Sitting of 15 October 2001

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

  Unemployment (Advice)
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: What plans he has to increase the amount of personal advice available to unemployed people at jobcentres. [3575]
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): We are aiming to launch 15 of the 17 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder areas later this month; they comprise around 50 pathfinder offices. We anticipate that the remaining two pathfinder areas will be operating by the end of the year, once building work is completed.
  From April next year, the Employment Service and the parts of the Benefits Agency that support people of working age will come together to form Jobcentre Plus. As the service rolls out, we will deliver an integrated service to employers and benefit claimants of working age nationally.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which is good news as far as it goes. However, what advice has he for my constituent, who has been unemployed for two years and is about to go on the new deal for the second time? He is unsure that it will be targeted to his needs because on the previous occasion, he was offered two modules of environmental studies at NVQ level 2 when he already has a first class honours degree in physics.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend's constituent is obviously a bright chap who is finding it difficult to get placed in the labour market. He is not typical, but it is the purpose of the new Jobcentre Plus structures, with their personally tailored advice, to ensure that individuals such as my hon. Friend's constituent can be properly placed. If more needs to be done to help him, the state is ready to stand in his corner.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The move towards personal advisers is welcome, but did the Minister notice during the summer that the Department's in-house briefings—I believe that the relevant briefing number is 84—demonstrated some staff anxiety about the amount of work that they are doing,
  904
  which denies them the opportunity to get involved in the case load and the referral activities that are necessary for the scheme to work? Will the Minister assure the House that those anxieties will be tackled and that the new project, which deserves to succeed, will not be left wanting for lack of management back-up and resources?
  Mr. Brown: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, and I welcome his broad support for the Jobcentre Plus concept. Some public servants believe that they will be required to do for Jobcentre Plus the sort of work that they currently do in benefits offices. That is not the intention. We are launching something new and different from what previously existed. The intention is to be far more proactive with individual claimants, go through their welfare entitlement as well as their job opportunities, and work closely with them over a period of time. All that is new. We believe that it is the right approach; the senior management of the public service is enthusiastic about it. I am sure that, as people see the new offices and the way in which the new service works, we will engage the enthusiasm of all who work for us.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, when offering additional advice at jobcentres, staff will be acquainted with the position of war pensioners? People who receive a pension, and also get jobseeker's allowance because they are looking for employment, have been told they will lose their war pension. It is important to make them aware of the position when they register at the jobcentre for jobseeker's allowance.
  Mr. Brown: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's point is drawn to the attention of those who give advice on benefits entitlement before moving on to considering what employment is available, but the Government intend that work will pay for people in a range of different circumstances. Although there are always hard cases and exceptions, for the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, work rather than being on benefits will pay.
  Mr. James Clappison: The constituent of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) may not be typical, but does the Minister know that, according to the Department's most recent statistics, only 40 per cent. of those leaving the new deal for young people, and fewer than 20 per cent. of those leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed received jobs that lasted for more than 13 weeks? Is not that disappointing, especially in times when many of them would have found work anyway? Is there not a case, especially in view of uncertain world economic conditions, for considering whether the new deal meets employers' needs and provides a good deal for the unemployed and the taxpayer?
  Mr. Brown: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities and I look forward to arguing about those matters with him, no doubt for a long time to come. I hope that that serves him well in his party.
  I do not accept the deadweight cost argument. The new deal for young people has already got about 250,000 young people into permanent employment and has found employment for more than 300,000 young people. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the labour market

  905
  may be loosening—we await events—but surely that makes the case even more firmly not for letting up, but for what we are doing. What alternative does he propose? We move from a welfare state to a welfare society, but what is a welfare society? I look forward to hearing from him in future exchanges.
  John Cryer: On personal advice for unemployed people who are also disabled, will my right hon. Friend examine the shortage of disability employment advisers, which seems to be significant, particularly in my area of the country in outer east London? Will he also bear in mind that resources seem to be drifting from disability employment advice to the access to work scheme, excellent though it is? That appears to be adding to the shortage.
  Mr. Brown: We take the issue of advice to those who have disabilities seriously and I undertake to re-examine the matter, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, because he has raised it with me. As we roll out the new deal for the disabled, the Government intend to help into work people who have been disadvantage in the labour market over a long period and to press ahead with that regardless of the circumstances in which the labour market more generally finds itself.

  Pension Provision
  Mr. Howard Flight: If he will make a further statement on the McDonald report into pension provision [3576]
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I told the hon. Gentleman when he asked a similar question on 25 June, we shall continue to discuss with interested parties and with him, no doubt, whether it is possible to devise workable and affordable alternatives to the annuity purchase requirement.
  Mr. Flight: As the House will be aware, the Government have stalled for three years on considering stopping people having to buy annuities by the age of 75. The argument that the Secretary of State made previously involved concerns for tax revenues, but there is a meeting, of which he will be aware, between the Treasury and the Retirement Income Reform Group on Wednesday. If the Treasury's fears are allayed, will he confirm that the Government will move ahead in earnest and before retiring pensioners suffer further damage? My concern is that the real policy may be that which the Minister for Pensions commented on to the Trades Union Congress this summer.
  Mr. Darling: I am aware that a meeting is taking place, but the problem with which the hon. Gentleman must come to terms is that the majority of people in this country have only a small sum with which to purchase their pension pot—about £30,000 on average. We must think long and hard about changing from the present system to a new one that might benefit a few people, but which might disadvantage the majority. None of us wants that, and I make a point that bears repetition.
  906
  Some people face difficulty because of increased longevity and because interest rates are generally lower. On the other hand, annuity rates vary substantially and I repeat what the Government have said previously: many people would be well advised to seek the best offer on retirement, because the current difference—between 5 per cent. at the lower end and 12 per cent. at the top end—is dramatic.
  Kevin Brennan: Does the Secretary of State know of the other proposals on annuities provision such as those from the Tenon group? Does he agree that if such proposals are shown to be workable and if they would not result in loss of revenue to the Treasury, the Government should implement them as swiftly as possible?
  Mr. Darling: It is certainly true that if someone proposed a much better scheme that cost no more and gave pensioners lots more money, most Governments would consider it. I am aware of the latest proposals—indeed, I have received a copy of the letter that set them out—but I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). The current position is that the vast majority of those who are retiring have, on average, £30,000 available to purchase an annuity. Any question of drawing down a lump sum is academic, assuming that they expect to live for a reasonable number of years into retirement.
  I am not against change and the Government will consider alternatives if they are better, but we cannot embark on a course of action that might benefit a few people, some of whom are substantially well provided for, at the expense of the majority. I ask my hon. Friend to examine the implications of all those proposals, because, as with so many on the matter, one must ask where they are coming from, exactly what drives the desire to make reforms and who they would benefit.

  Work (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. David Crausby: What plans he has to help people in deprived areas find work.[3577]
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): The new deal has helped thousands of people back into work. In addition to Jobcentre Plus, which will open this autumn, we have also introduced action teams for jobs and employment zones, which are helping people in the most deprived areas. Today we are increasing the number of action teams from 40 to 53, and further steps will be announced in due course.
  Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but what action is he taking to help the increasing number of people who are losing jobs in manufacturing to find other jobs in the industry? Does he agree that this nation cannot afford to lose those valuable skills?
  Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything possible to ensure that we get people who lose their job, whether it is in manufacturing or elsewhere, back into work as quickly as possible. That philosophy has underpinned the Government's whole approach to

  907
  their employment policies over the past four years, and it will continue to do so. It is worth bearing it in mind that, although there have undoubtedly been a number of redundancies—some quite large ones have been announced over the past few weeks—some 34,500 new jobs were announced in the month to 10 October. For some reason, the announcement of new jobs does not tend to get the same coverage as redundancies. I do not for one moment seek to play down the significance of the redundancies that have been announced and their effect on individuals and on the communities where they take place, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Employment Service will do everything possible, through its jobs transition service and other measures, to ensure that those who lose their job can get back into work.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will be aware that although rural constituencies such as the Vale of York have pockets of deprivation, they have no physical jobcentre. What will his Department do to give people in those deprived areas access to jobcentres, which are sometimes a considerable distance away?
  Mr. Darling: I am well aware that many rural areas suffer unemployment and deprivation. The Government's policy right across the board, whether it is investment in education or in the Employment Service, is directed as much towards those people as it is towards people living in urban areas. Everybody, no matter where they live, has access to a jobcentre or the new Jobcentre Plus. There has never been a jobcentre in every high street; there was not when the Conservative Government were in power. The difference between our two Governments is that we are making sure at every opportunity, whether it is through jobcentres, new deals or action teams for jobs, that we do everything possible to help people who lose their jobs to get back into work, especially where there is long-term unemployment. We are changing the tax and benefit systems to make sure that work pays and doing more to ensure that work is possible for people who, until now, might have been denied that opportunity.
  Mr. Frank Field: On behalf of my constituents may I thank the Secretary of State for reminding us of the measures that the Government have already introduced to help people without jobs to find work? However, does he accept that many of us—now on both sides of the House—represent areas where, year on year, fewer jobs are available, while areas within travelling distance have more than full employment? Will he consider, as an additional part of his strategy of helping people into work, allowing people to choose personal advisers from areas with a shortage of workers, rather than from areas where there are not enough jobs to go around?
  Mr. Darling: The present system, which we have introduced in the past couple of years, ensures that no matter where a jobcentre is, vacancies are linked up across the whole country. For example, somebody going into a jobcentre in my right hon. Friend's constituency could see on the touch-screen computer facilities the jobs available throughout the country. Simply because someone happens to live in a constituency with a more difficult employment situation, they should not be denied the opportunity—and, indeed, the help, which can be provided by the action
  908
  team for jobs—to get work in areas where there are more jobs than people. It is important that we look at the employment situation across the whole country precisely to tackle the problems that my right hon. Friend knows only too well and that we see in other parts of the country.
  Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): Will the Secretary of State share with the House his assessment of the cost and cost-effectiveness of his new deal strategy? If he feels that it has been good value for money, how is it that unemployment has fallen less quickly under this Government than it did under the previous one?
  Mr. Darling: I know that the hon. Gentleman spent many years as a Whip when his party was in government so he had to obey a Trappist vow and say nothing, but I did not know that he was not allowed to read anything either. He must have noticed the extremely high levels of unemployment that the Conservative Government managed to achieve on more than one occasion. To claim credit for getting levels down is stretching credulity.
  The hon. Gentleman may care to consider the two independent surveys of the new deal for young people, which showed that, but for the new deal, youth unemployment would have been twice as high. That represents a substantial saving for our gross domestic product because of the benefits that we do not have to pay out and the increased tax payments from people who have got back into work.
  We still have a lot more to do for the over-50s. It is a staggering fact that one third of people over the age of 50 are out of work. It is interesting to note that since 1979—I pick that date at random—that has cost the country £16 billion in GDP. Surely that is evidence that the Government are right to continue what they started, and to do even more through the new deal and other measures to get people into work.

  Disabled People
  Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): What support his Department is giving to help people with disabilities get back into work. [3578]
  Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): What support his Department is giving to help those with disabilities to get back into work. [3589]
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Our objective is to help all those who can work to do so. That is why we are introducing a single gateway to the benefits system, so that there is not only a clear focus on work but we can ensure that people are getting the right level of support.
  Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Those measures are already helping many of my constituents who are among the 1 million people with disabilities who the Disability Rights Commission says would like to work. Will he leave no stone unturned to ensure that his Department helps such people into work, so that they are not abandoned and forgotten, as they were for far too long under the Conservative Government?
  Mr. Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The problem in the past was that, although the system

  909
  offered some help to people who were registered as unemployed or jobseekers since 1996, it did precious little to help other people of working age who were not working for one reason or another. That is why in July this year I promised the House that I would lay regulations before it this autumn, which it will be able to debate through arrangements that will no doubt be made. Those regulations will introduce new measures to ensure that no one on, for example, incapacity benefit needs to go for more than three years without their case being thoroughly looked into to make sure that all opportunities for work are considered if that is appropriate, and if that is not appropriate to make sure that people are getting the right level of benefit. It is critical that we should not leave people of working age without any opportunity to work. That was one of the main failings of the system in the past, and we do not intend to perpetuate it.
  Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to inform employers and the general public about the contribution that people with disabilities could make to the work force? Sadly, in some sectors there is much ignorance about the potential of people with disabilities and the benefit of those people to employers and to the public.
  Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Too many people are reluctant, for one reason or another, to employ people with a disability. Sometimes it is because of a wholly irrational fear. That problem needs to be tackled. One of the main purposes of the Disability Rights Commission is to raise awareness and to tackle prejudice. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do everything they can to tackle prejudice, which has no place in this area of employment. We are anxious to raise awareness and to ensure that we increase the number of people with a disability getting into work.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The Government presumably believe that work-focused interviews are in the interests of disabled people themselves. They also tell us repeatedly that up to 1 million disabled people are not working and want to work. If the interviews are good for disabled people—and there are lots of them out there who want to work—why do the Government need to blackmail those people by threatening to cut their benefit if they will not turn up for an interview?
  Mr. Darling: That is an interesting definition of blackmail.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that a large number of people in this country who have a disability could work, with the right level of support. Our new deals have shown that. There are many people now in work who in the past got absolutely nothing, and they ought to be supported.
  The new system that we are introducing through Jobcentre Plus will mean that everyone of working age, whatever their circumstances, will—as a condition of receiving benefit—have to come for an interview to see what options are available.
  Mr. Webb: Or else!
  Mr. Darling: I make no apology whatever for telling someone aged, say, under 25 who wants to sign on for jobseekers allowance, if there is no reason whatever why
  910
  that person should not work, "You must come for an interview, and if you can work you ought to work." If the Liberals do not believe in that, I part company with them. As for people with disabilities, we have said yes, they must come for an interview, and yes, they must see what options are available to them. No one is saying "You must take a job, no matter what the circumstances are." We are saying "At the very least, you ought to know what options are available to you."
  The point is simple. If there are 1 million people out there who want to work, we as a Government owe it to them to ensure that they receive the right help and assistance. I am astonished that the Liberals should be against that.
  Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): What future plans has the Secretary of State for the therapeutic earnings rule to assist people with lifelong disabilities to obtain paid employment?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady has raised that issue on many occasions, and because of her own experience she is anxious for us to improve the situation. I am as well, but unfortunately this afternoon I am not in a position to tell the hon. Lady anything with a view to making an imminent announcement. I assure her, however, that I am keeping the situation under review.
  Miss Anne Begg: As we roll out the new deal for disabled people, the standard of personal advisers is crucial to ensuring that disabled people are given the right advice. That has already been mentioned this afternoon. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the training of advisers is of the highest quality, and that they are well trained in understanding the difficulties and anxieties experienced by many disabled people in regard to seeking employment—although they desperately want to work?
  Mr. Darling: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. A heavy duty is placed on those who advise, and it is important for them to know the rules so that they can offer all the help that is available. As for the new deal for disabled people, which has only just been rolled out nationally, the fact that just under 40 per cent. of people have gone into work shows that these initiatives work.
  Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State is right: it is important for us to do all that we can to help disabled people into work. Will he confirm that the number of people claiming incapacity benefit is now at its highest for three years? There is a clear upward trend.
  Does the Secretary of State agree that it is no good expecting even more medical tests when the Government cannot deliver the medical tests that are required already? Will he confirm that the last Minister for disabled people, whom he caused to be sacked, was right when he said this?
  "Seventy-three per cent. of those tested were recommended by the doctor for re-testing within 18 months."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 April 1999; c. 786.]
  Talking about tests after three years is not really relevant, when the Government cannot even deliver the tests that are recommended after 18 months. How many medical tests are there now, within the 18 months recommended?

  911
  Does the Secretary of State agree that the right way forward is to deliver the conditions that already exist in regulations and are not being properly enforced, rather than causing unnecessary distress to disabled people by changing regulations yet again when the current ones cannot be made to work?
  Mr. Darling: I do not want to be churlish, but the last Minister for the disabled is still a Minister in this Government, albeit in a different Department.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reappointment, if congratulation is appropriate. Perhaps he felt that he had no choice but to soldier on, despite the difficulties that he ran into in the last Parliament.
  The object of our proposals is to ensure that people on incapacity benefit have the opportunity to be advised on their benefit entitlement, as well as on work opportunities, where appropriate. The problem is that too many people go on to incapacity benefit and are simply written off. They do not get the help and advice that they want.
  Medical examinations are indeed appropriate and we are not proposing to change the regime in that regard, although the administration of the examinations is being improved.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about trends in incapacity benefit. The number of people in receipt of the benefit has gone up in the past year or two, mainly because there are now more women with contribution conditions. I do not understand it to be the Conservative policy—yet—to strip people of their contribution conditions.

  Job Action Teams
  Mr. Ernie Ross: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of action teams for jobs. [3581]
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Action teams for jobs have already helped more than 13,500 people into work in some of the most disadvantaged parts of our country. The two key elements to the teams' success are the outreach work and local flexibility. The teams focus on people's abilities, help people into work whenever that is possible and provide the right support when it is not. I am pleased to confirm that one of the new teams announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today is starting operations in my hon. Friend's constituency today.
  Mr. Ross: We have been waiting for this to happen and working closely with our colleagues in the Employment Service. Following my experience of 18 miserable years under the Tories, one change is very clear. Importantly for people who are seriously disadvantaged and need to find employment, people in the Employment Service can now do the job that they were employed to do: get people into work. The atmosphere in the Dundee and Tayside office is one that is likely to lead to success.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend's remarks echo my own experience. When I visit Employment Service premises, I find a willingness to accept the Government's new proactive approach, and indeed to do so with enthusiasm. The new elements are well known. Local flexibility and
  912
  the outreach work of the action teams are proving very effective, and I am sure that that will be the case in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Graham Brady: If the local flexibility available in the employment zones is effective, why does the Minister not extend it throughout the country?
  Mr. Brown: We are testing a range of service delivery mechanisms, and of course it is our objective to roll out Jobcentre Plus, which contains many of the elements, and draws on the experience, of the ONE pilots and the action zones.

  Pensioners (Capital Limits)
  Ms Bridget Prentice: What progress is being made to reform social security regulations governing capital limits for pensioners. [3582]
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): We have already taken steps to reform capital limits for pensioners. In addition, the pension credit consultation paper set out our proposals for abolishing both the capital limits and the assumed £1 a week rate of return for every £250 of capital for pensioners.
  Ms Prentice: I am grateful for that reply, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have constituents, as we no doubt all do, who, as pensioners, fall between two stools. What guarantee can he give that, when the pension credit is introduced, people who have some savings do not lose out on other benefits?
  Mr. McCartney: That is a fair point, and we have two measures in place to respond to it. On top of the guaranteed minimum, we will pay a cash award of about 60p for every £1 of a second pension or savings income, which solves the first problem that my hon. Friend highlighted, concerning individuals with modest savings or small second pensions being disadvantaged because of their thriftiness. Secondly, when more pensioners get more help through the pension credit, that will generally mean more help through housing benefit and/or council tax benefit. We are considering what changes are needed in the design of housing and council tax benefit to ensure that they complement the more generous rules that will apply in pension credit.
  Annabelle Ewing (Perth): While we are dealing with pensioner benefits, I should like to ask the Minister whether the reports that appeared in the Scottish press at the weekend—to the effect that the Secretary of State has refused on behalf of the United Kingdom Government to continue to pay attendance allowance with respect to Scottish pensioners following the implementation in the Scottish Parliament of the proposals on free personal care for the elderly—are correct. If so, does that not breach the current principle of the universality of benefits throughout the United Kingdom and hence amount to discrimination instigated by the United Kingdom Government against Scottish pensioners under the current benefit system?
  Mr. McCartney: I give the hon. Lady an absolute assurance: we are keeping the United Kingdom benefit

  913
  system. That is the whole point of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's contribution to the debate. I assure the hon. Lady that the Government, working closely with our colleagues in Scotland, do not intend to disturb the arrangements within the United Kingdom and the national benefits system.
  Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw): My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at the moment, pensioners in this country who have received incapacity benefit move from that benefit to their old-age pension. Some 160,000 people have done so this year. They are paid incapacity benefit until their 60th or 65th birthday. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a week between their birthday and the date on which they receive the benefit of their state pension? Does he agree that that anomaly should be looked at as quickly as possible?
  Mr. McCartney: I will write a note to my hon. Friend. That anomaly has always existed, but those involved get the income that they are entitled to, and I shall send my hon. Friend a chart showing how that works.

  Carers
  John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): What plans he has to introduce benefit payments for carers. [3583]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The Government already pay benefits to carers. Last autumn, the Government announced a package of measures, worth more than £500 million over three years, to enhance the current social security provision for carers. Two of the measures were implemented in April this year. The invalid care allowance earnings limit was increased from £50 to £72 a week and the carer premium, paid through the income-related benefits, was increased from £14.15 to £24.40.
  Three other measures require more substantial legislative changes. They are the extension of claims to ICA to people aged 65 and over; the extension of entitlement to ICA for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for; and a welcome change in the name of the benefit to carers allowance to reflect more closely the purpose of the benefit. We propose to introduce those measures by means of a regulatory reform order as soon as possible. In fact, the consultation on that matter ends today.
  John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I welcome the fact that the Department is consulting on this matter, and the proposed change of name from invalid care allowance to carers allowance will benefit people because it is a simpler name to understand. One of the problems has been that people have not understood what a carer is, and the people concerned found the word "invalid" derogatory. However, I am concerned that the allowances of those who claim benefits for the people who are disabled, or who are being cared for, are affected by the fact that the carer receives the ICA. That has
  914
  caused some problems for the people who receive the allowance, and they feel that they are being treated unfairly. Will my hon. Friend comment?
  Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend suggests that those who are cared for may lose benefit when ICA is given to the carer. The only circumstance in which I think that that occurs is where the severe disability premium is withdrawn from someone who suddenly acquires a carer when they did not have a carer before. The severe disability premium is paid to enable people to pay for care where they do not have a carer. Therefore, if they suddenly acquire a carer, or a family member comes to care for them, they are no longer eligible for that benefit, but the carer may be eligible for ICA. I do not consider that that is a case of benefit being withdrawn because a carer receives benefit; it is simply another example of the overlapping benefit rules, about which those of us who are becoming familiar with the field know only too well.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In the Minister's initial reply, she said that the Government intend to end as soon as possible the discrimination against people who become carers for the first time after the age 65. That is very welcome, but does the hon. Lady recall that, following nearly a year of pressure from the Conservative Opposition, one of her predecessors in office gave a pledge to do that
  "as soon as the legislative timetable permits"?—[Official Report, 30 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 857W.]
  When will that actually happen?
  Maria Eagle: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the pressure coming from the Conservative Opposition. Pressure was not needed, because this is something that we have wanted to do. However, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that legislative time in this place is at a premium.
  We will implement the change by using a regulatory reform order and, now that the consultation is over, that order will be laid as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the new procedure by which the order goes to the Deregulation Committee, which will have 60 days to consider it. Thereafter, it will be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, which I certainly looking forward to getting my teeth into. I hope that the order will become law shortly thereafter, although of course a similar procedure will be followed in the other place.

  Unemployment
  Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): What assessment he has made of the numbers of people of working age who are able and willing to work but are neither working nor registered as seeking work or as claimants. [3584]
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): About 4.1 million people of working age are not working or are in receipt of an out-of-work benefit, and we estimate that there are about 500,000 people of working age who are partners of benefit claimants and who are not working, registered for work or claiming benefits themselves.
  Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not acknowledge that, whereas the claimant count position

  915
  is improving, the figure of 4 million is growing and that the problem particularly affects men? Is he aware that 27 per cent. of all men aged between 50 and 64 are out of work and that 30 per cent. of all unskilled men of all ages are out of work? How does he intend to re-prioritise the Government's labour market policies to address their specific needs and particularly the age discrimination element?
  Mr. Brown: It is precisely that issue with which the new deal is designed to cope. The hon. Gentleman's figures are broadly correct, and it is a tragedy that people of working age are looking to the state benefit system for a form of early retirement.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows probably only too well, such circumstances have come about as a result of the huge shake-out of labour in heavy engineering industries, mining, shipbuilding and steel works in the 1980s, when the then Government were effectively prepared to dump people on to incapacity benefit rather than to try to find them a place in the labour market. This Government reject that approach, believing it to be cruel. We want to help people into employment when they are of working age. That means focusing on the problems of those who are older but who can still find a place in the labour market. It also means making sure that we find them work and, moreover, ensuring that that work remunerates them more than being on benefits ever could.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I have a constituent who has been helped through education and who is three quarters of his way through a degree course. A firm has paid his way but, unfortunately, that firm has folded and he is no longer able to complete his course. He has sought the jobseeker's allowance, but has been refused because he wants to study. Will my right hon. Friend's Department examine the jobseeker's allowance regulations positively to enable such people to stay in work and, indeed, improve their employability?
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure that that is a matter for the jobseeker's allowance regulations, but I promise to consider the case of my hon. Friend's constituent and to examine the issue more generally. It sounds to me as though what he has described is an anomaly, but hardship funds are designed to help in such circumstances. I will ask my office to examine the individual case to see what can be done to help my hon. Friend's constituent.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Ms Dari Taylor: What proportion of people on the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, who were referred to drug rehabilitation centres in the last 12 months, went on to full-time employment in the north-east region. [3585]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): More than 25,000 young people in the north-east have moved into jobs through the new deal. Separate data on the number of them who attended drug rehabilitation centres are not collected. However, we are committed to helping people
  916
  with drug problems overcome them and move into work. We are therefore launching a £40 million programme of support for drug misusers early next year.
  Ms Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I say to him that this is a very serious problem in the north-east and, particularly, in my constituency of Stockton, South? In what way does his Department work with the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to ensure that we put together a joined-up strategy so that young people and older people who are drug addicts know that there is help for them and—more important than just help—that there is pride at the end of the line because they will have a job?
  Malcolm Wicks: We know that this is a serious problem in most constituencies and that it is complicated. That is why the Government have a joined-up approach across Whitehall. This Department's contribution is a £40 million programme to help to identify those who are drug misusers and bring into the community a co-ordinator to get the services working together, and with the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend is right: we need to work across Whitehall—starting, of course, with young people in our schools.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford): What progress is being made in combating pensioner poverty. [3586]
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Some 2 million pensioners are now receiving the minimum income guarantee. On average, they are £15 a week better off than they would have been in 1997.
  Dr. Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is certainly very good news for many pensioners who have lived for years in poverty. What measures can the Government take to improve the uptake of the minimum income guarantee, and approximately how many people might that equate to in my constituency of Dartford who may benefit from the improvements in their incomes?
  Mr. Darling: Just over 1,500 pensioners in Dartford receive the minimum income guarantee. We have embarked on a substantial take-up campaign that has resulted in more than 100,000 pensioners throughout the country receiving it, and that group has received on average about £20 a week extra. In addition, the application form for the minimum income guarantee is being reduced to 10 pages and will be available shortly. That and other measures will ensure that more and more pensioners get the money to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam): Does the Secretary of State accept that the rules governing hospital downrating for pensions and benefits cause considerable hardship and distress for many pensioners? Will he take steps to review that urgently to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions is not contributing to the Department of Health's problem with bed blocking?

  917
  People find it difficult to get their benefits back on-line when they have been in hospital for weeks and have had their benefits first reduced and then stopped altogether.
  Mr. Darling: I agree that we must do everything possible to ensure that people who ought to be discharged from hospital do not remain there, especially because of a problem with benefits. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that ever since the modern welfare state was established more than 50 years ago measures have been taken to stop the double provision of public funds. All such matters are, of course, kept under review.
  Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): Does the Secretary of State accept that more work needs to be done on the statistics that relate to the minimum income guarantee? Although the overall increase is welcome, it is not certain that it is evenly spread across the country. In particular, my constituency has experienced difficulties in obtaining figures for those who have claimed the minimum income guarantee, despite substantial take-up campaigns. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be helpful to identify those blackspots where a large number of pensioners have not been claiming so that we can focus further attention on them?
  Mr. Darling: It is possible to identify the number of pensioners in each constituency who are receiving the minimum income guarantee. Of course, one can never be absolutely sure how many are entitled but do not claim because the state does not necessarily know their circumstances. However, my hon. Friend is right: the next stage of our campaign is to look at those areas where we have reason to believe that there are problems with take-up to ensure that every pensioner who is entitled to the minimum income guarantee receives it. As I said earlier, after the last campaign those pensioners who became entitled to and received the minimum income guarantee were on average £20 a week better off. That is a substantial increase in their income.
  Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): The Secretary of State will be aware that his Department produced statistics and estimates on benefit take-up as recently as 27 September last. Is he not concerned that while last year 500,000 eligible pensioners were not claiming income support, this year's figure is much nearer 600,000, an increase of 20 per cent? That trend is also reflected in figures for council tax benefit and housing benefit, which are in fact slightly worse.
  Does the Secretary of State not think that the only plausible explanation for that problem, which I am sure concerns and shocks us all, is that the system is becoming ever more complex? Does he not admit that the only possible solution offered by the Government will make the problem even worse?
  Mr. Darling: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the report that he quotes, the estimated number of pensioners who fail to claim income support is between 300,000 and 600,000. The report itself says that care should be taken when interpreting the take-up statistics as they come from estimates from data that are less than perfect. That particular series of statistics has its limitations precisely because of the very wide range in the estimates.
  918
  I assume that for the purposes of this question the hon. Gentleman is in favour of more pensioners receiving the money to which they are entitled, and I agree with him that we need to do more to identify pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee. However, I note that the new leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), said of the minimum income guarantee:
  "I can think of nothing to recommend it."—[Official Report, 15 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 740.]
  That is a very odd way to refer to a policy that gives pensioners an average increase of £15 a week.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South): What discussions he has had with pensioner organisations about initiatives to inform older people ov their eligibility for pensions and benefits. [3587]
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): My Department, in partnership with organisations working with older people, is developing a series of initiatives designed to encourage take-up of the minimum income guarantee, yncluding an information leaflet about the guarantee which has been available since the beginning of September. From today, when people claim their retirement punsion, we will qsk them questio~s to seu whether they are entitled to the minimum income guarantee as well.
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for the information that he has given, particularly about people going into retirement. I am sure that many hon. Members, like myself, have pensioners in their constituency who are failing to receive their entitlement, especially the minimum income guarantee. I suggest that additional resources are made available for a benefits check to target existing pensioners. That would assist in identifying those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee and ensuring that they receive it.
  As part of his campaign, will my right hon. Friend visit Hamilton, South so that we can make sure that my constituents are exposed to the best possible publicity and receive the benefits to which they are entitled?
  Mr. McCartney: Following a request by my hon. Friend and his local council leader, I have agreed to go to his constituency on 8 November to discuss the pensions strategy and our wider plans for older people. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members are laughing. Is that not what Ministers are supposed to do—go out and meet our fellow citizens? The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) used to jeer when 2 million pensioners could not get a penny out of the last Government and were living in absolute poverty. This Government are going out to find those 2 million pensioners and give them their entitlement, which they were denied by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power.
  I can tell my hon. Friend that we are improving uptake and increasing the resources devoted to that. Secondly, when the pensioner credit becomes available, all pensioners aged 65 and over will, through a new pension service, be invited to participate in a discussion so that

  919
  we can ascertain immediately whether they are entitled to the pensioner credit. Some 5.5 million pensioner households will benefit from that policy.
  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): A little while ago, the Secretary of State spoke, quite rightly, about employers' prejudice against people with disabilities. Does the Minister agree that there is also employer prejudice against people who are older but below pension age? What steps is he taking to ensure that businesses employ people under 65, who have something very valuable to offer, thus taking them off benefits?
  Mr. McCartney: If that is the hon. Gentleman's job application to the new leader of his party, I will take it up on his behalf.
  The Government are very committed to working with employers to eradicate age discrimination. We will legislate by 2006 to prevent such discrimination in the workplace. In the meantime, through our code of practice and the national "Age Positive" campaign, which works with employers, significant numbers of older workers are returning to the work force for the first time in many years. A range of employers who would normally make workers redundant because of their age are changing their practice. In addition, advertisements that discriminate on the basis of age have almost disappeared. We have given employers a warning that there is only a short time before such adverts cannot be used.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman does find a place on the Conservative Front Bench before he reaches the age of 75. If he has not done so by 2006, he will be able to use legislation introduced by this Government to do something about it.
  James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde): One of my constituents recently lost her partner in a car crash. He had two pensions: an occupational pension, which will pay my constituent a pension, and a pension from the Teachers Pensions Agency, which does not recognise unmarried partners. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage the TPA and other public sector pension organisations to recognise unmarried partners?
  Mr. McCartney: This is a tragic case. There is a meeting today to discuss such issues with the Department. There has been a Government strategy across the public sector in order to try to improve pension arrangements. Changes could include the potential for additional contributions from those in the scheme. However, areas of discrimination are being addressed, and I shall write to my hon. Friend about the matter following the discussions.
  Mr. David Willetts (Havant): Will the Minister confirm that pension organisations are very worried that older people will not receive their benefits if they cannot cash giro cheques at their local post offices? There is much uncertainty about the Government's plans for a universal bank. I hope that the Minister will today end that uncertainty by answering three specific questions. First, is the universal bank proposal still on track? Secondly, has the Department been asked to take the lead in a review of the universal bank proposal? Thirdly, how many benefit claimants do the Government expect to open universal bank accounts? Following his rather cavalier answer to
  920
  the question asked by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), it would be helpful to receive real answers and not be referred to a chart.
  Mr. McCartney: First, the universal bank is going to happen. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is overseeing the programme. Thirdly, thank goodness we are a Labour Government. If the Tory Government had still been in office, there would not only be no universal bank but no post office for people to go to.

  Unemployment
  Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): What plans he has to enable the hardest-to-help unemployed people find work. [3588]
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The range of new deals helps disadvantaged groups to move from welfare into work. We are increasing the number of action teams for jobs and extending employment zones, which help people in the most deprived areas. The sum of £40 million has been allocated to the progress-to-work initiative, to help unemployed drug users, which will start early next year. Further funding is also being arranged through the new deals to pilot further specialist help for others, including homeless people and ex-offenders.
  Brian White: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in a city such as the one that I represent, which has benefited from the ONE pilot scheme and where unemployment is now less than 1 per cent., employers are having to recruit from as far afield as Nottingham and Derby. There is a small group of people who employers will not employ, even though they have been through most of the options that the jobcentre can provide. Such people have lost out on national vocational qualifications and so on, and cannot gain employment even in areas such as ours. Will the Minister ensure that, under new procedures and when Jobcentre Plus is rolled out, the plight of that small but vulnerable group is addressed and that there is more flexibility in the system so that they do not lose out further?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I passionately believe that we should not overlook a group of our fellow citizens who are disadvantaged in the labour market. It is the role of the second wave of new deals to help such groups, and we intend to do so regardless of changing labour market circumstances.
  Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): To follow the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some of the most difficult people to get into employment are those who live in very rural areas and that the biggest single impediment that they face is transport—to either employment opportunities or vocational training? Will he speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to make it easier for people to get to vocational training centres where public transport is not available? Will he reject the present moped scheme restrictions,

  921
  which do not include large parts of my very rural constituency simply because people live in towns—towns where there are no vocational training opportunities?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are special features to social exclusion in rural areas. There are a range of reasons for that. It is too simplistic to say that it is just about transport problems, although they are clearly part of it. It is the Government's hope that a more proactive approach—through Jobcentre Plus and action zones where they apply—will carry with it a range of local flexibilities that are tailored to address precisely the problems that the hon. Gentleman identifies.
  David Cairns: My right hon. Friend may be aware that one of the 15 pathfinder Jobcentre Plus programmes is in my constituency, in Greenock. Does he agree that to tackle residual and long-term unemployment it is important not only that the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency work together, but that all the other agencies in the field, chiefly the Inland Revenue, the careers service and local authorities, also work in partnership?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that public services work across departmental boundaries toward a common objective—helping those who are most disadvantaged in the labour market.

Anti-terrorism Measures
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the legislative steps necessary to counter the threat from international terrorism.
First, I pay tribute to all those in the security and emergency services and elsewhere who have already risen to the challenge over the past five weeks, and all those who have assisted in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack in New York itself.
It is the first job of Government and the essence of our democracy that we safeguard rights and freedoms, the most basic of which is to live safely and in peace. It is now necessary that we look afresh, in a measured and proportionate manner, at whether our legal framework is adequate and our security sufficient.
Although the nature and the level of the threat is different from what was previously envisaged, wholesale revision of our anti-terrorism laws is unnecessary. That is also the view of the law enforcement agencies. However, we do need specific and targeted measures, which is why I intend to introduce an emergency anti-terrorism Bill. I am determined to strike a balance between respecting our fundamental civil liberties and ensuring that they are not exploited.
Through those measures, we will reinforce action against the perpetrators of organised crime, drugs and people trafficking. Therefore, in the next few days we will introduce separate measures in the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will now be complemented by anti-terrorist legislation. Terrorists use organised crime and trade in human misery to finance their activities. The tough new financial controls in the emergency Bill will help us to staunch the flow of terrorist funding.
The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will spell out in more detail measures on the seizure of cash within this country and strict reporting requirements on the financial institutions. Separately, a new anti-terrorist finance unit is to be established in conjunction with my right hon. Friend under the auspices of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
The events of 11 September have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and international level. Terrorists do not respect national boundaries. In line with the Europe-wide endeavour, I intend to include in the emergency Bill an enabling power to allow implementation by affirmative order of measures from the Justice and Home Affairs Council on police and judicial co-operation.
Regrettably, there are those who are prepared to exploit the tensions created by the global threat. Racists, bigots, and hotheads, as well as those associating with terrorists, are prepared to use the opportunity to stir up hate. It is therefore my intention to introduce new laws to ensure that incitement to religious, as well as racial, hatred will become a criminal offence. I also intend to increase the current two-year maximum penalty to seven years.
924
I am examining wider powers in relation to incitement by people in the United Kingdom, against groups or individuals overseas. I am also examining additional powers in relation to conspiracy. None of those measures is intended to stifle free speech, dialogue, or debate. Fair comment is not at risk, only the incitement to hate.
Obtaining good intelligence and being able to target and track potential terrorists is essential. We need comprehensive powers to require best practice to become the norm. This legislation will therefore facilitate the exchange of information in two key areas. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies can access vital information on passengers and freight. It will also enable customs and revenue officers to pass information to the police. These provisions will remove barriers which currently prevent the exchange of information in the fight against terrorism. These will be carefully targeted measures designed to protect the public, not affecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
We will introduce measures to enable communication service providers to retain data generated in the course of their business, by which I mean the recording of calls made and other data, not the content. We will work with the industry on a code of practice. I wish to thank those who have co-operated so well over the past five weeks in the industry.
I think that we all accept that there is a compelling need for more effective powers to exclude and remove suspected terrorists from our country. We rightly pride ourselves on the safe haven that we offer to those genuinely fleeing terror. But our moral obligation and love of freedom does not extend to offering hospitality to terrorists. That is why, both in the emergency terrorism Bill and in a separate extradition measure, I will ensure that we have robust and streamlined procedures.
I believe that it will be possible to achieve these changes without substantial alteration to the Human Rights Act 1998. Nevertheless, it may well be necessary, using article 15, to derogate from article 5 of the European convention. That would allow the detention of foreign nationals whom we intend to remove from the country, and who are considered a threat to national security. This would occur in circumstances falling outside those permitted by article 5 of the European convention on human rights, but within the scope of article if of the 1951 refugee convention.
I am also looking to take power to deny substantive asylum claims to those who are suspected of terrorist associations, and to streamline the existing judicial review procedures while retaining the right of appeal. Appropriate safeguards would apply to any such derogation.
A review of extradition procedure had been undertaken by the Government before 11 September. I intend to bring forward a separate substantive measure to modernise and place our laws in the context of the new international situation. Streamlining, while retaining rights of appeal, will form part of this measure. I also intend, following an announcement to the House in the weeks ahead, to modernise our nationality and asylum system.
There are four other measures to which I wish to refer today. The first, which relates to the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, will strengthen

925
security at airports and for passengers. Powers both within restricted areas at airports and aboard aircraft will all be strengthened.
In addition, I can announce that we will expand the role and jurisdiction of the British Transport police, together with those working on enforcement from the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Energy Authority. We will ask the House to agree to widen their powers beyond the boundaries of particular sites. I am also seeking powers to provide the police and customs services with the authority to demand the removal of facial covering or gloves. That is a basic requirement to enable identification where finger printing or other biometric tests are important.
I am also including in the Bill clauses on nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological materials, generally described as weapons of mass destruction, which will cover the intention to use, produce, possess or participate in unauthorised transfers of those materials. At the time of the millennium, a great deal of work was undertaken to ensure the security of key utilities. I want to assure the House that both in the Civil Contingencies Committee, and more widely, we have examined and put in place further work to update our preparedness, preventive action and remedial steps, should they be necessary.
The United Kingdom has some of the world's best counter-terrorist expertise. Working together with international partners, we are taking every step to protect ourselves. Those plans are continually reviewed and tested. There is no immediate intelligence pointing to a specific threat to the United Kingdom, but we remain alert, domestically as well as internationally.
I know that many in the House will agree that strengthening our democracy and reinforcing our values is as important as the passage of new laws. If, therefore, we do not rise to the challenge and provide through our democratic institutions the commitment and will to face down terrorists, our economy, social well-being and quality of life will suffer. The legislative measures which I have outlined today will protect and enhance our rights, not diminish them. Justice for individuals and minorities are reaffirmed, and justice for the majority and the security of our nation will be secured.
On 11 September, families lost their loved ones, and the threat of terrorism touched us all. If we fail now to take the necessary action to protect our people, future generations will never forgive us. That is why I am asking for the wholehearted support of both sides of the House in demonstrating that this Parliament, our democracy and our judicial system are capable of rising to the challenge, and of doing so swiftly and effectively.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I should like to thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving us an advance copy of the statement and a briefing. He will be aware that, as far as his principal objectives are concerned, he has our support. Like him, we wish to see changes in our law that will increase the effectiveness of domestic measures against terrorism.
We share the Government's view that legislation is required to increase the effectiveness of our counter-terrorist enforcement. However, does the Home Secretary agree that, too often in the past, over-hasty
926
legislation has proved inoperable in practice? Does he agree that the best guard against that danger is detailed scrutiny, which teases out the implications of the legislation to determine both whether it will be effective and whether it poses any undue threat to our fundamental liberties? Can he assure us that those critical measures at this critical time will be debated in detail on the Floor of the House? Is he aware that we will resist using the emergency legislation as a means of addressing problems of law enforcement outside the field of terrorism?
We are delighted that the Home Secretary accepts that the duty of Parliament in a crisis of the kind that we now face is to maintain a careful balance between public safety and individual freedom. We welcome his agreement that public safety demands changes to the law that will enable him to refuse entry to those foreign nationals whom he judges a risk to national security. But does he agree that he also needs to be able to remove such dangerous individuals from this country if they are already here?
In the light of the Chahal case, the Singh and Singh case and other jurisprudence associated with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act, does the Home Secretary accept that such removal of dangerous individuals poses a significant legislative problem? Does he accept that the internment or indefinite detention powers that he signalled in his statement today may not provide a workable means of avoiding that problem? Will he confirm the view taken by his predecessor that Parliament can legislate to alter the effect of the Human Rights Act?
With reference to laws against incitement to religious hatred, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although the whole House will wholeheartedly agree with his desire to protect vulnerable communities—and in particular, vulnerable Muslim communities during the present crisis—the Opposition will need to be persuaded that the drafting of the legislation will achieve this admirable effect without, as he so rightly said, curtailing proper freedom of speech?
Turning to the proposed EU framework directives, does the Home Secretary share our view that there is a fundamental difference between the proposed directive on combating terrorism and the proposed directive on European arrest warrants? We all support the principle of the proposed directive on combating terrorism. That will force other EU counties to adopt legislation parallel to our Terrorism Act 2000. But does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we certainly should not let the current crisis drive us into abandoning either the principle of habeas corpus or the principle of a person being presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the proposed directive on European arrest warrants might threaten those principles? Does he acknowledge that many of us, in all parts of the House, will have very grave concerns about implementing those directives through affirmative orders? Does he agree that there should be urgent review by the Scrutiny Committee?
Does the Home Secretary recognise the strength of the case for introducing sunset clauses to legislation in all these difficult areas, so that the House, and Parliament as a whole, can have the opportunity with the benefit of hindsight regularly to reassess both the effectiveness of the legislation and its effect on individual freedom?

927
We will engage constructively with the Government as the legislation proceeds, but we shall perform the proper role of an Opposition under these circumstances—probing, inquiring and bringing likely effects to light. Let us hope that the combined efforts of all of us in this House and in the other place will be sufficient to produce a rarity in British legislative history—fast law that is also good law.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to his new Front-Bench portfolio. I look forward to the sort of brief but robust exchanges that I had with his predecessor, but perhaps at a lower pitch than was usual then. I welcome the general principle of the hon. Gentleman's approach, although I should hate to be opposite him on a day when he was facing down legislation, rather than welcoming it.
We are not intent on taking away rights or denying people normal opportunities through judicial process, but we are endeavouring to respond to the new situation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the agreement of the Leader of the House, we will look to take the legislation on the Floor of the House. We want to ensure that the areas that are identified with the Opposition as being key for debate have sufficient time allocated to them to allow proper debate, in order to reassure the entire House and the public outside that we have achieved the right balance between the need to act swiftly and the ability to draw up legislation that will be lasting.
I am happy to consider reaffirmation of aspects of the Bill that will be identified as we take the legislation through the House. That seems sensible in the case of emergency legislation. I am also prepared to consider proposals from the Opposition as well as from Labour Members that would enhance or improve what we are doing.
It is worth spending a moment on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in relation to two matters, which are different but related. The first concerns extradition where we have treaty agreements with other countries and where it is possible in all present circumstances to extradite those who are required for due trial. The second concerns people whom we are seeking to eject from our country although they have not committed a crime here, but whose deportation would be desirable, given the threat that we believe they pose.
On the first matter, we have very clear treaties with main partner countries. There is no problem—indeed, there has been no problem—under section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to our European partners. There would be no problem on arrest warrants either, because to carry out an arrest is not to deny someone fair trial or to presume them guilty before trial has taken place; it is to respect mutual recognition of our judicial and policing systems throughout the European Union—something that goes back a long way, but which has taken a long time to recognise and to get through the system.
Deportation, like preventing people who are feared to be terrorists and who are travelling through our country from claiming asylum, is another matter. It seems to us that when a third safe country cannot be found, holding such people—with proper rights of appeal and the opportunity for a return to their case—is preferable to sending them back to certain death when their guilt has
928
not been ascertained. We are not, therefore, seeking to withdraw from or deratify the ECHR, which would be necessary in terms of denying article 3. As I said, we may derogate from article 5, while continuing to hold to article if of the refugee convention, in order to have the ability better to protect ourselves while protecting appeal rights.
The speeding up of judicial review in both processes will be absolutely crucial. It is absurd that it can take five, seven or even 10 years, as happened in one case, to extradite someone from this country. That is not justice; it is playing monkey business with our judicial framework and processes.
I can assure the House that we have thought long and hard. We have not rushed into these measures. In the next few weeks, there will be time to contemplate as well as to scrutinise the legislation that we are introducing. We want to get it right because we have obligations to our own people and to our international requirements. If we can get it right, we will have managed to sweep away some of the nonsense that has been found in recent weeks to exist in our system. I appeal to our judiciary to work with us to ensure that democracy in all its guises can operate fairly and openly, rather than be held up to ridicule by those who should be upholding it.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I am sure that all sensible people will welcome any new measures intended to make our dealing with terrorism more effective, but I should like to underline the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin): there is a long history of anti-terrorism legislation being introduced in haste and repented at leisure. We will need time properly to scrutinise whatever measures my right hon. Friend puts before the House. I welcome the fact that the measures are being introduced after mature consideration and not in the immediate aftermath of the terrible events of 11 September.
On the new definition of terrorism proposed by the Commission, has my right hon. Friend noticed that, under proposed article 5.3, sanctions such as community service for alleged terrorists are listed? The EC may be proposing to cast the net a little wide. Will he ensure that whatever definition is finally agreed is robust, watertight and confined to dealing with terrorists and not with the other people who might, from time to time, get up the noses of the established order?
My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to deny asylum to those suspected of having terrorist associations. What level of evidence will be required and who will assess that evidence? Finally, he said that he was examining additional powers in relation to conspiracy. Will he give us a clue about what is in his mind in that respect?
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome my hon. Friend's approach of wanting to ensure that we get it right, and not just quickly. I am a great enthusiast for active citizenship, but I had not envisaged engaging terrorists in good works in our community as a suitable punishment in Sheffield or Sunderland. I am therefore happy to affirm that we shall take appropriate and proportionate measures, and press them on our European partners.
We are looking with the Crown Prosecution Service to examine ways in which those who are not directly engaged in fundraising, organising or inciting by

929
pronouncement may be involved in conspiracy by supporting or succouring those who are engaged in terrorism. The question of conspiracy would come into play in the case of people who had been engaged, as is alleged about some of those who are currently held throughout the world, in facilitating terrorism through training, providing goods and services or engaging in communication networks with those involved in terrorist activity. I am working with the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor on the best way of tackling that.
Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and briefings. He can rest assured that the Liberal Democrats will support the Government when they introduce well considered legislation, which is necessary in the current emergency, and targeted specifically at tackling terrorism. However, if the legislation is not immediately necessary and has nothing to do with terrorism, Liberal Democrats will defend the liberties of the individual citizen robustly. I anticipate that that applies to other quarters in the House as well.
Let me ask about process. Will a draft Bill be presented as early as possible? If so, we can ensure that we try to get it right as soon as possible. Will the Home Secretary undertake to consult the Joint Committee on Human Rights early to ensure that there are no breaches of our human rights obligations, not only in the Government's view but in that of all parties in both Houses? Will he follow the provisions in previous legislation for emergency powers to have limited time effects whenever possible, and to continue only if Parliament agrees?
The statement contained a surprising element: the implication that European legislation could get through both Houses of Parliament, without proper debate and scrutiny, simply on the basis of an affirmative order proposed by the Government. It is most important that the Home Secretary confirm that he did not mean that. It is not acceptable to any hon. Member, even ardent Europeans, because legislation should come through this place, not by a Minister putting a yes or no question to Parliament.
On human rights, will the Home Secretary confirm that he will try to avoid derogation from the European convention whenever possible? Does he seriously propose to bring back internment throughout the United Kingdom? One of his suggestions could be interpreted to mean that.
On asylum, will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that he will uphold the 1951 convention and that all who have a right under it to seek asylum and put their case here will retain it after the legislation is enacted? Will he make sure that, on controversial matters such as human rights and asylum, there will always be the opportunity for a judicial review of Ministers' and officials' decisions, and that no one will be precluded from going to court to challenge a decision by the Executive?
Incitement to racial hatred is an important issue. I share with the Home Secretary and others the view that its prevention should not restrict the right to criticise other faiths or people and views of other faiths. What has happened to the Government's proposal to introduce an equality Bill to guarantee equality of all faiths?
930
Legislation on incitement to racial hatred has existed for 15 years, but barely a prosecution has occurred. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that legislation is pointless if it is never implemented?
Lastly, the Home Secretary rightly paid tribute to the emergency services. We join him in that tribute, but can he assure police services and police authorities throughout the country that they will have the resources that they need to implement the additional measures, and that the civil defence measure s are sufficiently resourced and in place? If there is a nee d to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, are we safe between now and the end of the legislative process or will he introduce other measures to ensure that action is taken immediately against any such terrorist threat?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will discuss the question of resourcing, but I can make it clear that all necessary practical measures will be in place before the legislation reaches the statute book.
The human rights questions that the hon. Gentleman raised can be answered in the affirmative. Yes, we shall consult the Joint Committee. Yes, we are party to the 1951 convention, as I spelled out. We do not intend to introduce internment, although if a major crisis arose from the terrorist threat, other specific measures would have to be introduced, as has born the case since the second world war. Governments have always held that in reserve.
On the question of secondary legislation, I did not know that it had ever been Liberal Democrat policy that every single measure agreed at European level required primary legislation in the House. It certainly has not been since we joined the European Union and signed the treaty of Rome in 1972. Affirmative and negative orders as well as the European Scruff my Committee have been used for such measures. I ha I thought that affirmative orders, which offer the opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House, provided a much more positive way to deal with such matters than do other measures.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to think again, because we shall grind our own legislative procedures to a standstill and make a nonsense of our partnership in Europe if we do not accept that secondary legislation is required. The matter involves the specific terms that I have laid down, not any old issue at any time, and it is important that we reaffirm that.
I have dealt with the question of seeking co-operation. I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to publish a draft Bill, because of the speed at which we are trying to act, but I shall engage the opposition parties and those in the House with a particular interest as quickly and effectively as I can.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will understand that there are three other statements to be made. Short questions will allow the Home Secretary to give a short reply, which would be a great help.
Ms Joan Walley: I broadly welcome the proposals that the Home Secretary has brought to the House, but may I press him further on the nuclear, biological and chemical issues to which he referred? Does he intend to provide a statutory basis for

