidents in school playgrounds where they relate to the activities of the school are as follows:

  Number

  1997–98

  4,171

  1998–99

  2,808

  1999–2000

  2,516

  New Deal (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Shrewsbury and Atcham have benefited since 1 May 1997 from the(a) New Deal 25-plus, (b) New Deal 50-plus, (c) New Deal for Disabled People, (b) New Deal for Lone Parents and (e) New Deal for Partners; and if he will make a statement. [154661]

  Ms Jowell
  For the Employment Service districts of Shropshire and South Staffordshire, which include Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, the number of people who have benefited from and entered work through New Deal since 1 May 1997 are:

  (a) New Deal 25+

  Between July 1998 and December 2000, 51 people found sustained employment.

  (b) New Deal 50-plus

  Between April 2000 and February 2001, 25 people went into work with the Employment Credit.

  (c) New Deal for Disabled People

  NDDP pilots are not currently operating in Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. NDDP extension is due to be introduced nationally from 2 July 2001. Job brokers will be announced in April.

  (d) New Deal for Lone Parents

  Between October 1998 and December 2000, 73 people obtained employment.

  (e) New Deal for Partners of the Unemployed

  Between April 1999 and February 2001, five people found work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the witness interviewed in silhouette and described as Geoff in the BBC television documentary 'Brits' was interviewed by the Stevens Inquiry. [152087]

  Dr. Reid
  I am informed that Sir John Stevens' team interviewed this individual on 4 July 2000.

  Police Service Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) newspapers, (b) magazines and (c) television stations which have featured RUC recruitment advertisements in 2001. [152869]

  Mr. Ingram
  The list of publications used for the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruitment advertisements is as follows:

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast Telegraph, Irish News, News Letter, Daily Mirror, Sunday Life, Sunday World, Ballymena Guardian, Northern Constitution, Portadown Times, Ballyclare/Carrick/Larne Gazette, Armagh Observer, Co. Down Spectator, Newtownards Chronicle, Down Democrat, Ulster Herald, Mourne Observer, Derry Journal, Down Recorder, Newry Reporter.

  Republic of Ireland

  Sunday Independent, The Star, Anglo Celtic, Donegal Democrat, The Argus, Dundalk Democrat, Northern Standard, Sligo Champion.

  Great Britain

  Glasgow Herald, Edinburgh Evening News, Manchester Evening News, Birmingham Evening Mail, Evening Standard (London), Liverpool Echo.

  Television

  UTV, Channel 4, TARA TV.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the implications for the conduct of policing resulting from the ratification of the European Convention on Minority Languages; what instructions have been issued to Consensia concerning language issues in police recruitment; and what questions are addressed to potential applicants concerning their proficiency in the Irish language. [152868]

  Mr. Ingram
  The NIO and devolved Administration have agreed which elements of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages are for them to take forward.

  Ratification was expected in the week commencing 12 March 2001 and the Northern Ireland Office is in the process of assessing the impact of ratification on those areas for which it is responsible in readiness for implementation during mid 2001.

  The police already have available information on the rights of those in custody in various languages, including the Irish language, and make available interpreters as necessary.

  No instructions have been issued to Consensia by the Secretary of State.
  416W
  No questions are addressed to applicants on their proficiency in the Irish language.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153409]

  Dr. Reid
  The advertising campaigns for each of the past five years incurred the following costs:

  £

  1996–97

  135,938.07

  1997–98

  477,726.16

  1998–99

  887,303.00

  1999–2000

  330,630.95

  2000–01

  85,827.00

  Only a small fraction of the NIIS advertising budget went on radio or newspaper costs, due to an emphasis on television impact campaigns.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152792]

  Dr. Reid
  The headline pay settlement for 2000–01 was 2.5 per cent. on the paybill and together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.5 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  HMS Caroline
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will visit HMS Caroline; and if he will make a statement as to its tourist, recreational and heritage potential. [153914]

  Dr. Reid
  I have no plans at present to visit HMS Caroline. This ship is currently in full time operation as a Royal Naval Reserve vessel and therefore the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

  Police (Northern Ireland) Act
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the changes sought to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 of which he has been notified by(a) the Ulster Unionist Party, (b) the SDLP, (c) Sinn Fein and (d) others. [154514]

  Mr. Ingram
  As the statement by the British and Irish Governments of 8 March said"The two Governments are aware of concerns that have been expressed about whether the British Government's legislation (the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000) and plans for implementation fully reflect the letter and spirit of the Patten Report and deliver the new police service we all want. Significant progress has been made and discussions will continue".
  417W
  The Government do not think it appropriate to list the specific areas raised by individual political parties.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155371]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the meetings and conferences organised by her Department and agencies of her Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [155364]

  Clare Short
  No meetings or conferences have been cancelled or postponed in my Department as a result of the foot and mouth disease.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the key performance targets are for the Public Record Office Executive Agency for 2001–02. [155739]

  Mr. Lock
  The list sets out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for the Public Record Office for 2001–02.