931
emergency planning, and will he consult the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health on how the measures will be drawn up before the legislation is debated here?
Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to give the assurance that we shall consult. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has been doing sterling work on the civil contingencies side of our operation and we want to ensure that we consult such groups.
On my hon. Friend's first question, it came as a surprise that although the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 gives substantial powers in relation to the movement, possession and use of chemicals, we have not done the same in the areas that I have outlined, in particular radiological aspects. Irrespective of what happened on 11 September, it is time that we had those powers in place. We have the opportunity to move quickly on the measures, some of which were in preparation, and they can be put in place speedily at this timely moment.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: While we all wish to reserve the right to scrutinise in detail this massive legislation, may I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement about tackling the problems of extradition? I well remember expressing my frustration about them when I held his office because of the archaic procedures and protracted litigation that often occurs.
Although the right hon. Gentleman may have to confine fast-track emergency legislation to terrorist offences, does he accept that there is an extremely good case for tackling the problem of extradition in almost all serious offences? There is no good reason why people accused of serious violence or serious organised crime should not speedily be returned to the jurisdiction of any country that respects the rule of law to face serious charges. Will he try to maintain progress on a Europe-wide arrest warrant, so long as all member states have satisfactory safeguards on personal liberty and the due process of law?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to remove the Home Secretary's role in extradition cases? Although that sounds attractive, in practice it encourages people to raise political issues and bring political lobbying to bear on him and those who hold similar office in other jurisdictions, which can have most unfortunate and delaying consequences.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his supportive words. I hope that the European arrest warrant will be dealt with by the beginning of December at the Laeken Council. It will then be possible to make sense of something that is not always operated in the best interests of speed or justice. That will iron out some of the issues that I have read about—Julian Knowles' article in, I think, The Daily Telegraph was about a case in Portugal—and enable us to deal with these matters sensitively and sensibly.
I agree that there is a good case for examining the withdrawal of the Home Secretary's role from areas where, otherwise, judicial review would be used as a deliberate delaying tactic, without new evidence or new presentation but with the ability to challenge at each stage of the process. As a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know how difficult it is for a Home Secretary to give up any power.
Ms Diane Abbott: The whole House welcomes the burden of
932
the Home Secretary's statement. As a Hackney MP representing a large Muslim community. I welcome the thinking behind the proposed legislation against incitement to religious hatred, which is designed to check the disgusting and racist attacks on individual Muslims and the Muslim faith. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, because others in Hackney take their religion—or even their lack of religion—extremely seriously, such legislation must not cut across genuine debate?
On the speeding up of extradition and related matters, the House welcomes the legislation in outline. However, I represent many people who have genuinely fled from torture and oppression, and the burden of proof in these matters will be very important. We would not want the process to be so speeded up and robust that people were returned to torture and perhaps death.
Mr. Blunkett: It certainly would not be my wish, either, that we returned people to torture and death. That would contravene the conventions that were mentioned a few moments ago. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks in relation to free speech, dialogue, debate and attitude. What we are dealing with, in changing the law on race and religion, is hatred. I take the inference of her intervention, so I shall examine carefully the question of atheists and—I say this wryly—consider whether unpleasant and unhelpful comments about atheists could be included.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the Home Secretary tell us today whether the new legislation on incitement to racial hatred will include either a definition of religion or a list of those religions against which it will be illegal to incite hatred?
Mr. Blunkett: It is not our intention to include in the Bill a definition of religion, for all the reasons that many in the House will be familiar with. The Attorney-General and I would wish to assure ourselves that we were handling the matter sensitively, bearing in mind the fact that the existing law in relation to race provides for those religions that have a direct relationship with the race of the individual concerned. We want to extend that facility to people who follow Islam and Christianity. The measures will also enable us to deal with those who deliberately use the current law to stir up dissension and hate, which we would all find unacceptable.
I am examining why existing law has been used so infrequently—in the past decade about four prosecutions a year have been successful—and whether, in conjunction with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, we should be slightly more robust in what we do about those who, in writing or in speech, deliberately cause hate in our community.
Fiona Mactaggart: Is not this the wrong end of the equation? We have a law against racial discrimination, which was followed by a law against incitement to racial hatred. Perhaps the best way to deal with this issue is to prohibit religious discrimination rather than start with a prohibition on incitement. Has my right hon. Friend considered doing that?
Mr. Blunkett: A long debate about discrimination as opposed to incitement to hatred arose under the Public Order Act 1986. This legislation and the measures that

933
we are taking are designed to deal with specific circumstances regarding the threat of terrorism and the development of protection against terrorists. We want to avoid the exploitation of the situation domestically. My statement about the proposal was made in that context. We are endeavouring to unify our community, and to avoid divisions and conflict at the very moment when we need that unity most of all.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Home Secretary said that persons who come here from dictatorial and oppressive regimes but who nevertheless promote terrorism will face the option of being detained or going to what he called "a third country." Will he explain how third countries will be approved and selected? Will the Government publish a list of countries that they think are appropriate for housing terrorists?
Mr. Blunkett: That was very entertaining. [HON. MEMBERS: "It needs a serious answer."] If hon. Members want a serious answer, I can tell them that we do not need a list of third countries. A person who is not facing extradition from a specific country because of action taken but whom we want to eject from the country would have a choice. He could be deported to a country of his choice or to a country prepared to take him, or he could be detained in this country under the appeals process. Such people would not be charged with a specific terrorist act overseas: they would be suspected of working with and supporting terrorists. We are proposing measures to protect this country from those people. We are interested in ideas about safe third countries if that choice is not available to an individual. If anyone has a smart answer, I should be grateful to hear from them in the morning.
Ms Bridget Prentice: Like all Members of the House, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be aware that, as he was speaking, people in the civil liberties lobby were unpicking every word that he said. I ask him to resist that strongly. In a free society, we must take on not only our rights but our responsibilities. Although there must be due scrutiny by the House, some of us believe that there should be an even more robust approach, particularly on judicial review. Will that happen? Most people in this country would agree to sacrifice some of their liberty if it meant greater security.
Mr. Blunkett: It is precisely that balance that we intend to secure. Debate in the House and the securing of freedoms through political action must always be preferable to falling back on those who are not elected, who are not accountable and who often cannot respond quickly or sensitively to a particular threat. That is why parliamentary and participatory democracy is the better safeguard, rather than relying on jurisprudence.
Mr. Robert Key: Will the Home Secretary explain why he has not taken this opportunity to legislate on mercenary activity? He will recall that we were promised a Green Paper in November last year, and that in April this year the Government regretted that they had not got around to it. Now we see young British men recruited by British citizens to fight for the Taliban,
934
possibly against British service men and women. Should not the Home Secretary now take the opportunity to legislate?
Mr. Blunkett: I have known the hon. Gentleman for many years in opposition, so let me be frank with him. No, I did not know that we were thinking of producing a Green Paper, but I will go back and read the material, along with all the other tomes that I have been reading over the past five weeks.
Mr. David Crausby: I have visited various mosques in my constituency on recent Fridays, and I have heard from the Muslim community overwhelming condemnation of acts of terror. At the same time, however, there has been a free and frank exchange of views with that community, which has not always been in complete agreement with the Government's tactics. Can the Home Secretary reassure me that the measures will be used in the fight against terrorism and religious hatred, and not against that free and frank exchange of views?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can. On my own visits, I too have encountered both support and concern from constituents. We are all in this together, as has been said over and over again in the House by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and Opposition Members. We are in it together because we are all threatened by terrorism. It is indiscriminate—it singles out no religion, no colour, no creed. That is why everyone in this country will need to back, and should back, the measures that we are taking—we are protecting them and their families as well as our own.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Home Secretary agree that the main lesson from the terror attacks on America was not that existing laws are inadequate, but rather that the security and intelligence services failed to use the existing laws and their powers? Will he be very sceptical about Government agencies and others that demand new intrusion and surveillance powers, and also about the European Union, which has a declared aim of using the existing emergency as a pretext for centralising and advancing its own powers? In presenting his proposals for new laws, will he in each case show that they are required specifically for the struggle against terrorism, that their absence was significantly inhibiting, and that they will be used only in that war on terrorism?
Mr. Blunkett: I certainly agree with the first of those three propositions. There would be no point in measures that were not specific to, and helpful in, combating terrorism. I cannot guarantee the implication of the second question, which was, "Would these measures have materially helped to prevent the attack on the World Trade Centre?" Hindsight is a wonderful thing; what we now need to do is learn the lessons—what went wrong, what measures were not in place, what scrutiny had not been carried out and what failures may have existed following the bombings in Dar-es-Salaam and Kenya in 1998—and thereby ensure that we establish measures and facilities that will prevent such terrorist attacks from occurring again. We should not wait until they do occur again, and then say that perhaps we should have taken measures,

935
including being ready to co-operate with free democracies in the European Union rather than suspecting them of somehow being prepared to use this moment to centralise power. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I have encountered in the meetings that I have attended since 11 September is the need to encourage and speed up their processes, not to slow them down.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Is my right hon. Friend content that the list of proscribed organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000 is appropriate, or does he intend to review it?
Mr. Blunkett: The list will be kept up to date. The 14 original organisations, and the additional 21 that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary introduced earlier this year when he was Home Secretary, will be reviewed. What is more, we need to ensure that those who fragment within those organisations, change their name and reconfigure themselves in new forms are dealt with adequately and speedily.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I support the Home Secretary in his intention of getting it right rather than merely acting quickly. How does he square that with the use of affirmative orders? A 90-minute debate on the Floor of the House is hardly an appropriate form of scrutiny of matters that touch on the relationship of citizens to the state and the competence of the state over judicial arrangements.
Mr. Blunkett: I am not proposing simply to have 90-minute debates. I am proposing that we have a debate about the nature of the orders that would be consequent on the parent legislation, and that each aspect should then be debated on the Floor of House in a way that has not always been the case for such measures adopted under secondary legislation. We intend to give every opportunity, at a later date, for people to be able to review whether the measures have been effective. The fact that they emanate from co-operation across Europe should be seen as a plus, not a minus, because we want other European countries' co-operation, as much as they need ours, to combat a threat that knows no national boundaries.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's aim of outlawing incitement to religious hatred, but in our headlong rush to protect our democracy there is a real danger that we will forgo basic civil liberties. What, specifically, does he mean by retaining data? I am sure that many businesses are very concerned about what that will involve. Personally, I am concerned about whether it means nosing through private e-mails or steaming open letters.
Mr. Blunkett: It explicitly does not mean ferreting through people's private e-mails or steaming open their post. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is the greatest safeguard that exists in any democracy in the world in its updating of earlier provisions for protecting our rights. Having had this job for four months, I am well aware that that is the case. Great care is taken in these matters.
Being able to find out from service providers—just as we can from telecommunications agencies—whether a phone call was made at a certain time, when we are
936
investigating terrorism, makes sense. Holding that information for a longer period than would otherwise be commercially desirable—it is not information that does not already exist—and reaching agreement with the industry on achieving that, through a code, threatens no one except those who are up to no good.
Mr. David Cameron: Given the recent history of legislation on issues such as asylum and extradition being taken apart by the courts, why is the Home Secretary waiting before deciding whether or how much to amend the Human Rights Act 1998? Is not the history of Home Office legal advice on such matters that if officials think that it might possibly be necessary, it almost certainly will be necessary—so why not do it at once? Could we hear a little more of his thinking on that subject?
Mr. Blunkett: Delphically put, if I may say so. I use the word "might" because we want to be absolutely sure when we introduce the legislation that it will be absolutely necessary, in order to achieve our goals, to derogate in the way that I described. I am pretty certain that it will be, given the advice that we have already received and the views of the Attorney-General—but precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined, I want to ensure that we have taken every possible step to get the best legal advice before committing ourselves.
Geraint Davies: In respect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend about offshore bank accounts, especially in respect of their access and transparency? It is of widespread concern that the proceeds of crime and drug smuggling—therefore, the funding of terror—are funnelled through offshore bank accounts and, indeed, Swiss bank accounts. I wonder whether he would take a fresh look, in consort with the rest of the international community, at achieving such access.
Mr. Blunkett: There are many times when I am very pleased to have my right hon. Friend the Chancellor alongside me, and this afternoon is one of them.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. We want to work with the Government and assist them in ensuring that the right legislation is put through the House. To that end, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to work with all parties in the House, not only on the details of the legislation but on the timing and the amount of debate that we will have on the crucial questions that will be asked, such as those that have been asked by many Members today?
The Home Secretary made some important announcements on extradition. Nevertheless, will he now rule out the extradition of individuals from this country to places where they will face the death penalty? Instead, will he work within multilateral agreements to ensure that such individuals can be extradited, but with a different result? Finally, does he accept that despotic Governments use accusations of terrorism against their genuine opponents who are not guilty of terrorism? What safeguards does he envisage in his legislation so that this

937
country still provides a safe haven for genuine refugees and for people who oppose terrorism and terrorist Governments?
Mr. Blunkett: No genuine refugee has anything to fear from the proposals that I have introduced this afternoon. Those who claim that specialist status, having been picked up on suspicion of terrorist acts or who are in transit through our airports, will still be entitled to go to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and to appeal to the Court of Appeal, so there is no question of taking away their rights. Speeding up the operation of those rights and not suffering fools gladly is how we intend to proceed. We will consult the minor parties as much as possible on the way in which we proceed in the months ahead.
I think that I have missed one the hon. Gentleman's questions—
Mr. Thomas: The death penalty.
Bob Spink: The USA.
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman asked about the death penalty, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) says "the USA". Where we have specific extradition treaties—we would seek to extend them—they already apply in that way. We have had an extradition treaty with the United States since 1976, and only last Thursday we extradited a man called Qadar, who was wanted in the state of New York. The treaty has been working well. There have been no difficulties with it, and I have agreed with the Attorney-General in the US that we will update it—but as with all extradition treaties with other countries, the provisions that we have in place will safeguard that basic acceptance which the House has affirmed on numerous occasions.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Can I press my right hon. Friend a little further on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)? Clearly, his statement is very important in relation to the chemicals sector, whether we are dealing with major hazard sites in manufacture, with transport or with chemicals that could be made for an innocent use but misused in the production of chemical weapons. Will he clarify the situation in relation to the movement of and trade in chemicals? Is he satisfied that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is sitting bedside him, is affording him sufficient resources to address those very serious problems, especially for those who represent the chemicals sector?
Mr. Blunkett: The answer is yes, of course, but the industry has an obligation to ensure security and safety—the two go hand in hand—as has the Health and Safety Commission. However, on this occasion the legislation will be primarily intended to prevent those who should not have access to, possess or move such products from being able to do so. I am surprised that we are catching up with such matters late—but of course, as I said earlier, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Has the Home Secretary detected the widespread support for his
938
general determination to deal with terrorism? However, has he also detected the real unease across the House about the measure dealing with incitement to racial and religious hatred? Will he bear in mind that hasty legislation—one can cite the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and the legislation introduced after the Omagh bombing—is often bad legislation? Will he please consult very widely, not just in the House but with Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders, before he comes forward with specific proposals?
Mr. Blunkett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the leaders of all the denominations and faiths with whom we have spoken over the past five weeks are enthusiastically in favour of this measure. We do not, of course, intend to take any freedom away. The freedom to hate and to use that hate to incite others to take actions that destroy our community cannot be in the best interests of democracy. I also believe that it is crucial, for the reasons that have been referred to earlier, that those who face or have experienced religious hate know and feel that we are on their side and are listening and responding to them. We want them to be part of the anti-terrorist drive and the development of a unified voice here and across the world.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): On that point, will my right hon. Friend accept the real concern about some sort of special protection for religion as it might make his task much more difficult? Of course, religious belief generally is of great benefit to our society, but some religious tenets actually promote hate. For example, in Leviticus and Revelations, homosexuality is called an abomination and people are enjoined not to touch a woman at the time she is unclean. It is important that my right hon. Friend understands that although those beliefs have now been marginalised in St. Mary's church in Hemel Hempstead, they are often not marginalised elsewhere. It is vital that those who do not support them speak out against them and are given the freedom so to do.
Mr. Blunkett: I have answered one or two questions over the past four and half years during which I have been a Minister but, for once, I am speechless. Suffice it to say that I think that few terrorists have engaged with Leviticus.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Home Secretary began his statement by saying how important it was to balance the respect for our liberty with the need to prevent its exploitation. Given that fine balance, will he explain to the House his plans for the exchange of information—often private information—within Government agencies? In particular, what safeguards will he put in place to ensure that law-abiding citizens will have nothing to fear?
Mr. Blunkett: We have a formidable Data Protection Registrar and we have set in place protections unequalled anywhere in the world in terms of ensuring—correctly—people's right to privacy. We have, of course, to ensure that the methods we use are commensurate with the threat that we face. That is the crunch in terms of getting the balance right. In addition, those who seek to protect us and have information at their disposal which, at present, they may be unable to transfer so that it can be used effectively against that threat, need to know that we are

939
unlocking that barrier. That is what we are seeking to do, and if we do not do it future generations will simply think that we were fools.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that had my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) been on the receiving end of religious hatred, he might take a less academic view of it?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that his decision to introduce legislation to turn religious hatred into an offence will be welcomed not only by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, but by Jews as well? He may well be aware that even in this fevered situation the story has been circulating that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a Jewish plot, with Jews who were working there advised not to go into work on 11 September. Does he therefore accept that if the Bill is to be introduced—I am glad to hear that it will be—the decision to prosecute should be that of the Attorney-General and not that of the Crown Prosecution Service, which recently admitted to institutionalised racism within its ranks?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on issues as quickly and carefully as ever. The Attorney-General will want to lay down key principles in terms of action, but we will want the CPS to be able to take more decisive action at a local level than has been apparent over the past 17 years.

Action Against Financing Terrorism
4.36 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce measures that seek to cut off the supply of funds to terrorism.
Those who finance terror are as guilty as those who commit it, so our response to the funding of terrorist acts must be every bit as clear, as unequivocal and as united as our response to the terrorist acts themselves. The action plan that I am placing in the House of Commons Library, which is now available in the Vote Office, arises from concerted work across Governments, and in particular from decisions of the G7 group of Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors on 6 October. It proposes to tighten our law, further empower the police and strengthen co-ordination across the world.
I can report to the House that having already fully implemented UN Security Council resolutions on the Taliban and on Osama bin Laden, the United Kingdom has now frozen 35 suspect bank accounts, immobilising more than £63 million of suspect terrorist funds. I can also report that by Order in Council, following the latest UN resolution 1373, we have frozen all UK bank accounts associated with the individuals and organisations named in the US Treasury's suspects lists and have already seized in total £180,000 held by those identified in Friday's updated list.
Our UK domestic controls are already among the best in the world, but as part of the emergency anti-terrorism Bill announced this afternoon by the Home Secretary the Government propose a new power to freeze funds when suspicious transactions are under investigation. That will be backed up by new reporting requirements on financial institutions so that they must disclose not only known transactions destined for terrorism, but transactions where there are grounds for suspicion.
Clearly, a balance has to be struck between individuals' right to privacy and their security at a time of increased risk, but we believe that there is a case for new powers for the police to monitor accounts that may be used to facilitate terrorism; for Customs to be allowed, where there are suspicions, to seize cash not only at our borders, as it can now, but within the UK as well; for the Inland Revenue and Customs where applicable to share information and co-operate more effectively with the police; and for the Treasury to freeze assets where there is a clear risk to safety and security.
We do this not least because of the weight of evidence concerning the finances of bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organisation, which is complex but becoming clearer daily. It is not primarily bin Laden's personal wealth that supports the Taliban and active terrorist operations, but the profits from the drugs trade and other businesses, and from individual and company sponsors. That money is channelled through a range of financial centres across the globe, with evidence already pointing to centres in the Gulf, Pakistan and central Asia and to money laundering through an established underground banking system. The cells that form part of the wider al-Qaeda network are often self-financing, possibly using business fronts and crime to sustain themselves. Unravelling that relies on first-rate co-ordination.

941
Since 11 September, the security services, police, special branch and Customs and Excise—co-ordinated by the National Criminal Intelligence Service—as well as our armed forces, have worked together to track down terrorist finance, and I believe that the whole House will wish to express its gratitude to them.
To enhance those efforts, we now propose to establish and fund within NCIS a new multi-agency terrorist finance unit, fully supported by additional special branch investigative resources. To improve financial intelligence further, a new taskforce will bring to the anti-terrorism effort the best of academic, financial and commercial expertise, using in particular the best skills of forensic accountancy in tracking assets. It will also investigate underground banking, which is often used for legitimate purposes such as remitting earnings to families and communities far away, but is also known to provide very easy means for criminals and terrorists to conceal the laundering of money and its movement around the world.
Bureaux de change are another network by which money can be laundered and transferred. In the past 18 months, Customs and Excise has charged 89 people in connection with laundering £590 million. That is just a start. In the consultation document that we are publishing today, we therefore propose the implementation from 12 November of a new regime of supervision to ensure the compliance of bureaux with money-laundering regulations, and we will consult on a registration charge. To make easier the tracing and tracking of criminal and terrorist assets, we are also consulting on a new requirement for proper disclosure of beneficial ownership of companies.
Large financial centres all over the world have an important part to play in cutting off the supply of terrorist funding. I am able to tell the House that many of the measures that we are bringing forward are to be replicated throughout UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories. They will be announcing their own plans to introduce appropriate equivalent measures.
The G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors met in Washington on 6 October and concluded that a special plenary of the international financial action taskforce would meet later this month to agree the imposition, enforcement and monitoring of new international standards to combat terrorist finance. Our Government are also pressing for the UN to establish a permanent monitoring and enforcement unit for those standards; for the International Monetary Fund to provide the expert help that many countries need to set up economic crime units; and for the early ratification of the European Union second money-laundering directive and the international convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism.
At international meetings, G7 Ministers also had a chance to review the current state of the world economy. We expressed solidarity with the United States Government and the whole of the USA after the tragic events of 11 September and agreed that the global economic challenge demanded a global response.
Not only have interest rates been brought down worldwide, but the central banks of America, the euro area, Japan and Britain have made clear their determination to take any necessary further action. Oil
942
prices, which have previously risen in times of trouble, have fallen in the past month. We will continue to work with the oil-producing countries to ensure steadiness of supply and prices. Where markets have failed, as in airline insurance, Governments throughout Europe and America have acted together, with a new short-term insurance guarantee.
These remain uncertain and testing times. As Governments and Finance Ministers work together, every one of us is conscious of the human consequences of economic uncertainty, especially concerns about employment. Since 11 September, the world has acted together decisively to seek to maintain the conditions for stability and growth. The Government's assessment of the current state of the economy and our forecasts for next year will be published next month in the pre-Budget report for full discussion in the House.
If fanaticism is the heart of modern terrorism, finance is its lifeblood, and I believe that the whole House will agree on the need to move expeditiously to cut off the supply of terrorist finance. Once again, the House is demonstrating its unity and determination, standing firm, as one, to cut off all means of support to terrorism.
Mr. Michael Howard: First, I express my gratitude to the Chancellor for the advance indication that he gave me of the contents of his statement.
I welcome the statement and the measures that the Chancellor has described. Draining the financial lifeblood of terrorism is as important a contribution to its defeat as any other measure we can take. The Chancellor will therefore have the full support of the Opposition for any appropriate action that he takes to achieve that aim.
We particularly welcome the recognition that whereas money laundering is bout making dirty money clean, much of the financial support for terrorism comes, as the Chancellor made plain, from business activity of one kind or another—some of it apparently legitimate. Does he agree that a recognition of that distinction should be at the heart of our approach, and that simply building on existing laws against money laundering may not prove to be the right course?
Although we welcome the inquiry that the Chancellor has announced into what he described as underground banking, does he accept that any problems caused by that system will not be limited to this country? What assessment has he made of the extent to which the use of the system in other countries has implications for the financing of terrorism? What action, if any, is being taken in respect of that activity in those countries?
Will the Chancellor assure us that any new requirements that he intends to introduce will be straightforward and comprehensible to those who have to implement them? Does he agree that there has too often been confusion about what the banks are supposed to do? Does he agree that, if his approach is to be effective, there can be no room for ambiguity about the responsibilities of the banks?
This morning's edition of The Times says:
"The Home Office and the Treasury were unclear yesterday as to precisely how their responsibilities for the anti-terrorism measures were divided."
Has clarity now been introduced into that confusion? Finally, what progress, if any, has been made in the investigation of share movements in the days leading up to 11 September, which caused such widespread concern?

943
We shall scrutinise the detail of the Chancellor's measures when they become available, with a view to ensuring that Britain has legislation that does not merely adorn the statute book, but works effectively to make a real difference in our efforts to protect those to whom we are accountable, and others across the world, from the appalling consequences of terrorist acts.
Mr. Brown: I welcome the shadow Chancellor to his new responsibilities. From his experience as Home Secretary, he brings to the post a knowledge of terrorist activities and how to deal with them. I am grateful to him for what he has said this afternoon. I should have preferred to have this debate with him under different circumstances, but I am pleased that he has been able to support the measures that we have announced today.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the financing of terrorism is distinct from simple money laundering. Money from legitimate sources can go to an illegal destination to support terrorism. It is precisely for that reason that we have called back into action the international financial action taskforce, which made 40 recommendations on how to deal with the issues of money laundering.
We are now asking the taskforce to deal with the vexed question of the financing of terrorism. I believe that it will introduce an international standard that all countries will be asked to follow. I also believe that international institutions will be prepared to help countries that do not immediately have the resources or expertise to implement such measures, particularly through the creation of economic crime units. I therefore assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are taking seriously the distinction between money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
On the investigation into underground banking, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that such banking is not exclusive to Britain. Indeed, it is more prevalent in many other countries. Once the taskforce has examined the issue, with the expertise that we hope can be brought to bear from not just the public but the private sector, we will share with other countries the results of that review We are determined to co-operate with other countries in asset tracking, so that we can identify the sources from which terrorism is financed.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing the legislation. The economic crime unit will be part of NCIS, which is under my right hon. Friend's authority. The measure in the Bill that will be of interest to the banks and financial institutions is the obligation to report to the proper authorities any reasonable suspicion that funding could be used for terrorist activities. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a former Home Secretary, rightly said, previous legislation left some grounds for ambiguity. There can be no doubt now that any financial institution which has a reasonable suspicion that money is being used to fund terrorist activity is under a clear obligation to report that to NCIS. Investigative action will then be taken as a result.
Finally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the review of share movements in the period before 11 September. He will have noted that the Financial Services Authority has investigated the matter and issued a statement, but investigations are taking place throughout
944
the world. I have spoken to the head of the Bundesbank in Germany, to the Federal Reserve bank and to the Bank of Japan; all are investigating the matter. Any conclusions that can be made will be brought before the House. The matter is obviously serious and we are determined to investigate it fully.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When my right hon. Friend gets back to his office in the Treasury, will he ask his officials to produce a file—a very long file—which resulted from the Inter-Parliamentary Union's 1999 visit to Peru? The file is on drugs money laundering, in particular the immensely complex issue of anonymous numbered bank accounts. No one in their right mind thinks that there is any simple answer to that problem, but it has gained added importance, especially in view of the pressure—to which my right hon. Friend referred—on the United Nations in respect of a permanent monitoring unit. Such a unit—I cannot imagine who is resisting it—might give us some hope that the problem of anonymous numbered bank accounts will be addressed.
Mr. Brown: Yes, I will ask my officials to show me the papers to which my hon. Friend refers. He is absolutely right: the laundering of drugs money is a major problem on all continents and we need far better enforcement. I believe that the events of 11 September have given new urgency to efforts to deal with the problem.
My hon. Friend might have seen the performance and innovation unit report, published through the Cabinet Office a few months ago, which identified the scale of the money lost as a result of the drugs business. I assure him that we shall deal with those issues and that we shall continue to press for the UN monitoring unit.
Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): The whole House agrees that those who choose to finance terrorism are as loathsome as, and perhaps even more cowardly than, those who undertake terrorist acts of the kind that we have witnessed in the past month. We strongly welcome the Chancellor's attempt to tackle, to track down and to prosecute such individuals both here and internationally, but I have some questions relating specifically to his proposals.
Will the Chancellor make it clear that the laws on monitoring and freezing of bank accounts and extending new powers to the police will require reasonable grounds linked specifically to suspicion of terrorism or other illegal activities, and that court approval will be needed, perhaps in accordance with rules similar to those that already cover phone tapping?
NCIS already has a substantial number of disclosures, but I understand that currently few are investigated owing to lack of resources. Is the Chancellor confident that there will be—and is he able to tell the House about—increased resources for NCIS? Also, as it is not an executive body, will similarly increased resources be given to the Metropolitan police anti-terrorism unit so that it can pursue prosecutions? The PIU in the Cabinet Office has already identified that this country carries out a far smaller number of prosecutions than other countries such as the United States and Italy.
Can the Chancellor outline the Government's position on any action against non-compliant countries following the recommendations of the financial action taskforce,

945
which said that members—compliant countries—should apply counter-measures to non-compliant countries by 30 September 2001? Were any measures applied and—perhaps more important—do the Government intend to apply any measures to non-compliant countries?
The Government have already said that they will take action on bribery of foreign Governments. Will similar action be taken against bribery of non-Government individuals and bodies? That is a route through which organisations that may ultimately engage in terrorism may raise funds.
Having promised action on money exchanges, do the Government intend to examine other routes through which such money is often laundered? The FSA has identified spread betting, financial advisers, online broking and credit unions as examples of those. It will be a difficult task, but if the Government are planning to tackle one or two routes, they must tackle them all if action is to be effective.
We shall support Government measures and I hope that the Chancellor will be able to reassure the House on the issues that we are considering.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I talked to him this morning, as I did to the shadow Chancellor, about the detail of the measures that we are proposing.
In his first set of questions, the hon. Gentleman rightly spoke of getting the balance right between the civil liberties that it is our duty to defend in advance, and the need for security felt by people in the United Kingdom. I believe that the proposal that we are bringing forward gets the balance right. There will be every opportunity to debate the issue of police powers to investigate bank accounts. We intend that this will be done only where there is reasonable suspicion. We intend also that, where possible, this should go through the courts. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to work closely with the financial institutions in implementing this procedure.
The hon. Gentleman is right about NCIS. Thousands of reports are produced each year, which are passed on for further investigation by the police. It is generally accepted, not only in Britain but in America and elsewhere, that so far we have lacked the asset-tracking skills that would allow us to get to the source of funding for those who are engaged in terrorism. We intend to give NCIS and the economic crime unit that particular expertise and additional funding. We intend also that a taskforce will be set up that will bring in private and academic expertise where that is applicable. We have already had discussions with some private sector organisations. Special branch investigative resources will be increased.
The hon. Gentleman asked about tax reliefs. I should point out that it is illegal to claim tax relief for corrupt activities. The problem has been that in other jurisdictions subsidiary companies that are not British companies have claimed tax relief for the payment of bribes to officials. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the new legislation that we propose will extend the requirement that no tax relief can be given not only to Government or public officials, but to anybody in the private sector and to anyone else who receives money for corrupt activities. The law will be improved and cleaned up in that way.
946
The hon. Gentleman also asked about spread betting and a range of other activities that may be the subject of money laundering. What those activities have in common is that usually they involve cash transactions, which are difficult to monitor. The FSA takes responsibility for examining the betting industry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as a result of a recent report that it has produced, the FSA intends to take further action. I can assure him also that in all the areas that he raised with me both this morning and now, we shall take whatever action is necessary.
Mr. John McFall: I welcome the initiatives that my right hon. Friend has so quickly taken in the past few days. Has he any proposals to strengthen the oversight powers of the FSA so that it can find and publicly name individuals who are involved in money laundering? May I seek reassurance that there will remain the closest contact with the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British dependent territories to ensure consistency of approach so that they do not act in any way differently from the United Kingdom?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Select Committee. I welcome him to his new post.
The FSA assumes all its powers in a month's time. In my view, it will have powers to deal with the matters that he has raised. If it needs additional powers to do so, we can consider that.
My hon. Friend referred to dependent territories and overseas dependencies. It has been a source of concern for many years that there are gaps in the law in those countries that prevent us from dealing with money laundering and, in this case, the financing of terrorism. I am pleased that, particularly over the past few weeks, there has been far greater contact with those countries, which are now willing to introduce laws similar to ours. Many of them have money-laundering laws, but they will now introduce laws that will enable them to do as we are doing and try to cut off the supply of funds for terrorism. I therefore believe that we will be able to take further action in that area.
As for naming countries, which was the second point made by my hon. Friend, the financial action taskforce will name countries that it do not meet the regulations. In reply to the point made by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), it will consider what action to take when it meets on 29 October.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Chancellor confirm that the legislation will apply to Northern Ireland? Does he accept that a series of measures, which were meant to deal with the funding and financing of paramilitaries, both republican and so-called loyalist in the Province, have singularly failed? What assurances can he give the House that on this occasion it will be different?
Mr. Brown: In many ways, the legislation that has been applied to Northern Ireland is now being applied to the whole mainland to deal with the finance of terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman raised issues which I know are of concern, particularly in the United States of America,

947
which has said that it is introducing new laws to tackle the finance of terrorism. However, it is for its authorities to administer them. As for the United Kingdom, we continue to do everything in our power to cut off the supply of funds to terrorist organisations, whoever they are.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the measures outlined by my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that at a recent meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly the deputy director of Interpol's agency on organised crime told delegates about the bin Laden connection in the financing of the KLA, before and during the war in Kosovo, and before the war in Bosnia, via the Balkans route and the trafficking of arms, women and drugs. Can we have a full inquiry into the activities of the KLA, now renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps, where it gets its finances from and the organised crime in which it is currently engaged?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who asked about a particular organisation. I can assure her that we shall get the authorities to look at it. On her more general point about bin Laden's funding and the funds that the al-Qaeda organisation amasses from a number of activities, we shall continue to examine in detail how those funds are acquired and try to cut them off at source.
Mr. John Redwood: When the Chancellor said that our recent interest rate cut was co-ordinated with other countries, did he mean the Treasury requested the Bank of England to take that action or that the Bank of England decided independently to go beyond its normal remit and timing for those changes? I am not against the change; I would just like to know the process by which it took place.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter of interest rates so that I can put him right. The individual authorities—the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve bank and the European Central Bank—make their own decisions about interest rates. I know that many Opposition Members resisted our decision to make the Bank of England independent, but it is independent and makes its own decisions.
I was referring to what I thought and feel able comment on; everybody here should be able to do that. Following the decisive action by the relevant authorities, there was a boost to the world economy at a most difficult time. There have now been nine interest rate cuts in the USA, three by the European Central Bank and six by the Bank of England in the last few months. All those institutions have made statements in the pass few weeks that they will not hesitate to take further action if necessary. I am therefore grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put the record straight.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The measures announced mean that it will be easier to tackle underground banking, money laundering conducted nationally and, with the G7, that practised in overseas financial institutions. Will the provisions be extended so that problems can be tackled in countries like Nigeria, where the Abacha regime salted away masses of money under the dictatorship? Surely the fact that there is nothing internationally to stop the Tobin tax has been finally
948
established. A tax on currency speculation is of great importance in tackling terrorism because it will get at the problem of global poverty.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend wants to draw me into a very wide debate. May I answer him on the first point about Nigeria? I believe that under the measures that are being embedded in law and have been over the past few years, to which we are adding today, banks have an obligation to report suspicious transactions and we have the power to freeze the money involved. That makes it possible to say that what happened in the past should not happen in the same way again. We are determined to root out the sort of practice that caused us problems in the past. As for the Nigerian case, it is a matter of judicial review, so my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment further on that.
With regard to the Tobin tax, two issues are involved. The first is the volatility of the international financial markets, and the second is the need for finance for development. On the volatility of the financial markets, it has not been shown that the Tobin tax would make the difference in a liberalised set of capital markets. Interestingly enough, Professor Tobin himself now takes that view. On the financing of development, however, a powerful case has been made for all of us to do more, not just in terms of emergency aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made additional money available—and further money will be necessary—to feed people there during these difficult times, but more is needed for the general financing of development, so that education, health and anti-poverty programmes move ahead. We stand four square behind all those who want to see a better international approach to securing finance for development.
Michael Fabricant: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Chancellor will be aware that many billions of dollars move through the banks of dependent territories. In recent months the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and Bermuda have been highlighted. Could the Chancellor amplify his earlier answer and say specifically what measures are being taken to encourage the dependent territories to introduce new laws rapidly, and what time scale he envisages for the introduction of such laws to dry up money laundering in those countries? Legislation there is every bit as important as it is here in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right. Those are big financial centres: the Cayman Islands is the fifth largest financial centre in the world, Bermuda is a world leader in insurance, ranking alongside New York and London for the insurance trades, and more than 300,000 international business corporations are registered in the British Virgin Islands, so what happens in those offshore centres is important. That is why their accepting anti-money laundering legislation and control systems based on the UK model is important. They have done so, and they are not named in the financial action taskforce list of countries where further action must be taken, because they have introduced anti-money laundering legislation. However, they will have to do more. That is why we have been in discussion with them about their

949
adopting the same regulations and laws as we are adopting, or similar regulations and laws, to deal with the sources of terrorist finance. We remain determined to move ahead on all fronts. That means that we can only be as strong as the weakest link, and action must be taken in the dependent territories.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the fact that those countries and dependent territories have issued statements to the effect that they are prepared to go in the same direction as we are going to increase the anti-terrorism powers available to them. We also had a debate with them on extending the exchange of information, and I believe that we are making progress on that as well.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House will warmly welcome his proposals? Can he tell us whether the G7 countries and the other important international concerns with which he has been in consultation have agreed with the measures that he has announced in the document that he said he would publish this afternoon?
On the subject of Peru, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the new President, Toledo, is prepared to co-operate in a way that his predecessor, Fujimori, despite his experience of the terrorist organisation Shining Path, was unable or unwilling to do?
Mr. Brown: I shall write to my right hon. Friend about that point, as I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who raised it previously, and I shall look at the papers affecting Peru, to which my attention has been drawn.
On international co-operation, there is no doubt that there has been an increased willingness to co-operate to tackle the sources of terrorist finance. That co-operation means that Germany has just set up a economic crime unit; the Americans have an asset-tracking centre, which has been set up since 11 September; France has issued, and will issue in more detail in the next few days, its action plan to combat financial terrorism, and the Japanese authorities have said likewise, so there is a degree of international co-operation that had not been in existence in this area before, and there is a determination that we will exchange information internationally so that we can deal with the problems. It is, of course, important that centres where little action has been taken in the past are the subject of further scrutiny. That is why we want the financial action taskforce to set down at the end of the month new rules on the financing of terrorism that all countries must apply.
Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, may I welcome the announcement of measures to cut off the supply of funds to terrorism? Clearly, such action is necessary and timely. May I also thank the Chancellor and the Home Secretary for providing copies of their statements?
Does the Chancellor recall that the Financial Services Authority said in March that it had found that 23 British banks had happily handled the money of the late Nigerian
950
dictator General Sani Abacha and reported that 15 of them had significant control weaknesses in their anti-laundering rules? Is he confident that the measures announced today will make such cases, which involve state terrorists and murderous dictators, impossible in future?
Mr. Brown: That is our intention. As I mentioned in reply to a previous question about exactly the same matter, the power that we now have to require financial institutions to report to the authorities when there are reasonable suspicions about the possible use of funds for terrorist purposes, as well as the power to freeze money, were not available when the authorities were originally dealing with the Nigerian case. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the 23 banks that were named. He might also note that we have offered official assistance to the Nigerian authorities to help them in the recovery of money. That is currently a matter for judicial review, so I cannot, of course, comment on the outcome. We are not only taking legislative measures to deal with potential problems but offering assistance to the Nigerian authorities in dealing with their current problems.
Ann Clwyd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially as the Select Committee on International Development identified in a report on corruption published in March many of the issues that he has raised. In particular, it dealt with the Abacha issue, money laundering and so on. On money laundering, the Committee concluded on the basis of the evidence given to us that there was gross under-reporting of suspicious transactions among professionals such as lawyers and accountants. Will he reassure us that people who refuse to report such transactions will be caught by the legislation that he is proposing?
Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend has shown, one of the problems is that there is currently no international obligation for financial institutions to report suspicious transactions. The tightening up that has occurred in Britain has not yet taken place in other countries, but we are determined that it should happen. My hon. Friend may note that the second European Union money laundering directive is now the subject of debate in the European Parliament. The directive would require lawyers, accountants and other financial practitioners to report suspicious transactions. If it were agreed to, it would represent a tightening up of the law throughout Europe. I urge the European Parliament to introduce it as quickly as possible.
Mr. John Baron: As part of the Government's anti-terrorism measures, does the Chancellor intend to release additional moneys to allow a substantial increase in police numbers? As we all know, any legislation that is passed by the House is worth while only if it can be enforced on the ground. We know that our police forces are overstretched and that crime is increasing. I believe that the additional burden of anti-terrorism measures, together with progress on increasing security—sadly, this will become a fact of life—means that we need a step change in our policing levels.
Mr. Brown: I did not think that the first call to be made today for more money would come from the Opposition Benches, but indeed it has. We have said that we accept

951
that, where security issues, international development responsibilities and the defence and military requirements of what is happening in Afghanistan cause additional resources to be required, that will be a priority for the Government. The hon. Gentleman may have noted that we said that additional resources would be available for NCIS. We also said that they would be available for special branch and its investigative resources. We are increasing Home Office expenditure and expenditure on the police by around 6 per cent. in real terms this year and next year. Of course, we shall continue to examine legitimate claims.
Mr. Jim Cousins: My right hon. Friend knows that the House is with him when he says that the concealed ownership of bank accounts and companies can hide crime. However, he also knows that NCIS already receives 15,000 reports of money laundering a year and attempts to tickle them with a staff of 30. Each member of a police fraud squad deals with, on average, three to four live cases with a value of almost £1 million. Customs and Excise investigation and fraud teams are considering a major programme of job losses. Will my right hon. Friend assure hon. Members that the capacity will exist to implement the new laws that he proposes?
Mr. Brown: I shall outline two of the improvements that are being made at the request of the various services that form NCIS. First, there will be greater co-ordination, and the services will be put in the position of being able to work better and more closely together.
Secondly, we want better asset-tracking intelligence to enable us to distinguish between a suspicious transaction report, which, for example, claims that an additional amount of money was put in a bank account for something of no particular consequence, and the alternative—tracking the assets of terrorists. We want intelligence to be available that will allow us to distinguish between the important and the unimportant. After that has been done, it will be possible to say that many of the cases that are passed on for investigation give the police a clear lead about what they need to do. Of course, we will consider the resources that are necessary to ensure that the service is done well.
Mr. Edward Davey: We all agree about the difficulty of gaining international agreement on sanctions against financial centres that are not prepared to clean up their act. For what measures to sanction those countries will the British member of the financial action taskforce press.
Mr. Brown: When the financial action taskforce made its original recommendations, it named several countries that had to bring their practices into line with the accepted standard for the international community. We gave those countries until 30 September to do that. Action against them, and appropriate future action will be considered at the meeting in October.
Every financial centre that refuses to operate in a way that fulfils international standard; will increasingly be outlawed from the rest of the international community. We will lead the calls for the behaviour of centres that do
952
not follow the rules, proper procedures and agreed international standards to be perceived as unacceptable, and for them to lose business increasingly as a result.
Mr. Ian Davidson: I welcome the Chancellor's drawing of links between terrorism, drugs, crime and associated problems. However, there is a major omission from the list: tax evasion. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend extended his powers to cover that. Does he accept that there should be no undue restrictions on the search for financial information and that trawls, which should be carried out, would uncover many links between the different problems?
Would my right hon. Friend also consider amending the current balance between penalties and rewards for those engaged in money laundering? The profits are enormous and the penalties, especially for lawyers, accountants and bankers in the City of London and elsewhere who assist terrorists to hide their money, are slight. Does he agree that publicly hanging a couple of lawyers would greatly assist with concentrating the mind?
Mr. Brown: We are against capital punishment.
Mr. John Bercow: Even of lawyers?
Mr. Brown: I cannot say that.
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the problem of tax evasion. Since 1997, we have increased significantly the legislation that tackles tax evasion. Today, we have announced a change in the law on the ability of the Inland Revenue to pass information to the police. That information could not previously be passed on unless treason or murder was involved. We believe that a range of crimes justify passing information from the Inland Revenue to the police. We will consult on the details of the legislation, but the police will have more sources of information from the Inland Revenue about crimes that are being committed.
We are therefore not only increasing the laws that tighten up action against tax evasion, but making it increasingly possible to deal with financial terrorism through giving the Inland Revenue the ability to pass information to the police authorities in specific instances.
Lembit Öpik: Will the Chancellor ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as well as Ministers in the south of Ireland and the Stormont Assembly, are consulted as the measures are implemented?
Mr. Brown: As I said earlier, some measures that we are introducing today already apply in Northern Ireland and we are therefore extending them to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, if measures specifically affect Northern Ireland or if there is a general need for discussion on measures that will affect Northern Ireland as they apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, we shall consult.
Roger Casale: My right hon. Friend is right to stress that money laundering and other illicit financial transactions are a worldwide phenomenon, so he is also right to stress the importance of co-operative action at European level in framing an international response.

953
However, will he also consider the examples of best practice in other European countries, in particular the experience of a previous Italian Government and the Banca d'Italia in tackling organised crime in that country by making banking procedures more transparent, so cutting off Mafia access to Mafia funds? That example was studied in depth on a trip in March 2000 by the British-Italian parliamentary group to the Banca d'Italia and the Italian equivalent of the Speaker's Office, and I would be pleased to make the report available to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall examine the successes and the weaknesses of operations across the world in considering what we can best do. I believe that the degree of international co-operation now allows us to share experience about what is working and what is not likely to work. The EU money-laundering directive is on the table and I gather that it is to be discussed by the European Parliament on Wednesday. It is possible to move forward and the directive could be implemented next month. I urge all Members of the European Parliament to join us in getting it through.

Railtrack
5.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning Railtrack, to describe to the House the worsening financial crisis facing Railtrack, which led the Government to petition for railway administration on 7 October, and to outline the further measures that we intend to take to put the interests of the travelling public first.
The House will be aware of the history of Railtrack, as will Conservative Members. When the railway industry was restructured following the Railways Act 1993, Railtrack was created by the Conservative Government. In 1996, Railtrack was privatised by the Conservative Government. It was the only publicly floated utility subsidised by the Government. That subsidy made up the majority—in fact, some two thirds—of its revenue.
After the Hatfield train crash nearly 12 months ago, the whole network was urgently reviewed and fundamental safety issues were addressed. That added significantly to costs, with Railtrack claiming that it needed an extra £700 million a year to put the track in a proper condition.
On 2 April 2001, Railtrack asked for help because of its pressing financial difficulties. We brought forward £1.5 billion of investment from the period beyond 2006 to the five-year period starting on 1 April 2001. The first instalment of that deal was paid on 1 October this year in full—£337 million.
However in May, June and July, the company's position worsened dramatically. On 25 July, at a meeting in my office, the chairman said that the position was far worse than he had thought in April. Unless extra financial assistance from the Government was provided, it was clear that on 8 November, when Railtrack was due to give its interim results, it would be unable to make the critical statement that it was "a going concern". The effect of that would have been disastrous. Immediately I ordered intensive discussions with Railtrack.
In August, Railtrack's advisers came back to the Department and said that there were simply three options: restructuring, renationalisation or, as they described it, receivership. Thus it was Railtrack's advisers who first raised the possibility of insolvency if no additional Government funding was available.
I immediately asked my officials to investigate the restructuring option, which involved the provision of yet more funding to Railtrack. Railtrack asked for Government funding to cover all its costs plus a profit and a four-year suspension of the regulatory system. Those were Railtrack's proposals.
Given the company's demands, we began to prepare for the possibility that we might be unable to provide additional funding and that, as a consequence, Railtrack would be insolvent. To protect passengers' interests it was clearly right to explore the need for railway administration on a contingency basis. As a result, preliminary contact was made with Ernst and Young on 23 August.
There were further negotiations and various modified proposals, but it was becoming obvious that the company could not continue unless we offered to fund whatever

955
losses it might have for a period of several years. I took the view that I simply could not responsibly enter into such a guarantee on behalf of the British taxpayer.
We carried on discussions until 3 October, but no way out of the dilemma could be found: either we gave the guarantee on money, or the company became insolvent. So, on Friday 5 October, I reviewed all the relevant papers and considered all the options, including Railtrack's proposed rescue package and the additional Government funding that would be required. Railtrack's proposals were cast in such a way that it was hard to be sure about the precise sum that it was seeking, but it was effectively an open-ended funding request to the Government. I decided that I could not give Railtrack a blank cheque.
That very afternoon, I informed John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, of my decision and of my intention to petition the High Court for a railway administration order if the company was insolvent. The order was granted on 7 October. Railtrack was taken into administration because it was, or was likely to become, unable to pay its debts. Our petition to the High Court showed that there would be a deficit of £700 million by 8 December this year, rising to £1.7 billion by the end of March next year.
In granting the order, Mr. Justice Lightman said:
"This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential, and I shall therefore make that order immediately."
The press has made much of the position of shareholders. At the time of the April agreement, the Government felt that we should make it clear that our role should be to support the railway network but that we should not be seen as acting as guarantor of individual companies or their shareholders. We therefore agreed with Railtrack a statement of principles. The first point in the statement reads as follows:
"The Government stands behind the rail system but not individual rail companies and their shareholders who need to be fully aware of the projected liabilities of the companies in which they invest and the performance risks they face".
To ensure that that statement had wide circulation in the City, it was released through the stock exchange news service.
The directors of Railtrack have now said that they want £3.60 a share. On our calculations, that would require the transfer of up to £1.5 billion of new money from the taxpayer direct to Railtrack shareholders. We believe that it would be wrong to make new money available, and we will not do it.
In the light of the administration of Railtrack, we believe that we should now consider reshaping the structure of the industry in a way that recognises that the needs of the travelling public must come first. We shall propose to the administrator that a private company limited by guarantee be established to take over Railtrack's responsibilities. Any operating surplus it makes would be re-invested in the railway network. Such a company would have the needs of the travelling public and other users as a priority. As it would have no shareholders, we would remove the conflict between the need to increase shareholder value and the interests of rail passengers.
The company we propose would have responsibility for operations, maintenance and renewals. It would have a small professional board of executive and non-executive
956
directors. Performance targets would be set and linked to levels of service, safety and value for money. The board would work on commercial lines but would focus solely on delivering a safe, well-maintained rail network that is fit for the 21st century.
The company would be able to promote collaboration and co-operation around the wheel and track interface, the absence of which has been one of Railtrack's weaknesses. A private company limited by guarantee would need far less intense regulation. We therefore intend to streamline the existing structure while still recognising that there will be a continued need for some form of independent economic regulation.
We shall discuss these proposals with the industry's key players. We are clear that it is important for the new structure to provide strong strategic leadership; a cut in the burden of day-to-day interference; an end to the self-defeating system of penalties and compensation; clearer accountability; and an end to perverse incentives.
The new company that we shall propose would be able to raise funds in the market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which market?"] Wait and see. Private sector funding would operate in partnership with Government to deliver the 10-year plan objectives for rail. Under our proposals, we intend to offer all existing lenders to Railtrack plc the opportunity to transfer to the new company with no loss of principal or interest. Any debt transferred to the new company would be financially sound and would have, at the time of transfer, good long and short-term credit ratings.
Many talented and motivated people work in Railtrack. They have worked with dedication, especially over the past seven days, and I thank them for that. I know that they and the rest of the industry want an improved railway system. I believe that, with the demise of Railtrack, that is what they will get. The Government are committing some £30 billion to the network over the next 10 years.
The administration of Railtrack provides us with a golden opportunity to create a railway system that is united and not fragmented; a railway industry with a shared strategic vision; a railway industry that can respond to the needs of our time; and a railway network provider that answers to the millions of passengers and not to private shareholders.
Our decisive action makes all that possible, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Eric Pickles: I thank the Secretary of State for providing me with advance sight of his statement. I am sure he will be shocked to realise that it arrived only a few moments before the start of the debate. No doubt he will strive to ensure that, in future, statements arrive on time.
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his power of prophecy. Does he recall saying on 1 July, on "Breakfast with Frost", that the railways
"need a period of stability",
and arguing that nationalisation would
"mean paralysis of the system"?
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman: that is exactly what has happened today. He was right in saying that it would take a few years to establish the nationalised system, and that the railway network would simply get worse.