  Public Record Office: Key Performance Indicators 2001–021

  Efficiency

  KPI 1 Unit costs of key activities

  KPI 1A Selecting and preserving the public records per metre: to ensure that the unit cost does not rise above £102.81

  KPI 1B Giving Access: To ensure that the unit cost per information transaction onsite does not exceed £8.69

  KPI 1C Giving Access: To ensure that the unit cost per information transaction online does not exceed £0.16

  KPI 2 Backlog of records in departments reported as being over 30-years-old and awaiting review: To reduce the backlog, assessed in January 2001 as 913 metres, by 179 metres

  Quality of Service

  KPI 3 The achievement of Charter Standards

  (a) to achieve 98.5 per cent. against the Office's Charter Standards targets for:

  (i) making newly opened records and their catalogues available to users

  (ii) answering letters

  (iii) delivering records to users for consultation in the reading rooms
  418W
  (iv) supplying copies of records

  (v) answering the telephone

  (vi) keeping appointments

  (b) to carry out four satisfaction surveys and to achieve assessments of 'good' or 'excellent' from 90 per cent. of those expressing a view

  Income Generation

  KPI 4 To increase revenue generated by commercial activity to £800,000

  Modernising Government

  KPI 5 Electronic Records Management

  To encourage other Government Departments to achieve electronic records management by 2004 by

  (i) disseminating three toolkits by 30 March 2002, in line with the route map and milestones towards electronic records management by 2004

  (ii) publishing a workbook containing completion criteria for the interim milestones which will enable Departments to assess their progress towards the 2004 target

  monitoring and recording departmental progress against milestones by means of a regular reporting mechanism

  KPI 6 Electronic Service Delivery

  To develop digital access to popular records so that 50,000 digital record images are delivered to users.

  1More information on these and other key targets is published in the Corporate and Business Plans.

  Divorce and Separation
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals the Lord Chancellor has to provide divorcing and separating couples with access to information, legal help, mediation and counselling services. [155724]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government continue to finance both mediation and legal advice and representation through the Legal Services Commission. The Lord Chancellor also provides funding for marriage and relationship support organisations, which will increase to £4.5 million in 2001–02 and £5 million in 2002–03. Officials are currently working with the Legal Services Commission in order to pilot proposals to tie these services more closely together, in Family Advice and Information Networks, which will be able to provide a range of information and help to those experiencing family problems, either directly or by referring them to other local support and information agencies. These proposals will build on research evidence, in order to enable us to provide the information and help that people want at the time that they need it. We expect piloting to begin by October 2001.

  Dispute Resolution
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to promote alternative dispute resolution in the settlement of disputes involving Government. [155726]

  Jane Kennedy
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has today announced an initiative on the settlement of Government disputes through Alternative
  419W
  Dispute Resolution. Under this initiative, Government Departments and agencies make these commitments on the resolution of disputes involving them:

  (1) Alternative Dispute Resolution will be considered and used in all suitable cases wherever the other party accepts it.

  (2) In future, Departments will provide appropriate clauses in their standard procurement contracts on the use of ADR techniques to settle their disputes. The precise method of settlement would be tailored to the details of individual cases.

  (3) Central Government will produce procurement guidance on the different options available for ADR in Government disputes and how they might be best deployed in different circumstances. This will spread best practice and ensure consistency across Government.

  (4) Departments will improve flexibility in reaching agreement on financial compensation, including using an independent assessment of a possible settlement figure.

  There may be cases that are not suitable for settlement through ADR, for example cases involving intentional wrongdoing, abuse of power, public law, Human Rights and vexatious litigants. There will also be disputes where, for example, a legal precedent is needed to clarify the law, or where it would be contrary to the public interest to settle.

  Government Departments will put in place performance measures to monitor the effectiveness of this undertaking.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155363]

  Mr. Lock
  The Court Service has postponed a circuit management conference on its Western Circuit. The conference was scheduled to be held at a hotel on Dartmoor, within a restricted area, on 15 and 16 March. It was postponed after consultation with MAFF and with Dartmoor National Park.

  The Legal Services Commission has cancelled two meetings (one in Cumbria and one in the south-west of England) and changed the venue of one meeting in Wales, in accordance with MAFF advice.

  No other meetings or conferences in the Lord Chancellor's Department, its agencies, or other departments reporting to the Lord Chancellor have been postponed or cancelled because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Belize
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the position of the Guatemalan Government on the territorial integrity of Belize; what boundaries to Belize Her Majesty's Government recognise, and on what legal basis; and if he will make a statement. [152847]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government of Guatemala are currently working within a process, jointly with the Government of Belize and facilitated by the Organisation
  420W
  of American States, to demarcate its boundary with Belize. The United Kingdom welcomes and supports this process.

  The United Kingdom continues to regard the 1859 Treaty as defining the boundary between Belize and Guatemala.