957
The Secretary of State has driven a coach and horses through the Government's 10-year transport plan. The net results of his venture will be higher fares, fewer trains, a reduction in passenger numbers, and a decline in freight. The expansion of the network is now yesterday's agenda; we will return to managing decline.
Interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement:
"The company we propose would have responsibility for operations, maintenance and renewals."
So it's goodbye to expansion: the company will clearly have no room for expansion of the rail network.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government would guarantee £30 billion. That is just half of what is due from the Government's plan. Where is the £34 billion of private investment to come from? The best we can hope for is a 12-month delay in investment in such vital services as the west coast and east coast main lines, Thameslink 2000 and the train protection system. For 12 months, nothing much will happen—and who will trust the Government again? [HON. MEMBERS: "Everyone."] Certainly not the City institutions, which will run a mile. If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the new company is able to raise money, it will have to do so at a premium, because the Government, having reneged on an agreement, will not be trusted again.
The Government certainly will not be trusted by ordinary investors. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about what was sent through the stock exchange news service, but what about the signalmen? I do not suppose that many of them consult the stock exchange news service. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention this on "Breakfast with Frost"? Was it because he forgot?
Let us consider the plight of the ordinary investor. If the right hon. Gentleman had seen today's edition of The Sun, he would have read about a 33-year-old signalman from Middlesbrough who had worked for Railtrack and British Rail since leaving school at 17. He owns 6,870 Railtrack shares—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.
Mr. Pickles: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Matthew, the signalman, said:
"I'd saved up hard for many years and, two years ago, decided to buy shares in Railtrack. I knew it was a good company, despite some difficulties, and didn't want to risk my savings".
According to that signalman, what the right hon. Gentleman has done
"is at the expense of the workforce, genuine working-class people like me who've tried to better themselves."
Ninety-two per cent of Railtrack employees participated in the company's share scheme. Many of them exercised their option to purchase additional shares long after the Government had secretly decided to make their savings worthless. They put their trust in the Government, and the Government let them down.
The Secretary of State needs to answer some specific questions. On what date did he take the decision to formulate the plan to put Railtrack into administration as
958
the preferred option? Is it true that he had no face-to-face meetings with the chairman of Railtrack for a whole three months during the summer? What advice did he receive from the Rail Regulator or the Strategic Rail Authority? Is it true that the Government blocked a payment of £162 million to Railtrack, which the company should have received on 1 October, under a funding schedule published by the Rail Regulator in October 2000 and agreed by the Deputy Prime Minister in April 2001?
Is it true that on 3 October, shortly before notifying Railtrack management of the Government's intention to push the company towards administration, the Secretary of State spoke directly to the Rail Regulator and warned him to take no action to assist Railtrack? Is it true that the regulator was threatened with emergency legislation to deprive him of powers if he tried to assist Railtrack?
Most importantly of all, what guarantee can the Secretary of State provide that the rail network will require any less public funding than was requested by Railtrack?
Railtrack is bust because the Government decided to make it so, as the letter from Railtrack today shows. That demonstrates the danger of politicians interfering with the rail industry. The Secretary of State sought a political solution when a financial one was needed. He grandstanded when care was needed. What once appeared to be a carefully crafted political coup now appears to be an ill-thought-out mess.
This action has been the most destructive act to the railways since Dr. Beeching. The Secretary of State clings to office with his despised spin doctor. He should do all of us—including the rail industry—a favour, by quitting today.
Mr. Byers: There we have it.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his position. I am disappointed that it was not the shadow Secretary of State who responded to the statement, but I look forward to crossing swords with her in due course.
The hon. Gentleman is right that on 1 July I appeared on the Frost programme. At that time, we thought that the 2 April deal would finance Railtrack through this year, into next year and for the five-year control period. It was not until 25 July, when John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, came to my office, that we were informed of the grave financial circumstances facing the company. From then on, it was clear that we faced a dilemma: either to fund Railtrack with a blank cheque or to put in place a contingency plan in case railway administration was needed. It is prudent and appropriate that we plan on a contingency basis. If we had not done that, Railtrack would have collapsed into receivership and the network would have been in chaos.
Since last Monday, the trains have continued to run and no one has lost their job. We are in a period of railway administration and the company that subsequently emerges will put the interests of the travelling public first. It will be focused on operations renewal and maintenance. We will use special-purpose vehicles for enhancement projects. We are moving in that direction already.

959
As I said in my statement, I took my decision on 5 October after considering all the relevant documents. The Government have met all our legal obligations regarding payments to Railtrack.
Mr. Mark Francois: Not to shareholders.
Mr. Byers: Despite what the hon. Gentleman believes—which is a sign of the Conservative party's priorities—the Government are not here to fund the shareholders of private companies. During privatisation, £700 million was paid in dividends to Railtrack shareholders. It was a company in crisis and came to the Government with a begging bowl month after month. It begged for taxpayers' money while handing out dividends to shareholders.
A sign of Railtrack's conflicting priorities is the fact that, while it faced a deficit of £700 million by this December, it paid yet another dividend to shareholders of £88 million at the beginning of October. That is the reality. Shareholders and investor have a choice. The Government made it clear on 2 April that we would stand behind the industry, not behind individual companies or shareholders.
Interestingly, we did not hear a word from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about the problems that Railtrack faced as a result of the very nature of privatisation. He did not even attempt to explain the dogma that led to the privatisation of Railtrack, but we must be very clear about the fact that Railtrack was taken into administration because it could not control its costs. Its overrun on the west coast main line amounted to billions of pounds, and it had hundreds of millions of pounds of liabilities that were due to be paid, so we had to act. We acted in the interests of rail passengers and the public, and we make no apology for so doing.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that Railtrack was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt has been an open secret in the industry for many months? Indeed, if it had not been able to keep coming back to the Government for more and more money without any evidence of what it would do with it, it would have been automatically put into bankruptcy. Is he also aware that the real problem has been that, when Railtrack was criticised for not keeping up its maintenance, for not seeking proper funding and certainly for not being able to carry out the costings of the modernisation programmes to which it was committed, it was handing out £1 million in compensation to failed executives?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, unfortunately, the people who will suffer are the railwaymen who, instead of being offered bonuses, for which they had worked and to which they were entitled, were paid off by Railtrack with more shares, although it must have known what was going to happen because the City of London had made it very clear what it thought of the company?
Will my right hon. Friend give the House a very simple guarantee that the new company will not, in any circumstances, continue to pour money in without guarantees to the travelling public and to those who need a modern and rebuilt railway system that it will be spent on the railway, that it will be paid to those who maintain
960
and build the railway, that it will not go into contractors' pockets and that it will not be handed over to other companies that have proved, in many instances, that they cannot run their existing operations?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. The report that her Select Committee—the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions—published on 29 March showed very clearly Railtrack's failures in terms of renewal and maintenance and how it had simply failed to manage the railway network.
We want a new company, coming out of administration, that will not face the conflict of having to enhance value for shareholders but will have one overriding priority—the interests of the travelling public and the freight industry. As it will be a not-for-profit organisation, any operating surplus will be reinvested in the industry, doing away with the conflict that existed under Railtrack. That will make a real difference for the travelling public. Railtrack's demise offers a golden opportunity to recast the railway industry in our country and to create a railway industry that is fit for the 21st century, which simply is not the case at the moment.
Mr. Don Foster: Given the Tories' record on the railways, does the Secretary of State not agree that a degree of contrition from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) would have been appropriate?
Does the Secretary of State agree that it was vital to end, in a monopoly, the obscene conflict between shareholder profit and passenger safety? Will he confirm that his proposal to turn those parts of Railtrack that relate directly to the running of the railways into a not-for-profit, public-interest company are not only sensible but mirror proposals made by Liberal Democrat Members as early as February this year?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge, however, that the way in which he has handled this affair over the past few days has led to confusion about who is in charge of what and who owns what? After a botched privatisation, are we not in danger of his botching what is, in fact, a sensible solution?
I agree with the Secretary of State that the public have been rightly concerned that shareholders have received money from Railtrack while, at the same time, the company has been going round with a begging bowl asking for more money from taxpayers. Will he confirm that, even today, Railtrack's website acknowledges that its property portfolio assets are expected to yield a return of £1 billion to shareholders over the next five years? Does he agree that that is the equivalent of £1.80 per share, in addition to the value of all the other assets that have been described elsewhere? Will he confirm yet again, as he has already today, that there will be no more taxpayers' money going to shareholders?
Given that the Secretary of State has at long last accepted the need to start to reintegrate track and train, will he now stop his crazy proposal to do exactly the reverse for the London underground?
Mr. Byers: We are proposing a sensible alternative to Railtrack. When the hon. Gentleman has had time to study the details, he will realise that it our proposals are not the same as his—at least, I hope they are not.
Mr. Foster: I gave them to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Byers: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman gave them to me; that is why I think they are not the same, but we can discuss that a little later.
Railtrack plc is the body in administration. Railtrack Group is not in administration; it is still being run by the board of directors and it still has shareholders. There will be assets and value in Railtrack Group, and that value can be used for the benefit of shareholders. That is an important point to make, because it shows the need to ensure that we keep the rail network operating—the Government's top priority—and that Railtrack Group, which is not in administration, can find value from its assets. If it can do that, that value can be made available to shareholders. The important point, however, is that new Government money will not be given to compensate shareholders. We feel that to do so would be inappropriate.
The hon. Gentleman's final point was about the implications for the London underground, whose position is totally different from that of Railtrack. The important thing to remember about our proposal for London Underground is that, although it has been portrayed by our critics as a Railtrack on the underground, the reality is that it will continue to be a publicly run company. London Underground will have contracts with the private sector, so the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will not be repeated in our proposals to modernise and invest in the tube.
Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State agree that this calamity was prophesied precisely by the report of the Transport Select Committee in 1993? That Committee opposed privatisation, even though it was chaired by a Conservative and had a Conservative majority. Should we not look for Conservative Members to offer a small apology for privatisation?
The model being proposed now is similar to one that Glas Cymru introduced. We have discovered a genuine third way: a combination of the vigour of the private sector and the security of state enterprises.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right when he refers to the reservations that many Conservative Members had about privatisation when it was introduced in 1993. At that stage, the proposal was for Railtrack to remain in the public sector, but in 1996 the then Prime Minister, John Major, was desperate for a privatisation and, as there was nothing else left, he went for Railtrack. We are now living with the consequences of that flawed and failed privatisation.
My hon. Friend referred to Glas Cymru, formerly Welsh Water, which provides a similar model to the one that we adopting in this case. He referred to it as a "third way", and it was interesting to hear him say that. It is the first time that I have heard him talk favourably about the third way—long may that continue.
The important point is that Labour Members have made it clear that modernisation and reform of public services are important. We have said that, when we think the
962
private sector can add value, it has a role to play. Railtrack was not adding value; it was destroying the rail network. The Government were therefore prepared to take action to put the public interest first. We have done that for railways and we shall do it for public services as well.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: When the Secretary of State instructed his officials on 25 August to commence discussions with Ernst and Young preparatory to taking Railtrack into administration, did he also instruct his officials to tell the stock exchange that that is what he was doing?
Mr. Byers: We were very much aware, as is the right hon. Gentleman, of the Government's legal responsibilities and of the legal responsibilities of the directors of a quoted company. We took that into account.
Mr. Peter Pike: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking this action, which is the best way of saving the railway system in this country. Does he accept that most people in the north-west believe that the failure resulted from the Tories' privatisation of the railway system and the way in which they broke it into many fragments and different companies? Most of the public believe that the system was bankrupt and that it was obscene to pay the latest dividend. Most people in the north-west also believe that we would not have got the second phase of the west coast main line if action had not been taken to save the situation.
Mr. Byers: The west coast main line will be one of the top priorities, and we already discussing with the administrator how we can make sure that the project moves forward far more positively than it has under the stewardship of Railtrack.
I am pleased to hear that the measures that we have taken for Railtrack are popular in the north-west. I am sure that they are, and I am also confident that they will be popular throughout the whole United Kingdom.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Did the Secretary of State's reply of a few moments ago mean that it is still the Government's policy that private sector finance will be the major source of future investment in the railways and many other important infrastructure projects? If so, does he not realise that his obvious scorn for the protection of shareholder value and for the notion of a reasonable return on capital will make it impossible to raise genuine private finance for the west coast main line, for the London underground and for many other projects unless they are accompanied by Government guarantees, the minimal transfer of risk or a hugely increased cost of the borrowing required? If he does not accept that, he does not realise how much damage he has done to the interests of the railway network, the travelling public and many other people looking for much-needed investment in our public services and utilities.
Mr. Byers: What is very instructive is how some of the main architects of the crisis that was Railtrack—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is responding to questions.
Mr. Byers: I shall answer the question, but the public need to note that the architects of Railtrack and its privatisation have failed to utter a single word of apology during this statement.
On the specific points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), Railtrack comprises Railtrack plc and Railtrack Group. I thought that I made it clear that the value of the assets that are held in Railtrack Group can and will be allocated to shareholders if the directors so determine. I give the commitment on behalf of the Government that we will do all that we can to enhance, if it is appropriate, the value of those assets, but no new public money will go into Railtrack because that would be wrong and inappropriate.
I do not scorn the position of shareholders, but I recognise that in a dynamic market they have to decide where they invest their money. We made it clear on 2 April that as a Government we do not stand behind individual companies or shareholders. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) asked who told the shareholders that. What is interesting is that on 11 April Railtrack's chief executive, Steve Marshall, was clear about it. He said:
"Yes.
the Government
"would allow us to go bust. It's quite clearly item one on the agreement"
that we have entered into
"with the Government. While the Government stands behind the industry, they don't stand behind any particular company, of course they don't."
That is the situation.
Most people recognise that Railtrack was unique in the involvement of the private sector. There will be opportunities for private finance to work with Government funding. With the assurances that we have given over the past seven days, we are confident that the private sector will continue to want to be involved in public-private partnerships.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of hon. Members and the public welcome his statement and his action to try to save Railtrack? The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) had difficulty justifying any statement that opposed my right hon. Friend because the privatisation of Railtrack has failed. There is no doubt about that, and it is difficult for Conservative Members to do anything but accept that failure. When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar sat on the Transport Committee he joined all his Committee colleagues in criticising Railtrack.
I want my right hon. Friend to assure me that when the new company is established it will implement the improvements planned for Railtrack and for stations, including Wakefield in my neighbouring constituency, so that we have the railway system to which we are entitled in the 21st century.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to ensure that the money that is being invested in the railway network is used for the purpose for which Parliament votes it.
964
As for the view of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on Railtrack, I do not know whether it was recorded in 1993, but it is interesting to know that as a member of the Committee he signed up to all-party recommendations on the need to change Railtrack's nature. I regret that his elevation to shadow Transport Minister means that he has to deny his good work all those years ago. It just shows that, for the Conservatives, dogma and ambition will always triumph over reason.
Peter Bottomley: It is public knowledge that one of my brothers-in-law runs a railway.
Does the Secretary of State understand that he is being tested, at least for today, and that the House is concerned as to whether there are flaws in his conduct? Has his office denied the words quoted in the business news section of The Sunday Times yesterday, in which a journalist was told that he would look like an—expletive—"idiot" if he said that the company was bankrupt? One of the final paragraphs of that article states:
"A source close to Byers said that the minister now regretted not forcing"
his special adviser
"to resign over her leaked memo."
Has the Secretary of State denied that?
When did the offices of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister know that the Secretary of State thought that Railtrack's most likely outcome would be administration? Will his way of funding capital investment be cheaper? Finally, how many workers in the rail industry either owned or potentially owned shares?
Mr. Byers: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's brother-in-law is involved in a good railway company, which I often use.
Mr. John Bercow: It is still a good company.
Mr. Byers: I take the hon. Gentleman's word for that.
On the substance, I know that the conversations that did or did not take place will be of great interest. The important point is that no one briefed on our approach to railway administration before we moved in that direction.
On action that might be taken against serving civil servants, the position is clear: official disciplinary procedures should be followed, and that is appropriate.
As for the value of the private sector funding that we can achieve, I believe, as a result of assurances that we have given, that there will be continued interest from the private sector to support public-private partnerships.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am aware that many hon. Members understandably have an interest in this subject and, in many cases, a deep knowledge of it, but after two very long supplementary questions I appeal for questions to be much more concise. Otherwise, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
Dr. Gavin Strang: As my right hon. Friend considers the best future structure for the railway industry, may I remind him of the finding

965
in Lord Cullen's report on the Ladbroke Grove accident? He found that the fragmentation of the railway industry made it difficult for it to take united action on safety. Rather than set up another private company to which we give billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, should we not take this opportunity to bring the railways back into public ownership?
Mr. Byers: The recommendations in Lord Cullen's two reports into the tragic accident at Ladbroke Grove just over two years ago should be followed and implemented with all due speed. They are sensible and will improve the safety record of our railways. My right hon. Friend knows that Cullen did not recommend renationalisation. He gave careful consideration to the structure of the rail network and felt that that was not appropriate. We agree with Lord Cullen's recommendations.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As co-chairman of the all-party railways group, may I tell the Secretary of State that a large number of shareholders, many of whom are Railtrack employees, will find his statement astonishingly complacent? Is he prepared to appear before any of the regulatory bodies of the City of London that may wish to commence formal inquiries into whether he has properly informed City regulatory bodies about his steps in this matter? When he talks about his planned company having future opportunities to raise credit, does he not recognise that, as a result not only of this fiasco but of his failure to sack Jo Moore, his political credit rating is now zero?
Mr. Byers: The important thing is that my actions were taken fully in line with all the legal advice and opinions that I received. I am confident that we have addressed all the issues with regard to the regulation of the City and to obligations that I might have had to declare information relevant to shareholders. I shall certainly appear before any relevant body to explain exactly what the circumstances were.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: My right hon. Friend took the right decision. Had he not, the Opposition would be baying for his blood because the company would have been going bankrupt.
My right hon. Friend said that he was going to consider due compensation with regard to the cherry picking that is taking place among shareholders. Will he give a commitment to me and the House that the channel tunnel, which was funded almost exclusively by public money, will not be part of that process?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to say that the channel tunnel has been a great success. There is an issue about the liabilities and financial interests that Railtrack might have in the channel tunnel, and that was raised with me by Railtrack directors on Friday. I want my response to be as positive as possible, but it must reflect my responsibilities as Secretary of State. If we can ensure that the channel tunnel rail link section 1 continues on time, on schedule and on budget, we will do so. There will need to be detailed negotiations about any value that the project might have, and there are differing views about that value.
966
I am prepared to discuss the matter with Railtrack without compromising the position that we have consistently adopted since last Sunday, which is that we will assist with Railtrack Group's assets but we will not provide any new Government funding to compensate shareholders.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): May I commend to the Secretary of State the leading article in yesterday's Sunday Business, which points out that far from being a catastrophe, railway privatisation has been, in parts, a stunning success, with 35 per cent. more passengers carried and 45 per cent. more freight transported?
I declare an interest to the House in that I am a minor shareholder, on a much more modest scale than some RMT-sponsored Members, and like the Secretary of State, a regular user of GNER.
Following the Secretary of State's statement and press release of 18 July, it which he stated that Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority would be joint providers overseeing the infrastructure improvements to the east coast main line, what reassurance can he give the House that the line will be improved before the postponed renewal of the franchise in 2005?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady will be pleased when she sees the exact details of our proposals, and I believe that GNER will be pleased. I have discussed with the company the way in which we can restructure the railway industry to provide a better service to the travelling public, which is what GNER is trying to do. The hon. Lady will be aware of the frustration felt by that franchise holder about the way in which Railtrack was dealing with the upgrade of the east coast main line. We are now in a far stronger position to implement those improvements in time and in a way that will benefit the holder of the east coast franchise.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and those of my constituents on his welcome, if long overdue, decision to put the interests of the travelling public ahead of those of Railtrack's shareholders and directors, one of whom used to be the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), and a member of the Opposition Front Bench?
Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposal to run a not-for-profit company is very similar to the suggestion made by many Labour Members for running National Air Traffic Services?
My right hon. Friend will have heard the bleating from Opposition Members about the need for an inquiry into Railtrack. If he concedes the need for such an inquiry, will its terms of reference include investigating why a public asset was sold off, just before a general election, at a bargain basement price, and why the share value rose in a matter of months from £3.90 to £17?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend states very clearly the facts about the value of Railtrack shares. It is interesting that their value did not do much good at the 1997 general election.
My hon. Friend mentioned air traffic control. Railtrack's situation is quite different from that of air traffic control, and when he has time to look at the models

967
that we are proposing for each he will see that we are trying to find the right model for each set of circumstances.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does not the Secretary of State understand that outside the House there is deep cynicism about the timing of this decision? Is he surprised about that, bearing in mind the disgraceful leaked e-mail from his special adviser? Is he aware that he has brought public and political life into disrepute by his lack of action in failing to sack Jo Moore?
Mr. Byers: As I said, the person concerned has been dealt with through the official disciplinary procedures.
The timing of this decision was dictated by the need to take decisions as soon as all the relevant information was available. As some Opposition Members know, stock market-sensitive information is often communicated on a Friday after the stock market has closed, especially in a case such as this, when administration may follow as a result. That is what we did in this situation, to ensure that any move to railway administration might be made in an orderly way.
I repeat the point that I made in my statement: the thousands of railway workers who turned up for work on Monday after the railway administration was announced have done a great service to the network. They have worked normally; what has happened has not distracted them. Most of them believe that an opportunity now exists to build a railway network of which they can be proud as workers and of which we can be proud as a country, as is simply not the case at the moment.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there is a criticism of him it is that he did not make his decision sooner? Public disquiet has long existed at the fact that vast sums of public money were being pumped into a system to allow the bosses of the industry to pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses, to subsidise shares without following market principles and, of course, to create a shambles of a railway system. Would my right hon. Friend accept that, now he has done this worthwhile deed, the travelling public is waiting for him to tackle the problem of the operating companies and the shambles that some of them are in? If he has that on his agenda, could he please start with Virgin?
Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend makes some interesting points, as always. When the scale of the crisis was revealed on 25 July, we moved quickly to consider all the options with Railtrack and to make contingency plans for railway administration, if that proved to be necessary, as it did. Finally, on 5 October, we took the decision when all the relevant factors had been considered and all the relevant issues taken into account.
My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the role of the operating companies. We should revisit the way in which franchises are awarded to ensure that the travelling public benefit. I said in my statement that we should use this decision on Railtrack, as an opportunity to restructure the whole railway industry. I intend to do that, and I would like to think that we could do that in
968
partnership with all the key players in the industry, because that was what was lacking as a result of the privatisation imposed by the Conservatives.
Pete Wishart: I think that everyone in the House would agree that the demise of Railtrack was as predictable as it was overdue. Does the Secretary of State agree that its demise presents distinct opportunities for Scotland, in particular to pursue a new type of not-for-profit investment policy for which we in the Scottish National party have argued—successfully, it seems, given the Government's conversion to that policy—over the past few years?
In Scotland we have a single Railtrack zone. ScotRail provides some 95 per cent. of all train services. Is it not now time for Scotland to break with the failures of the national Railtrack past and to improve public accountability by making the Scottish Executive and Parliament directly responsible for rail services in Scotland?
Mr. Byers: I am delighted that yet another Opposition party is claiming authorship of our proposals, but the hon. Gentleman's proposition does not have immediate appeal.
John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatisation was a complex method of achieving the relatively simple goal of shifting massive amounts of money from taxpayers into the pockets of shareholders? I congratulate him on saying "enough is enough" to the cowboys who have been running Railtrack for the past few years, but does he agree that one of the most important things that the successor to Railtrack could do would be to begin to employ a direct labour force? That would at least start to remove some of the fragmentation, confusion and lack of accountability that have turned Britain's railways into a lethal network.
Mr. Byers: The issue of employment will be a matter for the company once it is established. Joint work between the company and the Government could be conducted in the field of training. Training in the railway industry has been neglected for many years, especially during the past few years of privatisation. There is a skills shortage in the railway industry, and a productive conversation can be held about the need to ensure that we have a properly skilled work force on the railway network.
Mr. John Redwood: As the Secretary of State has now accepted that cash, property and some other assets belong to group shareholders and not the receivership company, can he not see that he will have to persuade the Chancellor to put a lot more cash into the Railtrack company in administration, in order to rebuild its balance sheet now that the group and individual shareholders are shorn of those assets, and to make the company more viable for borrowing and private finance? Given the huge damage that he has done to the private finance initiative and the public accounts, will it not be impossible for his going concern certificate to be renewed by the Chancellor?
Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman has called for my resignation on—I think—three occasions. Two of the calls were made while we were trying to save jobs at Longbridge in Birmingham. He was prepared to see the

969
company sold off to a venture capitalist resulting in the loss of 6,500 jobs. That was his approach; we ignored him and we saved 6,500 jobs as a result. This action is saving the railway network for the travelling public. I have no intention of resigning for doing that.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: My right hon. Friend referred to the channel tunnel rail link. As the first stage of that massive infrastructure project nears completion, does he agree that it is vital to the regeneration of north Kent and its people, who have endured disruption, some blight and upheaval—it has been a sacrifice for the greater good of the United Kingdom—that the second stage is built? Will he give a guarantee that it will be built along the same route, with environmental safeguards, to ensure the economic prosperity that we so need throughout Kent and London?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents and the people of north Kent. I reassure him that major projects that were under way, whether on section 1 of the channel tunnel rail link or on the west coast main line, will continue. We are talking to the administrators about the steps that can be taken to drive forward the projects more positively and without the cost overruns that we saw under Railtrack. This is the opportunity to ensure, through special purpose vehicles, that we deliver on time and on budget. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that those projects will not be affected by this decision and will be able to continue.
Chris Grayling: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that since privatisation passenger numbers have been rising by approximately 17 per cent. a year, to the point at which the network is suffering considerable capacity problems. Now that we are one year into his 10-year plan for the railways, will he confirm that he has secure funding to complete that plan? Will he also give some examples of enhancements to the railway network that we can expect to be open for business during this Parliament?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman should probably be aware that passenger numbers are up not because of privatisation but because of the strength of the economy and the fact that more people are in work. [Interruption.] That is why passenger numbers are on the increase. People will see improvements in the railway network as a result of the decision that we have taken. We expect that, during this Parliament, for example, section 1 of the channel tunnel rail link will be completed. That will bring real benefits to the travelling public.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action that he has taken, about which my constituents in Carlisle are delighted. He may be aware that in April I promoted a private Member's Bill that anticipated today's situation. I ask him for an assurance regarding the west coast main line. Next year, we shall have tilting trains, which are capable of 140 mph. Will the west coast main line be upgraded to meet that standard?
Mr. Byers: I am pleased that the people of Carlisle are celebrating our decision. For too long, they have suffered
970
inadequacies on the west coast main line. The upgrade is important. I know that there has been concern that the work has been falling behind schedule and that all the enhancements that we want will not be delivered. As I said, we are talking actively to the administrator about the major infrastructure projects. We want to ensure that we can improve on the performance under Railtrack.
If there is one example of Railtrack's failure as a company, it is the way in which it allowed costs to escalate on the west coast main line. The work was originally costed at just over £2 billion; the latest estimate is some £7 billion. That has been the real problem. It is a problem not of the Government's making, but of Railtrack's failures to control its own costs.
Lawrie Quinn: As the other co-chairman of the all-party railways group, I want to say how much I liked the part in my right hon. Friend's statement about recognising the loyalty, talent and commitment of the Railtrack staff who have gone on working for a 21st century railway. Will he give a commitment about the future of freight on rail and say whether the proposals that Railtrack had developed will be followed through by the proposed new company?
Mr. Byers: Freight has often been the forgotten part of the railway network. I know from the discussions that my Department and ministerial team have had with representatives of freight companies that there has been real concern about the way in which the railway network has developed. I assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure as part of the 10-year plan—in which we have a clear objective on the growth of freight—that we deliver on that commitment.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Has the Secretary of State forgotten that his Government have been in power for the past four years? Surely he must recognise that what has happened to Railtrack is a direct result of the success of the policies of his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who set out deliberately to undermine Railtrack and the theory of privatisation by interfering, centralising and destroying a potentially successful company, undermining all future private sector involvement in public matters.
Mr. Byers: According to the Conservatives, Railtrack is not to blame. That is very interesting. I ask the hon. Lady to look at Railtrack's record, which says it all. She cannot blame an individual Member for Railtrack's position. When she reflects on her comments, she will realise that that is the reality. Railtrack is responsible for the fact that, by December this year, it would have had a deficit of £700 million and that, by March next year, it would have had a deficit of £1.7 billion. That is due to Railtrack's mismanagement, not this Government's policies.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the Secretary of State make it clear who in years to come will be responsible for delivery or failure to deliver? He has not yet answered the question about section 2 of the channel tunnel rail link. It is important to the economic regeneration of the area involved, and to ensure that the north and specifically Scotland have direct links to the channel tunnel.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that section 2 of the channel tunnel rail link has already

971
commenced. The work started on time and I understand that it is going well. Section 2 will be completed. The hon. Gentleman need not be too concerned about that. The company, limited by guarantee, will have funding from the Government by way of grant, it will have access to income from track access charges and it will be able to raise money on the private markets. It will therefore be adequately funded to deliver its part of the 10-year transport plan.
Mr. Clive Betts: My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refuse to write Railtrack another blank cheque, but will he explain in greater detail the funding arrangements he has in mind for the new company? In particular, will any of its future borrowing, debt, or losses—if it makes any—be underwritten or guaranteed in any way by the Government? How will those funding arrangements sit alongside the public sector borrowing requirement?
Mr. Byers: The proposed company to take over Railtrack's liabilities that we will put to the administrator will be a private company; therefore its borrowing and finance will not score against public borrowing, but will be in the private sector.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that just over a year ago the Government announced an investment plan for the railways of £49 billion over 10 years £34 billion of which was to be funded by the private sector. Will he explain now how such investment is to be funded in future? Does he stand by those figures? If the Government expect the source to be private sector funding not guaranteed by the public sector, will he explain to the travelling public for whom he has such regard what that will mean in terms of access charges and passenger fares in future?
Mr. Byers: In terms of financing, the 10-year plan that we announced last year will not be affected by our decision on Railtrack or in other ways. It is important to remember that the City regards Railtrack as a unique body and that it recognises the reasons why the Government had to take the action we took. As the details and exactly what it is that we want to take over from Railtrack are explained to the City, it is becoming interested in the opportunities that will result from our proposals. We are confident that the targets and objectives outlined in the 10-year plan can be met as a result of the demise of Railtrack.
Gillian Merron: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's public-spirited action—an action welcomed not only by Labour Members but by people throughout the country—may I emphasise the important role that Railtrack has played in the search for a solution to the problem of increased rail traffic as it is experienced in Lincoln, where a track cuts the city in two? Will he confirm that the new organisation will have the scope to work in co-operation with regional, local and national partners so that we can get the regeneration and the rail services that Lincoln and the east midlands deserve?
Mr. Byers: I know that my hon. Friend has already met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and stressed the importance of that development to Lincoln.
972
There is no reason why the changes that are now to be introduced will affect her ideas on how to improve the quality of life for the people of Lincoln. I am sure that the new organisation, when it comes into being, will note the representations that she has made in the House and to my ministerial colleague.
Tony Baldry: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the integrity of the London stock exchange is important to the commonwealth of the United Kingdom as a whole? Does he recognise that by creating a false market in Railtrack shares for a number of weeks, he has undermined the integrity of the London stock exchange and damaged investor confidence in London as a whole?
Mr. Byers: Let me answer that important point about creating a false market in Railtrack shares. As I outlined in my statement, I faced a choice on 5 October: either to guarantee further funding to Railtrack—an option that I could have chosen—or to apply to put the company into railway administration. No decision had been taken until that date. As one who follows such matters, the hon. Gentleman knows where the responsibility to inform shareholders lies if a company is in particular difficulties: he knows that it is not for the Secretary of State to do that. As soon as I took a decision, my responsibility was to make sure that the chairman of the company was informed immediately, and that is exactly what happened on 5 October.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: First, I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his timely action. Had that action been taken during the first week of May 1997, we would have saved a vast amount of grief and public money.
Will my right hon. Friend institute an investigation into the problem of gauge corner cracking? I understand from newspaper reports that the problem—it can cause broken rails and lead to accidents—is now worse than it was before Hatfield, and that, as a result of Railtrack's incompetence, it is now occurring in rails that are less than a year old.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of gauge corner cracking, which was responsible for the accident at Hatfield a year ago this Wednesday. When we consider recommendations—especially those of Cullen—on network safety and we implement those recommendations, we can address precisely that sort of issue. Most importantly, the new company that we want to take over after administration will have a clear objective: it will deal with operations, renewals and maintenance. Above all, it will not face the terrible conflict that arises from the need to increase shareholder value. Its single, overriding priority will be to provide a safe, efficient and effective railway network. The issues my hon. Friend raises can be met by the new company that we intend to create.
Dr. John Pugh: Has the Minister noted that many Labour Members have today complained about the fragmentation of the railways? Will he explain to them, and to us, how the proposals for London Underground can subtly avoid that ill?
Mr. Byers: The important point about London Underground is that our proposals for its modernisation

973
and reform will result in a publicly owned London Underground in control of only three contracts with the private sector. Therefore the fragmentation about which the hon. Gentleman is so concerned will not occur under our plans for London Underground. We are not repeating the mistakes made in the privatisation of the railway network.
John Robertson: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement. I was especially pleased to hear how he intends to treat shareholders. Everybody knows that entering the shareholding stakes is a gamble: the people who win are happy when it happens, but if they lose, they lose, and that is part of the game. I also thank him for his announcement regarding the west coast main line.
Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise that safety and service to the customer are paramount, and that any new company will take that on board? In relation to the rail industry as a whole, will he ensure that no company uses the creation of any new company as an excuse to shed workers and so get more profit for its shareholders?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of safety: there must be no compromise on railway network safety. He voices concern about the position of railway workers. The company that takes over responsibilities from Railtrack will make decisions on that matter, but it is important to note that the new company will be able to invest its money in the work force, whereas Railtrack has compromised on that. Real improvements are possible.
My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we have, through the administrator, made sure that all existing pension benefits for former railway workers will be met in full. There is no question that administration will affect the pension benefits of former railway workers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on. I suspect that there will be other opportunities to debate this matter.

Business of the House
6.40 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Mr. Deputy Speaker, with permission I should like to make a short statement about the business for the remainder of this week.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise the importance of a further debate on the current action to tackle international terrorism.
The business for the rest of the week will be:
TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Debate on the coalition against international terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER—Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER—Third Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Motion to approve the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001.
FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER—Debate on clean fuels on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Eric ForthI thank the Leader of the House for announcing the debate tomorrow in Government time. I hope that he can confirm that the House will have frequent opportunities to debate the very important matter that we will cover tomorrow, and that a combination of statements and debates will be made available whenever circumstances demand. The one the right hon. Gentleman has announced for tomorrow is very timely.
The Leader of the House will have noticed that the issues that we are dealing with this week were tabled as long ago as July, because that is the way the House works. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we must try to respond as best we can to rapidly changing circumstances. In the light of that, will he consider, even at this stage, changing the business that he has announced for Friday? Cleaner fuels may be an important issue, but are not necessarily a timely one.
I ask the Leader of the House to consider a debate on the relationship of Ministers' special advisers and civil servants and how the integrity of the civil service can be guaranteed. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman shares my view that our civil service is the envy of the world in terms of its professionalism and integrity. It has now been compromised by the actions of special advisers, and a debate on Friday would indeed be a timely opportunity for the Government to reinforce their commitment to the integrity of the civil service. They might be able to tell us how that will be achieved in future more than it has been in the recent past.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. When I told the House in June that one of the delights of my new role would be that I would see more of the right hon. Gentleman, I had no idea how

975
prescient I was. I think that it would be fair to say that his appointment came as much of a surprise to me as it did to many of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
I am happy to begin on a note of common ground with the right hon. Gentleman and say that we will have repeated debates on the issue of terrorism. The issue will be very much before the nation and before the House. Whenever appropriate, we will return to it in debates.
I would expect many right hon. and hon. Members to welcome the debate on Friday—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. Whoever has the device that is causing the interruption must silence it immediately.
Mr. Cook: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) has underlined the importance of debating new forms of technology on Friday.
It is important that we should ensure that we take every possible step to provide a cleaner environment for our constituents and make our contribution to meeting cuts in greenhouse gases.
The Government stand ready robustly to defend the integrity of the civil service, and to justify the codes that we have produced which provide a clear understanding of how civil servants, special advisers and Ministers should behave. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to turn to the issue on an Opposition day, we shall be delighted to debate it robustly with him.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Can my right hon. Friend offer the House an explanation of why the long-announced debate on drugs has been deferred? Can he assure the House that the debate will take place in the near future?
Mr. Cook: Yes, I can. As my hon. Friend will be aware, and as the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier this afternoon made a full statement on the emergency legislation that he is preparing against terrorism. The Home Office is now responsible for bringing forward possibly three different Bills. These are the emergency measures against terrorism, the possibility of an extradition Bill and the possibility of an asylum Bill. Given that intense work load and the great importance of ensuring the security of the United Kingdom, it is understandable that in these circumstances a debate that requires the presence of the Home Office should be deferred. I hope to see the debate reinstated at an appropriate time when the Home Office can appropriately find priority for it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Given what the Leader of the House has just said, I wonder whether he recognises that there is a great danger that the House may suffer a severe bout of legislative indigestion in the coming weeks. May I refer him to a paraphrase of my favourite prayer, which goes as follows: may God grant us the patience to recognise the things that we cannot change for the better by law, the courage to change the things that we can, and the wisdom to know the difference?
976
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept from the reaction of Members on both sides of the House to the Home Secretary's statement and to the Chancellor's statement earlier that we have not been very good in the past at dealing in a knee-jerk fashion with emergency legislation? I am sure that he will recall the dangerous dogs legislation, the legislation that was referred to as the dangerous football yobs Bill and previous terrorist legislation.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the need—I think that it was represented by Members on both sides of the House earlier when the statements were made—that we should allocate appropriate time for the scrutiny of the proposed business? Does he understand that it may result in other business having to be deferred, perhaps for a long period? Will he set in motion discussions with other parties in the House to ensure that we deal with the proposed legislation effectively and scrutinise it in full?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his prayers. I am sure that I will benefit from them during the Session.
As for the forthcoming Bill, I fully accept his point that it is important that there should be adequate time for its scrutiny. I have said repeatedly that our maxim is that good scrutiny makes for good government. At the same time, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that our constituents beyond the House will be expecting a rapid and expeditious response from the House to ensure that we plug any gaps in our provision against terrorism. I hope that with the agreement of Members on both sides of the House we can provide time for adequate scrutiny and at the same time make decent progress. I rather like the phrase used by the shadow Home Secretary, who said that we should seek to produce good law and fast law.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that supplementary questions must relate to the statement that has been made by the Leader of the House on this week's business.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when he will set up the Science and Technology Committee? Given the contradictory statements on chemical and biological warfare, there seems to be an issue here that demands deep scrutiny.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with the business statement.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To inform tomorrow's debate, will the Leader of the House give some idea of the timetable for the three pieces of emergency legislation? When is the House likely to see them? As they are emergency pieces of legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they will be timetabled? Given that he must have thought about the time that they will take to pass through the House, will he say something about other legislation that will have to be deferred to make time for the emergency legislation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my ruling, which was that questions

977
must relate to this week's business. There will be a further opportunity on Thursday to question the Leader of the House on wider matters.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the debate tomorrow on the Adjournment of the House, but it is noticeable that all the recent debates have been on Adjournments of the House and not on substantive motions. Will the Leader of the House be looking to have a debate on a substantive motion very soon, possibly even on Friday?
Mr. Cook: It is the custom of the House to debate issues relating to such a crisis on the Adjournment of the House so that Members may make any contribution that they wish that is relevant to the crisis. That has been a longstanding practice. There have been exceptions to it, however. There was an exception during the Suez crisis when the then Opposition vigorously opposed the line that was being taken by the then Government. I do not think that there is any serious dissent within the House over the measures that are being taken by the Government. There are many ways to sense the will of the House, and those of us who sat through much of the recent three days of debate understand that at least 90 per cent. of Members are behind the action that the Government are taking. A substantive motion will not alter that clear fact.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In relation to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, about the proposed topic for business on Friday, will the Leader of the House reconsider his suggestion? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if truth be told there are as many—if not more—Labour Members as Conservative Members who are deeply upset, concerned and appalled by the behaviour of a special ministerial adviser in seeking to bury unpopular news under the blanket of a terrible terrorist outrage? Under those circumstances, how can the Leader of the House defend the suggestion that it should be for the Opposition
978
to propose a debate on the matter on an Opposition day rather than for the Government to table a debate on Friday, when it could usefully be discussed?
Mr. Cook: The Government have repeatedly made it clear—I have done so my colleagues have done so—that the statement by Jo Moore on that day was a serious error of judgment. She herself has expressed regret; I am quite sure that she will not make such a mistake again. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is whether someone should be dismissed for making one mistake in the course of his or her career. The judgment of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is that that would be unfair to the career of that special adviser, who has herself admitted that she was wrong. I hope, but it may be a vain hope, that the House is big enough to accept that she has said sorry and will not do it again. She should be given a second chance to get on with her job and we should get on with ours.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will tomorrow's debate on terrorism be preceded by a statement by the Prime Minister, as has been the case with previous statements? If not, when will the House be brought up to date by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Cook: The House will have a full opportunity to be brought up to date during the course of tomorrow's debate, but the present thinking is that it will not be preceded by a statement by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Prime Minister has made three successive statements to the House, the most recent of which was at the end of last week. He will, of course, be available to answer questions in the House on Wednesday.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House find time this week to have a debate on the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on local councillors' expenses? As we know from his own political adviser, it is bad news which the Government obviously do not want to discuss. Should that not be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny?
Mr. Cook: As a former councillor, I believe that it is important that councillors should receive the expenses necessary to provide good-quality, democratic local government.

Orders of the Day

  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.52 pm
  The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have to confess that the events of recent weeks have given a new perspective and, perhaps, a new sense of proportion to issues that have previously concerned the House. The House will obviously spend a considerable period in the days and weeks ahead on major issues but it is none the less, also our responsibility to continue the normal business of legislation on other matters.
  The Bill repeals section 5(2) to (5) of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, together with a related reference in section 3. The effect will be to continue to enforce without time limit the provision for banning orders on complaint and summary measures relating to detention and referral to the court in the Football Spectators Act 1989. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the reasons why the 2000 Act was introduced last year Hon. Members who have looked into these matters will know of the association between football disorder and the English domestic game since it became a mass spectator sport at the end of the 19th century. The domestic problem has not gone away, but it has been largely marginalised by an array of legislative and other measures. English football stadiums are now among the safest and most secure in the world.
  In recent years, concern has centred primarily on the behaviour of English football fans travelling to matches overseas. In 13 of the last 23 years, more than one serious incident has occurred. Each damaged our national reputation and together they resulted in many thousands of English arrests and deportations.
  Prior to the adoption of the 2000 Act, a number of legislative measures were put in place. Each successive Act adjusted and expanded the measures available to the police and courts to tackle the evolving character of football hooliganism, and made a significant impact on domestic hooliganism. However, measures designed to combat English football disorder overseas proved less successful. In the build-up to Euro 2000, orders could only be imposed by the courts following conviction for a football-related offence. The law made a clear and, in many respects, artificial distinction between domestic and international banning orders. There was also provision for the courts to impose orders on the basis of convictions overseas if the requisite international agreement and legal measures were in place.
  While a number of such agreements were put in place, the option did not prove fruitful, largely because host countries continually, if understandably, preferred to arrest and deport offenders, rather than pursue costly and time-consuming court proceedings. The reality is that football disorder usually involves rather low-level crime and disorder; its cumulative impact far exceeds its constituent offences. Euro 2000, as everyone knows, provided strong evidence of the reason why the previous measures were flawed. In preparation for it, the Belgian
  980
  and Dutch authorities prepared a comprehensive and sophisticated security operation, maximised international police co-operation and aimed to minimise the risk posed by England followers. This country co-operated to the utmost extent.
  The effectiveness of those preparations was constrained by the legislation, which limited the number of hooligans who could be prevented from travelling from England to follow the English team overseas to about 100 individuals. In spite of extensive precautions, English fans were involved in serious disturbances in Charleroi and Brussels. The measures put in place were effective to the extent that only one of the 965 England followers arrested during the tournament was subject to a banning order imposed following conviction for a football-related offence. However, subsequent police checks revealed that 40 per cent. of those arrested had convictions for offences of violence or public disorder, although not necessarily connected with football.
  Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that one of the biggest causes of disorder in many football grounds is racism. Does he accept that racism is a factor that we need to look at in the legislation? Will he take this opportunity to say that the House gives its full support to the current campaign to kick racism out of football?
  Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right—we are currently in a 10 or 13-day period in which the premier league is promoting anti-racist campaigning at league grounds. On Saturday I was at St. Mary's stadium in Southampton, where that was given a high profile. I entirely agree that it is important to continue the successful efforts of recent years to tackle raczism, which is particularly important at the current time when, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, people want to exploit any tensions within our society. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.
  As I was saying, after the trouble at Euro 2000, it was clear that a substantial number of those arrested had convictions for offences of violence or public disorder, which were not necessarily connected with football. We also found, in line with the established trend, that only one of the 965 arrested was subsequently convicted of an offence following the disturbances. Of course, the disorder caused by England fans at Euro 2000 generated a great deal of criticism. The host countries, other European countries and the international football authorities felt that the United Kingdom had to do more to protect host cities and citizens from English hooligans. UEFA threatened to expel the English team from Euro 2000 if there were any further outbursts of disorder involving English supporters.
  In the light of the disorder and the information collected about the perpetrators, the legislation that we are discussing today was introduced to do a number of things. First, it will demonstrate to Governments, police forces and the public across Europe and beyond that the UK is taking effective steps to prevent English troublemakers from travelling to matches overseas. Secondly, it is designed to prevent English football from being banned from world competition. Thirdly, it will provide the police and courts with extensive powers to remove from the scene greater numbers of supporters with a track record of violence and disorder, not necessarily football related; it will remove the on-going anomaly of supporters

  981
  misbehaving overseas in the expectation of avoiding any punishment while abroad and any consequences on their return; and it will deter potential troublemakers from misbehaving and, importantly, others from getting involved and transforming minor incidents into major disorder.
  Those considerations led to the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, which introduced four important changes. There was widespread support on both sides of the House for two measures, the first of which abolished the distinction between a ban on attending matches at home and overseas, so that when a court imposed an order, it had the effect of the previous domestic and international banning orders combined. The second measure, which received widespread support on both sides of the House, made passport surrender during specified periods an automatic condition of a banning order. A safeguard was built in to enable the court to waive the condition in exceptional circumstances, and the power of the football banning orders authority, or the police in urgent cases, to grant exceptions was retained.
  There were two more controversial measures in the 2000 Act. Section 14B empowered magistrates to impose banning orders on individuals in circumstances other than on conviction for a football-related offence. The complaint process requires the police to satisfy the court that the person before it has caused or contributed to violence and disorder, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the making of an order would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches.
  Sections 21A and 21B provided a different route to seeking an order on complaint during control periods—that is, the five-day period prior to an overseas match involving the England or Wales national team or an English or Welsh club side. Section 21A empowered the police to detain an individual for up to four hours, or six hours with the authorisation of an inspector, where a police officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person had caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere, and for believing that imposing a banning order on that person would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches.
  The purpose of the detention is to enable the police to decide whether to issue a section 21B notice, which requires the individual to appear before a magistrates court within 24 hours. In the meantime, the individual is prevented from leaving England and Wales. The magistrates court would then treat the notice as an application for a section 14B banning order on complaint.
  It was suggested by some in this House and the other place that sections 14B, 21A and 21B went too far. The Government did not share that perspective, but it was a genuine position for right hon. and hon. Members to hold. That is why the 2000 Act limited the lifespan of the measures. It stated that a report setting out the impact of the Act should be laid before Parliament before the powers could be renewed by affirmative instrument for a further 12 months.
  That report was laid before Parliament on 20 June and it concluded with an assessment of the impact of the Act during the period concerned. It concluded that there had been no significant disorder since Euro 2000,
  982
  notwithstanding a number of potentially high-risk matches; fan behaviour had noticeably improved; the number of troublemakers prevented from travelling to matches had increased significantly; Governments across Europe had welcomed the Act; legislative gaps exposed by the disorder during Euro 2000 had been closed; and importantly, the Act was being applied in a targeted and proportionate way.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In connection with that report and the subsequent report which he has helpfully provided today, can he tell us where detail can be obtained about the sort of cases in which challenges have been made to section 21B, the duration of those cases, and the number of times a successful challenge has been raised? I note that there are some statistics in the last report that the right hon. Gentleman produced, but is any other information available which could help the House to understand how those who challenged the making of those orders fared?
  Mr. Denham: I shall be as helpful as I can. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed in the earlier report that some 30 section 21B notices were cited. Those are included in the total number—44—of orders on complaint. About 30 people were stopped under section 21B, and 19 of those were effectively confirmed by the courts. I am searching my notes for the exact figure, and if necessary I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, but roughly speaking, half of those cases were dismissed by the courts and the others were not pursued. It is worth bearing in mind that the great majority of those were connected with the France-England match in Paris in September 2000, and that the legislation came into force on the first day of the control period. It is reasonable to say that people were using the legislation for the very first time.
  Most of the cases brought before the courts following the issue of section 21B notices were adjourned and subsequently referred to courts in the subject's area of residence. Responsibility for prosecution was also transferred from the police force issuing the section 21B notice to the force in the subject's area of residence. Inevitably, it took many months for some of the cases to be resolved. When we are in a position to analyse the corresponding set of figures in the run-up to the Munich game, we will see the benefit of a more consistent approach to the use of orders. We will also see that the police learned from the initial experience of how the courts treated evidence placed before them.
  Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and I are the only leftovers from the team that played this game in the last Parliament.
  I want to pursue the question raised from the Conservative Front Bench. The evidence so far does not justify a continuation of the legislation. First, does the Minister accept that the vast bulk of people who have been prevented from travelling have been prevented after a conviction? That is entirely acceptable to some of us, but it is not acceptable that they should be prevented from travelling after a complaint, where there has been no previous conviction. Secondly, the report issued today shows that in many cases the court proceedings were adjourned, so there was no decision and the people

  983

  concerned were unable to travel, without any finding by the court that a banning order should be implemented. That is entirely against what we were told would happen and is unacceptable.
  Mr. Denham: I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, and I believe that he is mistaken on a key point. My understanding is that all the people who were prevented from travelling to Munich and the earlier matches overseas had convictions for violence or public order offences. Not all those convictions were for football-related violence or public order offences, but the House understands that one of the consequences of the success in recent years in tackling football violence within football stadiums has been that football violence has sometimes moved to locations several miles away from where the matches take place.
  Much as it would be nice to believe that in every case that would be recorded by the courts as football-related violence, that is not the reality. The fundamental premise on which the Bill was based was the necessity to be able to take into account violence and public order misconduct, whether or not it was seen as football related. Of course it is true that the majority of banning orders rely on some previous legislation—that was always going to be the case—but we needed to build on what existed in order to close a loophole.
  I shall make a point now that I intended to make later. Clearly, there is a considerable amount of video material on the misconduct that occurred in Germany around the Munich match. There was some trouble, and the legislation gives us the ability, I hope, to identify at least some of the ringleaders and participants in that action and to apply for banning orders under the Bill. If the legislation were not in place, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, we would not be able to do that. We would know who was involved and what they had done, we would know that they had participated in acts of violence in Germany, but we would be utterly powerless to prevent them from travelling to another away game. That is what he is advocating, and I believe that he is wrong.
  Mr. Tony Clarke: My right hon. Friend concedes that many acts of violence occur far away from football stadiums and are not connected to the game in any way. Given the rise in the number of offences that are categorised as football violence, does he believe that the time is right to recategorise such offences? That would prove that football had indeed cleaned up its act. If the number of football-related offences increases by 8 per cent., but it is conceded that many of those offences were nothing to do with games, occurred many miles from the stadiums, and were not football related, surely our accounting is wrong and football is often being blamed for violence over which it has no control.
  Mr. Denham: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I take precisely the opposite view of the evidence. Some of the violence is football related. In common-sense terms, when two sets of fans supporting two different teams arrange to meet for a fight at a venue some distance from a football stadium, what is happening should be described as football related. However, such occurrences do not
  984
  always turn up as football-related crime in the convictions that are handed down by the courts, which is a potential loophole in our ability to prevent people from travelling.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some evidence to show that football hooligans have begun to infiltrate the non-league game? Will he give an assurance that, if such people are arrested when they are attending non-league games, the normal requirements of the law will apply, just as they would in respect of people attending a premier league or football league game?
  Mr. Denham: On that point, I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats. Somebody who is convicted of violence when attending a non-league game will be covered. The House will remember that two tests are involved. It is not enough merely to have a conviction for violent or public order offences—there must be grounds for persuading the police, in connection with section 21A of the 2000 Act, and subsequently a court, of a reasonable belief that banning somebody from travelling will help to prevent violence or disorder at a football match. In principle, however, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  It is a matter of record that in July, Standing Committees of this House and the other place approved resolutions extending for 12 months the lifetime of the measures in question. There is no provision for further renewal, so the provisions will lapse unless the relevant sections of the 2000 Act are repealed. The impact report laid before Parliament in June suggested that the Act had had an immediate and positive impact on the behaviour of English football supporters overseas and that the new provisions had become important weapons in the arsenal of tools for tackling hooliganism. We asked Parliament to renew the powers because they were considered essential for the high-risk England-Germany match in Munich on 1 September. I believe that the Act withstood the challenge.
  Last week, we placed in the Library a supplementary impact report on the 2000 Act. We made efforts to distribute the report and I understand that Opposition spokespeople have received copies. What does it reveal? The report and its appended summary of risks and preparations outline why the Germany game was high risk and why an extensive multi-agency security operation was necessary. I am told that in the sub-cultural world of football hooliganism, this was regarded as the big one. There is certainly long-standing and intense rivalry between the followers of the two national teams. Violence has been sporadic, but the tension has long been recognised.
  The key elements of the security preparations revolved around minimising the number of troublemakers travelling to Munich and their influence on other fans. Close Anglo-German police co-operation was essential and maximising the impact of the powers that we are discussing was even more so. Our objectives were achieved to a very significant degree. I should place on record my congratulations to the German police on the effectiveness of their tactics and their willingness to co-operate with their English counterparts, which was exemplary. There were sporadic clashes between rival fans, but the numbers involved meant that the Munich police could contain the disorder. The German police

  985
  estimate that about 300 English and 450 German hooligans were involved. Of course, those are 300 too many from the English side, but at no point did it seem likely that numbers would be swelled by a significant proportion of the 11,000 English fans who were present in the city.
  The mass disorder that might have taken place did not materialise. As a result, we are not today debating a fresh entry in the long catalogue of major disorder involving English football fans and we do not have another blemish on our national reputation. Indeed, the German media and police have placed most of the blame on German hooligans provoking their English counterparts. I am not saying that the problem of English hooliganism has gone away. There is still work to be done, but we have come a long way since Euro 2000.
  Overall, 201 people were detained or arrested, most of whom were German nationals. Some 38 English arrests were made for various public order offences. Those arrested have all been released, although four people have been charged and asked to pay a deposit in lieu of a fine, pending court proceedings. Of course, policing styles vary in Europe and it would be unwise to draw conclusions simply on the basis of arrest statistics. However, a simple comparison with Euro 2000, when there were 965 English arrests, mass deportations and much criticism of the behaviour of England supporters, suggests that we have made progress. In connection with a very high-risk match, 38 English arrests were made and there was good behaviour among the vast majority of English supporters—behaviour that has been praised in the German press.
  I have no doubt that the disorder that occurred would have been much worse if the measures introduced by the 2000 Act had not been in place. Some 537 known troublemakers were prevented by their banning order conditions from travelling to Munich, compared with the 100 who were prevented from travelling to Euro 2000. Of those people, 492 were banned following conviction for a football-related offence, and the remaining 45 were banned in accordance with the section 14B civil process. All 45 people had convictions for violence or disorder, although they were not necessarily football related. In addition, a further 58 people were prevented from travelling by the courts, in accordance with the section 21B process. Again, all 58 fans have convictions for violence or public order offences.
  Simon Hughes: The Minister will know from reading the record of our debates on the original Bill about one of the key differences between our parties. The Government argued for a banning order to be permitted without any previous conviction, but we said that such an order was acceptable in relation to football-related convictions and any other appropriate convictions for violence and other offences committed in the preceding 10 years. Does not the evidence that he has provided show that such a measure would have been entirely sufficient? His figures demonstrate that almost all the people who were given banning orders had previous convictions for violence. There is all the difference in the world between banning somebody with a criminal record and banning somebody with no criminal record at all. Does he agree that those
  986
  are grounds for rethinking the basis of his request to Parliament to extend the Act in exactly the same form as that in which it was introduced?
  Mr. Denham: Let me explain why I do not agree. It is not entirely surprising that all the banning orders have been given to people with convictions for violence and disorder, bearing it in mind that the police will have wanted to maximise their chances of convincing the courts in this country of their case. For the vast majority of cases, the orders related to convictions given in this country. However, I believe that the possibility of imposing a banning order on somebody who can be shown to have participated in violence, even if he or she has not been convicted, is still necessary. That ability is obviously necessary in relation to the circumstances in Munich. Without it, about 300 troublemakers, by and large, would not have been convicted in German courts. Like many other countries, when Germany had previously been faced with such difficult circumstances it tended to deport people and get them out of the country rather than to hold them for arrest and conviction. It is not certain, but likely, that video or other evidence will enable us to identify individuals who played a leading role in the violence. If we took the hon. Gentleman's view, we would accept that such individuals could travel to future matches despite the fact that they had been seen participating in violence, simply because there was no conviction. That would be a loophole.
  The test for the legislation is whether the evidence in the supplementary report shows that it has been used proportionately and in a targeted way. I believe that it does. The hon. Gentleman draws the wrong conclusion from the evidence that has been presented to him this afternoon.
  Jim Sheridan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment on racism. However, there is another "ism" that has not afflicted the English game so far: sectarianism. We appear to be moving towards a British league, and sectarianism in the English game is the last thing we need. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to work with all interested agencies, including the clubs that are invited to join the British league, and ensure that they sort out their houses before joining and do not export sectarian baggage?
  Mr. Denham: In so far as the legislation applies to Scotland, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Many people—not least my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport—would want to ensure that the Government considered all the implications of any move towards a British league. If the pattern of football violence changed, I am sure that the Government would wish to keep legislation as well as policing practice under review.
  Steps to prevent troublemakers from leaving the country have an impact on policing England fans overseas. There is less chance of fans being treated on the basis of their reputation rather than their behaviour. The Munich police, aided by a United Kingdom police team in the city, adopted a targeted, low friction, early intervention approach, which was praised by independent supporters' groups. The overwhelming majority of fans were able to enjoy their trip to Germany and avoid the troublemakers. I have refrained from mentioning the result until now, but it undoubtedly surpassed their wildest

  987
  expectations. Before the 2000 Act, those inclined to cause trouble overseas could do that in the knowledge that there would be little or no impediment to repeating their misbehaviour at future matches abroad. The banning order option is therefore important.
  The supplementary impact report, which was laid before both Houses, has been mentioned. It provides a more detailed account of what transpired in Germany.
  Mr. Grieve: Before the Minister concludes, will he explain why it is necessary to introduce the Bill now rather than waiting until the end of the expiry period for renewal under statutory instrument? That might have provided a better opportunity of gauging its success and whether it was unfair to some individuals.
  Mr. Denham: The House has sufficient accumulated knowledge from the implementation of the 2000 Act in its first year and the major game against Germany, at which many people expected violence, to make an assessment. Perhaps we can discuss those matters in more detail in Committee, but we believed that there was enough knowledge and experience to introduce the Bill.
  As I said earlier, we have shown that the legislation has been used proportionately and in a targeted way, not arbitrarily. Neither personal appearance nor an isolated expulsion, unsubstantiated by accompanying evidence of misbehaviour, would be grounds for detention under section 21A.
  When we considered the extension in Committee, there were outstanding challenges under the European convention on human rights and European Community treaty law. Our view that the measures are compliant was recently endorsed in a High Court judgment, rejecting challenges to the 2000 Act. Lord Justice Laws makes it clear in his judgment that the purpose of the banning order is not punitive, but
  "to protect the public here and abroad from the evil of football violence and the threat of it."
  On the proportionality of the measures, the judgment stated:
  "The State was entitled to conclude that very firm measures were justified to confront the various sickening ills of football violence … the progressive nature of the succeeding measures from 1986 onwards, and the safeguards clearly established in the 1989 Act demonstrate"
  that the measures
  "are amply justified in light of EC law and the general law relating to proportionality."
  There is compelling evidence for maintaining sections 14B, 21A and 21B on the statute book. They withstood a thorough practical and legal examination in the past 14 months; they would be lost without the Bill.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I welcome the opportunity to debate the matter with the Minister and I thank him for drawing our attention to the paper that was placed in the Library. I discovered it only shortly before the beginning of the debate, but it has been helpful concerning the singular lack of evidence about the operation of the relevant sections of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000.
  In opening the debate, the Minister made a comment with which I entirely agreed about the Bill in the context of the international situation. He is right that in
  988
  comparison with the gravity of some matters that the House must now tackle, the Bill may not appear very serious. However, there is a similarity between it and the other measures that we must consider.
  We are debating another example of the House being asked to depart from the normal standards of criminal justice that have applied in this country over many generations. We are being asked to use administrative methods to deal with a particular criminal problem.
  Another example, which was much criticised by Labour Members, is the exclusion orders that prevented people from travelling from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom. They gave rise to serious anxieties about human rights. Although we are discussing football hooligans, not suspected IRA terrorists, the measure falls into the same category of consideration when we decide whether renewal should occur in the form requested by the Minister.
  The Opposition share the Government's aim in the Bill and in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. It is clearly desirable to check football hooliganism. One of the Minister's most compelling arguments is the example of what happened recently in Germany during the international competition. It is clearly a good sign, and I accept the Minister's comments about the contribution that sections 14 and 21 made to that.
  It is worth pointing out that previous Conservative Governments have attempted to work along the same lines. For example, they introduced the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, the Public Order Act 1986, and the Football Spectators Act 1989, which imposed restrictions for the first time. A previous Conservative Government also introduced the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that the Opposition first advocated restriction orders on unconvicted hooligans in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We accepted that an exception to the normal rule in relation to criminal law could be made in that case. Indeed, I draw great comfort from the fact that, the issue having been specifically challenged in the courts during the summer, the courts have ruled that there has been no breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. That was the view we took and the view that the Government adopted, so it is cheering that it is the view that the courts have confirmed as being proportionate. However, the then Home Secretary did not agree with our suggestion and consulted.
  During the passage of the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) again sought to flag the matter up and it was agreed that it was not appropriate for a private Member's Bill. The Government had to give it proper scrutiny.
  Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Simon Burns: I would be grateful for clarification. To which Bill is my hon. Friend referring?
  Mr. Grieve: I am making specific reference to the measure introduced in 1999 by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
  Mr. Burns: I do not want to cause my hon. Friend any difficulty, but the Bill was mine, not the hon. Gentleman's.
  Mr. Grieve: My apologies to my hon. Friend are profuse. As I was not in the House at the time, perhaps

  989
  my remarks reflect my having read the specific section of Hansard that contains the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I should have remembered that the Bill was my hon. Friend's, as I was present during the passage of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and I recall his contributions in relation to it. A bell should have rung in my mind that he was the author of the earlier legislation.
  Simon Hughes: I must put it on record that, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) knows, I was trying to intervene to render unto him the honour that he is due for the legislation. I would not have wanted to claim it, although it was a perfectly proper initiative to bring to the House.
  Mr. Grieve: On that happy note, I return to the point at issue. The Minister rightly pointed out that when the Bill came before the House in summer 2000—I read Hansard, including my own contributions on that occasion—the critical issues centred around sections 14 and 21. He would acknowledge, however, that the focus was on section 21 in particular.
  Section 14 raised the question of an exception to the criminal law that a system of complaint could be seen to work, although there were considerable anxieties about the standard of proof that should be applied in such circumstances. There were fundamental anxieties in respect of section 21 as to how the Bill would interfere with people's legitimate right to move freely out of the country. They would find themselves arbitrarily stopped and subject to a procedure at an unexpected time, which might cause them great inconvenience. That could be considered to be a serious infringement of their human rights.
  The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that particular issue has not specifically been the subject of a human rights challenge. As I understand the cases that took place this summer, they centred on the complaints procedure generally and, in some examples, the previous orders that were available.
  We must face the fact that the legislation is fairly draconian. In fairness to the Government, they considerably altered the proposals as a result of representations. I recollect that detention was to have lasted 24 hours, but that was reduced to four hours, or six if an inspector wanted and authorised that. We also considered the question of being able to admit in proceedings the acts of a public authority, whatever that might mean. That seemed to be a question of simple administrative convenience, which, as the Minister will acknowledge, raised a genuine problem.
  As the Minister said, 965 arrests were made following the events in Belgium, but I remember the Home Secretary acknowledging that the Belgian police accepted that a large number of those arrested would have been guilty of nothing, so the figure provided a poor guide to the level of disturbance and an even poorer guide if it were applied to whether a banning order should be made.
  Again, the Government listened and they introduced the notion of a reasonable ground for the constable to detain. Furthermore, the reasons would have to be given in writing, which was not the case previously, and, most notably, we considered the notion of compensation were
  990
  there to be wrongful detention. The Minister can confirm that. I have no statistics, nor has the House, as to what compensation may have been paid to any individual as a result of the application of section 21. I would be grateful if, through the Minister's advisers, we ascertained whether such compensation has been paid and how much.
  Mr. Denham: Let me endeavour to help the hon. Gentleman. My understanding is that no compensation has been paid, though I shall check that during the debate.
  Mr. Grieve: I thank the Minister for that answer. That brings me to the nub of the issues that we have to face. He has acknowledged—indeed, he knows—that just before the summer recess we renewed the order for a further 12 months. I know from reading Hansard that points were made about the opportunity that more time would offer to assess the impact of those draconian measures.
  For reasons that I do not fully understand, the Minister has decided on the back of the success in Germany that the time has come to introduce a completely new initiative and get rid of the sunset clause so as to make the measures permanent. Our anxiety is based not on the principles on which the Government operated—indeed, when the Bill came before the House last year, we understood those principles—but on the fact that we face an astonishing paucity of information about how, in practice, the legislation affects individuals.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made the point that few people have been affected by the measures, saying that most orders arise from convictions and asking whether that was not a reason for not allowing the measures to proceed? I do not entirely agree. If a small number of people are being caught properly by the system, and bearing in mind that it takes only a small number of people to initiative violence at football matches or in their vicinity, that may be persuasive and good reason for maintaining the legislation as it stands. Against that, however, we must assess how the legislation affects individuals.
  In that regard, all that we have to go on is the latest document, and I must tell the Minister that it makes worrying reading. It notes that there were 80
  "Section 21A Police Detentions at England and Wales Exit Points"
  and that 13 people were detained and released to travel. So, for starters, 13 people who were detained, presumably for between four and up to six hours, were released, having been inconvenienced, to continue their journey. Section 21B notices were issued to 67 people.
  Then we come to the bland statement that is the only information that the House has to go on as to how one of the measures passed by Parliament is affecting people's liberties. Under the heading "Outcome of Court Proceedings Prompted By Issue of Section 21B Notices", the document notes that 36 banning orders were imposed, nine banning orders were refused and that 22 court proceedings were adjourned with a travel ban temporarily upheld.
  I assume that those statistics are right. I mean no criticism of the Minister when I say that it does not need a great mathematics exercise to see that the position has been shifting. Getting an updated position for the House to consider is difficult and this latest example seems to be as close as we shall get to one. However, the statistics

  991
  relate to only one match. We do not have full statistics relating to the whole period so that we can make a complete assessment. We have simply to consider the German experience of the Germany-England match. It appears that some 31 people—
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman says that we have no other statistics. In my speech I referred to a report that was laid before the House in June which also includes statistics. It is true that more recent figures are broken down in more detail, and I shall endeavour to provide him with a consolidated set of figures before we reach Committee.
  Mr. Grieve: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. He is right: the earlier document does include some broad statistics, but they are not very informative. We are told that 44 orders were made on complaint and that 30 section 21B notices were issued preventing travel and initiating on complaint banning-order proceedings. However, we do not know the outcomes. If I am wrong about that, any information that the Minister can provide will be gratefully received. I have certainly searched.
  Mr. Denham: I gave the hon. Gentleman that information in response to his intervention earlier in the debate, but I should be happy to write to him to give him all the facts.
  Mr. Grieve: I thank the Minister. I made a note of what he said, but before I came into the Chamber the House did not have that full information. That is a source of anxiety because these processes were the subject of much comment last year, and I have re-read the comments that I made on 17 July 2000 at column 123. There had been a lot of debate involving the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), about how ponderous the system would be. How long would it last? To what extent would people be dragged into an administrative and bureaucratic system that required many court attendances and that would interfere with their liberty and put a taint on them until it was resolved? The then Home Secretary took the view, which he was fully entitled to take, that that might be a price worth paying. However, he believed that, as the system bedded in, there were unlikely to be many problems. He seemed to believe that they could all be dealt with fairly expeditiously.
  The problem is not that the matter has not been dealt with expeditiously but that we simply do not have the relevant information. Yet the Minister is asking the House today to extend those measures to make them permanent. What is made permanent in the House is difficult to undo later.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentle man did not quite get to the end of his maths. Does he agree that, on the figures that we all have—those in the report that we were given today on the England-Germany game in Munich—the totals show that the majority of cases against people initially detained were not upheld. While I take the point that we do not need a majority to win the argument, in the case of the majority the intervention appears not to have been justified in terms of their loss of liberty.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right if one considers the total figures for those actually stopped at exit points.
  992
  It is difficult to know precisely what went on. If people were detained for only 15 minutes to check their identity, the House might feel that that was a price worth paying, but if people were detained for up to six hours, the House might take a different view. The House's real problem is that it is being asked to take an important decision nearly a full parliamentary Session before it needs to be taken and with what appears to be remarkably little information.
  I do not wish to take up much more of the House's time. The issues fall within a narrow compass and the House will have to come to a decision. The Minister said that some of the points can be cleared up in Committee and I hope that they can. Given the content of the Bill, I anticipate that the Committee stage will be fairly short. Unless the Minister or the Committee Chairman is prepared to extend a certain amount of indulgence to those who wish to table probing amendments to ascertain exactly how the Bill will work in practice, we could easily find ourselves back in this Chamber on Third Reading no better informed than we are now about how the legislation will work.
  The fact that few orders have been used is a good thing—the fewer the better. Any change to the ordinary course of criminal justice is undesirable. However, the fact that only a few orders have been used does not mean that the rights of a few should be forgotten. I remain unconvinced and undecided whether the time has come, in the light of the good results of the Germany match, to endorse the legislation until kingdom come. In those circumstances, the Conservative party will not oppose Second Reading. However, unless during the passage of the Bill, which is likely to be brief and rapid, some cogent and proper evidence is presented to us on how the legislation will affect individuals, there must be a serious question mark over whether the Government should be able to carry the Bill through without opposition.
  I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will take the opportunity to set out clearly the detail of how the Bill will work. If that cannot be done today, it must be done before the Committee stage starts. I urge the Government to give us an opportunity in Committee to look at these matters; otherwise, we shall do a disservice to civil liberties in this country for what appears to be a bad reason—that there has been a successful football match and that therefore we can introduce something now that could wait another nine months.
  I hope that the Minister will take my comments in good part, because the Opposition's purpose is to be co-operative on this matter. We fully understand what the Government seek to achieve, but that is not a good reason to impose on individuals a bureaucratic system and process that ultimately does not treat them fairly.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: In general, I welcome the Bill and the fact that we are renewing it on a permanent basis.
  I was interested in what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), had to say. I accept that there is a trade-off and that the process of this legislation will on occasions catch individuals who, if allowed to attend an England game abroad, would cause no problems. However, we must recognise that, as well as those people's civil rights, there are the civil rights of many people who live abroad, whose countries England

  993
  fans have visited, provoking mayhem among the local population and attacking individuals and property. Legislation to stop those people travelling abroad will affect the hard core of English fans who cause those difficulties.
  The Opposition must recognise that we are talking about a minority of English fans, but a significant minority who have inflicted violence and attacked others when they have gone abroad. Within that minority there is probably a smaller, very hard-core minority of people who instigate, lead and provoke the trouble. This legislation is targeted at those people in particular.
  I attended a number of matches in Euro 96, the World cup in 1998 and the European championships in Holland in 2000, and I witnessed the completely different attitudes of fans. The approach of many foreign fans who come to this country is totally different from the past behaviour of England fans abroad.
  I was in Sheffield during the 1996 European championships when we had the Danish supporters. No fans are more enthusiastic about supporting their country than the Danes. They did not hold back from drinking: they drank Sheffield pubs dry in the city centre, but that did not provoke attacks or antagonism towards the citizens of Sheffield or the football fans of other teams. Their support and enthusiasm was totally directed at backing their team to the full.
  Unfortunately, as I have witnessed at first hand, all too often when some England fans go abroad the support for their team goes hand in hand with xenophobia and hatred of the country they are in and its citizens. It is revolting and nasty to behold. It comes out in chanting and in the personal dealings they have with the people of that country when they are in a bar, when they talk to passers-by or respond to ordinary citizens.
  I was in Marseille for the England game against Tunisia in the 1998 World cup. I do not blame English fans completely for what happened, because there was much provocation from some of the local supporters of north African origin. Nevertheless, a significant number of England fans were prepared to be provoked and a small number of them led the attack against that provocation. Far from the delights of mixing with the Danes in Sheffield in 1996, my experience of that game was of hiding under a table in a café as glasses and chairs were thrown. I just missed the CS gas, as the café owner recognised that some English supporters were not there to cause trouble and pulled us into the café before he closed the shutters to avoid the police response to the attacks by the other England fans. That was an absolute disgrace, and it is no wonder that the people of that city wish that English fans had not descended on them.
  I remember going to a game in the early 1990s when Sheffield Wednesday ventured into Europe—it was probably the last time it will do so for an awfully long time. After the game I asked some people in a bar whether they went to the match. They said, "No, we were frightened about what English fans would do. A couple of years ago another English team came whose fans wrecked the town." What an appalling reputation we have. People were frightened to go to their own home football club to see a game because of what English fans might do to their town. Possible unfair action under this
  994
  legislation against one or two individuals should be balanced against the behaviour of English fans abroad in the past and the desire of people in countries where England are to play for Parliament to take firm action to control that small minority and to prevent them from going abroad.
  I support the legislation. There is a balance of civil rights to be made, and I believe that we have got it just about right. We shall discuss this matter again in the future, but it would be wrong at this stage to weaken the legislation and to change the balance to the detriment of the people of the cities where England are playing and of the vast majority of English fans who want to go abroad to enjoy the game.
  Many English fans who go abroad are also affected by the appalling behaviour it of the minority of supporters who cause difficulties. I went to see the England-Romania game in Toulouse during the 1998 World cup. I walked through the main square with a friend and we started talking in a low voice about the appalling chanting and behaviour of some English fans in the square. I did not realise that someone was listening to our conversation. He confronted me and was joined by two or three of his friends, who started accusing us of not supporting England and of supporting the IRA. They accused us of all sorts of things because we dared to challenge—in a conversational way, as we were not speaking to them—the appalling xenophobic, racist chanting. I was assaulted. The person would not listen to any comment, and when we tried to walk away he started throwing punches.
  That was an England fan responding to another England fan. Such people are not merely xenophobic and racist—they support the British National party and its views—in the attitude they take towards foreigners when they go abroad, they also make life hell for many ordinary English fans who go with the team. To prevent the small minority of troublemakers from going abroad is right for that reason as well.
  The target of the legislation is right. I refer back to the proposal that every football supporter in this country should have a membership card that they must show before they are allowed into a football game. That was the policy of the Conservative Government when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. That proposal was wrong, because it tried to criminalise all football fans and to make them responsible for what was going on in the game. It did not target the individuals who cause the real difficulties. The Bill is different because it pinpoints and attacks those people who are likely to cause problems and prevents them from doing so.
  What we have done in the game in this country, which must be reflected when English fans go abroad, is to make the grounds more welcoming for the ordinary fan, so that more women and children go to matches. When such an atmosphere is created and grounds are full, it is much more difficult for the yobs, the hard cases and the racists to engage in their activities. That has happened in the premiership, as we have "decriminalised" English football. People who go to a game are there to enjoy themselves. We have tried to target the hard core minority, and to make the game more acceptable and more welcoming for families.
  I was in Eindhoven for the European championships in 2000. Many of the fans were women and children—families. The attitude before the game had a different feel.

  995
  The reason there were no problems was that the activities of the hard core, who were still there to some extent, were diluted as a result of the different approach that was taken.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend about the response of the police in the game against Germany in Munich. Co-operation between police in this country and police abroad is vital. Much of the Bill is based on the evidence and knowledge that our police have, which can be transferred to foreign police forces, so that they can be on the look out for people who are likely to cause problems.
  I draw a contrast between the response of the police in Munich and the events in Marseille. The French police were hopeless. The violence should never have happened, but the police must have known that there would be trouble with English fans in a city such as Marseille, especially as some of the locals were also looking for trouble. When we walked to that café that night there was no sign of police officers on the streets or on the street corners. There were a dozen or 20 police officers grouped together in riot vans at 300 yd or 400 yd intervals, but they were there to police the riot when it happened and not to control the situation and monitor the crowd to prevent trouble from breaking out.
  In Eindhoven, the Dutch police were in groups of two here and three or four there. They were on the spot, giving a clear signal to fans about what would happen if trouble erupted. There were small disturbances from time to time, but the police were immediately on the scene from 10 yd away. They talked to the fans beforehand—it probably helped that most of them spoke English. They showed that they were in control of the situation and were going to police it effectively and reasonably but strongly right from the beginning.
  I talked to the British police after that event, and they drew a contrast between the way in which the Dutch police had behaved in Eindhoven and the approach of the Belgian police in Charleroi, who saw their job as that of policing riots rather than preventing trouble in the first place. There was no excuse for the violence, but it is important to recognise that our police have, by and large, got it right. They have changed their approach from the 1980s. They are around in numbers on street corners outside the grounds, and they mix with the crowd rather than try to control trouble once it has broken out. It is important that we pass that approach on to foreign police forces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) spoke earlier about racism in this country, and about misbehaviour of that kind at football grounds. I applaud what the Football Association and football clubs are trying to do about awareness of racism, but I suspect on occasion that some of the campaigns are simply that. I have seen stewards stand by at football grounds, observe racist chanting, and do nothing. I wonder how many stewards who will attend English football matches next weekend will have been given any kind of racial awareness training. How many will have been taught about legislation against racist chanting, and how many actions have been taken against people for racist chanting at football matches over the past 12 months? My guess is that the number of actions is in single figures.
  I believe that football clubs are very good at campaigns, but—perhaps—not nearly as good at some of the practicalities as they should be.
  8 pm
  Simon Hughes: I am very happy, in some ways, to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), although I cannot follow him on his round-Europe tour of England away games. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said that Sheffield clearly looks after its MPs; during the last Parliament, the Labour Whips Office clearly looked after its Whips slightly better than some other colleagues. I own up to watching one England away game—the Finland qualifying match, which turned out to be deadly dull, but very calm. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give us tips on how to ensure that we all have tickets for the World cup finals next year, however, I shall be open to offers after the debate.
  As the Minister implied, following last month's horrendous events and statements on the international emergency, on Parliament's return we are back to business as usual—and rightly so. In a way, it is also right that we are debating football, our national game. I want, therefore, to say something before we deal with the bad side of football, which is created not by supporters but by hooligans. The hooligans are not fans but people who tarnish the name of football and the enjoyment of many supporters, as Members throughout the House agree. On behalf of some of my colleagues, and, I would guess, the whole House, I want first to share the joy that I feel about one development.
  When we left for our summer holidays, it was pretty unlikely that England would qualify for the World cup, but a phenomenal game in Munich exceeded all expectations—Michael Owen and Beckham, among others, played out of their skins. That was followed by a home game, which we all watched with growing fear and disbelief until David Beckham, to his huge personal credit, again redeemed us in the final few seconds.
  On behalf of the House, I thank the England team. In particular, I thank its captain not just for his performance on the pitch but for his role-model performance in response to questions and in interviews too. Under his captaincy, we have a team to be proud of and we hope for great success in Korea and Japan next year. The finals will take place while Parliament is sitting, although we may have a quick half-term break. If colleagues think that they can swan off to the far east for four weeks—with a couple of honourable exceptions—they have another think coming.
  Sadly, however, the debate is not on the merits of football and its great successes and prospects but on the nasty things that happen around its periphery. In that context, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) reminded us, we return to a core debate that has been a thread running through what other Members have said today. I refer to the issue of how we are to deal with the minority of criminals, or troublemakers, without removing the liberties of the law-abiding citizens who constitute the majority. That debate is very similar to the debate about how to deal with terrorists. This question, happily, is in a way less serious—it is on a smaller scale—but it involves the same set of issues, and it is very important.
  We have gained another addition to the evidence and experience that were available to us before the summer. The Minister rightly reminded us that in July both Houses had short debates about whether to extend the current

  997
  legislation for a year—from August this year until August next year. All parties in both Houses agreed that, whatever our views on substance and the core of the legislation, there was logic in continuing it for that second year, which we permitted when we passed the Bill a year ago.
  Since then, England's only away game was in Munich. I was grateful to receive the report that arrived today, although its arrival was pretty much at the eleventh hour. We now have to make decisions.
  I note that, in the Queen's Speech, the Government committed themselves to the introduction of legislation to extend the life of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. I am aware of the semantics, but the wording did not refer to making the Act permanent. I agree with what Members of both other parties said when we last debated the matter. Our view is that there may be an argument for extending the life of the Act, but we are absolutely not persuaded that there is an argument for making it permanent—which, in relation to banning orders on complaint and without conviction, is something that the Minister proposes.
  Since we last debated these matters, we have also seen a short report and press release from the National Criminal Intelligence Service. I pay tribute to NCIS and to Bryan Drew and the team, whom I have met. I also pay tribute to those who now do the football intelligence work, very well and very professionally. They collaborate efficiently with their colleagues in other European countries to ensure that when there are away games, or when teams come here, we gain the maximum benefit from police intelligence and experience the minimum destruction.
  I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. There is all the difference in the world between the way in which some countries have policed football games and the way in which others have done so. Some have policed them extremely well. Everyone seems to agree that the Dutch are pre-eminent in that regard: they appear to have understood that the psychology requires not confronting people at the last minute, but ensuring that police and people work together and see themselves as being on the same side. That is a lesson that we need to learn for the purpose of policing games in this country as well as abroad.
  Let me mention a local experience. I chaired a meeting in my constituency the other day that dealt with precisely this issue. We are just over the boundary from the New Den—Millwall's ground. The team has been promoted. It is a very good team with very good supporters: it is a very good club, on its way up to the premier league. In the meantime, as with all clubs, there are a few people who attend matches to cause trouble. We have to take steps to manage that.
  Some members of the public expressed strong views to the police. They said, for instance, "Please do not always turn up in large numbers in riot gear at the beginning. Sometimes you wind up people who are on the periphery." They did not mean the hard core who would turn up anyway, or those who—as the Minister said—meet three miles away and get in touch, on mobile phones, with the supporters of the other team in order to arrange a ruck somewhere near the ground a bit later on. Nor did they mean those aged 14, 15 and 16 who hang around for
  998
  a bit of after-school trouble. Those whom they meant are often 30, 35 or 40. They should certainly know better, and we must all make sure that we deal with them both at home and abroad.
  As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, this is hardly a large Bill. It contains three clauses, but only one is substantive, and even it constitutes a fairly small amendment. The Bill will not, therefore, occupy a huge amount of time in Committee. It does, however, raise the two important issues left over from our debate a year ago. I will not repeat that we had to work pretty hard against the clock to get the Bill into anything like reasonable shape following the outlandish proposals advanced by the Government at the outset. We are reminded that they originally wanted a 24-hour detention power, which was mercifully reduced to four hours with a "plus two" option to bring it up to six. There was meant to be the ability to detain people with no record of violence, and there was no sunset provision. Following guillotined debates in both Houses, we managed to secure some improvements.
  The procedure was disgraceful, as the Bill was pushed through against the clock. In the Commons, there was no separation between Committee and Report. There were huge complaints in the Lords, as an undertaking given to Cross Benchers that they would be able to table amendments on Third Reading was not honoured. Nobody considered the resulting legislation successful. Even Ministers did not argue strongly that it was good legislation.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich, then the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip in the Lords, who has sadly since died, said:
  "It is difficult to understand in this extremely badly drafted, badly thought-through Bill what happens to Irish citizens who also have British passports."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616. c. 470.]
  My noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said:
  "This Bill came to us in a tawdry and inadequate state and leaves us in that condition. There has not been a single major concession to the fears expressed not just by the Opposition but from the Government Benches."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 475.]
  My noble Friend Lord McNally, who led for us in the Lords, made similar comments. The Bill hardly got a ringing endorsement. On all the major Divisions, although the Government obviously carried the day in the Commons, there was support from all three major parties for amendments designed to change the nature of the Bill.
  Liberal Democrat Members, along with Conservative Members and others, do not intend to force a Division on Second Reading. We will seek to amend the Bill after that. Our position has consistently been that there is no case so overwhelming that it could justify a banning order being applied where there is no previous conviction. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to argue that one may want to take action on video evidence of people misbehaving on the streets of Munich, even if that has not led to a conviction, but the figures published in the two reports and in parliamentary answers in both Houses show that all but one of those who have had banning orders confirmed by the courts have previous convictions for violence.
  We want to amend the Bill to allow convictions not only for football-related violence but for any violence to be the basis for an application for a banning order,

  999
  but there is all the difference in the world between a conviction for violence or public order offences and an assumption of guilt without a conviction.
  Mr. Denham: For the hon. Gentleman's information, the legislation as it stands allows non-football-related violence to be taken into account, so there is no need for such an amendment.
  Simon Hughes: Exactly. We want to retain that provision and not to have the additional power to make banning orders where there is no relevant conviction.
  David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it has been the practice in some countries to remove English and other football supporters without charging them? Do we not need some mechanism to stop those people travelling in future?
  Simon Hughes: That was the Minister's argument, but the answer is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman thinks. After the Charleroi games in Belgium, many people were shipped home who had committed no offence. One should not be able to pray in aid in seeking a banning order the fact that a foreign country's authorities prevented people from seeing a match, even though they were not convicted of any crime. There is also a question about whether video footage of people misbehaving abroad should be able to be prayed in aid. There is an argument for that, but there is a stronger argument for ensuring that people who commit offences, no matter where, should be nicked, charged, prosecuted and convicted. The best evidence that someone is a hooligan is a conviction for hooliganism.
  It is a dangerous road to go down to allow people's liberties to be taken away when there has been no conviction. We will have the same debate in relation to terrorism. In the criminal justice system in which I was brought up, liberties are normally restricted only after a conviction has been secured in a court, not when video footage or allegations suggest that someone may or may not be guilty.
  As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, we are considering the Bill only one year and three months after the original legislation completed its passage through the House, and one year and two months after it reached the statute book. The present Act runs until the end of August next year, after the friendlies and the World cup. It is premature to make the judgment now. In their manifesto, the Government said that they wanted to extend the life of the legislation but not to make it permanent.
  In considering Lords amendments in July 2000, the Minister's predecessor said that he was willing to contemplate a sunset clause for a longer period, as well as annual renewal. We propose, as a concession in the Government's direction, that the legislation should lapse after a maximum of five years and that it should have an annual renewal if we think that the evidence justifies it.
  I will happily talk to Conservative Front Benchers and I hope that we can agree that we must be able to have periodic reviews of such legislation on the basis of the evidence. That will mean that we can take into account the points that have been made about evidence from abroad, but if it appears, nine months from now, that almost every single person who has been the subject of a
  1000
  banning order has previous convictions, that will be a strong argument for allowing detention or banning orders only where there are such convictions.
  This is a serious matter, because we never envisaged that people would be detained and taken to a court that effectively precluded them from going to a game even though it never decided that there was evidence that they should not go. That is a separate matter from having a temporary banning order when a case has not been concluded.
  My colleague in the Scottish Parliament, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, is responsible for the legislation in Scotland, but we did not manage to iron out the anomaly that if one leaves from a Scottish port to go to a game in England, the law does not apply.
  We will debate emergency legislation on terrorism, and there is a logical argument for passing not specific legislation on football, but legislation that deals with people who have committed violent offences and may be violent abroad, irrespective of whether that violence is related to football. We should also consider such matters in the context of public order.
  I think—civil servants will know this better than I do—that there are now eight recent football-related measures, and they ought to be pulled together so that we have one coherent football-related Act. We left the complicated issue of whether to accept convictions abroad unresolved during the previous debate.
  I shall end on a point that unites us: we agree that one of the troubles in this country, especially in England, has been not only that we have been far too violent at home as a nation and as a people, but that we have often exported our violence abroad, to the disrepute of our country. We must all work together, regardless of our differences on the Bill, to reduce violence in Britain, especially that caused by alcohol, and to ensure that we restore our reputation as not only good sports, but peaceful sports supporters, and—who knows?—we might even become more successful, although we appear to be doing relatively well now, for which we are very grateful.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hepburn: The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the recent tragedy in America and said that it puts this debate into perspective. Football is a beautiful game, but at the end of the day it is still only a game. We are debating the Bill tonight because some people view football as more than a game; they use it as a disguise that enables them to get away with their criminal activities by hiding in crowds. Of course, by going among the genuine football fans—I am one, as are other hon. Members who have spoken tonight—those morons cause havoc and hide behind the various team colours.
  Is it not a disgrace that, on a day when the House heard statements on international terrorism, we find ourselves discussing football hooliganism? We are all ashamed of those cowardly thugs who masquerade as supporters. We can only draw a comparison between those cowards and the brave young men in the forces who are currently on the verge of fighting terrorism abroad. Some older people in my constituency ask, "Why don't you bring back national service, because that will tackle the hooligans?" That would be the worst thing to do because those cowards should not besmirch the great uniform of the armed forces.

  1001
  The Bill has been introduced for two reasons, to which the Minister alluded earlier. First, it is intended to protect our national game, which is loved by fans up and down the country. None of us, whether or not we are football fans, will ever forget the shameful images screened on our televisions during France 98 and Europe 2000. We must not forget that those images nearly led to a ban on the English team and clubs from all future European competitions.
  Secondly, we must protect the good reputation of our country and its citizens abroad. The sight of hooligans wearing our national colours and rioting in the streets of foreign capitals damages our standing as a nation not only in Europe but all over the world, because those scenes are beamed via satellite to Australia, the far east and America. Such scenes cause lasting damage, so I am delighted that the joint action to tackle hooliganism taken by the Football Association and the Government following those disgraceful television scenes seems to be having an early impact, as was shown in the recent England game.
  The FA acted responsibly by disbanding the England Members Club, which in many people's opinion became a haven for English thugs travelling abroad under the guise of being decent English fans. By intermingling with decent fans, the hooligans slip into European countries and do their damage. The new Englandfans travel club, which the FA has step up, should stop that. By carrying out stringent checks on its members, it will be more difficult for bogus fans to get tickets to travel to international games. Of course, the changes introduced by the FA would not be enough on their own to stop a determined hooligan, so the Government need to act decisively if we are to avoid a repeat of France 98 and Euro 2000. That is even more important now that we are facing the qualifiers for the World cup in 2002.
  Hard action was needed, and hard action was taken. Concerns have been expressed tonight and by civil liberty groups that the Government's measures are too draconian, but most people in my constituency, whether or not they are football fans, would not call them draconian; they would call them common sense. Long before such banning orders were introduced, my constituents were asking, "When on earth will you stop those thugs travelling abroad willy-nilly, ruining our international reputation?" The ability to issue banning orders for non-football-related offences was well received.
  The test of the new policy of the Government and the FA was always going to be the vital Germany v. England World cup clash. In the run-up to the game, 500 fans were prevented from travelling abroad and eight people were arrested at various airports throughout the United Kingdom. It must be stressed that those people were not just randomly rounded up and prevented from travelling; they were known troublemakers, who had no interest in football at all, other than using it as a cover for their criminal activities. The outcome was a brilliant England victory, almost free of violence. A small number of German hooligans, not English fans, were blamed for the small amount of violence that took place. That would not have been the case if the orders had not been in place and English fans could have travelled, willy-nilly, and been infiltrated by the thugs.
  1002
  Although Parliament is involved in solving the international crisis, it is important not to forget domestic issues such as hooliganism at our domestic games. Hooligans, of course, hide behind team colours wherever they are—whether in the United Kingdom, or when travelling abroad under England team colours. The introduction of closed circuit television at grounds, police firmness and other actions taken by clubs have moved the violence away from football grounds to shopping centres, railway stations and pubs. However, we know that the violence still occurs. More than 3,000 arrests were made at football fixtures last year, and we need to stamp out such violence if we are to protect the glittering image of the premiership. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who is a director of Northampton Town football club, we must remember that the reputations of the other clubs in the other English leagues need to be protected.
  The measures in the Bill have been tried and tested in the harshest circumstances and have proved to be a success, but I have a word of caution that I hope the Minister will take on board. We cannot be left to act alone. Football hooliganism is not just an English disease; it happens in other parts of the world and, sometimes in European countries, at a far greater level. Although foreign Governments do not condone hooliganism within their countries, they take a far more lenient attitude than we do. If we are to stamp out the problem altogether, we must take a joint European approach.
  The Bill's provisions are measured and targeted. They have made a difference already, and they will make a difference in future. However, there is no room for complacency. We must always protect the one thing that is important: the crown jewel of sport in this country and the world that is our soccer.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: Members on both sides have said that the Bill is extremely modest. If one strips out the standard provisions, such as the commencement date and the clause on expenses, one is left with a simple clause that, on the face of it, appears extremely modest. However, when one studies in depth the Bill and the amendments that it seeks to make to previous legislation, one realises just how significant and far reaching the Government's proposals are.
  The Government are seeking to extend—in effect, for ever—the provisions that were contained in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and that had a time limit. I have heard the reasons for that and I must confess from my knowledge of the background that I have a slightly different perspective. When I introduced a Bill in 1998, I was united with the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), in that I wanted my Bill to contain precisely the proposals that we are now debating and that will remain in place for as long as the legislation is on the statute book.
  I considered many other provisions in my Bill extremely worth while and badly needed in helping to tackle a pressing problem that was constantly dragging the reputation of English football, in particular, and this country into the gutter. I felt that that problem could no longer be tolerated. However, as I said in the Committee considering my Bill, I concluded that the mechanism of a

  1003
  private Member's Bill was not the right one to put on the statute book highly contentious measures that struck at the heart of civil liberties. I argued that the Government should introduce them in their own legislation and be backed by their in-built majority in the House. When I decided to introduce amendments in Committee, I thought that I had a deal with the Government that they would introduce such legislation. Ultimately, they did and I supported them.
  There is another discrepancy in the accounts given of the history of this Bill, and that is the view that the extension of the legislation is a natural conclusion. Labour Members' remarks on the Bill's time scale and the decision-making processes involved do not quite square with the facts. I do not want to strike a particularly discordant note, but the fact is that the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), was desperate, as parliamentary time was running out, to get the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 on the statute book before the summer recess. He wanted the powers in that Act to be in place in time for the England v. France match to be played at the beginning of September that year.
  That Act contained highly contentious provisions and was open ended in its effect. The Government were concerned that they would either lose it in another place or not get it through before the summer recess, so they wisely and sensibly compromised. In effect, they bowed to the pressure coming particularly from Members of the other place and they introduced a sunset clause.
  We are now 12 months down the line and it is logical and consistent that the Government should come to the House with this modest and far-ranging Bill. It is right that the state should have the powers necessary to deal with this problem. It should have them for as long as the legislation remains in force and until any future Parliament may have a change of mind and reverse the decision of this Parliament and of the previous one that approved the 2000 Act.
  I do not have a problem with the legislation, because for far too long this country has had to tolerate the inane, asinine and disgraceful behaviour of a very small minority of mindless thugs and hooligans. It is an insult to football supporters to call those people football supporters, because most of them are not. Life has moved on and they are criminals and thugs. Like leeches, they cling to the game to advance their agendas, whether that is to engage in simple mindless violence or, equally seriously, to further the criminal interests of those who are involved in organised crime and who latch on to the game and the crowds who attend football matches as law-abiding citizens. This state needs to take decisive and, I accept, draconian action, because we have had to put up with such behaviour for far too long.
  One other thing concerns me. Of course we have a duty to protect the civil liberties of the minority, but we also have a duty to protect the civil liberties of the majority—the honest, decent and law-abiding citizens, and their families and young children, who simply want to go out for an afternoon or evening of entertainment to see two football teams opposing each other for 90 minutes at the highest levels of sportsmanship. For far too long and too often, the civil liberties of the majority have been trodden on remorselessly by the minority. There comes a time when we have to stop being "goody two shoes", bending over backwards to protect the interests of the minority,
  1004
  and say, "Enough is enough. We have given you your chances. You will not reform, so we are going to act to stamp out or minimise the continuing behaviour that causes so much misery and so many problems for our national sport." That is why I support what is happening and what is proposed.
  The Government have the majority that they require to win any Division on the Bill. I hope that noble Members in another place pay close attention to the strength of the will of the House, which will be demonstrated if we have to vote, and to our will as demonstrated last year, because we still have a problem. If one studies the statistics, it is clear that the number of arrests fell between 1992-93 and 1999-2000, mostly as a result of a dramatic decline in football violence inside stadiums. That happened for a variety of reasons—partly because of policing and stewarding and partly because of intelligence gathered. I join the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in paying tribute to the work of the police and their intelligence network, because they do a fantastic job.
  In 2000–01, there has been a rise in the number of arrests—a relatively small one, but still a rise. If one includes the number of arrests from European club competitions and at international fixtures, the total is significant. There have been 4,162 arrests, of which 301 were at FA cup matches, 160 at Worthington cup matches, 35 at England home matches and 80 at England away matches. Since 1997, there has also been an increase in violent football-related offences, such as affray, running on to the pitch, racist chanting, throwing missiles and assault. I find those figures disturbing. Arrests for the offence of affray, for example, increased between 1996–97 and 2000–01, from 19 to 165; that is a significant increase. For the throwing of missiles, arrests increased from 11 to 107; arrests for assault increased from 19 to 137 and for violent disorder from 23 to 85. Those statistics are all for violent crime. Interestingly, however, the number of arrests for drink-related offences has fallen. That is encouraging, but the increase in arrests for violence in its different manifestations is a cause for concern and further illustrates the need and justification for the Bill.
  The number of arrests for racist and indecent chanting has also risen significantly. Is that because such episodes of disgraceful behaviour are happening more frequently, or because the law has been systematically tightened up and the FA and others have sought to highlight the problem and introduce constructive and workable ways of minimising it? If the latter is the case, that is a positive step forward; but if the former, it is disturbing.
  In conclusion, we cannot afford to pussyfoot around. I respect the views held by others on this matter, but we must concentrate on the civil liberties and rights of the majority and give them the protection that they richly deserve, which for too long has been threatened and taken away from them by the activities of the minority. For that reason, I believe that the Bill, however unpalatable it may be to some, is the right way forward. I hope that it becomes law during this parliamentary. Session, providing the authorities with another weapon to tackle a social disease that has bedevilled this country for far too long.
  8.44 pm
  Andy Burnham: A number of hon. Members have made good points tonight, particularly the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I will not

  1005
  cover the same ground in the course of my observations, but as I was an adviser to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the Euro 2000 tournament and, before that, to the Government's football taskforce, I hope that I can bring a useful perspective and some new observations to our proceedings.
  I speak with 20 years' experience of following Everton football club, home and away. I have been to many England games over the years, including the matches at France 98 and Euro 2000, and saw at first hand the incidents that provoked the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and which the Bill is intended to confront.
  Some Members—most notably the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—have expressed concern about the civil liberties implications of the measures, and it is right that those implications be considered. However, I suggest that had those Members been in Marseille or Charleroi, seen the appalling scenes and felt the intense shame of being English, as I did on those occasions, they would have been persuaded to soften their view.
  The Bill deals with a unique problem, and that is why its measures are justified. It attacks the perception of some young men that they have a right to go overseas, flout the laws of another country and cause general havoc, supposedly in the name of supporting England. That is a liberty that they have taken for far too long and it must be curtailed. Football violence is a complex problem. By its nature, it is difficult to identify and confront. Blunt instruments are needed to deal with it. The Bill gives the authorities the tools that they need to prevent the scenes that have marred previous summers and tournaments.
  Hon. Members have suggested that the problems of supporting England abroad are caused by a few bad apples. Having seen the events at first hand, I do not accept that. England's away supporters traditionally attracted the worst elements of many football league clubs in this country. Until now, the whole culture of following England has been rotten—hostile, xenophobic and racist. It encourages and endorses unacceptable behaviour, disrespect for others and disregard for the laws of other countries. Although the measures will help to root out the bad apples, many others—most notably the Football Association—have a responsibility to continue to purge the culture prevailing in English football support abroad.
  Before I come to my main point, I want to raise two specific issues that I would like the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), to address in his winding-up speech. First, for the legislation to work, proper enforcement is crucial. For all the sense that the spotter system used by the National Criminal Intelligence Service at recent major tournaments makes in principle, it is not working on the ground. In Marseilles and Charleroi, it was blatantly obvious to many of us who the troublemakers were and in which bars the first glass or chair was likely to be thrown. However, the authorities did not seem to reach the same conclusion. Once trouble began, it got out of hand very quickly and was then impossible to contain. I urge the Government to look closely at the spotter system and to take steps to make it more effective.
  Secondly, the success of the Bill depends in part on persuading other Governments to take action and to prosecute England football fans who are guilty of
  1006
  committing offences abroad. I understand the desire of countries on the receiving end of such appalling behaviour to deport the troublemakers at the first opportunity, but if they can be persuaded to prosecute and secure a conviction, it would help us to tackle the problem in the long term. That would give the British authorities immediate cause to impose banning orders, and would be a powerful deterrent to others.
  Perhaps the Government could come to an agreement with the Governments of countries where England is due to play—starting with Japan and Korea—that troublemakers will be prosecuted. If necessary, the Government could consider making a contribution to the costs that would be incurred by Governments pursuing such convictions.
  The Government are right to keep the Bill focused on the problems created by England followers abroad, but that brings me to my one substantive concern. I would not like the authorities in this country to use the powerful measures that the Bill will put at their disposal to crack down on football supporters in general. In discussing football violence, a clear distinction must always be drawn between the culture of following England abroad and that of following league clubs at home and away. They are very different. The latter provides great enjoyment to millions of law-abiding and decent men, women and children in this country. It is already heavily regulated—perhaps over-regulated—and there is no justification for any further steps to limit the few freedoms that football fans enjoy.
  On countless occasions, I have witnessed fans being unfairly treated by police or stewards, or unfairly ejected from football grounds, but because they are football fans, that is apparently okay. It is as if they have no recourse to argument or reason, but can just be taken out of the ground and that is that. I urge the Government to consider those concerns carefully and to ensure that the interests of people who support football week in, week out in this country are not weakened or undermined by the passing of this legislation. Subject to that proviso, I welcome the Bill, coupled with the steps that the Football Association has taken to abolish the England Members Club. I hope that, in the long term, it will transform the culture of supporting England abroad.
  It is possible to achieve this. At Goodison Park in the late 1980s, racist chanting and abuse were frequently heard and, I am sorry to say, tolerated by many. However, many true Evertonians did not accept it: they challenged it and slowly things began to get better. Now, I am proud to say that Everton football club has its first ever black club captain. That proves that it is possible to break the hold that a nasty element can have over following a club or country. The measures being adopted will help, but it will take all decent England supporters to stand up and be counted and reject the behaviour of those who bring shame on this country.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who knows a lot about his subject. Not only is he a football fan, he is quite an accomplished cricket player, as I discovered during a game this summer.
  Many of those who have spoken in the debate or have written about the subject are either lawyers or football fans, but I have to confess that I am neither: I am just a

  1007
  novice parliamentarian who is trying to work out whether the draconian powers in the Bill are really necessary. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will decide that I am a member of the pussyfoot tendency when he hears what I have to say, but I believe that this is an important debate.
  The debate is important, first, because we are dealing with what has been a desperate problem for this country—football hooliganism—and secondly, because we are discussing serious measures that will affect our freedoms. I accept that the background is one of overall success in football. As the hon. Member for Leigh said, there is less racism in football. Attendances are growing, accompanied by decreases in the number of offences, crimes and arrests. Football is one place where things are getting better.
  Like many hon. Members, I have always been struck by an uneasy feeling when England travels abroad to play football, not just because I want the team to win so much and fear that they will not do so, but because I fear that when I switch on my television set I will see terrible news about hooliganism and dreadful behaviour. However, I also feel uneasy about the Bill.
  I have no difficulty with the concept of banning orders or with the previous measure's provision combining international and domestic banning orders to stop people seeing football matches either at home or abroad. Neither do I have a problem with the idea of taking someone's passport away after a banning order has been looked at by the court. However, I have some difficulty with the concept of courts imposing bans on individuals who have no convictions, although I acknowledge the statement in the explanatory notes:
  "The court must make the order if it is shown"—
  I repeat "shown"—
  "that the person has previously caused or contributed to violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order would help prevent football related violence or disorder."
  At least in that case the defendant has his day in court.
  My real difficulty, which I am sure some hon. Members share, is with the police stopping individuals leaving the country because—well, just because. That is the big question. Perhaps the police just do not like the look of the individuals concerned. The explanatory notes state that the police can
  "give a person a notice … not to leave England and Wales, and under certain circumstances to surrender his passport, if the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting he has previously caused or contributed to violence".
  That is the difficult bit—the bit that leads one to ask what has happened to the concept of criminal proof in our criminal justice system, to our ability to travel freely, and to the crucial principle of innocent until proven guilty.
  The hon. Member for Leigh says that we are dealing with a unique problem, but is it unique? In a way, every crime is unique, but we do not resort to measures such as those in the Bill. That is why we must think very carefully about them. I instinctively trust the police; none the less, it makes me nervous when we give them increased powers—especially powers of the nature of those in the Bill—because it increases the chance of abuse. If we give the police too many extra specific powers, a few bad apples could give the police service a bad name.
  1008
  We should always think and debate carefully before we give more and more specific powers to the police. We should ask them to use everything else first.
  Are the police using all the possible intelligence to follow hooligans and to share information with other police forces? Are they doing everything to help the French, Dutch and Belgian police forces to arrest people in those countries instead of Parliament giving our police service more powers? Sometimes, even the police are nervous about being given extra specific powers. When I was a naive special adviser in the Home Office, I remember visiting the Police Federation. At that time the great concern was over identity cards and whether we should have them. A member of the federation said, "If we have identity cards, we would need to have a power of arrest in respect of those not carrying cards, and that would be bureaucratic." Naively, I asked, "What do you do now?" He replied, "We have the ways and means Act." I asked what it was, and he said, "I stand on someone's toe and he calls me an expletive deleted, and I arrest him for a breach of the peace." Sometimes the police are sceptical about new specific powers.
  It must be said that there has been an enormous amount of legislation on football disorder. We have had the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act 1985, the Public Order Act 1996 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe read out some of the Acts—
  Mr. Grieve: Beaconsfield.
  Mr. Cameron: I am sorry. Beaconsfield and Wycombe are not far from each other, but geographically I was wrong.
  We have had almost more football Acts than England victories abroad in certain years. There has been so much legislation and we should be nervous about passing so many Acts related to this one area of football. As my hon. Friend said, we want to see evidence that the Bill will be worth while.
  It is clear that there is evidence to show that there has been overall improvement. About 100,000 British fans have transversed Europe since Euro 2000, yet there have been only 43 reported arrests. However, is there evidence to support the specific powers that are set out in the Bill? The report to Parliament on that issue is helpful, and I have read it carefully, but, I hope that I am not alone in finding it rather thin. Could we not find a little more detail?
  Will the Minister be able to give us more detail about those who went to court and were not banned? How long did those cases take? Of the orders made by the police, how many did the courts eventually endorse? Which police forces have used the powers in the current Act? What did those forces find? What did they think of the powers set out in the Act? Could we have reports from magistrates or stipendiary magistrates who have dealt with the powers? Could we have reports from police authorities that have been using the current Act? Could such reports be placed in the Library so that we might see them?
  I would be grateful if the Minister were to say whether we have dealt with the anomaly that the Act did not cover people travelling from Scottish ports or airports to England matches. The issue was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when the Act was last debated.