  Canadian Parliamentarians
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons invitations to meet Canadian parliamentarians during their visit to London on 5 to 7 March were extended by his Department to Labour and Liberal Democrat hon. Members who took part in a visit to Canada in 2000, but not to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chiselhurst (Mr. Forth), the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) who were also part of the UK parliamentary delegation to Canada. [153992]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The FCO was glad to be able to make a number of programme arrangements for Mr. Speaker Milliken's first visit to London after his appointment. However, the FCO did not arrange all aspects of his programme, nor of the visit made at the same time by the Chairman of the Canada-UK Inter-Parliamentary Association, Mr. John Harvard.

  We understood that those hon. Members not invited to earlier events would be invited to another function.

  Israel
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to persuade the Israeli Government(a) to lift the restriction or movement it has imposed upon Palestinian towns and villages and (b). to comply with its obligations tc uphold access to education and freedom of movement. [154715]

  Mr. Wilson
  Bilaterally and with European Union partners, we have in confidential demarches, public statements and in discussions during ministerial and official meetings, urged the Government of Israel to end the policy of closure, which restricts movement, including access to education. European Ministers renewed their call on Israel to end the closures at the General Affairs Council on 19 March.

  Great Lakes Region
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on holding an international conference on achieving peace, security and democracy in the Great Lakes Region. [154776]

  Mr. Wilson
  Along with our EU partners we continue to fully support the holding of an international conference on the Great Lakes Region but share the view that this should only be convened once there has been significant progress towards implementation of the Lusaka and Arusha agreements

  India and Paki itan (Nuclear Industry Contacts)

  India and Pakistan (Nuclear Industry Contacts)
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
  421W
  statement on the Government's policy on contacts between UK nuclear industry personnel and nationals of India and Pakistan. [155731]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our policy on contacts with India and Pakistan on nuclear issues is set out in a statement to Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 10 July 1998, Official Report, columns 687–88W. However, where contact between UK nuclear scientists and nuclear industry personnel and Indian and Pakistani individuals is judged not to be of proliferation concern, we will, on a case-bycase basis, consider making an exception to the policy.

  We have decided to make such an exception for an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) research co-ordination meeting on nuclear reactor decommissioning which, following a request by the IAEA, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) have agreed to host. Participants from several countries, including India and Pakistan, will be invited to attend the meeting, to be held in the United Kingdom in May 2001. In view of our policy we were consulted by BNFL on the IAEA proposal. We firmly support the work of the IAEA and the safe decommissioning of nuclear reactors and judge that the meeting will not in any way assist the development of weapons of mass destruction. We will continue to consider future cases individually.

  Entry Clearance Service
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government will take to reform and update the entry clearance service. [155727]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government will invest £7.2 million from the Capital Modernisation fund over the next three years in improved technology for the entry clearance (visa) service. This will help deliver a fairer, faster and firmer service, with benefits for visa applicants and for their sponsors in the UK. It will alw contribute to the Prime Minister's target of enabling all public services to be delivered electronically by 2005.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be raising the human rights situation in Aceh at this month's 57th session of the UN Human Rights Commission. [155034]

  Mr. Battle
  I represented the UK for the first time at the 57th session in Geneva.

  Indonesia is not subject to either a resolution or a Chairman's statement at the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. However, the European
  422W
  >Union will deliver an omnibus country statement, which will include a full reference to the overall human rights situation in Indonesia, including Aceh.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to follow the human rights situation in Aceh, Indonesia; [155031]

  (2) what steps he has taken to apprise the Indonesian Government of Her Majesty's Government's views on military operations in Aceh; [155028]

  (3) what the results were of the visit by the British Ambassador to Aceh earlier this month, with regard to the human rights situation there; [155030]

  (4) what steps he has taken to press the Indonesian authorities to continue with the policy of dialogue to halt violence in Aceh; [155029]

  (5) what reports he has received recently about the human rights situation in Aceh, Indonesia. [155032]

  Mr. Battle
  Our message on Aceh with the Indonesian Government has been consistently clear: a long-term solution to Aceh's problems can be achieved only through political negotiation and consultation with the Acehnese. We have taken action with the Indonesian leadership, most recently on 19 March, to reinforce the message that political negotiation should be the first resort and that the security forces should operate within the law and with strict regard to human rights; if they do not, they should be punished. The British Ambassador gave the same message to his interlocutors in Aceh during his visit to the province earlier this month.

  We remain in close touch with the Indonesian Government at the highest level; they are fully aware of our concern about the overall human rights situation in Indonesia, not just in Aceh.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to press the Indonesian authorities to investigate the deaths on 6 December of three humanitarian volunteers working for Rehabilitation Action for Torture Victims in Aceh, RATA. [155033]

  Mr. Battle
  I met Foreign Minister Shihab in the margins of the EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Vientiane in December 2000 and personally requested an immediate investigation into the murders. On 20 December EU Ambassadors in Jakarta called on Co-ordinating Minister Yudhoyono to maintain EU pressure. He reported that a criminal investigation team had been established and sent to Aceh. During the British Ambassador's visit to Aceh earlier this month, he raised the case with the Chief of Police and the Deputy Chief of Police. They assured him that suspects had been arrested and prosecutions were being prepared.