  1009
  In general, if we take away liberties we should do so only on the basis of the most serious and compelling evidence. There are Opposition Members who will be looking to those on the Government Benches to say more about that. Why are we renewing the Act before we have to, given that it takes away liberties? As we are renewing it, should we not renew every year the key clauses that I have mentioned? I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford on that point. We are dealing with important civil liberties. These are that people are innocent until proven guilty and the criminal standard of proof. I would like to see sunset clauses rather than the sun set permanently over some of the rights that we are considering.
  To sum up, most of us will support the legislation at the end of the day. We will back it because we are appalled, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said most movingly, by the behaviour of a few thugs. In this country, on the whole, we trust the police and magistrates to behave reasonably and not abuse the powers that Parliament has given them. However, I hope that Members will forgive me for being a little nervous about taking away those liberties, even in those restricted categories. We are in desperate need of reassurance from the Minister. In a previous debate on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that there is no excuse for thuggish behaviour, but we should not respond to thuggish behaviour with thuggish laws. He made a good point; we need the reassurance of facts and figures before we take away people's rights in such important areas of civil liberty.
  9.1 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not emulate the stories of Members who support the English national team. I do not have that problem as I support the Scottish national team; events and excitements there are few and far between these days. I also support Norwich City football club, where there have been very few problems over the years—although I remember Manchester United fans tearing down the asbestos cladding at the back of the Barclay stand, which could, I suppose, be regarded as a piece of social engineering. On the other hand, they did that out of frustration. Scottish fans have not always been innocent. We took a fancy to the grass at Wembley one year and I confess that I was there. Much of the turf was removed to the chagrin of Jimmy Hill and others, but I noticed that it was replaced with much better quality grass by the following weekend.
  I had trouble finding instances of football disorder of which I had personal experience, so I turned to the usual source for understanding the problem—academic sociologists, who are part of a growth industry and have no trouble at all getting grants to undertake sociological studies of football hooliganism. I should like to take a little time to analyse some of the stuff that they have come out with. I might say that it does not add much to the debate, but it is interesting that they have done a lot of work.
  I shall give Members the titles of one or two papers that I have had the excitement of reading over the summer. Eduardo Archetti wrote an article entitled
  1010
  "Playing Styles and Masculine Virtues in Argentine Football" in "Machos, Mistresses, Madonnas: Contesting the Power of Latin American Gender Imagery". Great reading. "The Postmodernity of Football Hooliganism" appeared in the British Journal of Sociology. Other articles are "Football Hooliganism and the Practical Paradigm" and "Soccer Crowd Disorder and the Press: Processes of Amplification and Deamplification in Historical Perspective". I am sure that every Northampton fan would certainly benefit from that. An old friend of mine who, I remember, was quite a good goalkeeper, has gone back to Scotland and written "The Cappielow Riot and the Composition and Behaviour of Soccer Crowds in Late Victorian Scotland"—essential reading for analysis of the Bill. "Faith, Hope and Bigotry: Case Studies of Anti-Catholic Prejudice in Scottish Soccer and Society" is another article; there are others, such as "Selling the Game Short". A mass of them have kept me busy for several nights.
  There are various explanations for football hooliganism, and I shall go through them quickly. There are as many explanations as there are sociologists in British universities. One explanation is that hooliganism
  "involves deriving comfort, performing a social obligation, achieving recreation, discovering … identity, passing the time, being with others".
  People engage in it
  "for an endless variety of other private personal reasons".
  We need to know why people pursue their recreation, as it were, by going to a football match. Some argue that the state of modern living creates the problems; the modern consumer life style increasingly lacks a sense of danger or ordeal, and people want to get rid of boredom. An extension of that is the Marcuse argument, which is a reaction against the surplus state repression. Some Members will identify with that, having written essays on it in their youth. The culture of pursuing danger, risk taking and creativity can involve exciting activities. We can fall off mountains or go on holiday in war zones; we do not need to have a punch-up at a football match to create that kind of excitement.
  I ask Members to bear with me for a few more minutes while I tell them about some more analyses. There is the gender-centred analysis involving aggressive, troubled, hegemonic or empowering masculinity. There is the neo-tribal hypothesis, with individuals promoting self-identity and self-definition. The structural Marxists have come in on it as well, with an attempt to reclaim the magical camaraderie and intimacy of a lost working class system of traditional communities. No doubt that is a favourite of many hon. Members present. The Leicester school says that hooligan participants are simply roughs. They are lower working class and just love violence. That is the result of a £200,000 sociological study.
  The police, too, have promoted some interesting analyses in Home Office documents, with references to
  "Mafia-like command systems running football violence in Britain",
  with official statuses of generals, lieutenants, armourers and photographers who
  "prey on innocent supporters motivated by outright wickedry."
  Gary Armstrong's latest book "Football Hooligans" is a story of Sheffield United fans. Sheffield seems to figure prominently in analyses of football. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who is a

  1011
  great back four player, spoke earlier. As his manager, I do man-to-man marking analysis with him, and he is a wonderful man-to-man marker—no violence, but my goodness, does he prevent the opposition from moving about in the penalty area.
  Gary Armstrong starts with the statement that the war against hooligans has a long way to go, whatever the definition of hooligans turns out to be. Reference has been made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service's report of 20 August this year. The report admits that violent football hooliganism continued to increase during last season. The incidents reported to the unit by football intelligence officers is significantly up on the same period last year. That seems to apply to all divisions, so the problem clearly exists.
  Armstrong's analysis questions the emphasis placed by the police on patrolling football matches. He thinks that their time would be better spent catching petty thieves and on burglary-related issues. He goes on to state:
  "There will still be disturbances at and around football matches. Commentators will continue to moralise and pontificate and drone on about what lessons can be learned from various events, and sociologists amongst others will attempt to give a rationale to what are frequently irrational events."
  I can tell the House that sociological violence has broken out across the nation as each sociology department in every British university disagrees with all the others about their analyses.
  I doubt whether we will get to the explanation, despite the money spent on sociological analyses, and I doubt whether that will help us to develop policy, but I can assure the House that much effort has been put into the endeavour, and many young students are no doubt bored to death after being subjected to such sociological guff.
  Episodes will continue to happen and, as we say in Norfolk, there are wrong 'uns who will always be around, looking for a bit of trouble. The police have identified that in their document, where they state that in the close vicinity of stadiums they have been successful, but that the problem has been displaced. Other hon. Members have mentioned that tonight. It is recognised that the problem is moving from the football grounds.
  What are we to do about it? Again, I refer to Sheffield politicians. There have been many debates in the House in which Sheffield politicians have participated. I shall not name the individuals; hon. Members can spot them. In 1989 in the debate on the Football Spectators Bill, a Sheffield Member of Parliament welcomed hooliganism as an outlet for violence, but at the same time said that hooligans must be eradicated. The mind boggles at the thought of how he proposed to do that. There was a certain inconsistency in the argument.
  Other Sheffield Members called for a change in police attitudes to fans, and another hon. Member spoke of football's
  "structure, greed and psyche, and its contempt for ordinary working class lads."—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 28.]
  That was the Front-Bench spokesperson—not tonight, but in another arena. I see that some hon. Members recognise who that might be.
  The problem will continue and probably increase. The NCIS document states that
  "there are some very encouraging signs. Banning Orders are having an impact and Human Rights challenges to Banning Orders have been recently rejected by the High Court; the Football Association
  1012
  have completely revamped their members' clubs to weed out troublemakers and the Belgian Presidency of the EU has called for each EU member state to establish a permanent national police information centre"
  and so on. The police are encouraged by those developments.
  On balance, I think that the Government are right to take the problem seriously and to try to ensure an effective deterrent. Whatever the origins of football hooliganism, the development of that deterrent will prevent and discourage people from going to games in order to engage in such activity. I am serious about that because I do not want to read football headlines that argue about who threw the stone first, who punched who and so on. I want to hear about I will Roberts scoring a hat trick for Norwich City. Indeed, I will even go along with applauding a David Beckham goal and reading an analysis of the trajectory of the ball as it went into the top corner. Even considering a physical analysis of how such a shot works would be better than reading headlines about violence. Anything that we can do to detract from the bad headlines that we have had over the years is welcome. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards achieving that and that the public will respect us for introducing it. We must support it.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Tony Clarke: The debate has been somewhat truncated, so I shall try to curtail my speech and keep to the relevant rather than the repetitive, in the hope that other Back Benchers may still be able to contribute.
  This debate gives us the opportunity to do two things. First, we must reaffirm our determination to combat and fight the football hooliganism that still exists. Secondly, we must review the question whether the 2000 Act, in its current context, has worked, is working and is making a difference. Within football, the figures show that 580 banning orders have been put in place. That has been done with the support and assistance of football supporters and of organisations such as the Football Supporters Association, which have given their unstinting and total support to the Government in trying to eradicate yobbery and thuggery from the game. They have even suggested that the measures did not go far enough in respect of the courts. They feel that, in many cases, courts could and should have done better in ensuring that banning orders were used to prevent known and convicted hooligans from travelling.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned Charleroi. One of the most stunning and worrying aspects of the violence that occurred in Belgium was that 24 of the 965 people who were arrested were known football hooligans. They had previous convictions and should have been picked up by the banning orders and prevented from travelling, but they still slipped through the net. Irrespective of our best intentions and attempts to prevent all circumstances in which people with criminal convictions can travel to games, some of them will find ways of avoiding our measures. Such people have no respect for the law or the restrictions that we introduce and will try to circumvent any attempt that we make to stop their illegal action.
  The vast majority of the 965 people who were arrested were released without charge and took no part whatever in any criminal activity and/or violence. Football fans,

  1013
  the FSA and others who have given the Government their support are due some return. If we are asking football supporters and true followers of the game to work with us and be part of our attempt to rid the game of hooliganism, we must give them our support when things go badly wrong, as they did in Charleroi. If anything, we need a way not only of dealing with hooligans, but of ensuring a proper code of conduct for police forces throughout Europe in respect of football events. What happened in Charleroi was an abuse of police powers. People were detained in the most terrible conditions, although it has since been proven that they were innocent of any offence.
  It is important for us to recognise that violence has been displaced over the years and has moved away from the event itself. It has departed from grounds and moved into areas that are unconnected with football. Irrespective of whether the Bill is permanent or will be reviewed, that displacement will be more important in future, when we consider how yobbish behaviour is affecting our national identity and shaming us as a nation. Violence and thuggery still exist.
  I shall quote from the press report of a recent incident at an international fixture:
  "A steward was removed from the field on a stretcher with two broken ribs and a damaged spleen. Officials said Stephen Speight was hit on the head and kicked while on the ground. He was to spend the night in hospital."
  That report was of an international cricket fixture.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) wondered whether there was class distinction in the legislation. An earlier news report covered an Oxbridge ski tour at a resort in France. It described the participants as a mob of
  "ignorant, arrogant middle class yobs",
  who abused foreigners and soiled their bedrooms and chalets.
  If we wish to descend further down the class structure, we can read another recent report of the behaviour of drunken yobs. It states:
  "A bunch of drunken toffs caused mayhem in the Oxfordshire village of Kingston Blunt two weekends ago. The party was for Oxford University's Bullingdon Club, which involves its members, or 'Bullers', in a riotous drinking binge. One of them listed the alcohol they had knocked back; 'We started off with a Jeroboam' (about ten ordinary bottles' worth) 'of Perrier Jouet and got through eight bottles of Bolly a head.'
  The marquee 'was covered in broken crockery, splintered tables and the bodies of "Buller" men wearing tweed suits'. Among the gang was Lord Lawson's son, Tom, who had graduated from the university. Around 30 police eventually arrived to deal with the party, and they let the rich kids off with a caution."
  I mention that because yobbery, violence and thuggery exist in British society, and our nation is shamed by the acts of thugs, irrespective of whether they have a connection with football. When travelling abroad, I try to avoid Benidorm and Ibiza. However, I cannot be the only Member of Parliament who dreads not only the accommodation, but visiting the bar and the possible presence of 15 or 20 male British holidaymakers who seem dedicated to three pursuits: lubricating the larynx as often as possible; trying to charm the pants off any unfortunate member of the opposite sex who happens to be in the bar—television programmes suggest that most of
  1014
  them do not wear any—and picking a fight with anybody, especially anyone who has the audacity not to speak the Queen's English.
  Examples of thuggery and violence can be witnessed in other events such as marches and demonstrations. In recent months, problems occurred in Geneva, and in the United Kingdom on May day. When we consider the identity of those involved and the infiltration of such events by, for example, right-wing organisations and thugs, we must accept that some people are hellbent on causing problems—not only at football games but at other events—that shame our nation and the House. Such problems occur on Friday and Saturday nights at many restaurants and pubs in every town and city in the land.
  Violence and disorder are a moveable feast; they are played on different stages. I urge Ministers to develop a more robust and multi-faceted approach to tackling yob culture, and not simply to treat football in isolation. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) for mentioning Northampton Town. I declare an interest as a club director, but we are rightly proud of the measures that we have taken to eradicate hooliganism, yobbery and racism and to ensure that football is an event to which people can bring families and enjoy themselves in peaceful surroundings without the threat of violence. We get fed up when people refer to hooligans as football fans. They are not fans; they never have been. They use football as a vehicle for thuggery and violence.
  In Committee, we must seriously consider the role of the media. We cannot support the fact that, before any violence and thuggery had occurred, every television camera at Charleroi was prepared to project such images around the world, thereby shaming Britain. It was almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. We expected trouble and the cameras were there, so we almost invited the thugs who wanted to unleash their criminal activity on us to do so.
  I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I dissent from the Bill only in its title. Perhaps the word "football" should be omitted. Perhaps the House ought to discuss a disorder Bill that would prevent thugs from practising their yobbery wherever they wish to do so. Perhaps we should consider how to prevent people with criminal convictions from travelling to holiday destinations year on year to involve themselves in violence, shaming this nation.
  I hope that Ministers listen to the voices, even those on the Opposition Benches, that say that we must not stigmatise football and that we must not focus narrowly by considering only the longevity of a measure. We must look more widely at where violence can present itself and how it can be combated.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: I have the misfortune to follow four powerful and well-informed speeches. Although the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke from opposite sides of the House, they drew on their experience as special advisers, which is a brave boast to make tonight. We heard of the scholarship of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who I shall never consider in the same light again having heard of his holiday reading.

  1015
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) drew on his experience as a football director and he was right to point out that violent behaviour is a problem for society as well as for football. The behaviour that we saw on the streets of Charleroi is repeated in many holiday destinations year on year and we need to examine our attitude to drink and the drinking culture. The licensing laws are relevant here. When English people go abroad, they suddenly find that they can drink through the night and they behave badly in many, many contexts. Football is a specific problem, however.
  Largely through the work and campaigning of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), we know what the typical football hooligan looks like. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, as the typical football hooligan is not necessarily a young man. The average age of those who have suffered a banning order is 31 and of the 1,000 British people expelled during Euro 2000, only 50 were on benefits. The average football hooligan is not particularly young, as he is approaching middle age, and not particularly poor, as he is probably in a well-paid job.
  I have never supported England abroad and my club is Bradford City, so I have had precious little opportunity to follow it overseas. However, I went to a game during the last World cup—Jamaica against Croatia, which was a happy occasion. Jamaican families were present, as were Croatian youths who had crossed the continent to western Europe, perhaps for the first time, to support their team. Just along the way from me were three English fans, who were drunk. They completely dominated the atmosphere. Every time Croatia got the ball, they stood up and chanted in unison, "You're all a load of collaborators!" Presumably, that was a reference to the war, and they added expletives as well.
  The identity of English football fans abroad is based on attacking the IRA or looking back to the war. That has to change; it is absurd. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh correctly pointed out, not only a mindless minority are involved. Sadly, that xenophobic attitude is shared by a significant proportion of those who support England abroad, which is why the Government had to take strong action last year.
  The way in which we are considered by the rest of Europe has changed because of that legislation. A year ago, other European Governments were saying, "Why didn't you introduce strong measures to deal with this?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North pointed out, other European Governments are now considering copying our legislation. Indeed, there is a good sign that Belgium, which is soon to accede to the presidency of the European Union, has made dealing with football hooliganism throughout Europe one of its priorities. It held a seminar in May and proposes the creation of a system of national contact points on football and the establishment of common rules on the prevention of hooliganism.
  Thus at a time when other European countries are looking at the lead that we have taken it is entirely appropriate that we make this legislation permanent. So far, it has worked well. Where those subject to banning orders have needed to travel abroad there have been 30 instances in which, for work or family reasons, they have appealed and have quite properly been allowed to travel. This legislation is not draconian; it is measured and considered.
  1016
  Some hon. Members have talked of the importance of other nations prosecuting football hooligans abroad so that we have a firm basis on which to impose banning orders here at home. Over the summer, the Daily Express carried an exclusive under the byline Tony Banks—I presume that he is no relation—which quoted the director of security in Japan for World cup 2002 as saying:
  "You cannot be certain, but it is highly likely that anyone caught here"—
  for football hooliganism—
  "will be put in jail.
  If they are convicted of a violent crime I would have thought a three or five-year sentence would not be too long.
  If we see the sort of things we saw in France 98, with that level of crime, people will go to jail. Charleroi at Euro 2000 was a disaster."
  Our football fans are warned.
  I also note that the Koreans will ban noodles, cigarettes and balloons from stadiums in a bid to reduce litter at the new grounds. Fans will be given small plastic bags to take into the stadiums to encourage them to take their own rubbish away. I think that there will be one or two cultural differences.
  I commend the taskforce report on hooliganism produced by Lord Bassam. Let me draw attention to two of its findings, the first of which is the extremely important work of fans' embassies abroad. Lord Bassam urges the Government to continue to support those embassies, which are run by fans and which try to encourage football fans to participate in the culture of a big tournament such as the World cup. The second idea is that of sending stewards from English clubs with English fans abroad. The next European championship will take place in Portugal in 2004. There might be a shortage of English stewards who speak Portuguese, but they have two or three years in which to learn it. Such initiatives are well worth considering.
  The FA, under the leadership of Adam Crozier, is to be commended. It is trying to widen England's fan base, which certainly needs widening. England needs far more women and children to support it abroad. It is also a good thing that the FA has insisted that crucial matches of our national game are shown live on terrestrial television. If England matches are not to become a marginal interest, they must be shown to all fans on terrestrial television. The whole House hopes that the law enacted by the British Parliament is respected and that a deal is finally done for the transmission of the World cup.
  I commend the Bill to the House, but much more must be done to encourage, both at home and abroad, the sort of policing that we saw in the Netherlands during the European championships. Lord Bassam referred to such policing as friendly but firm hospitality, or an integrated approach. I hope that we shall soon reach the day when, if we can keep this sort of legislation in place, we can all be truly proud of our national team and its achievements.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: Given the shortage of time, I shall make my comments brief.
  I welcome the Bill. I joined others in the jubilation at England's qualifying for the World cup finals in Japan and Korea, but that jubilation was tinged with trepidation at the behaviour that we might see from our fans, based

  1017
  on the evidence of previous international tournaments. I believe that the Bill will go some way to removing that trepidation.
  Even more important than what happens at next year's World cup is the experience that we shall gain from implementing the Bill—from the games that have taken place so far, the Japan and South Korea international tournament and the European championships in 2004, when we might be far more vulnerable to the thuggery that we saw in France in 1998 and in Belgium and Holland in 2000.
  Arguments have been advanced about civil liberties. Yes, there is a civil liberties argument, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made the point succinctly that the civil liberties of people who want to wreck a stadium and its surrounds during a tournament should be balanced against those of fans who want to go to a match because they enjoy football and want to cheer on their national team. If I had to choose between those two groups of people, I have no doubt what my choice, and that of all hon. Members, would be.
  It is not just a question of balance. The Government have had to introduce draconian legislation, because if they had not done so the prospect of further violence at matches would have led to our being banned from future international tournaments. There was a double whammy. Without this legislation and with violence continuing, more and more thugs would have been attracted to tournaments and the propensity for them to degenerate into violence would have been even greater. Conversely, the incentive for law-abiding, decent, genuine fans to go to matches would have been removed. Without these measures, there was the prospect of behaviour deteriorating further in subsequent tournaments.
  The measures taken to disband the England supporters club and the introduction of the Englandfans travel club are important in upholding the rights of genuine England supporters. The impression has been given that some genuine supporters may be prevented from going to matches. Under the revised arrangements, such people can attend through the Englandfans travel club. If the legislation is to stay in place, as it obviously is, it is important for the recommendations of the working group on football violence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) referred, to be implemented so that we have an effective ticket sales regulatory regime that protects the interests of ordinary fans. In the debate on civil liberties I have not heard a positive solution to this problem that would uphold civil liberties at the level advocated by some Opposition Members.
  The only reason for not introducing this measure would be that the legislation had not proved effective. It was sensible to have the sunset clause to enable us to see how the legislation would work in practice. We have had a big debate about the so-called big one—the Germany v. England game—but England have played other matches abroad, including the friendly in France and matches against Albania and Greece. The Wales v. Ukraine match was also covered by this legislation. In all those games, a significant number of banning orders were made, and there was a substantial reduction in the violence that had occurred during previous tournaments.
  Mr. Grieve: Is that not precisely the point that I made earlier? There is a body of information about what
  1018
  has happened at previous matches, but no one has extrapolated the evidence of how banning orders worked in practice, and in particular how section 21 orders were implemented and what their effects were on the people on whom they were served. Is that not an unfortunate state of affairs when we are considering the Bill?
  Mr. Bailey: There has been time for the implications of the actions taken in the games prior to the England v. Germany match to be considered. The evidence on the surface shows that the orders have been effective. The number of violent incidents at those games was much reduced, which I think substantiates the case for making the legislation permanent.
  There has been much talk of the England v. Germany match and its implications. I, too, attended "the big one": 100,000 people were there, passionate supporters of both England and Germany. They cheered the goals, they congregated peacefully, and they left the ground peacefully. I am not talking about a fantasy game; I am talking about the real "big one" between England and Germany.
  In 1966, when England won the World cup, I was fortunate enough to be present. Those were the halcyon days when those who attended football matches just wanted to watch football. Now, of course, we have seen the infiltration of club fans by thugs and antisocial elements. There has been an enormous improvement in club ground security, as others have said; but there has been a significant change in the nature of soccer violence over the last five or six years. Because of the improved surveillance and improved marshalling at club grounds, violence has moved away from the ground—from the match—to the surrounding areas. The event, rather than the match itself, has begun to attract violence and thuggery.
  On the international scene, it can be no coincidence that we now see the phenomenon of thousands of fans travelling abroad without tickets, not to attend the match but just to attend the event. All the evidence we have so far is that a substantial proportion of those people have criminal records and, certainly, an antisocial intent. That underlines the need for the Bill.
  To my knowledge, the hosts of the next World cup, Japan and South Korea, have no tradition of managing football violence. That places an enormous responsibility on the Government both to do all in their power to prevent those who will commit acts of violence from going out, and to work with those countries, giving them the benefit of the intelligence and management expertise we have developed so far to ensure that they too can curb such violence.
  I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Selby that we should work with other countries to show them how our legislation operates, in the hope that they too will start to introduce legislation to prevent their own hooligans from attending international matches. The problem of hooliganism is not unique to this country. It may have been started by fans, or so-called fans, from this country, but it his spread to others. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.
  As others have said, the sort of violence that we are seeing now at international football events is, in many ways, a reflection of the society around us. Ultimately, what we must do is change society. In the meantime,

  1019
  however, we must take care to protect our reputation abroad in the forthcoming tournament, and I believe the Bill will do that.
  We want to remember the next World cup as a feast of football, not a frenzy of fanatics.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. James Paice: The Minister rightly reminded us of the serious issues facing the House, and of the international situation. He also rightly said that life must go on, and that we must deal with other issues in this place. To do anything else would, in one sense, hand a reward to those who set out to disrupt our way of life. I must repeat, however, the challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about why we had to deal with this matter today. Given certain recent events, including the farce over Wembley, the loss of the athletics championships and the blunderings of the Minister for Sport, there is a certain brazenness about the Government's doing anything that might improve this country's sporting attractiveness. More importantly, we already have legislation on the statute book that will remain there until next August.
  It is unfortunate that the Minister could not provide us with the breakdown of the figures that my hon. Friend requested. Perhaps the Minister who will wind up the debate will be able to help. It is all very well to say that we will have the information in Committee, but that is too late, because a Second Reading debate is about the principle of a Bill, and today we have to decide whether we want to make permanent the current temporary provisions; the figures would have been valuable in making that decision.
  Our view, in summary, is so far, so good: the legislation appears to be working and there is evidence that it might be reducing problems abroad. The human rights issues appear to have been resolved. The Opposition have no problem with the banning orders for those with convictions, but we have concerns about section 21 orders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) rightly said.
  We need to know a lot more about the Munich game and the events that took place during the control period. Why were nine of the applications for the orders unsuccessful? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) rightly said that it is worrying that, despite the fact that 22 cases were adjourned, and were therefore not proven at the time, the people concerned were nevertheless not allowed to travel. We should be told a lot more about the reasons for that.
  Is there any evidence that any of those involved in the nine applications that were not successful caused any of the few problems that arose in Munich? We need to see reports from the magistrates involved in handling section 21 cases about how the law is working in practice, including how long hearings take and how much they cost. Have there been any actions against the police, as the Law Society clearly feared when it presented its evidence on the original proposals?
  We need to know about the costs involved. What are the costs to the police authorities in the six terminals listed in the report? Is there any extra help available for the forces concerned, given that the potential troublemakers come not only from their areas but from all over the
  1020
  country? The issue of the loophole of travelling through Scotland or Northern Ireland has been mentioned. Is there any evidence that those who have been arrested for causing trouble abroad have exploited that loophole?
  The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) referred to the measure's popularity among his constituents. I am sure that the same would apply in every single constituency, but it is in the nature of things that people are usually quite happy to restrict other people's liberties and begin to complain only when their own are restricted. The role of Parliament is to be more objective and to consider whether any infringement of liberty is justified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who rightly reminded us that he first introduced such a Bill and that the Government belatedly adopted it, told us that it was time to stop pussyfooting around, and I entirely agree. He also reminded us that we must look after the rights and civil liberties of the majority, and I totally agree, but we should not do so at the cost of the civil liberties of the minority.
  The debate is not about the England football team, the result of the World cup or the violence caused by so-called football fans abroad. To use an analogy, several hon. Members have run around the park, but they have not put the ball in the net; they have not got to the real issue. This is not a matter of the horrendous incidents that drag the name of English football and of England itself into the gutter. No one wants that to happen. All hon. Members would agree with the condemnation of such incidents that we have heard from so many Members, admirably starting with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).
  Xenophobia, racism and all the other matters to which hon. Members rightly referred have no place in our society, full stop, and certainly not under any pretext of supporting a football team or, as the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) said, any other form of social or sporting activity. We all condemn the mindless thugs, the hooligans and the racists who drag our country down. To continue with the comment about pussyfooting around made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, some of us would argue that no penalty could be too tough for those who are convicted of such offences. However, the qualifying phrase, "those who are convicted" is important.
  The issue, therefore, is not whether something needs to be done to combat football hooliganism, but whether this is the right Bill, whether now is the right time to introduce it and whether the evidence is as yet to hand to show that the infringement of individuals' civil liberties that the Bill will inevitably involve is justified by the reduction in violence and disorder caused by so-called football fans abroad. As I said in my opening comments, the Opposition accept that the evidence is beginning to show that that is the case, but it is by no means clear cut.
  Only one match has been played since the order was renewed in July, yet the Government are still taking action now. The figures on the number of cases, to which several hon. Members referred, are hardly conclusive on their own. The Government should not have introduced the Bill until next summer, when we will have the experience of the World cup behind us. It is highly probable that we will then have absolutely clear cut, irrefutable evidence on whether the Bill is justified, and we will be able to act with a clear conscience, because the case has not yet been proven.

  1021
  We would have preferred to allow more time to gather the evidence. We could then have voted in favour of the Bill with a clear conscience in the knowledge that we were helping to achieve the objectives that we all share. The Bill is premature, but because the evidence is beginning to show that it might be right at some stage, we shall not oppose it in the Lobby tonight, although we wish that the Government had taken more time to garner the evidence.
  9.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): We have had an excellent debate. It is often the case in the Chamber that some of the lower-key debates are the best. The apparent expertise about football and the issues involved has produced an enjoyable, informative debate. In the time remaining, it will be difficult to refer to all the issues and all the Members who have participated, although I shall do my best.
  The House and the other place have wrestled with the problem of football hooliganism on several occasions. The laws that have been passed have made an important contribution to tackling domestic football disorder, but the international aspects of the problem have proved a very tough nut to crack. That is why the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 included some radical measures. Those measures were controversial, which is why they were time limited and subject to review.
  All the available evidence suggests that sections 14B, 21A and 21B of the 2000 Act have had a major impact on fans' behaviour and have gone some way to repairing the damage that football hooliganism has inflicted on our national sport and on our national reputation. The measures have been subject to legal scrutiny and to the scrutiny of a high-risk match. They have not been found wanting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) described the problems. In graphic detail, he referred to the fear and disruption that have been caused by hooliganism. He has a long history not only as a football fan but as a supporter of civil liberties, and he told us that we had to keep the issues in balance. I agree, and the proposals do exactly that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) made, on behalf of his constituents, an appeal for common sense. He reminded us of the scale of the problem and asked whether we could encourage other countries to introduce measures similar to ours. Other Members pointed out that other countries are considering similar legislation. The Belgian presidency is encouraging other European Union countries to introduce similar measures and it has been supportive of the legislation that the Government have introduced to try to tackle the problem of football hooliganism and, in particular, football hooliganism abroad.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave us his version of a history lesson and tried to make sure that none of us would forget his role in the earlier measure that he introduced. He wanted the monument to his political career made permanent. I do not know whether it will be his only monument—I am sure that he will go on to far greater things. He should, however, talk
  1022
  to his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench who appear to have doubts about the proposals in the Bill. They, not the Government, need persuading.
  One of the most surprising things in the debate was the fact that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) got the hon. Member for West Chelmsford mixed up with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I can creep to those involved by saying that it was an astonishing mix-up. I do not think that any two Members differ so much in their views, so I was surprised that such confusion took place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and other Members referred to the role that racism plays in football disorder. He asked us to try to ensure that effective measures would be taken in that regard and that we would not merely pay lip service to the problem. He has considerable expertise in this issue, so he will know that the working group chaired by Lord Bassam published a report in March. One of its key recommendations was that all stewards should be reminded of their responsibilities to act against racist remarks. The football authorities have given a commitment to implementing that recommendation and the Government are committed to monitoring progress on that important issue. We shall keep an eye on it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke of the shame that was brought on our nation by a small minority and said that he was concerned that we should not introduce general restrictions that would affect all football fans. Only well structured, intelligence-led measures, such as this Bill, that target the real hooligans who are at the core of the problem will avoid the measures that he is so worried about and prevent the damage to our national sport that took place so often in the past.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) was worried that the legislation was draconian. It is my view and that of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members who have spoken tonight that it is proportionate to the problem. That is why the courts have found in its favour and supported it, and why they believe that it complies with the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Scottish anomaly still exists. It does, but it should affect only a relatively small number of people. If the measures continue to have effect, it should be possible in the overwhelming majority of cases for bans under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 to be imposed on football hooligans before they leave England and Wales. Only a relatively small number of people will give us a problem by exiting via Scottish ports.
  Mr. Cameron: I am grateful for the Minister's response. However, should we renew every year the specific power of the police to stop people travelling abroad? It seems to me that we should, because civil rights are being affected. A police officer needs to have only a suspicion in order to have reasonable grounds for preventing someone with no previous convictions from travelling abroad, which has a serious effect on our civil rights.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I was coming to that. The record shows that my hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has tried to give the House the maximum

  1023
  amount of information. The need for more information before we agree to the legislation was the thrust of the main attack by the Conservative Front Bencher. It was also a concern of the Liberal Democrat Front Bencher. My hon. Friend has given the House two reports and a commitment to try to share any information that he can before and during Committee proceedings. I only hope that hon. Members will judge whether the legislation is justified and necessary based on the information that is put before the House. Some of the information requested will not be available, but I hope that they accept that my hon. Friend is genuine in his desire to ensure Members that he will make information available so that the House can make a proper decision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made a phenomenal intervention. He did violence to sociological studies and to Sheffield Members of Parliament as a breed, but he decided on balance not to do violence to the Government or the legislation. He believes that the proposal is justified and intends to support it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) objected to the slur that is placed on football and its supporters. He said that it was unfair because the same problem exists in many other parts of society. He knows that the Government are trying to implement measures to tackle yobbery in general. My hon. Friends the Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) rightly reminded us of the serious depths to which we have fallen. They appealed to us to accept that the Bill is necessary and proportionate to the problem.
  1024
  The main objection of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was that he would not accept the measure unless there is a conviction. That is not acceptable. I hope that the House will support the Bill.
  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).

FOOTBALL (DISORDER)(AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Ainger.]
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January. 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.—[Mr. Ainger.]
Question put and agreed to.

Mrs. Jean Brett
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
10 pm
Mr. Richard Page: This is a tale of error, denial and bureaucracy, but it is also a tale of courage and determination. It is the story of how Mrs. Jean Brett went against the national health service in a battle that started with her operation in March 1988. Ninety-nine out of 100 people would have given up by now and just walked away, but Mrs. Jean Brett is one in 100, as those who have seen her battling to keep Harefield heart hospital in existence will testify.
I look the Minister straight in the eye and say that to do full justice to this painful saga would take hours, but I have only 15 short minutes to present the case. Many years ago, I promised that when I saw the whole story coming to a conclusion I would raise it on the Floor of the House, because I wanted to ensure that it would never happen again. What I have to describe is disgraceful and shows bureaucracy and Government Departments at their worst.
To begin, I can do no better than quote from the opening paragraphs of a full-page article in The Observer of 22 April by a reporter called Yvonne Roberts. She starts:
"Jean Brett was a buoyant, confident woman with a career in teaching when she was diagnosed with glaucoma by her ophthalmologist in 1985. Stunned, she was told it was an incurable condition leading to weakening or a complete loss of sight.
Mrs Brett was prescribed eye drops which, she says, caused such a severe and persistent reaction that she was forced to take early retirement three years later at the age of 52. She subsequently underwent an operation on her right eye at Watford General Hospital, performed by her consultant.
The eye haemorrhaged. It now has a pronounced droop and continues to cause pain. 'I had become a shadow of my former self,'"
she recalled.
The article continues:
"In 1992, she was told an operation would also be required on her left eye. Mrs Brett insisted"—
very wisely—
"upon a second opinion. At Moorfields Eye Hospital in London, she learnt that not only was the operation unnecessary, she had never had glaucoma.
'I didn't know whether to hug the consultants or scream,' she said. 'I'd given up a job I loved and lived for years with pain only to learn I had done so for no good reason.'
Mrs Brett attended a follow-up appointment at Watford General Hospital. What she sought, she says, was an explanation. 'I had been diagnosed and treated for seven years for something I'd never had. I also wanted an apology and a way of establishing whether anybody else might also have been similarly misdiagnosed.'
But nine years later, after spending £30,000 of her own money in legal fees and in spite of the intervention of the Ombudsman, two MPs, one Minister, Hillingdon Community Health Council and an independent conciliator, her case is unresolved."
Such a brief outline does not cover the patently inexcusable delays. In November 1992, when Mrs. Brett asked for an apology and an explanation, she was told by a hospital manager to make a formal NHS complaint, which would be answered in about two months. She was told that solicitors should not be used, as compensation in the NHS could be arranged.
1026
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has been very supportive throughout the campaign, in his place. He knows Mrs. Brett and her campaign to try to keep open our heart hospital at Harefield very well.
Seven months after the hospital manager's message, Mrs. Brett was told that Watford hospital had engaged solicitors and that she should do the same. The hospital did not, however, tell her of the options of community health councils, the ombudsman or clinical review procedures. She was told only of the most expensive option: solicitors. Two years passed, after which, as the article in The Observer stated, Mrs. Brett was not only tired out but £30,000 lighter. On the face of it, Watford hospital had won, but it had made a slight miscalculation: it had not reckoned with Mrs. Brett.
In 1996, Mrs. Brett asked that the NHS complaint be answered, and an independent review panel was convened under a new procedure. At that point—surprise, surprise—the most important half of Moorfields eye hospital records went missing. In December 1996, despite the fact that two independent consultants who had examined Mrs. Brett said that she had no sign of glaucoma—I am no expert, but I am given to understand that it is an irreversible eye disease—the panel did not admit that she had been misdiagnosed. We should bear in mind the fact that she had had one unnecessary operation and that the consultant wanted her to undergo the procedure for a second time.
Enter the ombudsman, to whom the review panel replied ambiguously that it was
"unable to conclude that there was any misdiagnosis".
So the two independent specialists and Moorfields were wrong, but Watford hospital was right. Eventually, on 23 December 1997, the chief executive of Watford hospital admitted to Mrs. Brett that there had been a misdiagnosis, but the promised formal apology failed to appear.
Following my correspondence in February 1998 with the Secretary of State for Health, of which the Minister will be aware, a recommendation for conciliation emerged. That state of limbo continued until Hillingdon CHC entered the scene—one of those councils that the Government want to abolish. It stepped in to recommend an independent conciliator, Roxanne Glick. The Glick report appeared in May 1999.
The article in The Observer continued:
"Roxanne Glick, the conciliator appointed by what is now, after several mergers, the West Herts Hospital Trust, published her investigation into the Brett case in 1999. She described the Trust's politicking and prevarication as 'astounding' and 'wholly unprofessional'. Two years on, none of her recommendations have been properly implemented.
Glick said last week: 'Mrs. Brett is entitled to a large amount of money but won't receive it. The Trust gave me access on what had become a very complicated case. It knew exactly what to expect from my final report. Mrs. Brett has been wrongly diagnosed. She was forced to go down a route which has caused her and her family a huge amount of stress. Sadly, her case is not an isolated one.'"
Detailing the way in which Watford hospital then handled the matter is not possible, given time constraints. Suffice it to say that a £3,500 unilateral ex gratia offer was made on a "take it or leave it" basis, with no prior discussion or debate. The Minister knows the basis on which ex gratia payments are offered and may be taken up. The answer to the offer was a decided no.

1027
In April 2001 The Observer article appeared. On 25 April I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether he would reconsider the hands-off policy on ministerial intervention. At the same time, I asked for an assurance that the Glick report had been studied. On 7 June 2001, I received a response signed by Lord Hunt that made it clear that the Glick report had not been studied. In addition, the letter contained the extraordinary statement that Mrs. Brett's treatment had been appropriate and that further ministerial intervention would be inappropriate. I cannot regard that reply as a serious one. Not least because there had been no ministerial intervention up to that date, the reply shows the dangers of Ministers signing letters put in front of them by officials when they have not studied the background material. In addition, those who have any connection with the Maxwell case know that I simply do not give up that easily.
The time has surely been reached to bring an end to a sad and sorry story. The inaccuracies of the replies and actions over the years are too numerous to mention in the time available to me. I can only speculate about and shudder at the amount of management time and money that the national health service must have been wasted during this period—money that could have been put into patient care. Why should my constituent—why should anyone—have to go through such an ordeal to get an answer and fair play?
Why has the Glick report recommendation that the past glaucoma cases of the responsible consultant should be examined to establish the soundness of the diagnoses not been implemented? I ask the Minister to investigate why, despite my representations, the nightmare has been allowed to continue unchecked for so long, and to ensure that similar cases can be prevented in future. I ask that an independent assessor be appointed to determine what recompense might be paid to my constituent. The ball is now firmly in the Minister's court.
10.12 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) for raising his constituent's case tonight. He has done his constituent a signal service. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I was sorry to hear about the health problems that Mrs. Brett has experienced and that her subsequent complaints to Watford general hospital were not dealt with to her satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to respond to several specific concerns about Mrs. Brett's case, and I shall deal with each in turn shortly.
It is important that we bear in mind the fact that the national health service treats tens of thousands of patients every day. Last year, it treated more than 12 million patients in England, 43 million patients attended out-patient clinics and more than 14 million attended accident and emergency departments. Mount Vernon and Watford hospitals NHS trust treated more than 46,500 in-patients, 189,000 people were seen as out-patients and more than 63,000 attended accident and emergency.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, medicine is, sadly, not always an exact science, so when things go wrong it is important that there is a simple, clear and transparent system for dealing with complaints and concerns which enables them to be dealt with quickly and
1028
effectively. Clearly, that did not happen in Mrs. Brett's case. We accept that although the complaints procedure works effectively for many patients, some, like Mrs. Brett, have had less positive experiences of the NHS's handling of complaints.
The complaints system was introduced in 1996. The objectives were to make it easier, simpler and quicker to complain and to be fairer to patients and staff, so that concerns were resolved as thoroughly and as openly as possible. The commitment was made by the previous Administration, who introduced the complaints procedure about which the hon. Gentleman has been complaining.
A commitment was given to evaluate the complaints procedure once it had had time to bed down to ascertain whether it was meeting its policy objectives. In 1999, therefore, the Department of Health commissioned an independent two-year UK-wide evaluation project to examine the complaints procedure.
The evaluation report, which was published last month, confirms that there is obviously room for improvement. It highlighted four key messages from patients who had experience of the complaints procedure: that complaints are often not handled well and take too long to resolve—I am sure that that is the opinion of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mrs. Brett; that communication between staff and patients and complainants is often poor; that the process is not always sufficiently independent and is perceived to be biased; and that there is no real system to learn from experiences and to make the necessary improvements in other places.
The report went on to make 27 suggestions about how the complaints procedure and arrangements for managing it could be improved. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I shall not go through all 27 suggestions, as will everyone else who is listening. However, its recommendations fell into four broad categories. First, it identified the need to change the way in which the NHS deals with complaints. For example, there is a need to ensure that all staff receive appropriate training and support so that they can deal with patients' concerns more effectively as and when they arise.
Secondly, to ensure consistency across the NHS, there is a need to standardise procedures throughout the service and throughout the country, no matter what part of the NHS it is. Thirdly, increased independence of the procedure would ensure that the independent review is genuinely independent and perceived to be so by patients and staff. Fourthly, there is the need to strengthen monitoring and accountability within the procedures to give more responsibility to trust boards for monitoring the quality of complaints handling within their organisation and considering the role for other outside organisations.
We certainly need to find ways to ensure that complaints about services that cut across health and social care—although this was not such a case—can be dealt with as smoothly as possible, given that there are currently two separate stand-alone procedures. With joint provision of cases across health and social care increasing, and especially with the advent of the new care trusts, we are examining how the two complaints processes can be harmonised.
Alongside the evaluation report that was published on 3 September, we invited views from NHS staff, members of the public and patient representative groups about four key issues. We asked for views on the 27 suggestions

1029
made in the report, and in relation to a series of key questions. First, what impact would a reformed procedure have on people and organisations? Secondly, how should performance in handling complaints be monitored and managed? Thirdly, what limits should there be for making and dealing with complaints? Finally, how can the current procedure be reformed to make it genuinely independent?
Our objective is to implement the necessary reforms next year. It is not just about improving complaints procedures for individuals. At the same time, we need to ensure that patients and the public have a better opportunity to be involved at a strategic decision-making level as well. That is why we intend, subject to legislation and the agreement of the House and the other place, to replace community health councils with patients' forums for every NHS trust and primary care trust, with a new national body to set standards and ensure consistency, and with local participation agencies, to be known as local voices, to enable citizen involvement in wider health issues.
In addition, the Department of Health has already agreed to implement all the recommendations made in the "Organisation with a Memory" report. A new independent body, the National Patient Safety Agency, will run a new national reporting system to record adverse events and near misses in health care. That will ensure that lessons learned in one part of the NHS are properly shared with the whole of the NHS.
In addition, the new National Clinical Assessment Authority will provide a fast response to concerns about doctors' performance and will provide a central point of contact for the NHS where concerns about a doctor's performance arise.
Another obvious challenge—the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to this—is to improve overall quality in the NHS, and thereby reduce the number of complaints, by developing and improving external inspection of services throughout the NHS.
Clinical governance provides NHS organisation and health care professionals with a new framework for quality improvement which, over time will, I hope, develop into a single coherent local programme for assuring and improving the quality of clinical services. Additionally, one function of the Commission for Health Improvement is to help the NHS to identify and tackle serious or persistent clinical problems. Information about complaints handling is considered by the commission in the context of its clinical governance reviews of individual NHS organisations. We need to ensure that the system for dealing with and monitoring the management of complaints develops in harmony with all those wider developments so that complaints are dealt with as effectively as possible and individual organisations and the NHS as a whole can learn from mistakes.
As the hon. Gentleman can see, all those things demonstrate the ways in which we are committed to learning from mistakes and to introducing a truly patient-centred NHS, which is the cornerstone of the NHS plan. While we can never guarantee that experiences such as that of Mrs. Brett will never happen again, our aim is to introduce a new system which will be as robust and responsive as possible in future.
I want to deal with the specific issues relating to Mrs. Brett which the hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the House. He set out in detail the background
1030
to her long-standing complaint. He asked in particular that the trust implements the recommendations in the Glick report by apologising to Mrs. Brett, paying her compensation for injury and upset and conducting a proper review of its ophthalmology department. Finally, he urged Ministers to intervene in the case and ask an independent assessor to consider a further round of conciliatory discussions. My advice is that, following the trust board consideration of the Glick report, Mr. Eames, then chief executive of the trust, wrote to Mrs. Brett on 19 July 1999 making a full and unconditional apology; establishing that an audit of the ophthalmology department would be carried out by the trust's clinical audit team; offering an ex-gratia payment for the distress caused to Mrs Brett; and offering a meeting to discuss the trust's response. I have a copy of that letter with me this evening and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen it, too. I am advised that the meeting referred to in the letter on 19 July 1999 never took place and that Mrs. Brett was unhappy with the compensation that was offered and refused to accept payment.
The review suggested by Mr. Eames and recommended by the Glick report was conducted by the trust's medical director and concluded that glaucoma was managed in a manner equivalent to that in similar NHS units. Those conclusions were shared with Mrs. Brett. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that Mrs. Brett appears to have exhausted the NHS complaints procedure, so he raised the need for a further specific review of her case. He is legitimately concerned for the welfare of his constituent and wants to ensure that every effort is made to resolve her continuing concerns following her treatment in 1989. I share those concerns, but I do not think that that is the right way forward.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, thanks to the changes we have made, the Commission for Health Improvement now conducts regular inspections and reviews of the performance of NHS hospitals and the quality of care that they provide. I think that the most sensible way I can respond positively to the hon. Gentleman's concerns is to bring them directly to the attention of the Commission for Health Improvement in advance of its visit to West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS trust. My considered opinion—I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked at the evidence and the file on the case—is that the best course of action would be for Mrs. Brett to reconsider the meeting offered to her by the trust as part of the package offered following the Glick report. I shall ask if e new chief executive of the trust, Mrs. Harrison, to offer Mrs. Brett a meeting to discuss a range of issues referred to by Mr. Eames in his letter of 19 July 1999. I hope that that will meet, at least in part, some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
I do not doubt, however, that in this particular instance the NHS complaints procedure left Mrs. Brett and her family feeling considerable anger and unhappiness about her treatment. Her direct experience and that of others like her of both patient participation in the NHS and the complaints procedure itself has had an adverse effect. I hope that the measures that I have set out this evening will ensure that Mrs. Brett's experience of complaining about NHS treatment will not be shared by others in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what measures the Government plan to take to meet the humanitarian needs of Afghan refugees still in Afghanistan; [7687]

  (2)what measures the Government propose to take in the coming months for refugees from Afghanistan who have already crossed its borders; [7685]

  (3)what special action has been taken to meet the needs of Afghan refugee children who have been displaced by the recent movement of people in Afghanistan since 11 September; [7679]

  (4)what money the Government intend to make available for Afghan refugees who are (a) outside and (b) within Afghanistan; and when the money will be made available; [7681]

  (5)what estimate she has made of the humanitarian needs of displaced Afghans over the next six months; and (a) what proportion of those needs is already covered by pledges made by Britain and by the European Union and (b) what proportion of the funds have already been released to agencies delivering help to Afghan refugees. [7677]

  Clare Short
  The UN estimates that there are at least 5.3 million vulnerable people inside Afghanistan. This is expected to rise by a further 2.2 million in coming weeks, bringing the total of vulnerable people in need of assistance inside the country to 7.5 million. In addition, there were already some 4 million Afghan refugees in neighbouring countries due to over 20 years of conflict and four years of harsh drought conditions.

  The UN and their non-governmental organisation (NGO) partners have launched an appeal for $584 million to cover the period October 2001 to March 2002. Donors, including the UK and the EU, have so far responded with commitments of $301 million. $29 million has also been pledged to humanitarian agencies outside of the UN Donor Alert. In addition, donors announced pledges of a further $407 million in support for humanitarian assistance for Afghans. However, it is not yet clear how these additional funds will be allocated. Information is not available on what proportion of funds have actually been released to humanitarian agencies.

  My Department has set aside a sum of £40 million to respond to the current crisis affecting Afghans in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. We have also set aside a further sum of £11 million for immediate short-term support to the poorer communities of Pakistan, especially those most directly affected by the influx of refugees from Afghanistan. Our top priorities are to help meet immediate life-saving needs (food, water, health care, shelter) within Afghanistan, as best as possible and for as
  800W
  long as possible, through the national staff of relevant agencies; support refugee needs in neighbouring countries; help host populations through programmes which benefit them, for example in health care, food, water and sanitation provision; and strengthen international humanitarian agency capacity and co-ordination.

  These funds are being made available now through UN agencies, the Red Cross movement and NGOs. Their programmes include particular emphasis on children. For example, £3 million has been provided to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) for disease control, nutrition supplementation, safe water and sanitation, and psychosocial support to traumatised children.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid has been provided in Afghanistan in each of the last three financial years and in the 2001–02 financial year to date; [7551]

  (2) if she will list aid provided by (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral sources for refugees from Afghanistan in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [7549]

  Clare Short
  The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) track donor contributions to humanitarian appeals. According to OCHA, donor contributions for humanitarian assistance to Afghans since 1996 are as follows:

  $ million

  1996

  65

  1997

  44

  1998

  54

  1999

  111

  2000

  122

  2001

  1222

  1Up to 11 September 2001

  It is not possible to differentiate from OCHA' s data between assistance to Afghans inside Afghanistan and assistance to Afghan refugees; nor the split of assistance provided bilaterally and multilaterally.

  Since 1997, my Department has provided over £32 million of humanitarian assistance to Afghans. This has included help to refugees in Pakistan and Iran who have themselves been so generous to millions of refugees over many years. Since 11 September, we have set aside an additional sum of £40 million to respond to the current crisis affecting Afghans in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries; as well as a further £11 million for immediate short-term support to the poorer communities of Pakistan, especially those most directly affected by the influx of refugees from Afghanistan.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures (i) the British Government and (ii) the EU had already taken to help refugees from Afghanistan who crossed the borders, before 11 September, into(a) Iran and (b) Pakistan. [7682]

  Clare Short
  Between 1997 and 11 September this year my Department has provided over £32 million of humanitarian assistance to Afghans. This has included help to refugees in Pakistan and Iran who have themselves been so generous to millions of refugees over many years.
  801W
  Our funding for assistance to Afghan refugees has been channelled through the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) for protection and education activities, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) for emergency feeding programmes, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) for education and primary health care programmes, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) for improving the reproductive health status of refugees, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for education and livelihood building programmes.

  Since 1991, the European Commission has committed some euro 430 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghan populations in need (approximately euro 81.7 million or £51 million of which is the UK share). This covers assistance to Afghans both inside Afghanistan and those in neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures the Government(a) have taken and (b) intend to take to co-ordinate the delivery of humanitarian aid to Afghan refugees. [7686]

  Clare Short
  Co-ordination for humanitarian assistance is the responsibility of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) who have appointed a Regional Humanitarian Co-ordinator based in Islamabad. My Department has provided £1 million to OCHA to support these co-ordinated efforts. This contribution will also be used to increase the capacity of the Offices of the UN Resident Co-ordinators in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Pakistan and Tajikistan. This includes the provision of technical personnel to set up a Humanitarian Information Centre (HIC) that will collate and communicate humanitarian information on the needs and programmes, to all concerned agencies.

  We also welcome the appointment of Ambassador Brahimi as the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Afghanistan, who will supervise the UN's overall humanitarian and political work in Afghanistan. We have offered to provide practical support to his office.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policy her Department has to deal with members of the public who wish to make a contribution to humanitarian aid administered to Afghanistan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. [7680]

  Clare Short
  If members of the public wish to help Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, the best way is to donate cash to a humanitarian agency, such as the British Red Cross, or other NGOs, working in the region. Although some people may have collected goods that they would like to give to those in need, it is better to find some way of turning collected or donated goods into cash, and then to donate the proceeds to a humanitarian agency's public appeal. The logistics involved in despatching donated goods (cleaning, sorting, packaging and freighting) are time consuming and expensive, and cash donations are a faster and more economical way to provide assistance to those in need.

  Pakistan
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what levels of(a) bilateral and
  802W
  (b) multilateral aid have been provided to Pakistan in each of the last five financial years and in the 2001–02 financial year to date. [7434]

  Clare Short
  Levels of UK bilateral aid to Pakistan over the last five financial years are listed:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  1996–97

  27.516

  1997–98

  27.818

  1998–99

  24.226

  1999–2000

  22.625

  2001–01

  15.038

  Levels of total multilateral aid for the last five calendar years are as follows:

  US$ million

  Year

  Amount

  1995

  528.45

  1996

  609.40

  1997

  527.66

  1998

  521.82

  1999

  296.78

  Published plans for bilateral aid for the current financial year allocated £15 million to Pakistan, of which we have spent £3.9 million to date. We currently expect to disburse this allocation in full by 31 March 2002, though of course it is in the nature of planning figures that they are subject to change in the light of events.

  Information on multilateral spending for the current financial year is not available. In addition, I have allocated an extra £11 million to assist Pakistan with the short-term humanitarian and broader economic impacts of the current crisis. This is planned for disbursement in the present calendar year.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of her Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7237]

  Clare Short
  The Department has a normal retirement age of 60, regardless of grade or job title. The one exception is the three Security Guards who have a right to retire at age 65 in line with the terms of service of their previous employer, following their transfer to the Department under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The retirement age for the Senior Civil Service is determined by the Cabinet Office and is currently 60.

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the(a) humanitarian situation and (b) situation of children in Angola. [7429]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian consequences of the continuing war in Angola are appalling. Children and other vulnerable groups bear the brunt of the suffering.
  803W
  There is some evidence that in those areas where there is good humanitarian access, malnutrition rates have eased recently, but this represents only temporary respite for a limited number. There remains a pressing need for a negotiated and inclusive end to the conflict. The UK has contributed £2.82 million this year to the humanitarian relief effort through UN agencies and NGO's as well as our contribution through the EC. We continue to monitor the situation through the UN, NGOs, the Red Cross societies, and by undertaking regular visits.

  Weapons Eradication
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money the UK has allocated to UN agencies for weapons eradication; and if she will make a statement. [7339]

  Clare Short
  My Department, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, are working to implement the Government's three-year £19.5 million strategy on small arms under our global conflict prevention pool. Under the auspices of the strategy the Government have been looking at ways of providing long-term support to UN agencies for comprehensive arms control and reduction measures, including weapons destruction. To date, we have committed £120,000 to the UN Regional Centre in Lima, Peru to assist in the practical implementation of regional and international agreements to combat illicit weapons trafficking. Also, under the strategy we are planning to commit £7.5 million to supporting the UN Development Programme in a global programme for weapons collection, management and destruction. The strategy will continue to look at areas where support for UN agencies will help to meet our objectives of reducing the number of lives affected by violent conflict through the uncontrolled availability of small arms and light weapons.

  Departmental Properties
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by her Department, broken down by leases by the Department itself, its next step agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7817]

  Clare Short
  My Department has taken on three buildings in London over the last five years. These are our new headquarters building at 1 Palace Street, London SW1 (our current building being planned for demolition) and two smaller offices at 20 Victoria Street, London SW1, and Glen House, Stag Place, London SW1.

  The buildings are all leased, with the annual rent being as follows:
  1 Palace Street: £4,456,450
  20 Victoria Street: £250,000
  Glen House: £116,970.
  No current valuation for the properties is available. We have no next steps agencies or NDPBs.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is towards(a) the operation of NGOs in sub-Saharan Africa, (b) the substitution of western for local cultural norms by NGOs in sub-Saharan Africa and (c) NGOs promoting western concepts of the role of women in sub-Saharan Africa. [7204]

  Clare Short
  My Department works with civil society (including NGOs) in the UK and in sub-Saharan Africa to build the capacity of poor people so that their voices may be heard whenever decisions are taken locally, nationally and internationally that affect their lives.

  Like most Governments in sub-Saharan Africa, we support the internationally agreed human rights framework. This provides a common set of principles for tackling poverty and inequality. These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and cultural entitlements.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Valetta Convention
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate has been made of the amount of funding required for projects unable to be conducted by volunteer archaeologists under the Valetta convention; [4243]

  (2) what consultations took place with local archaeological societies before the Government signed the Valetta convention; [4250]

  (3)what provisions have been made for monitoring the impact of implementing the Valetta convention on the activities of local voluntary archaeological groups and societies; [4249]

  (4) what groups will be consulted on the setting up of a register to implement article 3 of the Valetta convention; [4252]

  (5) what consultations are planned, and with what groups, over the next 12 months on the implementation of the Valetta convention; [4248]

  (6) what estimates have been made of the likely costs to public funds of implementing the Valetta convention; [4246]

  (7) what timetable has been agreed for the
  implementation of article 3 of the Valetta
  convention. [4253]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on and plans for the implementation of the Valetta Convention. [4462]

  Dr. Howells
  It is for each Government to apply the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (known as the Valetta Convention 1992) in ways that fit in with national practice and legislation. In broad terms, current measures in place in the UK already meet the convention's requirements. The Government do not believe that additional legislation, requiring a licensing system, is necessary to fulfil article 3.
  805W
  Much archaeological work is already controlled through existing mechanisms. In England, English Heritage will be taking forward consultations with appropriate bodies representing all parts of the archaeological community on any necessary improvements to the operation of existing systems of control and on the development of a voluntary Code of Conduct for those who wish to undertake archaeological work outside those existing systems. They will begin work on this during the autumn.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what measures she plans to put in place to enable amateur archaeologists to continue with their work without contravening Article 3 of the Valetta Convention; [4313]

  (2) what consultations are planned to develop appropriate procedures for the authorisation and supervision of future archaeological work in accordance with Article 3 of the Valetta Convention. [4312]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]It is for each Government to apply the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (known as the Valetta Convention 1992) in ways that fit in with national practice and legislation. In broad terms, current measures in place in the UK already meet the Convention's requirements. The Government do not believe that additional legislation, requiring a licensing system, is necessary to fulfil Article 3. Much archaeological work is already controlled through existing mechanisms. In England, English Heritage will be taking forward consultations with appropriate bodies representing all parts of the archaeological community on any necessary improvements to the operation of existing systems of control and on the development of a voluntary Code of Conduct for those who wish to undertake archaeological work outside those existing systems. They will begin work on this during the autumn.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the implications of the Valetta Convention on archaeology for the licensed activities of metal detector groups. [4251]

  Dr. Howells
  The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised) (known as the Valetta Convention 1992) came into effect in the UK on 31 March 2001. The Explanatory Report on the Convention makes it clear that'a State however, may only require mandatory reporting of finds of precious metal or on already listed sites'.
  This falls within the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Treasure Act 1996. Further, article 3 might seem at first glance to require states to institute a system of licensing metal detectors but, as the Explanatory Report points out,
  'prior authorisation of the use of metal detectors or "any other detection equipment" applies only to "archaeological investigation" and therefore not to the normal use of metal detectors'.
  Therefore in the Government's view the current measures in place in England and Wales already meet the requirements of the Valetta Convention as regards portable antiquities. The impact on the activities of legitimate metal detector groups should be minimal.
  806W
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of whether the provisions of the Valetta Convention would be in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998. [4247]

  Dr. Howells
  The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (known as the Valetta Convention 1992) is one of a family of Council of Europe Conventions dealing with the protection of the historic environment. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect in the UK to the rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Act itself does not have any force outside the UK, but clearly the ECHR does. Both the Valetta Convention and the ECHR are treaties of the Council of Europe with many of the same signatory states. We have no reason to believe that the two conventions are incompatible.

  European City of Culture
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the advisory committee referred to in the guidelines for the European City of Culture will be appointed; who will appoint individuals; what selection procedures will be used to select and appoint committee members; what the deadline is by which interested cities must declare an interest in bidding; how many cities will be shortlisted; if there will be a programme of visits to bidding cities; and if there will be a limit on the nature and the extent of illustrative material which can be submitted to support a bid. [4371]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The advisory panel referred to in the guidelines will be in place by spring 2002.

  The members of the advisory panel will be appointed by Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Ministers. They will be selected from the usual sources used by the Department for public appointments. These include: DCMS and Cabinet Office databases, consultation with other Government Departments and with the devolved Administrations, nominations from individuals or by other organisations. While appointments to the advisory panel are not expected to fall within the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice, the Department will apply the spirit of the code when making these appointments.

  The deadline for applications by interested cities is 31 March 2002 and we anticipate that the shortlist will be announced by autumn 2002. No decision has been made regarding the number of cities which will be shortlisted. No decision has been made regarding visits to bidding cities. We have placed no limit on the nature and extent of illustrative material to support a bid, except that any audio-visual material should last no longer than 30 minutes.

  Absence
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many days on average were lost per employee in her Department because of sickness; and how many officials retired early from her Department in each of the past 10 years. [R] [5057]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested showing the average number of days lost due to sickness per employee and the number of officials who retired early in my
  807W
  Department are set out in the following table. These figures are for each complete year from 1993 following the creation of my Department in 1992.

  Year

  Average days sick

  Early retirements

  1993

  4.8

  2

  1994

  4.9

  3

  1995

  4.5

  2

  1996

  6.6

  3

  1997

  7.7

  0

  1998

  8.7

  1

  1999

  7.9

  0

  2000

  8.9

  3

  TV Subtitling
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to extend subtitling requirements to digital, cable and satellite television. [5126]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]Extending the statutory targets for subtitling, signing and audio description on digital terrestrial television to digital cable and digital satellite services requires primary legislation. My intention is for the increased 80 per cent. subtitling target to be included in the forthcoming draft Communications Bill.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what species and number of animals have been culled under licence in each of the Royal Parks during the last three years. [5899]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, William Weston. Mr. Weston wrote to my hon. Friend on 14 August as follows.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 14 August 2001:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of animals culled under licence in each of the Royal Parks during the last three years. I regret that it was not possible to answer your question before the Summer recess. However, the information you requested is as follows.
  Only Regent's Park has culled under licence over the past three years; the details are set out below.
  1999: 0
  2000: 97 Canada Geese, 25 Greylag Geese
  2001: 0.

  Departmental Funding
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reform the system of allocating funds from her Department between regions. [6053]

  Mr. Caborn
  Most of this Department's funds are allocated through non-departmental public bodies. It is for those bodies to determine how their funds will be used, in accordance with their funding agreements with the Department.
  808W
  The funding system for the arts will be reformed to create a single funding organisation with regional arts councils and considerably enhanced levels of local government involvement. The new system will enable the regions to be active drivers of the funding system, rather than merely clients of a national body. It will result in a more streamlined organisation which will offer up savings that can be ploughed back into the arts, as well as providing a structure that is simpler and more consistent for those applying for funds and support. The Arts Council of England is currently consulting on the detail of the proposed changes.

  In relation to national lottery funding, we have asked the community fund to target £100 million and the new opportunities fund an additional £50 million to some 50 areas which are both deprived and have received less lottery funding than other parts of the country.

  There are no current plans to change the system in relation to funds which are allocated directly by this Department.

  Sport Action Zones
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria will be used to select the next group of Sport Action Zones; and how many will be designated in the next(a) 12 and (b) 24 months. [6299]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England has decided that the remaining 18 Sport Action Zones will be designated following a bidding process which it proposes to launch in January next year. The bidding process will focus on the top 20 per cent. of deprived areas in the country and the criteria to be taken into account in assessing the applications will relate to the degree of socio-economic deprivation; the scope for working with other partners and initiatives in the area; and the level of sporting need and deprivation. It is anticipated that each region will have at least one zone and a maximum of five. Sport England expects to announce its decisions in October 2002.

  Digital Television
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what date all households in Essex will be able to receive digital television by(a) cable and (b) terrestrial distribution systems; and if she will make a statement. [6338]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who currently receives the main public service channels broadcasting on analogue will continue to do so digitally after the switchover to digital television, whether by terrestrial, cable or satellite means. The BBC and ITC, who are responsible for the digital terrestrial television (DTT) network, are considering, in consultation with the digital broadcasters, manufacturers, consumer groups and Government, how to improve the core coverage of all digital television multiplexes across the UK. Maps showing the current predicted DTT coverage from each of the UK DTT transmitter sites have been placed in both Houses on CD-ROM and maps are also available on the Digital Television Group website: www.dtg.org.uk. These show that most of Essex is served by the Crystal Palace, Sudbury and Bluebell Hill transmitters. Cable services are available in Essex, although coverage concentrates on areas of dense
  809W
  population. It is for cable operators to decide on the roll out of their digital services and viability of extending services to non-urban areas.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the top 10 companies to which her Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6426]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department leases existing buildings in central London and has not commissioned any construction projects. Two limited refurbishment contracts were let in the period January 2000 to March 2001. The contracts were the subject of competitive tenders and the two successful lead contractors were Interiors Plc and Levertons UK Ltd.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by her Department in (i) the current year and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6598]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department's business plans for this year and for two years ahead do not include any building or refurbishment projects.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of her Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7227]

  Dr. Howells
  The normal retirement age for all staff in my Department is 60. In the Royal Parks Agency (the Department's only Executive Agency), the normal retirement age is also 60, but staff may be allowed to stay beyond 60 where they have reserved rights to do so; or
  they have specialist skills or expertise and are not immediately replaceable; or
  it is in the short-term interest of the Agency.
  The non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department have considerable discretion to determine the terms and conditions of their employees, and the Department does not hold details centrally. Their retirement arrangements, however, are analogous to those of the Department.

  Network Z Radio
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the likely impact of the proposed Network Z radio services on existing commercial provision. [6017]

  Dr. Howells
  In accordance with the guidelines published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, advice was sought from the Department's legal advisers, finance advisers and economists, and others within and outside the Department, including the Office of Fair Trading. This advice, along with the BBC's810W
  application and information contained in the consultation responses, was taken into account by the Secretary of State in making her assessment.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what information the BBC furnished her, in its application to establish Network Z, about the views of(a) the BBC's legal, finance and policy advisers, (b) the Executive Committee and (c) the Board of Governors; and on what dates they were given. [6992]

  Dr. Howells
  In its application to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport requesting approval to launch new digital services, dated 9 January 2001, the BBC confirmed that the proposals had received the approval of the BBC's legal, regulatory, and policy advisers and were approved by the Executive Committee on 5 December 2000 and by the Board of Governors on 14 December 2000. The BBC Chairman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 4 April 2001 reiterating the views of the BBC governors. This letter, together with other correspondence between the Department and the BBC, was placed in the Libraries of both Houses in July.

  Premier Christian Radio
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to ensure that Premier Christian Radio is able to apply for a new licence. [6617]

  Dr. Howells
  The Radio Authority has recently readvertised the analogue licence which Premier Christian Radio hold until June 2003. It is for Premier Christian Radio to decide if it wishes to reapply.

  Foot and Mouth
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to make funds available to organisations representing the rural tourist industry to publicise the lifting of restrictions caused by the foot and mouth crisis. [6074]

  Dr. Howells
  Although no specific funds were given to organisations representing the rural tourist industry, of the £3.8 million provided to the English Tourism Council (ETC) on 6 April for advertising and promotion, £2 million was given directly to the English Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs). This is in addition to the ETC's annual grant-in-aid allocation of £9.6 million, approximately half of which is allocated to the regions, including the RTBs. The RTBs also gained access to £50 million made available through the rural recovery fund.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the value of financial assistance from Government to the tourist industry in England has been since the start of the foot and mouth crisis. [6070]

  Dr. Howells
  Since the start of the outbreak, the Government have provided additional funds of £3.8 million to the English Tourism Council and £14.2 million to the British Tourist Authority for marketing and promotion.
  811W
  In total, the Government have allocated in excess of £300 million in aid to small rural businesses, mainly in the tourism sector. This includes £50 million for the business recovery fund, £22 million for hardship rate relief, £120 million in loans available under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme and £4 million to help authorities re-open pathways. Many towns hit by foot and mouth are also included in a £100 million market town regeneration scheme. All these measures bring enormous benefits to the rural tourism industry.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the loss in revenue to the tourist industry in England as a result of foot and mouth since the start of the outbreak. [6071]

  Dr. Howells
  Our best estimate to date is that the loss of revenue in 2001–2002 by the English tourism industry is likely to be about £3.3 billion in "value added" terms over the 8-month period under consideration (March to October). We will continue to revise the model on which this estimate is based in the light of the latest available data.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much expenditure was incurred by her Department in(a) publicising the closure of rural tourism areas during the foot and mouth crisis and (b) publicising the subsequent lifting of restrictions. [6073]

  Dr. Howells
  No specific funding was provided by the DCMS for publicising the closure and subsequent lifting of restrictions in the countryside. However, the ETC and BTA have used additional funding to provide information on what attractions are open to prospective visitors through websites and information centres, as part of their overall marketing strategies.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department is taking to reverse the impression that tourist areas formally restricted because of foot and mouth, and now re-opened, are still closed. [6082]

  Dr. Howells
  At the regional, national and international level, new tourist websites and visitor hotlines have provided reassurance and a clear picture that Britain is open. Leaflet information has also proved successful. Much of the £18 million in additional funding provided by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to the British Tourist Authority (BTA) and English Tourist Council (ETC) has been used in strategic advertising and marketing campaigns to motivate potential customers and provide information on what is open. Furthermore, DCMS Ministers attended a number of high-profile domestic events to increase rural tourism's exposure and counter myth.

  School Terms
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if her Department was consulted by the then Department for Education and Employment on the implications for the tourism industry of proposed changes in the duration and number of school terms. [6067]
  812W
  Dr. Howells
  This Department has not been consulted by the Department for Education and Employment, or its successor, on the implications for the tourism industry of proposed changes in the duration and number of school terms. Last year the Local Government Association established the Independent Commission on the Organisation of the School Year, whose report "Rhythms of Schooling" was published in September 2000. The Commission's remit was to consider the wide-ranging effects of current arrangements and it made various recommendations, including about the duration and number of school terms. It has since received feedback from an extensive consultation and published its response earlier this month. Tourism bodies have been involved throughout the process and were included among the consultees, as was the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Decisions about the number, length and dates of school terms and holidays are taken by each local education authority and not by central Government, and we have no plans to change this. The Government will look carefully at the LGA's final recommendations (expected in December). However, we would need to be convinced that there was widely based support for a change before considering legislating to impose a new uniform format.

  Regional Theatres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy towards the maintenance of regional theatres in England. [6614]

  Dr. Howells
  This remains a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. The Arts Council announced significant additional funding for the wider theatre sector in March and by 2002–04 the amount spent on theatre by the funding system in England will increase to £70 million. 65 per cent. of the additional funding will go to regional producing theatres.

  Jackpot Machines
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement about proposals by the Gaming Board to remove jackpot machines from members' social clubs; [7147]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the consequences for social clubs of proposed regulations to remove jackpot gaming machines. [7145]

  Mr. Caborn
  The independent Gambling Review Body, whose report we published on 17 July, recommended that gaming machines in private clubs which were not casinos or bingo clubs should have a maximum prize of £25 instead of £250 as at present. All the Review Body's recommendations are now subject to public consultation, which will run until 31 October. Until the consultation process has been completed we are not in a position to make an informed assessment of the financial and other consequences for clubs; and we do not propose to take decisions on the report before then.

  Concessionary TV Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the timetable is for granting concessionary television licences to sheltered and community accommodation. [7350]
  813W
  Dr. Howells
  Under the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary television licence scheme, a £5 concessionary fee is already available for disabled people and retired people aged 60 or over living in residential or nursing homes or in sheltered housing which meets specific qualifying criteria. As announced on 9 April this year, we propose to introduce preserved rights to this concession for existing beneficiaries, in cases where changes to the social mix or the level of warden cover mean that the accommodation no longer meets the full qualifying criteria. Consultations between officials and the BBC about the necessary amendments to the television licence fee regulations are currently underway. We intend to bring forward these amendments as soon as we can but it is important that in doing so we do not create any new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens.

  London Weighting
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the total value of London weighting and London living allowances for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [6776]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department consolidated London weighting into basic pay in November 1996. It is therefore not possible to provide an estimate of the total value of this weighting.

  Correspondence
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was, for each year since 1995, (1) the total number of(a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if she will make a statement; [7038]

  (2) the average response time for providing a substantive answer to (a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords. [7037]

  Tessa Jowell
  The effective handling of correspondence and PQs is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance.

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001 Official Report, columns 324–28W and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W.

  Since 1 May 1997 my Department has answered 1,735 written questions tabled by hon. Members and noble Lords. In the House of Commons, 35 per cent. of named day questions were answered on the day specified and 53 per cent. of ordinary written questions were answered within one week of being tabled. In another place, 57 per cent. questions tabled by noble Lords were answered within two weeks of being tabled.

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the total annual running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by her Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by her Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6777]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department consists of less than 500 persons located in four Central London buildings. The total space occupied is 11,096 square metres. Occupation cost for the buildings in 2000–01 was £5,266,550 providing an average cost per square metre of £474.62. This cost will vary year on year dependent upon rates, utility costs and building maintenance.

  OFCOM
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in the establishment of OFCOM. [7563]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have introduced the Office of Communications Bill to set up OFCOM, who will then prepare themselves to receive regulatory functions under the subsequent Communications Bill. My Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the five existing regulators are planning the practical steps that will be necessary and a report on how this should be done was published last week.

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what spectator capacity a stadium requires in order to meet the IAAF's specifications for a standard capable of hosting the World Athletics Championship. [7929]

  Tessa Jowell
  The IAAF had previously advised UK Athletics that the stadium for the World Athletics Championships would need to be able to seat at least 43,000 spectators.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the accommodation requirements are for(a) athletes and (b) officials in a city in order to meet the IAAF's specifications for a standard capable of hosting the World Athletics Championship. [7944]

  Tessa Jowell
  These are set out Appendix I of the IAAF guidelines for the IAAF World Athletics Championships. I have sent the hon. Gentleman a copy and placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what analysis her Department has made of Sheffield's transport facilities. [7927]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department has discussed transport issues relating to the 2005 World Championships with Sport England, Sheffield City Council and the Sheffield City Trust. Sheffield City Council has advised that the infrastructure surrounding the Don Valley Stadium already enables up to 50,000 people to attend concerts at the Stadium. If the IAAF accepts our proposal for Sheffield to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships, detailed
  815W
  work will be needed to assess what, if any, further transport improvements need to be made to facilitate the staging of the event.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when it became Government policy to support the staging of the 2005 World Athletics Championships in Sheffield. [7925]

  Tessa Jowell
  The decision to support the staging of the 2005 World Athletics Championships in Sheffield was made on 4 October, after discussions with UK Athletics and Sport England.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions(a) ministers and (b) officials in her Department have had with the IAAF on the prospect of staging the 2005 World Athletics Championships. [7923]

  Tessa Jowell
  It has been my priority to keep the IAAF fully informed at every stage about the review of the UK's arrangements for the 2005 World Athletics Championships. My Department has had the following contact with the IAAF since 7 June:2 July. I spoke to Istvan Gyulai, General Secretary of the IAAF by telephone to inform him that Sport England had commissioned Patrick Carter to review the Lee Valley project and to advise him that the Government were committed to staging the 2005 World Athletics Championships.
  6 August. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport met Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, and Istvan Gyulai at the World Athletics Championships in Edmonton.
  25 September. At my request, a senior DCMS official spoke to Istvan Gyulai to inform him that he Government were considering Patrick Carter's report and that we would advise him of the position as soon as the Government, Sport England and UK Athletics had reached a conclusion on staging the World Athletics Championships.
  4 October. Dave Moorcroft, Chief Executive of UK Athletics and I spoke to Lamine Diack and Istvan Gyulai by telephone to tell him of our decision that Lee Valley was not viable and to say that we wanted to suggest to the IAAF that the Championships be switched to Sheffield.
  5 October. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and I met Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, Istvan Gyulai and Robert Stimpson, IAAF Treasurer. This meeting was also attended by David Hemrey and Dave Moorcroft from UK Athletics, Patrick Carter and by officials from DCMS and Sport England.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much(a) Lottery and (b) Treasury money has been spent on the project to build a national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock. [7924]

  Tessa Jowell
  Sport England has spent £1.57 million on the development of the National Athletics Centre project. All of this is from the lottery sports fund. No Exchequer money has been spent to develop the project.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when the Carter report into Wembley Stadium and Picketts Lock was commissioned; [7922]

  (2) when she will publish the Carter report into Wembley Stadium and Picketts Lock; [7932]

  (3) when she received the Carter report into Wembley Stadium and Picketts Lock. [7934]

  816W
  Tessa Jowell
  I announced the review of National Stadium project on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 37W. Sport England commissioned the review of the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre project on 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 79W.

  I received copies of both reports on 31 August 2001.

  The Lee Valley Report was published by Sport England on 4 October. The Government have no current plans to publish Patrick Carter's report on the National Stadium as this would compromise the discussions that Patrick Carter is currently having with the Football Association.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is her policy on support for (1) a single national stadium for(a) football, (b) rugby and (c) athletics; [7930]

  (2) national stadia for (a) football, (b) rugby and (c) athletics. [7928]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government continue to be guided by the governing bodies of sport as to the merits of a national stadium for their respective sports. We fully support the Football Association's aspiration to develop a national stadium and are committed to ensuring that UK Athletics has a robust legacy to enable the sport to invest and grow in the longer term. It is for UK Athletics to determine whether this legacy should include a National Athletics Centre and to discuss any future plans with Sport England to ensure such aspirations are viable and sustainable over the longer term.

  Tourism Incentive Group
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of the Tourism Incentive Group. [7564]

  Dr. Howells
  In July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the English Tourism Council (ETC) to consult senior tourism industry leaders and propose a clear programme for modernising and restructuring the industry, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could then consider as a basis for entering into partnership and investing in reform. The ETC set up the Tourism Initiative Group and sent its report to the Secretary of State on 10 September—it made various recommendations under four key areas: product quality, service and productivity, data, and marketing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering that report and held a seminar on 11 and 12 September to discuss with senior tourism industry and public body representatives how best to take forward the ideas in the Tourism Initiative Group report and, in particular, what role the industry itself should play.

  BBC Chairman
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the membership of the Advisory Panel which is considering applications for the chairmanship of the BBC. [5127]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]No. It is not our policy to publish the names of advisory panel members. This is to avoid the risk of their being subjected to unwarranted pressure at any stage of the process. The selection process for all public appointments follows the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public
  817W
  Appointments, and requires an independent assessor on each advisory panel. This practice has been in place since the introduction of an independent element into the appointments process in 1996.

PRIME MINISTER

  Global Temperatures and Rainfall
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimates he has made of the percentage increase in global temperatures and rainfall by 2100; and if he will make a statement on the recent discussions he has had on these issues with G7 leaders. [7310]

  The Prime Minister
  The recent international scientific assessment of climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that global temperatures are expected to rise by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100. Although global precipitation is expected to increase overall there is still considerable scientific uncertainty over future regional precipitation changes.

  I discussed the subject of climate change and the Kyoto protocol with the other G7 leaders and President Putin at the G8 summit in Genoa in July. We agreed on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and committed ourselves to working together to meet this common objective.

  Government Policy (Presentation)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate how much time he spent on dealing with issues of presentation of Government policy in the media in the last 12 months. [7131]

  The Prime Minister
  Issues of presentation are a matter for the director of strategy and communication and the Prime Minister's official spokesman. I discuss these issues with them as required.

  Global Population
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of global population by 2050; how many people there will be affected by(a) drought and (b) flooding; how many are so affected now; and if he will make a statement on his recent discussions on these issues with G7 leaders. [7309]

  The Prime Minister
  The UN, in its document "State of the world population 2001", estimates that the world population will increase to 9.3 billion by 2050. At present, around 1 billion people are affected by drought and desertification. There are no independent estimates for this figure in 2050. There are no reliable figures for the total population affected by flooding as the numbers vary quite considerably from year to year.

  I discussed the subject of climate change and the Kyoto protocol with the other G7 leaders and President Putin at the G8 summit in Genoa in July.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what preparations he has made to defend key UK landmarks in the light of recent terrorist attacks in the USA; and if he will make a statement. [7307]

  The Prime Minister
  We have no intelligence of a specific threat to the UK. In the light of the events in the USA on 11 September, plans are being reviewed and guidance updated. Every reasonable measure of internal security is being taken. All the necessary authorities are involved.

  Life Peers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many life peers have been created since 1 May 1997; and how many of those were nominated by him in his capacity as leader of the Labour Party. [7133]

  The Prime Minister
  Two hundred and sixty seven life peers have been created since 1 May 1997. This includes peers nominated by my predecessor but created after the 1997 general election. Of these, 116 have been appointed specifically either as Labour Ministers or as Labour working peers.

  Prime Minister's Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will introduce legislation to give statutory definition to the powers of the Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement; [7127]

  (2) if he will list those of his powers (a) granted to him by statute and (b) which can be exercised (i) without statutory authority and (ii) under royal prerogative. [7132]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to general references to the Prime Minister, there are more than 50 specific powers conferred on the office by statute, most in relation to appointments. The Prime Minister also holds the titles and duties of the Minister for the Civil Service and the First Lord of the Treasury.

  The Prime Minister's roles as the head of Her Majesty's Government, her principal adviser and as Chairman of the Cabinet are not, however, defined in legislation. These roles, including the exercise of powers under the royal prerogative, have evolved over many years, drawing on convention and usage, and it is not possible precisely to define them. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation in this area.

  Departmental Changes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on advising Parliament of changes in(a) Departmental structures and responsibilities and (b) ministerial changes. [7165]

  The Prime Minister
  My policy is to keep Parliament informed about changes to departmental structures and ministerial responsibilities. The list of ministerial responsibilities is updated regularly and copies placed in the Library of the House.

  Policy Advisers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason his private secretaries have been redesignated as
  819W
  policy advisers; and what assessment he has made of the implications for civil service neutrality arising from this change. [8012]

  The Prime Minister
  The No. 10 private office and policy unit have been merged to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of my office.

  All civil servants work in full accordance with the civil service code.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the qualities and achievements of Lord Birt which led him to appoint Lord Birt to the forward strategy unit. [8004]

  The Prime Minister
  I appointed Lord Birt as unpaid strategy adviser because of his extensive experience of strategy formulation in both the public and private sectors.

  Civil Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will introduce a bill to define the role of the civil service. [7999]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to maintaining a non-political permanent civil service. They have given a commitment to legislation for the civil service, which will be taken forward as and when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he held with the US President concerning the Kyoto protocol; and if he will make a statement. [6771]

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed the Kyoto protocol with President Bush on a number of occasions, including at the EU-US summit in Gothenburg in June and at the G8 summit in Genoa in July. I made it clear that the Government remain committed to the Kyoto protocol and to the EU's aim of ratification and entry into force by 2002. We agreed that climate change is a serious issue and that we would continue to work together to address it.

  National Missile Defence
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he held with the US President concerning National Missile Defence; and if he will make a statement. [6772]

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed national missile defence (NMD) with President Bush on a number of occasions, and expect to continue to do so. I have made the Government's position clear on NMD and I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 256.

  Afghanistan
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if the military intelligence that has been shared with key partners in the military alliance for action in Afghanistan has been shared with the UN Secretary-General. [8036]
  820W
  The Prime Minister
  We cannot comment in detail on intelligence matters, but all necessary information is being shared with coalition partners.

  Tourism (Departmental Responsibility)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason responsibility for the tourism industry is allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; and for what reason this responsibility is exercised at Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State level. [6072]

  The Prime Minister
  Tourism fits well with the wider responsibilities of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. These include areas such as the historic environment, museums and galleries, sport and the arts which attract tourists to come to the United Kingdom.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has overall responsibility for the tourism industry. Following normal Government practice, day-to-day responsibility has been delegated to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister prior to his decision on the nature and terms of reference of an inquiry into foot and mouth disease, if he will consult(a) parish, district and county councils in affected areas, (b) representatives of the tourist industry, (c) animal welfare organisations, (d) the NFU, CLA and other farming organisations and (e) hon. Members. [6434]

  The Prime Minister
  On 9 August I announced three independent inquiries into the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  The inquiries, which will report to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are:
  an inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 and the way the Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak, to be chaired by Dr. lain Anderson;
  a scientific review by the Royal Society of questions relating to the transmission, prevention and control of the epidemic of infectious disease in livestock, committee to be chaired by Sir Brian Follett FRS; and
  a policy commission on the future of farming and food to be chaired by Sir Don Curry.
  The chairs of the three inquiries will set their own working methods, working in an open and inclusive manner involving a wide range of stakeholders.

  G8 Summit
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the G8 summit. [7095]

  The Prime Minister
  I met my G8 colleagues in Genoa from 20 to 22 July. The summit was an important opportunity to discuss a wide range of international issues. The conclusions of the summit were placed in the Libraries of the House at the time.

  For the United Kingdom, the three key results of the summit were the commitment to a new trade round, the Genoa plan for Africa and the global health fund.
  821W
  The Government believe that a new trade round would provide significant economic benefits. The European Commission has estimated that a truly liberalising new round could boost the world economy by $400 billion a year. Of this, between $100 million and $150 billion could go to developing countries.

  In Genoa, we met the leaders of five African countries, as well as representatives of Latin America and Asia. Their priorities are similar to those of the G8—ending conflict, increasing trade and foreign investment, improving governance, health and education, implementing debt relief and closing the digital divide.

  We welcomed the readiness among African leaders to take responsibility for resolving the problems in their continent. We agreed to appoint senior personal representatives to meet the leaders of the new African initiative, and to produce a plan of action between now and next year's summit in Canada.

  On poverty reduction for developing countries, the G8 committed over $1.3 billion to a new global health fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and welcomed a further $500 million pledged by other partners. We shall work with the United Nations and other stakeholders to make sure the fund is up and running by the end of this year. The UK Government have already pledged $200 million to the health fund.

  At the conclusion of the summit, my G8 colleagues and I accepted the invitation of the Canadian Prime Minister to meet next year on 26–28 June in Kananaskis, Alberta.

  Argentina
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Argentina. [7094]

  The Prime Minister
  I visited Argentina on 1 August and had talks with President de la Rua. Our discussions covered international trade and investment issues, the Argentine economy, climate change and UK/Argentine bilateral relations. President de la Rua and I reaffirmed our commitment to continue our dialogue on issues of common interest.

  Falkland Islands
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the representations and discussions he has had since 19 July relating to the status of the Falkland Islands. [7093]

  The Prime Minister
  I met President de la Rua on 1 August. We both reaffirmed our Governments' commitment to the joint statement of July 1999, and to continue our dialogue on issues of common interest. This does not affect our sovereignty of the Falkland Islands or our commitment to the Islanders' rights to determine their own future. There will be no change in the status of the Islands unless that is the wish of the Islanders themselves.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon.
  822W
  Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords; [7016]

  (2) if he will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement. [7017]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not available in the manner requested.

  The effective handling of correspondence and PQs is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance. I take an active interest in the way my office deals with all letters sent to me. I receive approximately 500,000 items of post a year compared with an estimated 25,000 items received annually six years ago. My office takes action on all letters received within 15 working days.

  General information the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and an overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28W and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W.

  My office aims to answer all ordinary written parliamentary questions within five working days, and named day written parliamentary questions on the day named.

  I have answered 110 written parliamentary questions this Session, providing substantive answers for 88 per cent. of them on time.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in his Department in each year since May 1997, indicating(a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if he will make a statement; [6943]

  (2) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in his Department for official overseas visits; what the (a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [6944]

  The Prime Minister
  The rules on the use of non-commercial fights for Ministers visits overseas are the same as those that have applied under successive Administrations and are set out in full in "Travel by Ministers". A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Lists of overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 during the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2001, together with the cost of all Ministers visits overseas, were placed in the Library of the House

  823W
  and published in the Official Report on 17 June 1999, columns 196–97W; on 28 July 2000, column 969W; and on 20 July 2001. column 467W.

  Cruse Bereavement Care
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence he has had with Cruse Bereavement Care in the past four weeks; and if he will make a statement. [7548]

  The Prime Minister
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey has written to my office about the work of Cruse Bereavement Care.

  I will be writing to Mike Pearson, Chairman of Cruse Bereavement Care, this week to thank him for the outstanding way that Cruse has responded to the tragic events of 11 September in the US. During my recent visit to New York, I was very impressed by what I heard about the Cruse team's tireless efforts. Their staff both here and in New York have provided hope and comfort to many families.

  Chechnya (Human Rights)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made to President Putin concerning human rights abuses in Chechnya during his recent visit to Russia. [7436]

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed Chechnya with President Putin on various occasions and last did so in Moscow on 4 October.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of employment zones in reducing unemployment. [3590]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Employment zones are one of a range of initiatives we have introduced to help reduce unemployment. The 15 employment zones are performing well and have already helped nearly 13,000 people move into work. We are currently evaluating the zones before deciding how to take the initiative further.

  Benefit Fraud
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the amount of money lost in benefit fraud in 2000–01. [3591]

  Mr. Darling
  In our 1999 paper "Safeguarding Social Security" we estimated that £2 billion was lost annually due to confirmable benefit fraud.

  We have set firm targets to halve the amount of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 2006. We have already met our first milestone, of a 10 per cent. reduction, 18 months ahead of schedule.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to set targets for reducing benefit fraud in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. [3592]
  824W
  Malcolm Wicks
  This year we have introduced for the first time a continuous measure of the level of Housing Benefit fraud. We will consider the appropriateness and scope for setting targets for reducing the level of incorrectness in Housing Benefit in the light of the results of this exercise.

  Social Deprivation
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people back into work in areas of acute social deprivation. [3593]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our welfare to work initiatives are helping people into work in all parts of the country. We have also introduced Action Teams for Jobs and employment zones which are helping people in the most deprived areas. Today we are increasing the number of Action Teams from 40 to 53, and teams will now run until March 2004.

  Carers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when new carers over the age of 65 will be eligible to apply for carers' benefits. [3594]

  Maria Eagle
  We propose to make this change by Regulatory Reform Order. The necessary consultation ends today. We will lay the Order as soon as practicable and it will be considered by the Deregulation Committee thereafter. Following a period of 60 days, it will be laid before the House using the Superaffirmative Procedure. A similar procedure will be followed in the other place.

  Disability Benefit Forms
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to simplify benefit application forms, with particular reference to benefits for people with disabilities. [3595]

  Maria Eagle
  We are indeed improving the existing disability claim forms. Earlier this year we were able to reduce the Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance claim packs by up to 9 pages without losing any essential information. We are now looking at what further can be done to simplify both the claim forms themselves and the overall claiming process.

  We are also introducing a shorter and simpler Minimum Income Guarantee form from the end of this month, and we are investing £2 billion over the next three years to modernise radically the service we provide to our customers so they only have to provide the same information once.

  Mothers
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to ease the transition from welfare to work for mothers with young children. [3596]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have introduced a wide range of help for mothers with young children making the move from welfare to work.

  Over 90 per cent. of the participants in the new deals for partners and lone parents are women, benefiting from advice and support in looking for work, training and

  825W
  childcare. We have improved the extended payments of housing and council tax benefit scheme, and introduced extended mortgage payments and the lone parents benefit run-on. These measures are supported by the National Childcare Strategy and the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit and the Children's Tax Credit.

  The introduction of Jobcentre Plus will provide those mothers claiming benefits with young children with the opportunity to find out about the support available to help them make the move into work.

  State Benefits (Collection)
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his plans to make it easier for pensioners to collect their state benefits through private bank accounts. [3597]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most new pensioners (56 per cent.) already opt to have payment made directly into their bank/building society accounts, and find the process straightforward and convenient.

  Paying benefits directly into bank accounts will become the normal method of payment from 2003. To support that, we will implement a number of improvements to our present systems to make it simpler for existing customers to switch. We will back up these enhancements with an effective publicity campaign, and where it is required we will also provide individual claimants with advice on opening and operating a bank account.

  In addition we have made it clear that people will still be able to collect their pension weekly in cash from post offices. The Post Office is developing Universal Banking Services which will enable this to happen.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve co-ordination between the benefits system and the support given to help people find work. [3598]

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the amount of personal advice available to unemployed people at jobcentres. [3601]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to enable the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to work more closely together. [3605]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The new Jobcentre Plus service will draw together the Employment Service and the parts of the Benefits Agency which support people of working age. It will deliver a single integrated service with a clear focus on work to benefit claimants of working age and to employers.

  Jobcentre Plus will come into being at the end of this financial year. At the same time, the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service will cease to exist.

  To demonstrate the improved and more work-focused service we intend to offer in Jobcentre Plus, we are putting in place around 50 "pathfinder" offices throughout the
  826W
  country. In parallel, we are introducing work-focused interviews for all claimants of working age in 39 additional sites adjacent to the pathfinders.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of GDP has been spent on pensioners' benefits on average since 1997. [3599]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over the period there has been sustained economic growth and our spending on pensioners, now some 5.5 per cent. of GDP, has ensured that all pensioners have shared fully in the rising wealth of the nation.

  The proportions for each year since 1996–97 are provided in the table:

  Percentage

  1996–97

  5.3

  1997–98

  5.2

  1998–99

  5.1

  1999–2000

  5.2

  2000–01

  5.3

  2001–02

  5.5

  Notes:

  1. The information in the table compares social security expenditure in Great Britain with the most recent estimate of Gross Domestic Product issued by National Statistics (24 September 2001).

  2. Benefits included are: Retirement Pension (Basic and Additional), Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee, Winter Fuel Payment, Concessionary TV licence, Non-contributory Retirement Pension, Christmas Bonus, and Housing/Council Tax Benefit and Social Fund paid to people aged 60 or over.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many eligible men have not received backdated Winter Fuel Payments in respect of previous years. [3600]

  Mr. McCartney
  To date we have received and paid over 1 million retrospective Winter Fuel Payment claims for the first three years of the scheme: 1997–98; 1998–99 and 1999–2000. A possible 1.9 million people, the large majority of whom are men, could be eligible for a backdated payment in respect of these years. However, there are no time limits on claiming payments for these winters and we continue to receive and pay claims.

  From April 2000 an information campaign ran to ensure that existing and potential customers knew about changes to the scheme and what, if anything, they needed to do to get a payment. It is up to the individual to choose whether to claim payments for past winters. There is no time limit on claiming payments for previous years of the scheme. This year, the Winter Fuel Payment information campaign began in June and will continue throughout the year.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason he has brought forward the qualifying week for the 2001 Winter Fuel Payment. [7581]

  Mr. McCartney
  From the winter of 1999–2000, the qualifying week was fixed at the week beginning with the third Monday in September. The qualifying week for that winter was 20 to 26 September 1999. The qualifying week
  827W
  for last winter, 2000–01, was 18 to 24 September, and for this winter it was 17 to 23 September. Next winter, 2002–03, the qualifying week will be 16 to 22 September.

  Jobseekers
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to enable the hardest-to-help jobless people find work. [3602]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have introduced a wide range of New Deals which help disadvantaged groups to move from welfare into work. These have helped well over half a million people move into work, and given thousands more the skills and confidence to compete more effectively in the labour market.

  We are further improving the services available for the hardest to help, such as a £40 million package of help for unemployed drug mis-users, and a further package for a wider group including ex-offenders and the homeless.

  We have also introduced Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones which are targeting the most deprived areas. Between them they have already helped over 26,000 people into jobs. We are increasing the number of Action Teams from 40 to 53 this month, and to 63 in January 2002. We have also extended Employment Zones until March 2003.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people in deprived areas in West Yorkshire find work. [3603]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our welfare to work initiatives have helped people into work in all parts of the country. Our New Deals have been a success, playing an important part in reducing claimant unemployment in West Yorkshire by almost 40 per cent. since 1997.

  We are building on that success, and with the introduction of Jobcentre Plus we will offer a flexible, individual service for every person of working age on benefit.

  Pensioners (Long-term Care)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the incomes of pensioners while they are in long-term hospital care. [3604]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most benefit recipients, including Retirement Pensioners, have no reduction in their benefits for the first six weeks of a spell in hospital. There is a limited reduction in benefits after six weeks in hospital and a further reduction after 52 weeks in hospital. These rules have been applied with only minor modifications since the introduction of the National Insurance scheme over 50 years ago.

  Child Poverty
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress is being made with the Government's commitment to reduce child poverty by half. [3606]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the progress we are making in tackling child poverty can be found in our third annual report on poverty and social exclusion, Opportunity for All—making progress (CM 5260), published on 19 September.
  828W
  This year's report demonstrates that we have continued to make real improvements, improving the lives, prospects, and opportunities of children and young people. Over the past four years, we have taken action to raise the incomes of families, especially for those on the lowest incomes. To help children out of poverty, we have provided more support than ever before to enable parents to work, and ensure that they are better off in work.

  We have introduced a range of tax and benefit reforms to give help at the time when families need it most, whether they are in work or not. The additional resources we are delivering for education and health are helping to reduce the chances of poverty and social exclusion in the longer term. We have also introduced substantial improvements in the system for children and teenagers who are vulnerable, such as children in care, and teenage parents.

  Over the next few years we will continue to step up our efforts, including the implementation of major reforms to the child support system, and the introduction of an integrated child credit.

  Unemployment (Over-50s)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help unemployed people over 50 years of age back into work. [3607]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The employment rate of older workers is up for the fourth year running, by 1.3 percentage points on last year's figures. In 2001–02 our range of New Deals, including New Deal 50 plus, New Deal 25 plus and New Deal for Disabled People, will help some 50,000 over-50s into employment.

  World Economies
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the effect on employment in the UK of the state of the world and UK economies. [3608]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  UK GDP continues to grow steadily, bolstered by strong domestic demand, in spite of recent weakness in the world economy. Employment is at record levels and rising, while unemployment is at its lowest for around 25 years.

  Although no country can insulate itself from world events, prudent monetary and fiscal policies, with inflation low and borrowing under control, mean that the economy is better placed than in the past to withstand global shocks.

  While we do not make forecasts of employment and unemployment, an assessment will be made of economic and labour market developments, incorporating both UK and international economic developments, in the Treasury autumn pre-Budget report.

  Women (Return to Work)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what studies she has undertaken to identify obstacles facing women returning to work. [3609]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  A number of studies have helped inform us about the obstacles faced by women entering the labour market. These include longitudinal studies such
  829W
  as the "Survey of Families with Children", conducted by the Policy Studies Institute and the National Centre for Social Research, and a study of lone parent families conducted by the Policy Studies Institute.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what categories of people it will be advantageous to take out a stakeholder pension. [3610]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government have introduced stakeholder pensions as part of our long-term reforms to ensure that everyone has the chance to save for a decent income in retirement. They provide a new pension option for moderate and higher earners who do not have access to a good occupational scheme, or a good group personal pension with an employer contributing.

  The suitability of a stakeholder pension for any individual is a matter for them to decide in the light of their particular circumstances. Figures from the insurance industry show that in the first four months since their introduction almost 300,000 people had taken out stakeholder pensions.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if those who take out a stakeholder pension will be compelled to use their savings to purchase an annuity at the age of 75 years. [3580]

  Mr. McCartney
  Stakeholder pension funds will be subject to the same rules as other occupational and personal pensions. Where a pension scheme is not able to pay a pension, a fund must be used to buy an annuity by age 75 so as to guarantee a pension income throughout retirement.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to increase the take-up of stakeholder pensions by people on lower incomes. [6655]

  Mr. McCartney
  Stakeholder pensions are primarily intended for those with moderate and higher earnings who do not have access to a good occupational pension, or a good personal pension with an employer contributing.

  From April next year, low earners will benefit through the Second State Pension, which reforms SERPS. Under these reforms, low earners will get at least double what they would have got from SERPS, while carers and disabled people with a broken work record will be entitled to a second-tier pension for the first time.

  A good second pension, building on the foundation of the basic State Pension, is the key to having a comfortable retirement.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of applications and approved applications for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [3611]

  Mr. McCartney
  Since the beginning of the MIG take up campaign in May 2000 and up to the end of August 2001, 240,186 additional claims for the Minimum Income Guarantee have been received and processed. As a result, 118,242 people are receiving an extra £20 a week on 830W
  average. This demonstrates that our policies are successfully providing extra money to those among the elderly who need it most. As at May 2001 there were 1,716,600 people in Great Britain receiving MIG.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost is to date of advertising the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners; how many applicants there have been; how many have been approved; and what estimate he has made of the total number of potential applicants. [6767]

  Mr. McCartney
  Up to September 2001, some 121,159 pensions have received an extra £20 per week on average as a result of the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign. This demonstrates that our policies are successfully providing extra money to those among the elderly who need it most.

  Since the start of the MIG take-up campaign and up to the end of September 2001, 240,186 claims have been received. The total cost of advertising the MIG to date is just over £4 million.

  The latest available figures on the number of people entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee who are not claiming pre-date the advertising campaign. These figures are included in the publication "Take-Up of Income Related Benefits: Statistics for 1999–2000", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the annual cost of administration of(a) the Minimum Income Guarantee, (b) State Pensions, (c) Child Benefit and (d) the Working Families Tax Credit. [6960]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department now estimates and accounts for its expenditure in resource terms and by strategic objective. The cost of administering each of the Department's strategic objectives is reproduced in the 2001–02 Departmental Report at Table 4.

  The Working Families Tax Credit is administered by Inland Revenue. The cost to Inland Revenue of managing and paying tax credits for the six months to 31 March 2000 is shown in Note 3 to the trust account on page 83 of Inland Revenue's annual report for the year ending 31 March 2000, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Unemployment (Southend)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policies on unemployment levels in(a) Southend, East and (b) Southend, West. [3612]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Between May 1997 and August 2001, the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance fell by 53 per cent. in Rochford and Southend, East, and 60 per cent. in Southend, West.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the need for ethnic monitoring of benefit claims and appeals. [3613]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government are fully committed to ensuring that all people, including those from ethnic minorities, receive the service they are entitled to from the benefit system.

  The Department for Work and Pensions does not currently collect information about the ethnic breakdown of customers. However, the BA does undertake a significant amount of work to ensure equality of access to benefits for all customers, including guidance for staff working with ethnic minority customers, provision of information in different languages and provision of interpreting services. Also, the DWP ethnic Minority Forum continues to meet at least annually, in order that we can hear and address the concerns of people who work with, and represent, ethnic minority customers.

  We are currently considering research on ethnic minority perceptions about benefit delivery. This research could help to build on our services that are specifically targeted at these customers.

  Fixed-term Claims
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much he expects the incapacity benefit case load to fall as a result of his announcement about fixed-term claims. [3614]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The changes we are introducing to Incapacity Benefit are designed to help people with poor health and disability to achieve their own aspirations by helping those who want to work to do so. People making new or repeat claims to Incapacity Benefit in Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices will therefore be required to attend a work focused interview to ensure they get the right level of support. These interviews will provide disabled people with the opportunity to discuss with their personal adviser the help, benefits and opportunities available to them. We will not force people with disabilities into work. People who are still eligible for Incapacity Benefit will get it and the existing exemptions from medical testing will not be removed.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value of unclaimed benefits was in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland in each financial year from 1995. [7067]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimates of take-up in Great Britain are published in annual statistics on "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up", copies of which are in the Library of the House. Estimates are presented for Income Support, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) on a consistent basis for the years 1997–98, and 1993–99 and 1999–2000 and for Family Credit for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99. Estimates for the United Kingdom and for Scotland are not available.

  Fibromyalgia
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many sufferers from fibromyalgia are receiving disability living allowance; how many of these are in receipt of this benefit for fibromyalgia only; and how many receive it for fibromyalgia in addition to other disabling conditions. [7077]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested. The most relevant information available is that as of February this year about 170,000 people who were receiving Disability Living Allowance had a disease of the muscles, bones or joints as their main disabling condition. This information is based on a 5 per cent. data sample.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out for Q3 and Q4 2000–01 and Q1 2001–02(a) how many people were awaiting an appeal for (i) Disability Living and (ii) Attendance Allowance at the end of each quarter, (b) the average time it took to process the appeal and (c) the average time it took to process the original claim. [7478]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Table 1 Live load of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance appeals current on the last day of each quarter

  2000–01

  Attendance Allowance

  Disability Living Allowance

  Quarter 3

  4,558

  35,830

  Quarter 4

  3,521

  30,601

  The average clearance times from receipt of the appeal by the Benefits Agency to the Appeals Service issuing the tribunal's decision and the average waiting times from receipt of the appeal by the Benefits Agency to the first hearing by a tribunal for the third and fourth quarters of 2000–01 are shown in table 2. The figures for the first quarter of 2001–02 are not available.

  Table 2 Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance average clearance and waiting times, in weeks, for cases heard in the following quarters:

  2000–01

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Clearance times1

  Attendance Allowance

  27.4

  27.1

  Disability Living Allowance

  27.8

  28.5

  Waiting times2

  Attendance Allowance

  25.9

  24.4

  Disability Living Allowance

  24.8

  24.2

  1 Clearance times shown apply from the date of lodgement with the Benefits Agency to the Appeals Service issuing the tribunal's decision. Thus delays caused by adjournments are included. The time taken for the Benefits Agency to implement the decision is not included.

  2 Waiting times shown apply from the date of lodgement with the Benefits Agency to the date of the first tribunal hearing.

  833W
  (c) The average times taken to process Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance claims for the third and fourth quarters of 2000–01 and the first quarter of 2001–02 are shown in table 3.

  Table 3 Average time taken to process Disability Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) claims, in days, for quarters:

  Attendance Allowance

  Disability Living Allowance

  2000–01

  Quarter 3

  26.4

  44.8

  Quarter 4

  26.7

  43.7

  2001–02

  Quarter 1

  26.0

  42.2

  Note:

  It is not possible to track individual claims through subsequent stages. The figures above therefore give the average actual clearance times for all new claims received in the relevant quarters.

  Motability
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for vehicles were dealt with by Motability and of these how many were(a) for replacement vehicles, (b) successful new applications and (c) unsuccessful new applications; and how long, on average, Motability took to deal with each application in the above categories in each of the last three years. [7866]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information as it relates to the last 2 years is in the table.

  Applications for vehicles dealt with by motability

  Year1

  Total dealt with

  For a replacement vehicle

  Form a new customer

  Total declined2

  1999

  157,816

  83,024

  74,792

  10,795

  2000

  153,817

  86,913

  66,904

  7,741

  1Figures relate to year ending 31 December

  2Includes both new and renewal cases where a customer has been declined or chosen not to proceed

  Motability operates within a three day Customer Charter for processing all successfully completed applications and achieved this deadline in the years shown.

  Preserved Rights (Residential Homes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many residents in care homes are covered by preserved rights; and what estimates his Department has made of the number there will be on 1 April 2002. [7394]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is estimated there are currently 67,200 residents in independent residential/nursing care homes who have preserved rights. It has been forecast there will be approximately 60,400 people in this position on 1 April 2002.

  Pension Fund Surpluses
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform the regulatory 834W
  and legislative framework regarding the distribution of pension fund surpluses; and if he will make a statement. [7144]

  Mr. McCartney
  The recently published Myners Report recommends that the Law Commission should be asked to review whether the objective of maximum clarity over ownership of the surplus can be achieved through legal change. The Chancellor's and my officials are currently exploring the matter with the Law Commission.

TREASURY

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) of 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 501W on public service agreements, what the (a) percentage and (b) absolute savings from PFI projects would have been if all projects examined up until June had been examined by the NAO; and if he will make a statement. [4614]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information of this nature, which would require judgments to be made about the potential savings and VFM improvements available from very different types of projects across government, is not held centrally. However, a great deal of central guidance and support are available to Departments contemplating the use of PFI—from the Treasury, the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and Partnerships UK (PUK). This draws upon reports by the National Audit Office and Parliamentary Select Committees.

  As with other elements of their business, it remains the responsibility of individual Departments and agencies to ensure that value for money for the taxpayer is demonstrated before any PFI deal is signed. In carrying out investment and option appraisals, Departments are required to follow Treasury guidance contained in the Green Book "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government". For PFI deals, Departments us are also required to construct a Public Sector Comparator (PSC), which is a costed estimate based on the assumption that the required service would be acquired through conventional funding. Guidance on PCSs is contained in Policy Statement No.2: Public Sector Comparators and Value for Money, and Technical Note 5: How to construct a Public Sector Comparator. The latter notes that the PSC should not be regarded as a pass/fail test, but as a quantitative way of informing judgment. These documents and a list of signed PFI deals are available in the Library of the House and are accessible on the website of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) www.ogc.gov.uk.

  By June 2001 some 450 PFI deals had been signed by central, regional and local government authorities in the United Kingdom. To date the NAO has published 20 value for money reports on PPP/PFI deals. A list of these reports is available on the NAO website www.nao.gov.uk.

  As evidence is gained of projects' progression through the OGC gateway process, which is designed to assist central civil departments in the successful delivery of projects (whether PFI or not), this will increasingly inform

  835W
  central data collection, analysis and guidance. The OGC will also draw upon UK's work to increase central knowledge of PFI and other PPP projects.

  Independent Insurance Company
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to assist those companies who were policyholders of the Independent Insurance Company and who face liquidation as a result of the losses sustained by the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company; [4491]

  (2) if he will establish a scheme to compensate those policyholders of independent insurance companies not protected by the Policyholders Protection Board, for losses sustained by them as a result of regulatory failure. [7062]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Serious Fraud Office is investigating the events at the Independent Insurance Company, following a referral by the Financial Services Authority 18 June. The Government will not pre-judge the outcome of this investigation.

  The Government are sympathetic to all policyholders who face potential hardship as a result of the provisional liquidation of Independent Insurance. I understand that the provisional liquidators are continuing to go through the process of identifying all policyholders and agreeing claims where appropriate. Many of those claims will be covered by the Policyholders Protect on Board. Claims by businesses, except for claims under compulsory insurance policies, will generally rank with other creditors of the company to be paid in due course by the provisional liquidator to the extent that funds are available.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential conflict of interests faced by Herbert Smith Solicitors in their capacities as solicitors to the(a) Independent Insurance Company, (b) Policyholders Protection Board and (c) provisional liquidators of the Independent Insurance Company. [4490]

  Ruth Kelly
  Any potential conflict of interest faced by solicitors in this case would be a matter for the firm of solicitors involved and their clients. If a solicitor has acted where there is a conflict of interest, any complaint that might arise should be referred to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, a separate organisation set up by the Law Society for that purpose.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the FSA were informed that Independent Insurance Company's reinsurance contract of £278 million with Ireco was partially reinsured by Independent's wholly-owned subsidiary Novi Re. [6554]

  Ruth Kelly
  The discussions between the FSA, the Independent Insurance Company and other individual companies that it regulates are kept confidential between the parties concerned.

  Child Trust Fund
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when details of the proposed Child Trust Fund and Saving Gateway will be published; and what consultation has been undertaken in respect of this. [6092]
  836W
  Ruth Kelly
  As announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the launch of the consultation on proposals for the Child Trust Fund and Saving Gateway in April, results of the consultation will be released at the time of the pre-Budget report this autumn, with further consultation to follow on more detailed proposals.

  A wide range of financial services providers, academics, charitable organisations and trade bodies have taken part in the consultation exercise to date, both in submitting views and in discussion. Further consultation will provide additional opportunity for these organisations and others to inform the development of the proposals.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase there has been in the number of ISA holders who are(a) standard rate taxpayers and (b) higher rate taxpayers, over personal equity plan holders, since the introduction of ISAs. [6368]

  Ruth Kelly
  The table compares the number of ISA accounts of all kinds subscribed to in each of the first two years with the number of PEP plans taken out in their final year, 1998–99:

  Thousand

  1998–99

  PEP General Plans taken out

  3,860

  PEP Single Company Plans taken out

  760

  1999–2000

  Mini ISAs Stocks and Shares

  1,278

  Cash

  4,591

  Life Insurance

  116

  Maxi ISAs

  3,293

  2000–01

  Mini ISAs Stocks and Shares

  1,623

  Cash

  6,017

  Life Insurance

  218

  Maxi ISAs

  3,401

  The information on number of holders analysed by marginal rate is not yet available. However, from the account numbers detailed it can be deduced that at most 4.6 million people subscribed to PEPs in 1998–99 and at least 9.4 million people subscribed to an ISA of some kind in 2000–01.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs (Business Rates)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to assist voluntary sports clubs with their business rates. [6016]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following the announcement in Budget 2001 of the Government's intention to consult on possible support through the tax system for community amateur sport's clubs, the Treasury is working closely with colleagues in other Government Departments and sports organisations, including Sport England, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association on the shape of possible relief. A consultation paper will be published later this year, which will invite comments on the proposed relief.

  In drawing up the proposals, the Government will take into full consideration which specific measures will benefit these sports clubs.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue he raised in 2000–01 from property and land transactions in(a) the UK and (b) the Henley constituency as a result of the increases in stamp duty in the March 2000 Budget. [6090]

  Ruth Kelly
  The estimate of the additional amount collected in stamp duty from property transactions in 2000–01 compared to the amount collected if transactions had been charged at the pre-2000 budget rates was given in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000".

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish details of those areas of deprivation which will benefit from reductions in stamp duty on property. [7610]

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will be used to designate coverage of the stamp duty exemption across the nations and regions of the UK. [6442]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are working to identify how best to implement this exemption and an announcement will be made shortly. It is intended that the qualifying areas will be based on national indices of deprivation.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) amount of stamp duty revenue collected was in accordance with the provisions of SI 1997/1156, on the transfer of units in unit trusts and shares in open ended investment companies in the 12 months up to 5 February 2000; and (b) amount of stamp duty reserve tax collected, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999 and SI 1997/1156, as amended by SI 1999/3261, on the surrender of units in unit trusts and shares in open ended investment companies in the 12 months from 6 February 2000. [7397]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total net duty on the transfer of units in unit trusts and shares in open ended investment companies is estimated at £43 million in the 12 months up to the end of January 2000 and amounted to £40 million in the 12 months up to the end of January 2001. A further breakdown into payments and repayments and stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax is given in the table.

  £ million

  Payments

  Repayments

  February 1999 to January 2000

  Stamp Duty

  96.0

  153.4

  Stamp Duty Reserve

  —

  —

  February 2000 to January 2001

  Stamp Duty

  13.7

  11.3

  Stamp Duty Reserve

  38.1

  0.2

  1Estimated from available data for 10 months of the period

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 425, to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, (Joyce Quin), over what period English and Scottish identifiable public spending will converge as a result of the Barnett formula; by how much
  838W
  spending covered by the Barnett formula has converged since 1997; at what annual rate; and if he will make a statement. [6958]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Barnett formula provides the devolved Administrations with population-based shares of increases in comparable spending of UK Departments. Beyond the period covered by the 2000 spending review, changes in spending will depend on the outcome of future spending reviews. Information on public expenditure was published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses in April 2001. Any convergence would be affected by a number of factors, such as the rate of increase of comparable UK Departments' programmes, changes in population relativities, and changes in spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not determined by the Barnett formula.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expects convergence in public spending levels between Scotland and England to be obtained through the operation of the Barnett formula. [6480]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Barnett formula provides the devolved Administrations with a population-based share of increases in comparable spending of UK Departments. The changes in spending for years beyond the 2000 spending review will depend on future spending reviews. Any convergence would be affected by a number of factors, such as the rate of increase of comparable UK Departments' programmes, changes in population relativities, and changes in spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not determined by the Barnett formula.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional resources that would be available to the Scottish block over each of the next three years if the Barnett formula had maintained relative spending in identifiable areas in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the same proportions as in 1997. [6959]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Barnett formula provides the devolved Administrations with a population-based share of changes in planned spending in comparable UK Departments' spending. Identifiable total managed expenditure includes both devolved and non-devolved spending; the latter is not determined by the Barnett formula.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many deaths in the last three years deep vein thrombosis has been a cause; and how many of these relate to air travel. [6436]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Kidney, dated 15 October 2001 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question on the number of deaths in the previous three years for which Deep Vein Thrombosis was a cause and the number related to air travel. (6436)

  839W
  Most people who die as a result of Deep Vein Thrombosis do so as a result of Pulmonary Embolism. Either or both causes may be written on the death certificate. The figures for both causes combined in each of the three most recently available years are given in the table below. Figures are not available on the numbers related to air travel.

  Deaths where the underlying cause is a Deep Vein Thrombosis or Pulmonary Embolism

  England and Wales 1997–1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number of deaths

  6,996

  6,922

  6,877

  Note:

  Deaths are coded to the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision (ICD-9) 415.1 451.1 451.2 451.9 453.9

  Migration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, for the last 10 years for each nation of the UK,(a) inward and outward migration by (i) UK citizens and (ii) non-UK EU citizens, (b) the number and proportion of people moving (i) from and

  Table 1: International migration to/from the countries of the UK by UK citizens

  To

  From

  Year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1990

  98.2

  4.7

  1.7

  1.0

  121.3

  14.9

  2.8

  1.9

  1991

  97.8

  11.9

  4.9

  2.3

  122.4

  12.6

  4.4

  1.8

  1992

  90.8

  5.5

  1.9

  0.5

  115.7

  14.8

  5.3

  2.5

  1993

  82.7

  7.5

  1.3

  0.1

  117.5

  9.1

  3.5

  0.9

  1994

  99.6

  16.5

  1.2

  0.6

  101.5

  9.5

  2.8

  0.5

  1995

  81.2

  5.6

  4.0

  0.5

  107.8

  8.0

  4.2

  1.6

  1996

  90.5

  7.2

  3.5

  2.4

  125.2

  12.9

  4.1

  0.6

  1997

  87.0

  4.0

  4.0

  0.6

  109.6

  19.0

  3.7

  2.2

  1998

  100.8

  7.6

  1.9

  0.9

  93.5

  15.1

  3.2

  2.7

  1999

  100.0

  10.0

  5.8

  2.3

  113.6

  7.4

  2.8

  2.7

  Table 2: International migration to/from the countries of the UK by non-UK citizens

  To

  From

  Year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1990

  57.6

  1.0

  0.9

  1.8

  40.9

  2.3

  0.6

  2.1

  1991

  46.7

  1.7

  0.8

  1.1

  43.1

  5.4

  1.0

  2.9

  1992

  38.5

  1.1

  0.9

  0.8

  30.7

  0.9

  1.6

  2.9

  1993

  36.6

  3.6

  1.4

  0.8

  35.3

  1.2

  1.3

  2.3

  1994

  43.9

  2.3

  1.3

  0.8

  32.8

  2.7

  0.6

  2.7

  1995

  54.0

  1.9

  2.4

  0.8

  31.2

  2.0

  0.8

  2.6

  1996

  62.3

  5.5

  1.0

  0.7

  36.3

  1.6

  1.7

  3.2

  1997

  66.1

  2.0

  2.9

  0.5

  46.2

  1.7

  1.0

  3.4

  1998

  68.5

  5.7

  3.0

  0.4

  41.9

  1.2

  0.8

  3.3

  1999

  62.7

  1.8

  1.0

  0.3

  55.3

  0.7

  0.4

  1.9

  Figures for all years show the EU as it has been constituted since 1 January 1995.

  Note:

  Figures in these tables represent total international migration combining data from the International Passenger Survey. Home Office data on asylum seekers, and people who entered the UK as short-term visitors but were subsequently granted an extension of stay for a year or longer for other reasons, and estimates of migration between the UK and the Irish Republic
  840W
  (ii) to(A) England, (B) Scotland, (C) Wales, (D) Northern Ireland, (E) Republic of Ireland, (F) the rest of the EU and (G) the rest of the world. [7001]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Annabelle Ewing, dated 15 October 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on migration to and from the constituent countries of the UK.
  Tables 1&2 show inward and outward international migration by UK and non-UK EU citizens for the last 10 calendar years for which data are available. Citizenship data are not available for internal migrants, i.e. those moving within the constituent countries of the UK.
  Table 3 shows the number of total migrants moving from and to England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, rest of EU, and rest of the world. Data for the Irish Republic are not available separately and are included with the rest of the EU.
  Net migration for an individual country can be derived from the table by subtracting total outflow from a country, from total inflow, for example, the net figure for England for 1999 is 170.3 thousand i.e. the inflow (528.4 thousand) minus the outflow (358.1 thousand).
  841W

  Table 3: Total migration to and from the UK and its' constituent countries. Number of people moving from and to selected countries for calendar years 1990 to 1999

  Thousand

  From

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Rest of EU

  Rest of the World

  Total

  To:

  1990

  England

  —

  35.1

  42.1

  9.8

  87.0

  228.9

  402.8

  Scotland

  53.9

  —

  1.8

  0.5

  4.3

  9.9

  70.4

  Wales

  47.5

  0.9

  —

  0.3

  1.3

  5.0

  55.0

  Northern Ireland

  10.4

  1.4

  0.3

  —

  1.8

  1.9

  15.9

  Rest of EU

  69.1

  3.7

  0.7

  2.1

  n/a

  n/a

  75.6

  Rest of the World

  147.8

  21.8

  4.4

  2.3

  n/a

  n/a

  176.3

  Total

  328.7

  62.9

  49.3

  14.9

  94.4

  245.7

  795.9

  1991

  England

  —

  43.7

  45.4

  6.7

  85.2

  215.0

  396.0

  Scotland

  51.7

  —

  1.7

  2.4

  3.7

  19.6

  79.1

  Wales

  49.8

  1.5

  —

  0.2

  2.7

  6.6

  60.8

  Northern Ireland

  10.6

  1.5

  0.3

  —

  2.3

  1.7

  16.5

  Rest of EU

  81.2

  5.1

  2.7

  2.9

  n/a

  n/a

  91.9

  Rest of the World

  146.6

  18.8

  4.4

  2.0

  n/a

  n/a

  171.8

  Total

  340.0

  70.6

  54.6

  14.2

  93.9

  242.9

  816.1

  1992

  England

  —

  44.4

  46.3

  8.6

  84.5

  177.3

  361.1

  Scotland

  50.9

  —

  1.8

  1.9

  2.9

  12.2

  69.8

  Wales

  49.8

  1.7

  —

  0.4

  0.8

  5.7

  58.4

  Northern Ireland

  10.0

  1.4

  0.3

  —

  0.9

  1.5

  14.1

  Rest of EU

  66.5

  3.5

  5.3

  4.0

  n/a

  n/a

  79.3

  Rest of the World

  148.2

  19.9

  2.5

  1.6

  n/a

  n/a

  172.2

  Total

  325.4

  70.9

  56.2

  16.6

  89.1

  196.7

  754.8

  1993

  England

  —

  43.8

  46.2

  8.6

  63.2

  184.1

  345.9

  Scotland

  49.8

  —

  1.8

  2.5

  7.6

  9.0

  70.7

  Wales

  49.4

  1.7

  —

  0.4

  1.8

  5.5

  58.8

  Northern Ireland

  9.0

  1.4

  0.2

  —

  0.8

  0.4

  11.9

  Rest of EU

  75.7

  2.6

  2.8

  2.9

  n/a

  n/a

  84.0

  Rest of the World

  133.5

  13.6

  4.9

  0.8

  n/a

  n/a

  152.8

  Total

  317.4

  63.1

  56.0

  15.2

  73.4

  199.0

  724.2

  1994

  England

  —

  45.9

  48.4

  9.1

  84.6

  204.3

  392.3

  Scotland

  47.3

  —

  1.7

  2.7

  9.3

  13.8

  74.8

  Wales

  50.0

  1.6

  —

  0.4

  1.0

  6.4

  59.4

  Northern Ireland

  9.1

  1.5

  0.3

  —

  0.9

  1.2

  13.0

  Rest of EU

  62.6

  5.7

  0.6

  2.2

  n/a

  n/a

  71.1

  Rest of the World

  126.7

  9.3

  4.3

  1.2

  n/a

  n/a

  141.5

  Total

  295.6

  64.0

  55.3

  15.6

  95.8

  225.7

  752.1

  1995

  England

  —

  47.9

  51.0

  9.2

  82.5

  214.4

  405.0

  Scotland

  44.2

  —

  1.6

  2.7

  3.1

  9.6

  61.2

  Wales

  52.6

  1.7

  —

  0.4

  2.8

  6.4

  63.9

  Northern Ireland

  11.2

  2.4

  0.5

  —

  0.8

  1.2

  16.1

  Rest of EU

  62.7

  3.4

  2.5

  3.0

  n/a

  n/a

  71.6

  Rest of the World

  125.3

  10.5

  3.1

  1.5

  n/a

  n/a

  140.4

  Total

  295.9

  65.9

  58.7

  16.8

  89.2

  231.6

  758.2

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many manufacturing jobs have been lost since May 1997. [7758]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  842W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 October 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of manufacturing jobs lost since May 1997 (7758).
  The table below shows the number of employee jobs in manufacturing for May 1997 and July 2001.
  843W

  UK

  Thousands1

  May 1997

  4,160

  July 2001

  3,817

  Change between May 1997 and July 2001

  -343 (-8.2%)

  1 Seasonally adjusted

  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. The data are published in Statbase on the National Statistics website ww.statistics.gov.uk./statbase/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=342 under series identifier YEJL.

  Excess Winter Deaths
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of excess winter deaths which occurred in 2000–01 in(a) each English region, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Great Britain, by age band; and if he will provide corresponding estimates for each of the last five years. [7574]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 15 October 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for estimates of the number of excess winter deaths in 2000–01 for each English region, Wales, Scotland and Great Britain broken down by age band and for corresponding estimates for each of the last five years (7574).
  Final figures for English Government Office Regions and for Wales for 1995–96 to 1998–99 and provisional figures for 1999–2000 were provided on 8 November 2000, Official Report, columns 269–272W. Figures for Scotland are now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.
  The Office for National Statistics will be releasing provisional excess winter mortality figures for 2000–2001 and final figures for 1999–2000 on 18 October 2001. I will be placing a copy in the Libraries of the House at that time.

  Domestic Service
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people employed(a) legally and (b) illegally in domestic service in each of the last five years. [7214]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Graham Brady, dated October 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning legal and illegal employment in domestic services. (7214)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the total number of people who report themselves in the survey as being employed in domestic service. Figures for each of the last five years are shown in the table.
  The LFS does not collect information on whether people are employed legally or illegally.
  844W

  All persons employed in domestic service1 United Kingdom March-May 1997 to March-May 2001 not seasonally adjusted

  Year

  Thousand

  1997

  159

  1998

  145

  1999

  138

  2000

  134

  2001

  115

  1People employed in Standard Industrial Classification (1992) division P: Private households with employed person

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Money Laundering
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the role of lightly regulated financial regimes overseas in allowing money laundering in support of international drug trafficking, arms running and terrorism. [7440]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Action Task Force, of which the UK is a member, carries out regular assessments on the financial regimes of countries and territories which it suspects may be used for laundering money related to drug trafficking, arms running and terrorism. Those countries and territories which are listed as non-co-operative are required to put in place adequate systems to prevent money laundering before they can be considered for removal from the list. So far four countries and territories have made sufficient improvements that they can be de-listed.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the international community acts in concert to eliminate money laundering. [7441]

  Ruth Kelly
  The international standards against money laundering are set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The UK has promoted these standards and sought the maximum international exchange of information and judicial co-operation. We have also pressed the International Monetary Fund to recognise the FATF 40 recommendations as the international standard, which it has now done; and we have promoted a new European Union directive to strengthen community obligations to combat money laundering.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries he has identified as encouraging facilitating money laundering; and what progress has been made in persuading them to impose proper regulation on their financial regimes. [7442]

  Ruth Kelly
  On 7 September 2001, the Financial Action Task Force, of which the UK is a member, identified 19 non-co-operative countries or territories—Cook Islands, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, Philippines, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Ukraine. The FATF is engaged in constructive dialogue with all these countries and territories to improve their compliance with international anti-money laundering standards. Those countries and territories judged to be
  845W
  non-compliant with international anti-money laundering standards are identified as such and put on the list of non-co-operative countries and territories.

  Means-tested Benefits and Tax Credits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the savings ratio of means-tested benefits and tax credits introduced since May 1997. [7757]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's strategy to encourage saving, published in November 2000 in "Helping People to Save", is to create the right environment for saving, including the right macro-economic environment, create the right incentives for people to save, and provide information and education to help people make the right saving choices. Government policies on means-tested benefits and tax credits target assistance to those most in need.

  Trade in Goods Deficit
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the deficit on trade in goods for the UK was in 2000; and what his forecast is for 2001. [7647]

  Ruth Kelly
  Latest balance of payments and trade data were released by the ONS on 25 and 20 September. The Government will publish updated forecasts for the UK economy in this autumn's pre-Budget report.

  Scottish Bus Group Pension Fund
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he received from the Scottish Executive prior to the decision being taken to transfer moneys from the Scottish Bus Group pension fund to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement; [7074]

  (2) regarding the decision to transfer moneys from the Scottish Bus Group pension fund to the Exchequer. [7073]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Following discussion between the Scottish Executive and the Treasury, the Scottish Executive announced in December 2000 that agreement had been reached with the Treasury that when the Scottish Transport Group pension schemes are wound up the Scottish Executive will make ex gratia payments to members. A total of around £100 million is expected to be available for distribution.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure Scottish Bus Group pension fund holders affected by the decision to transfer moneys from the Scottish Bus Group pension fund surplus to the Exchequer are compensated to the value of their policy on maturity; and if he will make a statement. [7076]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Scottish Executive announced in December 2000 that they will make ex gratia payments to scheme members. A total of around £100 million is expected to be available for distribution. The payments are in addition to members' accrued pension rights.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the National Bus Group Pension Fund has been treated differently from the Scottish Bus Group 846W
  pension fund; what his policy is on payment of additional compensation to Scottish Bus Group pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [7075]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The circumstances of the National Bus Group pension fund are not the same as those of the Scottish Transport Group pension fund. However, while there is no legal entitlement for STG pension scheme members to share in the pension surplus at wind-up, the Scottish Executive have announced that they will make ex gratia payments to members, to achieve an outcome broadly comparable to that secured in England.

  London Weighting
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total annual value of London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6872]

  Ruth Kelly
  As at 31 August 2001, the total value of London weightings and London allowance being paid to HM Treasury staff was £134,796 per annum.

  R and D Tax Credits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on levels of R and D tax credits in Objective 1 areas; and if he will make a statement. [6441]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Research and development tax credits for companies which qualify as small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were introduced from April 2000. In Budget 2001 we announced a consultation on similar tax credits for larger companies. The consultation has now closed and we are analysing the responses.

  Regional tax measures present particular problems through the distortions they can introduce into the tax system and the difficulties of developing workable, yet straightforward provisions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to(a) extend the research and development tax credit programme and (b) remove employers' national insurance contributions on stock options. [6607]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Research and development tax credits for companies which qualify as small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were introduced from April 2000. In Budget 2001 we announced consultation on similar tax credits for larger companies. The consultation has now closed and we are analysing the responses.

  We have no plans to remove employers' national insurance contributions from employee share options. The application of national insurance contributions to the exercise of share options is part of the Government's general policy of aligning income tax and national insurance. However, in response to concerns from business about the uncertainty of their national insurance liability, we introduced an easement in July 2000. This allows companies to pass their liability on share options to their employees with their agreement. So far 900 companies have taken advantage of this measure.

  Money Transmission System
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to set up a regulator for the money transmission system. [6647]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government published in August 2001 a response to consultation on its proposals of December 2000 to give the Office of Fair Trading new powers to promote competition in payment systems (these two documents have been deposited in the House of Commons Library and can be found electronically at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pub/html/reg/pay.html and http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press/2001/p95 01. html respectively). The Government intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Euro
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what feasibility study he has undertaken of making the euro legal tender in the UK in tandem with the pound sterling. [7311]

  Ruth Kelly
  None. The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor in October 1997, and restated by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons in February 1999. The determining factor underpinning any Government

  Department/agency

  Compulsory retirement age

  Comments

  HM Treasury

  60 for all staff

  Debt Management Office (HMT agency)

  60 for all staff

  Office of Government Commerce

  60 for new starters joining OGC post 1 April 2001

  Some staff have reserved rights to be retained up to age 65 and there are short-service concessions for some staff who have less than 20 years' service

  HM Customs and Excise

  60 for all staff

  Discretion in some cases for retention of those with shortage skills beyond age 60, subject to meeting health and efficiency requirements

  Inland Revenue

  60 for all staff

  Discretion in some cases for retention beyond age 60, subject to meeting health and efficiency requirements, plus a short-service concession for those with less than 25 years pensionable service

  Government Actuary's Department

  60 for all staff

  Office for National Statistics

  60 for all staff

  Some staff have reserved rights to retire between the ages of 60 and 64 and field force interviewers employed on a fee-paid basis, have a compulsory retirement age of 65

  Integrated Tax and Benefits System
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the introduction of an integrated tax and benefits system for the United Kingdom. [6481]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to further integration of the tax and benefit system to help achieve the following aims: tackling poverty; promoting incentives to work and save; maximising take up; targeting support on those who need it most; and improving customer service and increasing efficiency.

  During the last Parliament, a number of reforms were put in place, including the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, the Children's Tax Credit and the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners. In the next stage of reform, the Government intend to introduce a new system of payable tax credits from 2003 which will help to support families, make work pay and tackle child
  848W
  decision to join the single currency is the national economic interest, and whether the economic case is clear and unambiguous.

  PSBR
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes to the definition of PSBR have taken place since May 1997. [7356]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In July 1998 the PSBR was renamed the public sector net cash requirement. In September 1998 the definition was modified to conform with the new European System of Accounts (ESA95). Details of the changes were given in Chapter 5 of "Monthly Statistics on Public Sector Finances: a methodological guide" (no. 12 in Government Statistical Service Methodology Series). Further information on the Government's use of fiscal aggregates in setting fiscal policy can be found in Section 4 of "Analysing UK Fiscal Policy" (HM Treasury, November 1999).

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7225]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the normal retirement ages for the Chancellor's departments and executive agencies is as follows:

  poverty. In addition, the Pension Credit, which will be introduced from 2003, will help reward saving, support pensioners on low to modest incomes and tackle pensioner poverty.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how projections for future growth of the UK economy have been revised as a result of the foot and mouth disease. [6075]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government will publish updated forecasts for the UK economy in the autumn pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) companies and (b) non-incorporated businesses have applied to defer payments

  849W
  of (i) corporation and personal tax and (ii) value added tax as a result of foot and mouth disease; and how many were in (A) the UK and (B) Scotland. [6077]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 7 October, 5,901 businesses had applied to defer payments of company tax, 3,080 businesses had applied to defer value added tax and 9,760 individuals had applied to defer self-assessed tax.

  Out of a total of 18,741 businesses, 15,688 of these were in England with the remaining 3,053 in Scotland.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure a reduction in the number of errors made by the Inland Revenue when amending self-assessment tax returns. [6653]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has a quality monitoring system under which it carries out an annual review of the processing work, which includes amendments to self-assessment tax returns. Action is taken to determine the cause of errors and to identify corrective measures.

  In addition, since March 2000, the Revenue has operated a programme of quality assurance and quality control for the processing of tax returns and other key operating processes. This is part of a national quality programme for quality improvement.

  Staff involved in SA processing work are subject to individual checks of work done to determine the cause of any errors and to ensure prompt remedial action is taken.

  The results of the quality monitoring exercise for 1999–2000 returns showed a significant improvement on the results for the previous year. A further improvement is being sought for 2000–01 returns.

  Climate Change Levy
  David Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 2001,Official Report column 412, to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), on what date officials of HM Customs and Excise first met to consider the charging of VAT on climate change levy liabilities; and how many times they have subsequently met. [6876]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs officials did not meet on this specific issue. The law requires that the value on which value added tax is calculated is the total amount of money to be given in exchange for a supply. This amount includes tax, and since the inception of VAT it has been calculated on the excise duty inclusive value of sales of goods such as petrol, alcohol and tobacco. The levy follows this long-established principle.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate of the yield from climate change levy is in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [7660]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest published forecast of the yield for climate change levy in 2001–02 is set out in the Financial Statement and Budget report published on 7 March 2001. A routine forecast will be published in this autumn's pre-Budget report.

  Departmental Properties
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the guidelines are for Government bodies, including and distinguishing between Departments, Next Steps agencies and non-departmental public bodies, with regards to purchasing leases for properties. [7806]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Guidelines for the acquisition of properties can be found in the Estates Services Guide (ESG), which is published by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC). The ESG offers Government users on the Civil Estate good practice guidance on estate management, including the acquisition of office accommodation by leasing and other means. It does not provide advice on residential or agricultural property. The ESG is made freely available to Government Departments, Next Steps agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will establish a scheme to compensate policyholders of Equitable Life for losses sustained by them as a result of regulatory failure. [6977]

  Ruth Kelly
  We have no plans to do so. The Government believe that the right course of action is to have an independent inquiry to ensure that the lessons are learned from what has happened. That is why we have asked Lord Penrose to examine the circumstances leading to the current situation at Equitable Life and to identify any lessons to be learned for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions the FSA held with Equitable Life about their decision to cut the value of with-profits pensions by 16 per cent. [6624]

  Ruth Kelly
  Decisions about the value of with-profits policies are a matter for the Board of Equitable Life. I understand that the FSA and the society have regular meetings to discuss a range of regulatory issues.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the amount and likelihood of public liability in the case of Equitable Life. [7410]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Penrose inquiry will investigate allegations of maladministration by the DTI and Treasury in relation to regulation of Equitable Life; and if he will make a statement. [7289]

  Ruth Kelly
  The scope of the inquiry being conducted by Lord Penrose is a matter for him, subject to his terms of reference.

  The terms of reference are
  "To inquire into the circumstances leading to the current situation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, taking account of relevant life market background; to identify any lessons to be learnt for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business; and to give a report thereon to Treasury Ministers."
  851W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target date has been given to Lord Penrose for the completion and publication of his report. [7287]

  Ruth Kelly
  The timing of the report into the findings of his inquiry is a matter for Lord Penrose. It is expected that the inquiry will report in the second half of next year.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when a decision will be taken on the date of publication of the report by the FSA into Equitable Life; [7290]

  (2) when the Treasury will receive the report of the FSA into Equitable Life. [7285]

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he received the Financial Services Authority's report on Equitable Life; and when he will publish this report; [7540]

  (2) what issues he will take into account in deciding whether to publish the Financial Services Authority's report on Equitable Life. [7541]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury received the FSA Report last week and is carefully considering it. The report will be published shortly.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Lord Penrose will be working full-time in the conduct of the inquiry of which he is chairman. [7286]

  Ruth Kelly
  Yes. Lord Penrose is working full-time on the inquiry.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Lord Penrose began work on his inquiry into Equitable Life; and what resources have been made available to him. [7288]

  Ruth Kelly
  Lord Penrose began work immediately after the announcement on 31 August that he would carry out an inquiry.

  All the resources he considers necessary are available to him.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecast of the level of business investment is for(a) 2002 and (b) 2001. [7651]

  Ruth Kelly
  Updated forecasts for the UK economy will be published in this autumn's pre-Budget report.

  Pheasants
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to ensure(a) pheasant-rearing operations and (b) pheasant shooting do not avoid (i) business rates and (ii) VAT through misclassification as agricultural practices; what estimate he has of the revenue each year from these sources; and if he will make a statement. [7250]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Valuation Office and Customs and Excise are responsible for ensuring compliance with the tax rules on business rates and VAT respectively. A valuation tribunal recently confirmed that pheasant-rearing operations are not agricultural and are therefore rateable, but shooting rights have not been 852W
  treated as rateable since 1997. The sale of pheasants reared in a game hatchery is zero-rated for VAT. The granting of shooting rights is standard-rated, except when included with land sold exempt from VAT.

  Estimates of the revenue each year from these sources are not readily available.

  Food Sales (VAT)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that hot food sold by supermarkets should be charged at the standard rate of value added tax. [6076]

  Mr. Boateng
  Food heated for the purpose of being consumed as hot food is charged at the standard rate of VAT.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much would the Government have to increase(a) Working Families Tax Credit and (b) child benefit to achieve each of the Government's targets on child poverty using the Government's macro-economic assumptions and assuming that the proportion of children living in households below 60 per cent. of median household income otherwise remained the same. [6357]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's third annual anti-poverty report "Opportunity for All" was published in September. The report shows encouraging progress against a range of indicators.

  The Government's strategy is both to tackle current issues and to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage for the long term. This requires action beyond the WFTC and child benefit. The strategy includes: ensuring a decent family income—with work for those who can and extra support for those who cannot; access to excellent public services; targeted interventions for those with additional needs and at key stages in life; and harnessing the power and expertise of the voluntary and community sector.

  Balance of Payments Deficit
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest forecast is for the balance of payments deficit for 2001. [7646]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will publish updated forecasts for the UK economy in this autumn's pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the balance of payments deficit and its consequences for the economic outlook. [7945]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers receive representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals on economic issues, and value their insights.

  Women Entrepreneurs
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that more women are provided with start-up finance by financial institutions, and that potential women entrepreneurs are not discriminated against by financial institutions in the provision of such finance. [6651]
  853W
  Ruth Kelly
  The latest version of the Banking Code, which came into force on 1 January 2001, includes a key commitment that explicitly states that the banks will make sure that their products and services meet the relevant laws and regulations that relate to discrimination.

  Women will also benefit from all of the 96 projects supported through the Development Fund element of the DTI's Phoenix Fund. Some 16 of these projects specifically single out women for help in setting up or developing their own businesses.

  Foster Carers (Allowances)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's future plans for the taxation of the different types of allowances payable to foster carers. [6619]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is working with the Department of Health and a number of organisations representing foster carers to design a fair and simple method by which foster carers can calculate their reward element by reference to standard, agreed, expenses. Alternatively, carers would be able to claim actual expenses. The Revenue hopes to be able to introduce the new arrangements for the tax year commencing 6 April 2002.

  Capital Gains Tax Receipts
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact the present decline in market values will have on his forecast revenue from Capital Gains Tax receipts in financial year 2001–02. [7649]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Current levels and prospects for all relevant economic indicators are kept under continual review and will be taken into account in the next published forecast of Capital Gains Tax which will be published in the pre-Budget report.

  Departmental Spending
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the key objectives listed in the Treasury guidance for the forthcoming spending round; and what incentives his Department has put in place to ensure that departmental spending bids promote sustainable development. [7664]

  Total managed expenditure on services by country, 1999–2000

  £million

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total identifiable

  Non-identifiable

  Department for Education, Employment and Ofsted

  13,116.8

  137.9

  148.7

  0.2

  13,403.6

  8.1

  Department of Health

  41,666.5

  0.5

  0.2

  0.2

  41,667.4

  170.9

  DETR

  6,913.6

  259.2

  116.3

  10.8

  7,299.9

  7.6

  Home Office

  3,300.1

  49.2

  194.7

  16.1

  3,560.1

  20.8

  Lord Chancellor's Departments

  1.866.9

  0.0

  131.3

  57.4

  2,055.6

  19.1

  The Law Officers' Departments

  312.8

  0.0

  21.8

  0.4

  334.9

  —

  Ministry of Defence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22,507.2

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,149.8

  Department for International Development

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,240.8

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1,561.7

  113.8

  66.1

  20.3

  1,762.0

  2,433.4

  854W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, columns 38–39W. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be conducting discussions with colleagues on the integration of the full range of sustainable development issues into departmental programmes over the course of the Spending Review.

  Mr. Salmond
  To Ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total annual running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6873]

  Ruth Kelly
  The table lists the total running costs and average cost per square metre for buildings used, owned or rented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Treasury Departments. The data are set out in a format that highlights figures by nation and region for the Department.

  Nation/region

  Total running costs (£)

  Area in square metres

  Average cost per square metre

  Scotland

  30,759,058

  185,996.5

  165.37

  Wales

  14,391,570

  35,446.0

  86.80

  N. Ireland

  3,991,458

  35,446.0

  112.61

  England

  Central

  39,335,883

  423,197.3

  92.95

  London

  72,924,395

  347,701.5

  209.73

  North

  70,361,402

  522,702.3

  134.61

  South

  53,518,207

  320,275.0

  167.10

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total sending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6875]

  Mr. Andrew smith
  The table provides the information requested, for all Departments, based on departmental responsibilities prior to the machinery of Government changes announced in June 2001. The figures relate to total managed expenditure on services that is identifiable for the benefit of a particular population and are for 1999–2000. More information on public spending by country and region is available in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02 (Cm 5101), from which the underlying data for this answer have been taken.
  855W

  Total managed expenditure on services by country, 1999–2000

  £ million

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total identifiable

  Non-identifiable

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  2,654.2

  120.2

  59.0

  44.3

  2,877.7

  331.0

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  2,272.7

  156.0

  309.6

  48.1

  2,786.4

  75.2

  Department of Social Security

  73,780.4

  8,494.9

  5,298.7

  33.3

  87,607.3

  753.6

  Scotland1

  —

  9,671.2

  —

  —

  9,671.2

  —

  Wales1

  —

  —

  4,285.0

  —

  4,285.0

  4.1

  Northern Ireland1

  —

  —

  —

  9,538.0

  9,538.0

  —

  Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments

  4.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  4.3

  6,852.8

  Cabinet Office, Central Office of Information and Privy Council Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  973.2

  Forestry Commission

  50.8

  27.6

  11.7

  0.0

  90.1

  —

  Parliament and National Audit Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  359.0

  Total

  147,500

  19,031

  10,643

  9,769

  186,943

  37,907

  1Include the Scottish Office, Welsh Office, Northern Ireland Office and all devolved expenditure

  The £147.5 billion of identifiable expenditure for England breaks down as follows:

  Total managed expenditure on services by region, 1999–2000

  £ million

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  South West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  England

  Department for Education, Employment and Ofsted

  755.0

  1,910.8

  1,340.7

  1,119.0

  1,467.6

  1,332.3

  1,514.2

  2,107.2

  1,570.2

  13,116.9

  Department of Health

  2,265.8

  5,960.8

  4,311.5

  3,227.5

  4,276.9

  3,997.8

  4,447.3

  7,175.1

  6,003.7

  41,666.5

  DETR

  303.7

  909.7

  530.5

  510.8

  629.2

  496.3

  639.9

  1,825.5

  1,067.9

  6,913.6

  Home Office

  170.6

  495.2

  360.5

  342.1

  327.8

  336.5

  323.1

  384.2

  560.1

  3,300.1

  Lord Chancellor's Departments

  104.9

  240.8

  162.6

  143.7

  163.5

  169.1

  134.8

  493.1

  254.4

  1,866.9

  The Law Officers' Departments

  17.7

  56.1

  32.0

  22.6

  26.8

  24.4

  27.4

  64.1

  41.6

  312.8

  Department of Trade and Industry

  64.2

  209.2

  144.2

  121.6

  166.3

  147.2

  172.6

  259.4

  277.2

  1,561.8

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  137.7

  367.1

  269.2

  223.6

  284.6

  263.3

  289.1

  388.6

  430.9

  2,654.2

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  171.3

  238.5

  183.8

  129.2

  180.2

  184.4

  158.6

  823.9

  202.9

  2,272.7

  Department of Social Security

  4,890.3

  12,048.5

  7,999.6

  6,109.4

  8,201.3

  7,431.5

  7,401.5

  9,425.3

  10,273.0

  73,780.4

  Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments

  0.3

  0.5

  0.4

  0.3

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  0.7

  4.1

  Forestry Commission

  5.6

  5.8

  5.8

  5.8

  5.6

  5.5

  5.6

  5.5

  5.6

  50.8

  Total

  8,887

  22,443

  15,341

  11,955

  15,730

  14,389

  15,114

  22,953

  20,688

  147,501

  Petrol Smuggling
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the amount of petrol that was smuggled into (1) north-west England from the Irish Republic in each of the last five years; [7453]

  (2) North Ireland from the Irish Republic in each of the last five years. [7454]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs have no such estimates.

  Private Medicine (VAT)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT was raised at current prices from expenditure on private medical insurance and private medical care in the last financial year. [7793]

  Mr. Boateng
  No VAT was raised from expenditure on these services in the last financial year. Expenditure on private medical insurance and private medical care is exempt from VAT.

  Urban Regeneration Companies
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to ensure that urban regeneration companies benefit from(a) corporation tax credits and (b) other reductions in tax liabilities. [6443]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government announced in Budget 2001 that they would consider the scope for providing a corporation tax relief for company donations to urban regeneration companies and similar bodies across the UK. This work is on-going.

  When making any decision relating to taxation policy, the Chancellor considers all relevant economic, social and environmental factors.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his latest estimate is of the yield from air passenger duty for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement; [7674]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact the terrorist crisis will have on his forecast of revenue from air passenger duty in financial year 2001–02. [7648]
  857W
  Mr. Boateng
  The latest published forecast of the yield from air passenger duty in 2001–02 is set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report published on 7 March 2001. A routine forecast will be published in this autumn's pre-Budget Report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce air passenger duty. [7779]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make changes to air passenger duty; and if he will make a statement. [7669]

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to suspend air passenger duty. [7463]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor reviews all taxes in the context of his pre-Budget and Budget Statements.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since 11 September from the aviation industry about air passenger duty. [7658]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of air passenger duty came from(a) commercial passengers and (b) non-commercial passengers in the last financial year. [7777]

  Mr. Boateng
  Air passenger duty returns do not show whether duty revenues have accrued from commercial or non-commercial passengers. It is therefore not possible to provide the requested breakdown of revenues.

  Lear's Macaws
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Customs and Excise investigation into the three Lear's Macaws seized in November 1998, indicating what steps are being taken to return them to Brazil for captive breeding and release of progeny to the wild. [7962]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Lear's Macaws were seized together with a number of other birds in May 1998. Following an investigation, Henry Sissen was convicted in April 2000 on four counts relating to the illegal importation of the Macaws and other birds, and sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. He appealed against conviction and sentence, the conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced to 18 months. In September this year a Confiscation Order was made reflecting Mr. Sissen's benefit from criminal activity in the sum of £150,000.

  Mr. Sissen has since appealed against seizure. Customs cannot make a decision on the future of the birds until these proceedings are completed.

  Counter-terrorism (Customs and Excise)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the contribution of Customs and Excise to the Government's counter-terrorism policy; [7657]

  (2) what plans he has to (a) increase the number of posts in Customs and Excise and (b) redeploy staff within Customs and Excise as part of the Government's response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September. [7661]
  858W
  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise plays a full and appropriate role in the Government's overall response to the threat from terrorism and associated criminality.

  Vehicle Tax Discs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on extending the age exemption for tax discs applicable for cars over 25 years old to those aged 30 years old and over. [7609]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor makes decisions relating to taxation policy in the context of his Budget judgment.

  Advance Corporation Tax Credits
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of the abolition of advance corporation tax credits on dividend income for(a) pension funds and (b) the amount that employees need to save to ensure a comfortable retirement. [3579]

  Ruth Kelly
  The abolition of payable tax credits on dividends was part of a package of reforms that included cuts in corporation tax rates and the abolition of advance corporation tax. These changes were designed to improve the climate for long-term investment in the UK. In the long run, this should benefit all investors—including pension funds and those saving for retirement.

  Enhanced Capital Allowances Scheme
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the available funding for the Enhanced Capital Allowances Scheme. [7663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The scheme for enhanced capital allowances for energy-saving investments is a tax relief for businesses that invest in designated energy-saving technologies. It is not a scheme that relies on a fund that is ring-fenced. The scheme enables businesses to write off immediately the whole of their qualifying spending against their taxable profits and thereby receive the benefit of a useful cash-flow boost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was, for each year since 1995, (1) the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords; [7025]

  (2) the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement. [7026]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers attach great importance to the efficient, effective and expeditious handling of correspondence and parliamentary questions.
  859W
  Information relating to the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall is published by the Cabinet Office. The figures for 2000 were given on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28W, and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W.

  The number of written questions answered by Treasury Ministers in each House since 1995–96 is given in the table.

  House of Commons

  House of Lords

  1995–96

  1,851

  N/A

  1996–97

  657

  29

  1997–98

  4,554

  282

  1998–99

  2,097

  156

  1999–2000

  2,857

  274

  2000–01

  1,297

  107

  The information sought by the hon. Member concerning average and other response times for parliamentary questions is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial Services and Markets Act (Regulated Activities Order)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what method he will use to update the Financial Services and Markets Act (Regulated Activities Order) 2001 to ensure that changes are made in such a way as to be easily comprehensible to the regulated community. [8120]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government gave a commitment in the House of Commons during the passage of FSMA that there would at any time be a single RAO. This commitment could be interpreted as meaning that we should remake the RAO each time we needed to change it.

  The normal practice when amending a statutory instrument is to make textual amendments only to the particular provisions affected, unless the changes are so substantial or widespread as to justify revoking the original instrument and re-making it (with amendments) in its entirety. Re-making the entire RAO every time we need to amend it (however minor the changes) would differ from that usual practice. From time to time we will need to adjust the RAO, for example to reflect developments in the market, or changes to European legislation. If we remade the entire RAO each time, this would impact on the numerous other Statutory Instruments, together with rules made by the Financial Services Authority, which refer to the RAO, and would be likely to necessitate consequential changes to these. The overall effect might be to make the body of law of which the RAO is a part less rather than more clear to the regulated community.

  Another disadvantage of re-making the entire order is that it would be difficult for readers to tell readily what had changed. Each time the order was remade the general reader would have to buy the complete new version.

  Having consulted the industry and received its general support, we intend following standard practice and amending the RAO rather than completely re-making it,
  860W
  for changes to the RAO that do not involve a wholesale revision of the order. This will reduce the number of consequential amendments to other legislation (including FSA rules) as compared to remaking the entire order. To aid users of the order further we will provide an "unofficial" consolidated version on the HMT website, which will give the up-to-date version of the complete order as amended, at any given time. We will consider re-making the RAO only in the event of a wholesale revision of the order, and in such circumstances we would then take the opportunity to consolidate earlier orders amending the RAO.

  Flooding (Insurance)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to secure an extension to the agreement reached with the Association of British Insurers in respect of insurance cover available to properties subject to flooding. [8007]

  Ruth Kelly
  The agreement among ABI members is that they will continue to provide flood cover, except in exceptional circumstances, for domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure, during 2001 and 2002. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for flood defence in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I met the Association of British Insurers on 5 September to discuss our mutual aim of ensuring that affordable flood insurance cover continues to be generally available after December 2002.

  The Government are acting to reduce flood risk, through substantial increases in investment in flood and coastal defence (which now totals over £400 million a year). Flood defences are being repaired, renewed, maintained and improved. The flood warning scheme is being continually improved. The Government have issued strengthened guidance to local planning authorities on control of development in flood risk areas, and are reviewing the financial and institutional arrangements under which the flood defence service is delivered. These are the chief concerns raised by the ABI. The Government are continuing to work with the ABI on these issues.

  Pool Re
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual premiums collected and payments made have been in each year since the establishment of Pool Re. [8018]

  Ruth Kelly
  Pool Re was established on 1 January 1993. The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Gross written premiums

  Paid claims

  1993

  222.1

  47.6

  1994

  389.3

  93.2

  1995

  195.8

  86.4

  1996

  287.2

  94.3

  1997

  318.8

  124.9

  1998

  173.2

  95.6

  1999

  50.8

  42.4

  2000

  56.0

  14.3

  Total

  1,693.2

  598.7

  UK Economic Outlook
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the effect on individual sectors of the UK economy of the terrorist attacks on the US. [7704]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government monitor all sectors of the UK economy as a part of their commitment to effective economic surveillance and management. We will present to Parliament our second annual forecast for the UK economy in the forthcoming pre-Budget report. The Government continue to receive a wide variety of representations from individuals, business and organisations in all sectors of the economy.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if Treasury officials are planning to revise UK GDP growth projections downwards to 1.5 per cent. this year; [7946]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the consequences for the public finances of the changing economic outlook. [7947]

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make an assessment of the reduction in tax revenues that would result from a 1 per cent. reduction in GDP growth between now and October 2002; [7645]

  (2) if he will make an assessment of the effect of a 1 per cent. reduction in economic growth in the next year on his forecast of net public sector borrowing in financial year 2002–03. [7650]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's latest forecasts for the UK and world economies and the public finances were published in "Budget 2001" (HC 279). Updated forecasts will be presented as part of the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

  Terrorist Bank Accounts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken in respect of known terrorists' bank accounts since 11 September. [7312]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since the events of 11 September the UN Security Council has passed a resolution calling upon States to freeze the assets of terrorists. The Government have implemented this resolution (UNSCR 1373) by way of an Order in Council (SI No. 3365). The Government are in the process of notifying banks and financial institutions of known terrorists, such as those detailed in the 24 September US Executive Order, as and when they are issued.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform the Private Finance Initiative. [7786]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The underlying principles applying to all types of partnership were set out in "Public Private Partnerships—the Government's Approach" which was published last year. Copies are available in the Library of the House and are accessible on the Treasury's website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/docs/2000.ppp.html.
  862W
  Consistent with these principles a number of significant improvements have been made to the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) since the Government took office in 1997.

  Further refinements to improve value for money continue to be implemented, including expanded and revised guidance on Standardisation of PFI Contracts, which is expected to be issued before the end of the year.

  Financial Exclusion
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to reduce financial exclusion among persons without a bank account. [7782]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government attach great importance to tackling financial exclusion—it is a key part of our strategy for ending social exclusion. Details of measures being taken to reduce financial exclusion can be found in the "National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Policy Action Team Audit" report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Bureaux de Change
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's proposals are for regulating bureaux de change; and what plans he has for(a) consultations with the industry, (b) the timetable for regulation, (c) registration requirements, (d) the establishment of a regulating body and (e) regulating impact assessment. [8014]

  Ruth Kelly
  A consultative document on a proposed regulatory regime for bureaux de change is being published today. Copies are available in the Vote office and the Library of the House.

  Wind-powered Electricity
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much income has been received by the Crown Estate from wind-powered electricity generating installations situated offshore in the 2001–02 financial year; [7330]

  (2) how much income was received by the Crown Estate from wind-powered electricity generating installations situated offshore in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01; [7332]

  (3) how much income from wind-powered electricity generating installations situated offshore the Crown Estate is projected to receive for the 2001–02 financial year; [7331]

  (4) how many wind-powered electricity generating stations situated offshore are projected to pay rent to the Crown Estate during the current financial year; [7325]

  (5) how many wind-powered electricity generating stations situated offshore paid rent to the Crown Estate Commission in the financial year 2000–01. [7329]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Blyth Offshore Wind Farm is currently the only offshore wind-powered electricity generating station. In previous financial years the Crown Estate has received no income from this source; during the current financial year it has been paid £2,500 base rent and is due 0.5 per cent. of the Gross Turnover for the first Turnover period or (if greater) £2,500.

  Partnerships UK
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which companies successfully bid for 51 per cent. of Partnerships UK; and what are the shareholdings of each such company; [6477]

  (2) what advice was sought by the Treasury prior to the acceptance of the financial contribution for a majority stake in Partnerships UK; [6478]

  (3) if he will list the shareholders in Partnerships UK and the number of shares held by each as at (a) 30 November 2000, (b) 1 March 2001 and (c) 30 April 2001. [6476]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  HM Treasury sold a 51 per cent. shareholding in PUK plc to private sector investors, following an offer for sale issued on 26 February 2001.

  Up until 31 March 2001 all shares in PUK plc were owned by The Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury. As at 31 March 2001 and 30 April 2001 the shareholders and the number of shares held by the private sector are as laid out in the table.

  Shares

  "A" shares percentage holding

  Abbey National Treasury Services plc

  666,666

  6.67

  Sun Life Assurance Society plc

  666,666

  6.67

  The Prudential Assurance Company Limited

  666,666

  6.67

  Barclays Industrial Investments Limited

  605,558

  6.06

  The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

  605,558

  6.06

  The Governor and Company of Bank of Scotland (Uberior Investment plc)

  444,444

  4.44

  Halifax Project Investments plc

  444,444

  4.44

  Serco Limited

  333,333

  3.33

  The British Land Company (Boldswitch Limited)

  222,222

  2.22

  Group 4 Falck Joint Ventures Limited

  222,222

  2.22

  Building name

  Location

  Current value (£)

  Car Park

  Birkdale Cricket Club

  12,631

  Norfolk House

  Birmingham

  193,550

  Units 10/12

  Birmingham

  10,000

  Ground Floor, Pinnacle House

  Bootle

  16,500

  Centenary Court

  Bradford

  967,419

  Bristol International Airport

  Bristol

  33,264

  Waldo Road

  Bromley

  26,500

  Sherbourne House

  Coventry

  1,306,800

  Innovis House

  Crawley

  159,640

  Southern House

  Croydon

  1,157,315

  St. James House

  Derby

  153,200

  Room 305, Terminal Control Building

  Dover

  2,140

  Eastbourne TEC

  Eastbourne

  16,822

  Concorde House

  Gatwick

  447,795

  Rooms 2070 and 3048, South Terminal Departures

  Gatwick

  5,268

  Room 3049, South Terminals Departures

  Gatwick

  4,620

  Car Park

  Grimsby

  4,500

  Terminus House

  Harlow

  66,000

  2, Victoria Avenue

  Harrogate

  165,223

  Rooms 1–6 and 1–7, Hamilton House

  Harwich

  2,750

  Room 225, Terminal 2

  Heathrow

  14,571

  Custom House, Heathrow

  Hounslow

  24,750

  Ashford International Terminal

  Kent

  414

  Cromwell House

  Lincoln

  146,000

  Queensgate House

  Lincoln

  37,500

  Imperial Court

  Liverpool

  613,133

  International House

  London

  483,450

  Victory House

  London

  1,250,000

  31 High Street, Ealing

  London

  32,000

  Customs House

  London

  20,280

  Customs House Annexe

  London

  2,045,498

  864W

  Shares

  "A" shares percentage holding

  Jarvis plc

  222,222

  2.22

  The public sector retains 49 per cent. of Partnerships UK plc. Scottish Ministers acquired a 4.4 per cent. shareholding from HM Treasury on 23 April, so that on 30 April 2001 the public sector shareholding was 4.4 per cent. by Scottish Ministers and 44.56 per cent. by HM Treasury.

  HM Treasury was advised throughout the sale process by: NM Rothschild and Sons acting as placement agent and financial adviser; Treasury Solicitors Department supported by Herbert Smith; and Price WaterhouseCoopers who provided tax and accounting advice.

  Partnerships UK was advised by UBS Warburg.

  Property Leases
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by the Treasury, including and distinguishing between the Department itself, its next step agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7808]

  Ruth Kelly
  The table lists the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by the Treasury. The properties are listed by town for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All properties are the responsibility of the Department itself and not next step agencies or non departmental public bodies. All entries in the table relate to purchases made by established bodies.
  865W

  Building name

  Location

  Current value (£)

  1 Myddelton Place

  London

  525,000

  Cheapside House, 138 Cheapside

  London

  189,833

  Eastcheap Court, 11 Philpot Lane

  London

  1,129,541

  Terminal Building

  Luton

  127,967

  The Royal Exchange

  Manchester

  54,991

  Rooms 27 and 28, Terminal 1, Manchester Airport

  Manchester

  3,300

  Room 6, Terminal 1, Manchester Airport

  Manchester

  2,600

  Dobson House

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  195,526

  Unit 9 Lendal Court

  Nottingham

  3,300

  Trinity House

  Oxford

  412,162

  Plot 3400

  Oxford

  271,422

  Nash Court

  Oxford

  116,519

  Stuart House

  Peterborough

  75,000

  St. Mark's House

  Preston

  312,897

  St. Mary's House

  Preston

  252,103

  Guild Centre

  Preston

  115,650

  RFTU

  Purfleet

  4,800

  Kings Wharf

  Reading

  327,250

  Harbour Masters Office

  Rye

  900

  Cathedral Court

  Sheffield

  124,576

  Shepperton House

  Shepperton

  58,675

  New Mayfield House

  Shrewsbury

  91,875

  Cavendish House

  Skipton

  25,865

  John kEya House

  St. Austell

  21,500

  Ocean House

  St. Leonards

  114,310

  Room 623, Stansted Airport

  Stansted

  3,800

  George Stephenson House

  Stockton

  428,762

  Dunedin House

  Stockton on Tees

  175,305

  St. Marks House

  Teesside

  151,400

  Hanover House

  Telford

  252,988

  Hollinswood House

  Telford

  57,800

  St. James House

  Telford

  365,330

  Custom House

  Tilbury

  68,000

  Blencathra House

  Whitehaven

  122,446

  Airport Terminal

  Yeadon

  10,596

  Swinson House

  York

  78,000

  Leeman House

  York

  105,300

  Castlewellan Road

  Banbridge, Co. Down

  31,150

  Mill House

  Coleraine

  18,000

  Clarendon House

  Edinburgh

  542,575

  Building 388

  Prestwick

  38,800

  Note:

  Total number of properties—72.

  Annuities
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the obligation for pension holders to take out an annuity. [7443]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 3 July 2001.Official Report, column 125W.

  Devolved Assemblies
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly Committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (1) Scottish Parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select Committees. [7027]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office has given him today.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in his Department for official overseas visits; what the(a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if he will make a statement; [6880]

  (2) if he will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in his Department in each year since May 1997, indicating (a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if he will make a statement. [6879]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 823W.

  Statistics
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of women born between 24 September and 25 December 1941 who are alive. [7569]
  867W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 15 October 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of women born between 24 September and 25 December 1941 who are alive (7569).
  It is estimated that there are 72 thousand women in the United Kingdom who were born between these dates.
  This figure has been derived using the latest available national population projections produced by the Government Actuary's Department. These estimate that the total number of women in the United Kingdom reaching the age of 59 by June 2001 is 306.4 thousand. These women will have been born between July 1941 and June 1942.
  Data on the pattern of births in 1941 and 1942 from the Office for National Statistics indicates that of the total number of 59 year old women in June 2001, 72 thousand can be estimated as having been born between 24 September and 25 December 1941.

  Income Tax Relief
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have benefited from income tax relief as a result of purchasing a stakeholder pension. [7917]

  Ruth Kelly
  All those who have contributed to a stakeholder pension will benefit from income tax relief—over 350,000 by 31 August 2001 according to the latest estimates from the Association of British Insurers. Provisional estimates of the number of contributors on 868W
  whose behalf a repayment claim has been received by the end of July will be published on the Inland Revenue website at the end of the month.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the number of staff employed by his Department by region and nation of the UK; and if he will make a statement; [6870]

  (2) how many and what proportion of each Civil Service grade in his Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement. [6874]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information relating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments is set out in tables by region and nation and by average salary and grade, which I am depositing in the Library of the House. The data are the latest information available and follow the definitions used in Table D of "Civil Service Statistics 2001" which was published on 31 August 2001, which is also available in the Library.

  Higher Rate Income Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of(a) how many persons paid income tax at the higher rate in each financial year since April 1997 and (b) how much was raised by the higher rate in current prices in each of the same years. [7784]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics", tables 2.1 and 2.5, a copy of which is available in the Library. It can also be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Transport Infrastructure/House Building
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his Department's responsibilities are in relation to the environmental impact of(a) transport infrastructure development and (b) house building proposals. [7879]

  Ms Keeble
  Proposals for transport infrastructure and housing development, which are likely to have significant effects on the environment come within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC as amended). The DTLR is the lead Department responsible for implementation of the Directive. The EIA procedure requires a developer to compile an Environmental Statement, which includes detailed information about the proposed development, the main effects it is likely to have on the environment, and the mitigation measures envisaged to deal with adverse effects. This information must be taken into account by the competent authority in reaching a decision on the proposal. For most projects falling within the scope of the Directive, for which planning permission is needed, the local planning authority is the competent authority, though in cases that are called in or subject to appeal the Secretary of State has to ensure compliance with EIA requirements. For some projects, for example proposals for new national roads, the Secretary of State is the competent authority.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received regarding existing planning constraints on the development of farmers' markets. [7864]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department has received a range of representations on planning arrangements for the temporary use of land for purposes including farmers' markets. Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) SI 1995 No 418 grants a general planning permission for the temporary use of land for up to 28 days in any calendar year, subject to a number of restrictions and conditions. In the case of markets, the permitted use is limited to a total of 14 days in recognition of the parking, litter and noise problems that often arise from such uses.

  Guidance to planning authorities in PPG6 "Town Centres & Retail Developments" and PPG7 "The Countryside" encourage farm diversification and acknowledge that farm shops can help meet the demand for fresh produce as well as providing new sources of jobs and services in rural areas. Farmers' markets can also provide such a service. Farmers' markets have been established successfully throughout the country in recent years.

  Electoral Commission
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it 870W
  Her Majesty's Government's policy to provide all hon. Members with the full report of the Electoral Commission. [7124]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Commission, which is directly answerable to Parliament, has placed a copy of its full report on the 2001 parliamentary general election in the Library of the House and has provided all hon. Members with a summary copy of the report. The full report, as well as the Commission's overview of the election campaign, is also available on the Electoral Commission's website. It would not be appropriate for the Government to supplement the independent Commission's measures, which in any event it could do only at disproportionate cost.

  Elections (Turnout)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had on Her Majesty's Government's policy for increasing turnout at elections; and when he expects to issue proposals aimed at increasing turnout. [7123]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Earlier this month, I, together with the chairmen of the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association, jointly invited local authorities to apply to run a wide range of innovative electoral pilot projects—including all-postal voting and on-line voting—to test new electoral procedures designed to increase the accessibility of voting and make it suit modern lifestyles more appropriately. Such changes to the method of voting should help to increase turnout, but only if, as the Electoral Commission has stated in its report on the 2001 general election,"voters also feel that the election is relevant to them and their vote matters".
  The Commission is examining the reason for low turnout and will be making recommendations which we will consider very carefully.

  Vehicle Excise Licences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he plans to take to improve enforcement against vehicle excise licence offences; and if he will make a statement. [8008]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Vehicle excise duty evasion currently stands at 3.9 per cent. of revenue due (down from 4.1 per cent. in 1994). We have a number of measures in hand further to improve performance in this area.

  As a result of the success of the wheelclamping scheme for VED evasion there are plans to expand this operation. In addition, last week the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency launched a scheme involving the use of mobile Automatic Number Plate Reader systems to detect and deter unlicensed vehicles on the move. DVLA is also working very closely with the police and local authorities to develop new methods for tackling the evasion problem.

  Fishing Communities
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to
  871W
  the answer of 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 320W, on fishing communities, if he will list the (a) ports affected and (b) weight of the catch at each port. [6644]

  Ms Keeble
  The ports used to calculate the allocation to RDAs for the Fisheries Regeneration Initiative, and the weight of their catch, are as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  Port of landing

  Quantity

  Newlyn

  6.79

  Hull

  9.47

  Brixham

  3.29

  Lowestoft

  4.45

  Grimsby

  5.09

  Plymouth

  1.60

  Whitby

  3.26

  Scarborough

  2.91

  Fleetwood

  2.30

  Shoreham

  0.82

  North Shields

  1.54

  Padstow

  0.60

  Looe

  0.94

  Bridlington

  1.20

  River Fal-Falmouth

  0.66

  Rye

  0.39

  Whitehaven

  0.80

  Hastings

  0.38

  Dungeness

  0.25

  Ramsgate

  0.41

  Hartlepool

  0.62

  Mevagissey

  0.48

  Newhaven

  0.45

  Appledore

  0.37

  Blyth

  0.72

  Folkestone

  0.27

  Amble

  0.78

  Poole

  0.21

  Portsmouth

  0.16

  Eastbourne

  0.19

  Southwold

  0.27

  Weymouth

  0.12

  This information came from the 1999 catches of Demersal Species by Port of Landing compiled by MAFF. This was the most up to date information available when the calculations were made.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is resposible, broken down by grade or job title. [7235]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on the normal retirement age and on compulsory early retirement or severance for my Department and for the executive agencies and public sector bodies for which it is responsible is as follows:Grades listed1—normal retirement age of 65.
  Bands 3 up to 6 (and equivalents) (i.e. EO, HEO, SEO, G7, G6 and equivalents)—normal retirement age of 60.
  Senior Civil Servants—normal retirement age of 60.
  There are the following exceptions:
  Subject to the terms and conditions when they joined DTLR, there is a "short-service concession" for most non-senior civil servants in Bands 3 and above with less than 20 years accumulated service to continue to work until they reach 20 years or age 65, whichever
  872W
  is the earlier. This not available to Air Accident Inspectors, or those who became Crown employees working in the former Department of Transport after 31 March 1997.
  The Department may also invite staff to stay beyond the normal retirement age but not beyond age 70.
  Former Home Office staff who transferred to DTLR as part of the Machinery of Government changes in June 2001 are currently subject to the retirement policy of the Home Office.
  In non-departmental public bodies where staff are included in the Local Government Pension Scheme, the retirement age is 65.
  Variations within the agencies
  The following executive agencies have these variations:
  Driving Standards Agency: Senior Driving Examiners and Supervising Driving Examiners have a normal retirement age of 63; at present, to stay until 65 they would have to revert to Driving Examiners.
  The Fire Service College: Industrial staff have a retirement age of 65.
  The Planning Inspectorate: Planning Inspectors re-employed on flexible short-term contracts up to a maximum age of 65.
  The QEII Conference Centre: Normal retirement age of 60 for all staff.
  The Rent Service: Those staff transferred under TUPE protection from their local government employer have remained within the Local Government Pension Scheme. They may retire at age 65, although the scheme does allow them to retire at 60 should they so wish.
  Vehicle Inspectorate: Industrial employees Band 1 (Tester/Handy Person) in post by 1 May 1994 and over 50 can remain until 65. In other cases the retirement age is 60, with the exception of a short service concession for Band 1 Testers and Band 2 AVEs provided they were in post prior to 31 March 1997.
  Compulsory early retirement or severance.
  In exceptional cases, such as redundancy, staff may receive benefits calculated in accordance with the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. Staff aged 50 and over are normally considered for benefits under the early retirement provisions and staff under age 50 are considered for severance payments. Eligibility depends on age and length of service.
  Note1
  Crown employees who worked in the former Department of the Environment

  Administrative Assistant

  Administrative Officer

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  Chief Typing Manager

  Communication Officer I

  Communication Officer II

  Communication Officer III

  Communication Officer IV

  Housing and Planning Inspectors (main grade and senior inspectors)

  873W

  Personal Secretary

  Process and General Supervisory Grades

  Senior Personal Secretary

  Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent Custody Guards

  Support Manager I

  Support Manager II

  Support Manager III

  Support Grade I

  Support Grade II

  Support Grade IIA

  Technical Grade I and 2

  Trainee Typist

  Typing Manager

  Typist

  Crown employees who worked in the former Department of Transport

  Administrative Assistant

  Administrative Officer

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  Chief Typing Manager

  Civil Engineer (SPTO and below)

  Personal Secretary

  Process and General Supervisory D

  Process and General Supervisory E

  Senior Personal Secretary

  SGB2 (Cleaner—less than 10 hours weekly)

  Stores Officer Grade D

  Support Grade—Band 1

  Support Grade—Band 2

  Support Grade—Band 2A

  Support Manager 1

  Support Manager 2

  Support Manager 3

  Teleprinter operator

  Typing Manager

  Typist and Trainee Typist.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what records are kept of temperatures in carriages on London Underground trains. [6025]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, who inform me that they do not routinely record temperatures in trains and stations. In all instances of customers taken ill on trains and stations, where heat may be a contributing factor, this will be recorded as such.

  Section 28
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. [7641]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are committed to the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. We shall do so as soon as parliamentary time is available.

  Planning
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for planning appeals and, in particular, for third-party objectors to planning applications. [7506]

  Ms Keeble
  We assessed the implications of the Human Rights Act (HRA) for planning legislation and procedures before the Act came into force. We do not consider that there is any need on HRA grounds for changes to the appeals system generally or specifically in relation to third party objectors.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers local authority planning officers have to require those proposing to convert existing buildings into flats to provide new shop fronts, pay for repairs to pavements and make a contribution towards local educational provision; and what powers local authority planning officers have to fix rents in respect of the new flats. [7675]

  Ms Keeble
  Under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, a planning obligation may be agreed between a Local Planning Authority and a developer. A planning obligation may require or restrict specified activities to be carried out and may require payments to be made to the authority either in a single sum or periodically. Such obligations could therefore cover provision of new shop fronts; payment for repairs to pavements; contributions towards local education provisions; and the fixing of rents, if this amounted to a restriction on the use of land. However, planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make a proposal acceptable in land-use planning terms. In addition, they must be: relevant to planning; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and reasonable in all other respects.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications is have been refused by local authorities and the planning inspectorate on the basis of human rights violations as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, section 6(1) and in the Maastricht treaty, article 130r2; what action he will take against local authorities that refuse planning applications on such grounds; and if he will make a statement. [7990]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is not available. Planning applications and appeals are decided taking into account all of the relevant planning issues—one of which may in some cases be human rights. The introduction of the Human Rights Act means that all public authorities, including central Government and local authorities, must act compatibly with convention rights. It is ultimately for the courts to decide whether an individual's human rights have been unfairly interfered with in a particular case.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications in Hampshire have been called in by him on grounds relating to the proposed housing densities in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000, indicating the specific reasons in each case. [6019]
  875W
  Ms Keeble
  No planning applications were called in 1998 or 1999 in Hampshire on grounds relating to housing densities. In year 2000, two planning applications in Hampshire relating to the provision of housing were called in for the Secretary of State's decision. In both cases the Secretary of State indicated that he wished to be informed, among other things, about the relationship of the proposed development to Government policy in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG3, in particular in respect of the proposed density of the development, the advice in the PPG on a sequential approach to brownfield/greenfield sites, car parking provision and the provision of affordable housing.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what average time was taken by the Secretary of State to decide upon a planning appeal against a decision made by Fareham borough council once an inspector had submitted his report to him in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; [6271]

  (2) what average time was taken for an inspector to report to the Secretary of State on an appeal against a planning decision made by Fareham borough council in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [6268]

  Ms Keeble
  In 1998 two planning appeals arising in Fareham borough council area were recovered for decision by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The average time taken for the Inspector to report to the Secretary of State was 78 days. The average time taken by the Secretary of State to decide the appeals once the Inspector had submitted his report was 46 days.

  No recovered planning appeals in Fareham were decided by the Secretary of State in 1999 or 2000.

  Train Franchises
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the refranchising of South West Trains to Stagecoach was agreed by the SRA; and when it is planned to sign the franchise agreement. [7994]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority signed Head of Terms with Stagecoach as the preferred counterparty for the replacement South West Trains franchise on 30 March 2001. The parties are working towards signature of a franchise agreement and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to assess the environmental disbenefits of night flights; [8022]

  (2)what plans he has to assess the contribution that night flights make to the (a) national and (b) London economy; [8021]

  (3) what plans he has to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on night flights; and if he will make a statement. [8020]

  876W
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will issue their response to the ruling of the European Court on Human Rights on the future of night flights at Heathrow Airport; and if he will make a statement. [7535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will study the judgment carefully before deciding what action may be necessary. The judgment cannot become final for at least three months. There will be no immediate changes to the present situation.

  The Government are already in the process of commissioning a major study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise, which will include further research into subjective responses to annoyance by night and by day. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 41W, to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King). It would be premature to initiate further studies into any other aspects of night flights while we are considering the implications of this judgment.

  Housing Stock
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average expenditure on capital improvements of(a) council and (b) registered social landlords in each year since 1997 is; and what plans he has to change the rule on capital investments in local authority housing. [7626]

  Ms Keeble
  The average expenditure on capital improvements by council landlords in each year since 1997 are 1997–98: £446 (22 per cent. of dwellings received work), 1998–99: £490 (23 per cent. of dwellings received work), 1999–2000: £479 (23 per cent. of dwellings received work). 2000–01 is £627 (this is a provisional figure based on authorities planned expenditure). Corresponding data are not collected centrally from Registered Social Landlords. We announced our intention to end direct control of local authority borrowing as part of a wider move to reform the local authority capital finance system. Details on the operation of the revised arrangements will be included in a White Paper, due to be published in the next few months.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cost of holding housing stock transfer ballots per dwelling affected by local authority district that have conducted ballots in the last five years. [7063]

  Ms Keeble
  We do not hold this information.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each of the past five years the total housing stock for English local authorities held by(a) local councils, (b) registered social landlords and (c) housing companies. [7064]

  Ms Keeble
  The estimated total of the housing stock of local authorities and registered social landlords in England are given in the table.
  877W

  Number of dwellings (thousand)

  As at 1 April

  Local authority

  Registered social landlords

  1996

  3,470

  942

  1997

  3,401

  989

  1998

  3,309

  1,049

  1999

  3,178

  1,162

  2000

  3,012

  1,278

  The number of dwellings held by housing companies is much smaller and is not distinguished from the numbers given.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the number of(a) families in bed and breakfast, (b) families in other temporary accommodation and (c) total waiting lists for each London borough. [7627]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department seeks information about local authorities' activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 on the quarterly PI (E) housing returns. Data, which relate to households

  London boroughs' reported action under the homelessness provisions of Housing Acts

  Decisions made during the period1 April to June 2001

  Accepted as being homeless and in priority need

  Eligible, homeless and in priority need, but intentionally so

  Eligible, homeless but not in priority need

  Accommodated by the authority on 30 June 2001 in bed and breakfast

  Number of households on the Housing Register2 as at 1 April 2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  38

  7

  9

  1

  1,925

  Barnet

  331

  11

  101

  139

  5,489

  Bexley

  104

  3

  150

  84

  3,592

  Brent

  282

  11

  59

  625

  12,603

  Bromley

  198

  11

  103

  102

  3,264

  Camden

  288

  25

  87

  46

  5,884

  City of London

  4

  3—

  3—

  4

  787

  Croydon

  275

  12

  347

  500

  6,265

  Ealing

  211

  14

  203

  436

  7,709

  Enfield

  315

  4

  57

  268

  6,001

  Greenwich

  297

  15

  82

  3—

  5,473

  Hackney

  209

  3

  25

  160

  7,011

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  189

  3

  22

  423

  4,726

  Haringey

  320

  6

  3—

  191

  9,510

  Harrow

  98

  16

  81

  101

  2,610

  Havering

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1,738

  Hillingdon

  313

  10

  103

  473

  3,656

  Hounslow

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  5,017

  Islington

  277

  13

  229

  118

  11,590

  Kensington and Chelsea

  165

  12

  31

  699

  8,206

  Kingston upon Thames

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  3,113

  Lambeth

  312

  24

  61

  261

  16,220

  Lewisham

  263

  3—

  143

  3—

  9,774

  Merton

  44

  4

  36

  36

  3,920

  Newham

  375

  18

  98

  820

  11,107

  Redbridge

  109

  7

  3

  242

  3,555

  Richmond upon Thames

  76

  11

  32

  106

  4,992

  Southwark

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  5,543

  Sutton

  124

  14

  69

  54

  2,154

  Tower Hamlets

  357

  13

  14

  212

  6,751

  Waltham Forest

  289

  25

  67

  144

  7,476

  Wandsworth

  202

  8

  126

  282

  2,441

  Westminster

  291

  17

  172

  901

  8,099

  1 Decisions during the quarter are those where applicant households were found to be homeless and eligible for assistance under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 and associated legislation.

  2 Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing housing register/waiting lists which mean that simple comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  3 Nil

  4 Information not reported

  Source:

  DTLR quarterly PI (E) housing activity and annual Housing Investment Programme returns
  878W
  rather than individuals, include the number of households being temporarily housed by the authority, and separately distinguish those in bed-and-breakfast hotels, as well as other types of property such as hostels or privately leased accommodation. This information is summarised in a quarterly Statistical Release, the most recent of which was published on 12 September 2001 covering results up to the end of June 2001. Copies are available in the Library of the House and are on the DTLR website.

  Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns also seek basic data on the total number of homeless households accommodated on 31 March, and this year additionally asked for confirmation of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As in previous years, the 2001 HIP return also sought a range of summary information about the number of households on local authorities' housing registers. HIP data are made available on the DTLR website normally in December once the data have been checked and confirmed by the authorities.

  The latest available information as reported by London boroughs is presented in the table. This represents households without distinguishing between family groups and individuals.
  879W
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the average investment by(a) registered social landlords and housing companies and (b) local authorities per dwelling where a large scale stock transfer ballot has been held. [6999]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested cannot be provided for registered social landlords and housing

  Average expenditure per local authority dwellings

  £000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Rochford—November 1988

  261

  197

  177

  310

  372

  n/a

  302

  376

  167

  326

  205

  Salisbury—December 1988

  364

  59

  l11

  82

  161

  195

  196

  257

  489

  241

  265

  Arun—January 1989

  738

  716

  494

  734

  668

  1,103

  1,009

  542

  672

  908

  568

  Three Rivers—March 1986

  124

  384

  193

  293

  421

  1,139

  1,334

  966

  1,030

  1,552

  1,695

  Canterbury—November 1989

  —

  666

  n/a

  538

  444

  755

  619

  631

  851

  616

  1,141

  Brentwood—November 1989

  —

  146

  n/a

  237

  267

  317

  272

  190

  225

  225

  256

  Redbridge—December 1989

  —

  833

  1,108

  1,165

  821

  883

  1,315

  1,206

  921

  1,089

  964

  Bournemouth—January 1990

  —

  416

  553

  452

  376

  419

  383

  287

  206

  182

  181

  Wokingham—April 1990

  —

  154

  248

  618

  647

  583

  700

  319

  445

  452

  435

  South Holland—July 1990

  —

  —

  392

  461

  442

  485

  485

  514

  559

  579

  490

  North Kesteven—December 1990

  —

  —

  447

  589

  735

  825

  667

  617

  543

  604

  554

  Hillingdon—July 1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  723

  796

  904

  864

  824

  773

  895

  Kingston—August 1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  992

  681

  697

  846

  849

  592

  516

  North Somerset—August 1992 (Woodspring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  708

  722

  783

  589

  584

  572

  518

  Westminster—October 1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,281

  1,283

  1,158

  1,536

  1,628

  1,342

  Maidstone—November 1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  463

  619

  682

  778

  340

  331

  Poole—November 1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400

  330

  298

  405

  506

  245

  Cherwell—April 1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  219

  280

  445

  202

  653

  328

  Castle Point—September 1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  239

  148

  237

  317

  286

  Berwick—July 1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  419

  377

  309

  Cheltenham—August 1997

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  179

  239

  Cambridge—February 1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  228

  Cycle Routes
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the total length of dedicated cycle routes in each London borough; and what the figures were for roads for each of the past five years. [6747]

  Mr. Spellar
  Policy on cycle routes in London is now a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London. However, information about the length of the London Cycle

  Length in km

  Borough

  April 1997

  April 1998

  April 1999

  April 2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  31.867

  22

  30.6

  29.4

  Barnet

  37.131

  47.7

  56

  62.3

  Bexley

  13.342

  7.2

  17.3

  18.7

  Brent

  22.145

  20.1

  21.9

  21.6

  Bromley

  57.597

  66.5

  66

  67.3

  Camden

  18.048

  19.1

  26.1

  22.5

  Croydon

  32.227

  49

  56.9

  67

  Ealing

  65.267

  65.3

  64

  63.5

  Enfield

  16.974

  13.9

  18.1

  20.4

  Greenwich

  31.807

  0

  40.6

  55.1

  Hackney

  18.772

  20.8

  20.7

  20.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  34.37

  38.3

  40.4

  39.5

  Haringey

  20.639

  21.4

  16.7

  27.2

  Harrow

  3.208

  5.2

  4.4

  5.3

  Havering

  8.242

  21.4

  15

  30.7

  Hillingdon

  54.407

  46.7

  57.6

  59.3

  Hounslow

  49.717

  54.2

  55.7

  62.1

  Islington

  19.041

  19.2

  20.8

  20

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8.249

  16.7

  12.2

  17.8

  Kingston Upon Thames

  41.617

  49.5

  48

  46.1

  Lambeth

  7.508

  12.6

  28.3

  12.4

  880W
  companies because neither the Department nor the Housing Corporation collect or hold data in this form. For those local authorities where there has been a "no" vote in respect of large scale voluntary transfer, the table sets out average investment per local authority dwelling on an annual basis, derived from local authority Housing Investment Programme returns.

  Network (LCN) in the London boroughs from April 1997 is set out in the table. Earlier information is not available. Any further information may be obtained from John Lee, the LCN Project Manager, at the following address:
  Royal Borough of Kingston
  Guildhall
  High Street
  Kingston upon Thames
  Surrey KT1 1EU.
  881W

  Length in km

  Borough

  April 1997

  April 1998

  April 1999

  April 2000

  Lewisham

  13.448

  14.9

  28

  35.3

  London

  0.019

  0.2

  0.7

  9

  Merton

  24.107

  34.9

  34.6

  37.2

  Newham

  2.994

  22.7

  21.2

  34

  Redbridge

  27.699

  29.8

  30.6

  32.9

  Richmond

  65.272

  76.9

  89.6

  90.6

  Southwark

  22.598

  41.1

  55.8

  67.8

  Sutton

  30.008

  45.9

  49.3

  52.9

  Tower Hamlets

  21.504

  23.9

  27

  30.7

  Waltham Forest

  36.882

  49.3

  45.3

  53.5

  Wandsworth

  59.259

  67

  74.4

  88.3

  Westminster

  11.914

  31.3

  42.2

  44.3

  Total

  907.879

  10,54.7

  1,216

  1,345.4

  Single Regeneration Budgets
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what monitoring of the accountability of single regeneration budgets is undertaken by his Department. [6945]

  Ms Keeble
  Responsibility for monitoring the accountability of single regeneration budget partnerships has been delegated to the Regional Development Agencies. In London, this function rests with the London Development Agency, who are responsible to the Mayor and the Greater London Authority.

  My Department is responsible for the overall financial management and policy for the SRB programme. We monitor the RDAs' performance in managing the programme through the RDA sponsorship arrangements led by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  From April 2002, the SRB will be subsumed into the new Single Programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 9 March 2001.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the expenditure to date of the Finsbury Park single regeneration budget; what its planned expenditure is in the remaining period of its life; and what monitoring of its expenditure is undertaken by his Department. [7552]

  Ms Keeble
  In London the Mayor and the London Development Agency are responsible for the single regeneration budget, including the monitoring of individual schemes. SRB expenditure to date on the Finsbury Park scheme is £3.4m out of the planned £25m over its lifetime.

  Government Office for London
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the annual cost of administration of the Government Office for London; and what his estimate is of future costs in each of the three years from April 2002. [6961]

  Ms Keeble
  The administration budget of the Government Office for London in 2001–02 is £12.6m.

  For 2002–03 it is anticipated that the funding from DTLR, DTI and DEFRA will remain the same as 2001–02. However the DfES allocation is expected to
  882W
  reduce by £401k giving an overall figure of £12.2m. Funding for work to be undertaken on behalf of other Departments has yet to be agreed.

  Estimated costs for 2003–04 and in 2004–05 is £11.8m, reflecting an expected further reduction in 2003–04 of DfES funding. These estimates do not anticipate the potential extension of GOL's work in new programmes.

  Tufnell Park
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions have been held with Railtrack and Silverlink concerning the opening of a station at Tufnell Park on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; and if he will make a statement. [6946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Sponsors of any proposed new station should discuss feasibility initially with the train operator and Railtrack. The Strategic Rail Authority's Rail Passenger Partnership scheme is a potential source of funding for schemes which may not be commercial but offer wider benefits.

  Ebley Wharf
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will call in the planning application at Ebley Wharf, Stroud district following his announcement on building in the flood plains under PPG25. [6479]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State has considered whether to call-in the planning application at Ebley Wharf, Stroud district, against his policy for the use of call-in powers. Having carefully considered the issues raised, including those related to policy in the recently published PPG 25, it was decided not to intervene in this particular application.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultations with interested parties he has had in relation to damages claims arising out of the impact of mobile phone masts following research being carried out into their effects on health, and the recommendations of the report of Sir William Stewart. [6490]
  883W
  Ms Keeble
  The Department has not been approached in relation to damage claims arising out of the impact of mobile phone masts following research being carried out into their effects on health, and the recommendations of the Report of Sir William Stewart.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will review planning guidance on mobile phone masts taking account of the decision of the Austrian high court in favour of Ms Wulf-Dietrich Rose against Max Mobil on 12 July. [6489]

  Ms Keeble
  The Supreme Court of Appeal of the Republic of Austria reported its decision on a case between Wulf-Dietrich Rose and Max Mobil on 26 April 2001. The case involved a claim for defamation and centres around the rules for freedom of expression. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, 'Telecommunications' (PPG8) does not prevent freedom of expression. It is not therefore necessary to review PPG8 in the light of this case.

  Best Value
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his latest estimate is of(a) the cost and (b) the cash benefit to local authorities of implementing best value. [6266]

  Ms Keeble
  £52 million has been allocated in 2001–02 to local authorities in England and the Audit Commission to cover the cost of best value audit and inspection. No reliable estimates exist as to the other administrative costs incurred by authorities in complying with their duty under the Local Government Act 1999. It is for individual authorities to decide how to allocate their resources to achieve improvements in performance and cost efficiency, sufficient to meet the 2 per cent. per annum cost efficiency target for local government as a whole against an annual budget in 2001–02 of £57 billion.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of(a) preparing and (b) implementing local transport plans. [6267]

  Ms Keeble
  The introduction of local transport plans has been widely welcomed by local authorities. The Government expect that the move to five year plans, and the need to take a broader, more holistic view of planning transport in the context of related issues such as land use planning could produce cost savings and efficiency gains compared with the previous system of annual bidding.

  Our Ten Year Plan for Transport provided a step change in investment for the implementation of local transport plans. Over the period of the Ten Year plan some £19.3 billion of capital resources are available. We announced in December 2000 an £8.4 billion package covering the first five years' of that investment.

  Local Roads
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funds 884W
  are available to enable local authorities to upgrade local roads to deal with the changes in traffic volumes arising from the Government's housing quotas. [6018]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government do not issue housing quotas. Housing requirements are established by local authorities and Regional Planning Bodies through the Regional Planning Guidance process and finalised by the Secretary of State.

  Government planning policy seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, by accommodating housing principally on previously-developed land within urban areas and at locations highly accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.

  Capital funding for local road improvements for authorities in England outside London is available through the local transport plan system. In developing and implementing their local transport plans, authorities need to ensure consistency between their proposed transport strategies and housing proposals contained within the relevant regional and local development plans.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to control high hedges in residential areas. [6437]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to introduce(a) planning and (b) other controls on high hedges. [7205]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government will introduce legislation giving local authorities powers to deal with complaints about high hedges in residential areas as soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to give local authorities the power to fell nuisance cupressocyparis leylandii on private land. [7583]

  Ms Keeble
  As soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable, we will introduce legislation giving local authorities the power to deal with complaints about high hedges on private land. Under our proposals, authorities would be able to require landowners to keep the height of problem hedges within specified limits, but their powers would not extend to felling.

  Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on European and British air traffic cover of the postponement of the construction of the Prestwick air traffic control centre; [7423]

  (2) what representations he has received from National Air Traffic Control about the postponement of the construction of the Prestwick air traffic control centre. [7421]

  (3) what are the implications for air safety of the postponement of the construction of Prestwick air traffic control centre; [7424]

  885W

  (4) what meetings she (a) has had and (b) has planned to discuss the postponement of the construction of the Prestwick air traffic control centre; [7418]

  (5) if he will make a statement on progress with plans to construct an air traffic control centre at Prestwick. [7417]

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is his estimate of the opening date of the new Prestwick air traffic control centre. [7841]

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent changes there have been to the timetable for the planned operational date of the new Scottish air traffic control centre; and what ministerial approval is required for such changes. [7943]

  Mr. Jamieson
  National Air Traffic Services (NATS) remains committed to investing in the New Scottish Centre (NSC) at Prestwick as part of its two-centre strategy. However, the events of 11 September have led to a review of the phasing of NATS' capital investment plan, and my officials have been in close and continuing discussion with NATS and the Airline Group on these matters.

  As a result of this review, and in the light of reduced traffic demand, the Government have agreed to a proposal to delay work on the NSC, which will result in a later operational date than originally planned. Work on the building will be suspended, following completion of the building design and piling contracts at the end of 2001. However, work will continue on evaluating systems solutions for this new centre. NATS will keep the position under review, and launch further work as soon as traffic forecasts make it prudent to do so.

  The delay will not affect the service NATS provides to its customers or the high levels of safety it applies to operations.

  NATS
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with the Airline Group since 11 September on the future of National Air Traffic Services; [7839]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the sale of the National Air Traffic Services in respect of the downturn in air passenger demand since 11 September; [7843]

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Airline Group following the reduction in transatlantic air traffic; and if he will make a statement. [7942]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The events of 11 September are having a wide-ranging impact on the airline industry. National Air Traffic Services and the Airline Group are preparing their business plan in the light of this, and my officials are in close and continuing discussion with them.
  886W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the effect on Exchequer revenues of the sell-off of the National Air Traffic Services; and if he will make a statement. [6519]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have received proceeds totalling almost £770 million from the sale of a minority share in National Air Traffic Services to the Airline Group. There is a further £35 million due as deferred proceeds.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the Government's policy towards the Central Railway project. [7659]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has carried out, with the help of consultants, a high level review into Central Railway's proposals and has forwarded its report to my Department. The Government will take a view on the issues raised by the report and respond to Central Railway in due course.

  Bus Usage
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the total number of passenger miles travelled by bus in each of the last four years. [7621]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not collect separate information on bus passenger miles. Estimates are made of combined bus and coach passenger mileage, but these are not sufficiently robust to provide accurate year-on-year comparisons.

  The number of passenger journeys is considered to be a better measure of bus use, and we have set a target to increase bus passenger journeys in England by 10 per cent, by 2010. We are monitoring this through a large annual sample survey, and the most recent figures for England are as follows:

  Bus passenger journeys

  Million

  1996–97

  3,753

  1997–98

  3,773

  1998–99

  3,719

  1999–2000

  3,736

  Provisional figures for 2000–01 will be published on 18 October.

  Jet-Skis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many accidents including injury or fatalities to humans have taken place around the British coastline involving jet-skis in each of the last five years. [7622]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HM Coastguard incident reports record a total of 586 incidents involving personal watercraft between January 1997 and 30 September 2001 around the UK coastline. Four fatalities were recorded. No
  887W
  information is available on the number of injuries. Records for 1996 are not readily available but a breakdown by year is provided in the following table.

  Year

  Number of incidents

  Number of fatalities

  1997

  115

  3

  1998

  140

  1

  1999

  147

  0

  2000

  150

  0

  20011

  138

  0

  1 to 30 September 2001

  Key Worker Housing Grants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, local Government and the Regions if he will list those bids he has received from local authorities under the key worker housing grant scheme involving NHS staff. [7620]

  Ms Keeble
  Eight bids were received from local authorities under the Starter Home Initiative which included NHS staff among the groups targeted for assistance to purchase homes. These are:London borough of Tower Hamlets
  Guildford borough council
  Southampton county council
  Cotswold district council
  Swindon borough council
  Cambridgeshire county council on behalf of a consortium of employers

  Council houses built between 1995 to 2001

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total 1995 to 2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  Barnet

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bexley

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  —

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  Bromley

  —

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  Camden

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City of London

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  Enfield

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  —

  22

  34

  1—

  0

  0

  56

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haringey

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  —

  1—

  2

  1—

  0

  0

  2

  Hounslow

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  Lewisham

  —

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  Waltham Forest

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  245

  22

  36

  0

  0

  0

  103

  1 Source: DTLR Housing Stats. Data not available because the LA reported for nine months or less

  2 Total for 1995–96 sourced from DTLR Housing Stats 2000. Break down by each borough not available

  888W
  A joint bid from Bristol City council and South Gloucestershire council
  A joint bid from Eastbourne borough council, Hastings district council, Lewes district council, Rother district council and Wealden district council.

  A number of these bids will be administered by Registered Social Landlords. Bids to assist NHS staff were also submitted by other organisations including Registered Social Landlords.

  Swanick Air Traffic Control Centre
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Government's latest estimate is of the opening date of the Swanick air traffic control centre. [7840]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The planned operational date for the New En Route Centre at Swanick remains 27 January 2002.

  Council Houses
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council houses were built in London in the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01. [7842]

  Ms Keeble
  A total of 103 council houses were built between 1995 and 1998 and since then no council houses have been built to date. A breakdown of actual figures by borough is given in the table:

  Infrastructure Projects
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce proposals for a statutory duty to consult local residents on major infrastructure projects. [6565]

  Ms Keeble
  The local planning authority already has a statutory duty to advertise major development in a newspaper and either issue a site notice or notify neighbours.

  The new measures for streamlining the handling of major infrastructure projects announced by my right hon. Friend on 20 July 2001 will ensure opportunities for the public to make their views known through consultation about statements of national infrastructure policy, a right to object before Parliament considers the principle of major infrastructure projects, and at public inquiries into the detailed aspects of projects.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what definition of a Crown development is used by his Department in relation to infrastructure projects. [6566]

  Ms Keeble
  "Crown development" is the common usage term for development by or on behalf of the Crown on Crown land, and as such is not defined in statute.

  "Crown land" is defined in section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as land where there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest. "Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a Government Department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government Department. "Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall.

  There is no special meaning attached to "crown development" in relation to infrastructure projects.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the letters of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 26 July and 10 September about planning consent for a housing development in Duffield, Derbyshire. [7970]

  Ms Keeble
  The Minister for Housing and Planning replied to the hon. Member on 14 September and 5 October respectively indicating that the Secretary of State would take account of the hon. Member's concerns, and those of his constituents, in his consideration of whether to call in an application for housing development in Duffield.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford's letter of 26 February regarding channel tunnel rail link blight. [6552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following a thorough review of the case of his former constituents, I replied to my hon. Friend on 26 September.

  National Homelessness Strategy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the responses to the consultation national homelessness strategy will be published. [7826]

  Ms Keeble
  A summary of responses to the consultation on the national homelessness strategy will be published on the DTLR Housing internet site on 7 December 2001. Respondents to the consultation will be notified of its publication.

  Regional Chambers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) expenditure in each of the last five years was and (b) budgets for the years 2001–02 and 2002–03 are with respect to the acquisition of property for use by, or with respect to, regional chambers. [7823]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The regional chambers were designated by the Secretary of State following the establishment of Regional Development Agencies in 1999. They have been established voluntarily by bodies representing the interests of each region. Their running costs are a matter for the chambers and their members. The Government have however, allocated £500,000 this year to each regional chamber, with an additional £1 million for chambers to use collectively, to help them establish a stronger strategic and scrutiny role within the regions.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. [7725]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department has undertaken a review of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, which has been an Executive Agency since 1989. The review considered all the organisational aspects for the agency, taking into account its role and past performance, its fit with wider objectives, and the relationship with other bodies in the public and private sectors. Staff and trade unions have been consulted as part of the review.

  The key findings of the review were:
  There have been substantial improvements in the centre's performance over the last 5 years, with a 30 per cent. increase in turnover. Current performance is considered to be near the optimum for conference use.
  Most of the centre's business derives from the private sector and associations.
  The centre is seen as an important London facility, attracting considerable business tourism.

  The review does not recommend contracting out or privatisation, which it considers may be difficult to implement, and would be poor value for money. It also concluded that any market interest in the site is likely to relate to redevelopment for uses other than a conference centre.

  In the light of the review findings, I have decided that the public sector status and role of the QEII conference centre should not be changed. I have, however, asked

  891W
  officials, over the longer term, to keep under review options for ownership of the QEIICC within the public sector.

  A summary of the review findings is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the working time directive on the road haulage industry. [7462]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In March 1998, the Department of Trade and Industry published a regulatory assessment covering the costs and benefits of working time legislation. The assessment covered all sectors of employment in the UK, including excluded sectors such as the road haulage industry. A copy of the assessment was deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Since then, the Government have held regular meetings with both sides of industry to discuss the impact of the latest proposals on the haulage industry.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the working time directive on the bus and coach industry. [7460]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In March 1998, the Department of Trade and Industry published a regulatory assessment covering the costs and benefits of working time legislation. The assessment covered all sectors of employment in the UK, including excluded sectors such as the bus and coach industry. A copy of the assessment was deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Bus drivers on local routes will not be affected by the latest working time proposals for mobile workers in the road transport sector. However, the Government have held regular meetings with both sides of the bus and coach industry to discuss the impact of the proposals on those parts of the industry which they will affect.

  Aviation and Airports
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish a White Paper on aviation and airports. [7451]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We intend to publish an air transport White Paper in the second half of 2002.

  Night Working
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on peak hour congestion of an eight-hour limit on night working for mobile workers. [7458]

  Mr. Jamieson
  From our regular meetings with industry, we are fully aware of the problem that an eight-hour limit for night workers is likely to have on daytime congestion. That is why the Government support the 10-hour limit included in the Council's common position.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to improve safety measures on(a) trunk roads and (b) roads extensively used by heavy goods vehicles. [7098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In March of last year, the Government published their road safety strategy and casualty reduction targets for 2010 with the document "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone". At the same time, the Highways Agency published a Strategic Plan for improving safety on the trunk road network in England. The documents describe the measures to improve road safety that will be a mixture of education, engineering and enforcement measures.

  The Government's current targeted programme of improvements to trunk roads contains proposals for some 25 bypasses that will remove through traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles, from towns and villages. Additional schemes may well be added as a result of the programme of multi-modal studies currently being undertaken. The Government have also given the go-ahead for a further 23 bypass schemes on local authority roads in the last two years as part of the Local Transport Settlement. Bids for further schemes are currently being considered and decisions will be announced in December.

  East-West Transport Links
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relative(a) cost and (b) environmental impact of upgrading east-west (i) road links and (ii) rail links between (A) Huntingdon and Cambridge, (B) Cambridge and Bedford, (C) Bedford and Milton Keynes and (D) Milton Keynes and Oxford. [7177]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study, a full assessment of the relative costs and environmental impacts has been undertaken on a wide range of road and rail options for improving the links between Huntingdon and Cambridge. This study has now reported and the recommendations are being considered by the Regional Planning Body.

  The London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study will be looking at long term, sustainable solutions to the difficulties of east-west travel across the study area. In assessing possible solutions, infrastructure costs and their environmental impacts will be taken fully into account. This study is expected to report at the end of 2002.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to upgrade east-west road links from(a) Huntingdon to Cambridge, (b) Cambridge to Bedford, (c) Bedford to Milton Keynes and (d) Milton Keynes to Oxford. [7176]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The east-west road links between Huntingdon and Cambridge have been studied by the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study. The consultants undertaking this study have made their recommendations and these have been considered by the Regional Planning Body for the East of England. The Regional Planning Body is expected to make its views known to the Secretary of State in due course.
  893W
  East-west road links between Cambridge and Bedford, and between Bedford and Milton Keynes are being studied by the London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study. This study commenced in 2000 and is expected to report at the end of 2002.

  The Strategic Roads Network between Milton Keynes and Oxford is under continuous review, however at this stage the Government have no plans to upgrade the road links.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to bring forward legislation to amend the law affecting mobile homes. [7146]

  Ms Keeble
  Changes to the legislation relating to mobile homes were included in the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party, published last year. We have consulted on, and are considering, the Working Party's recommendations.

  Gazumping and Gazundering
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to prevent gazumping and gazundering by house buyers and sellers. [7207]

  Ms Keeble
  As set out in our manifesto, we will make it easier for people buying and selling homes through a seller's pack. This will provide at the very start of the process information needed to enable home buyers and sellers to make informed decisions, and assist transactions to proceed smoothly. The seller's pack will reduce significantly the period between offer acceptance and exchange of contracts, thereby narrowing the window during which gazumping, gazundering and other problems can occur.

  Harbour Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures are in place to ensure that a harbour authority's powers and duties are not exercised to the detriment of other users or otherwise unfairly, where that harbour authority is also the dominant user of a harbour. [7192]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Harbour authorities derive their duties and powers from local and national legislation. Parliament has conferred those duties and powers in a way that strikes a balance between the two and it is incumbent upon harbour authorities to exercise them reasonably. There is no special provision for ports where the harbour authority is also a shipping operator. Parliament has not given my Department any general powers of oversight in respect of harbour authorities' functions.

  One important duty, almost invariably incorporated in local legislation, is commonly called the "the open port duty". This provides that upon payment of ship, passenger and goods dues the harbour shall be open to all persons for the shipping and unshipping of goods, and the embarking and landing of passengers. Although these dues may be set as the authority sees fit, they are subject to a statutory right of objection under section 31 of the
  894W
  Harbours Act 1964 which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an authority to review dues if, after proper consideration, he considers that they are unreasonable.

  DL Registrations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many DL registrations remained unissued at 1 September 2001 in each of the following series(a) two letters, up to four digits, (b) three letters, up to three digits, (c) up to four digits, two letters, (d) up to three digits, three letters, (e) three letters, up to three digits, year suffix, and (f) year prefix, up to three digits, three letters. [7175]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Approximate numbers of vehicle registration marks in categories(a) to (d) are as follows:
  (a) None remain
  (b) None remain
  (c) 9,940
  (d) 20,000
  (e) 355,000
  (f)388,000.
  Exact figures cannot be provided as some marks have been allocated over the years, for instance to imported vehicles or those sold through the sale of marks scheme.

  Seller's Packs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to reintroduce legislation requiring seller's packs to be produced by those selling houses. [7206]

  Ms Keeble
  Legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime we are pressing ahead, in consultation with consumer representatives and the professional bodies, with developing the detailed contents of the seller's pack.

  House Sales and Purchases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce to England elements of the Scottish system of house sales and purchases. [7284]

  Ms Keeble
  It is already open to sellers and buyers of homes in England to follow the Scottish arrangements if they wish. This does not require a change in the law. It is also worth noting that these arrangements are not mandatory in Scotland, but have become established by custom and practice.

  Our consultation paper 'the key to easier home buying and selling', published in December 1998, discussed the Scottish arrangements. Most people responding on this issue agreed with the analysis that these arrangements have potential drawbacks and would not work well in more active housing markets in England and Wales.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by his Department in (i) the current year and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6593]
  895W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Central) is not carrying out any significant building projects in either financial year 2001–02 or 2002–03.

  It is carrying out two maintenance projects valued at more than :1 million each where ail conditioning chiller plant is being replaced. These are in the International Maritime Organisation building, and at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre.

  Both projects are at a stage where commercial sensitivities militate against publication of the precise values of these projects.

  Government funding of PFI and PPP projects in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

  Name of Project

  Location

  Cost (£ million)

  Government funding?

  PFI transport projects in England (constructed)

  Highways Agency A69

  North East and North West

  9

  No (PFI)

  Highways Agency A50

  East Midlands and West Midlands

  21

  No (PFI)

  Highways Agency A19

  North East and Yorkshire and Humber

  29

  No (PFI)

  Highways Agency A417/419

  South West

  49

  No (PFI)

  Highways Agency M40

  South East and West Midlands

  65

  No (PFI)

  Highways Agency A30/35

  South West

  75

  No (PFI)

  Highways Agency A1(M)

  Eastern

  128

  No (PFI)

  Highways Agency M1/Al

  Yorkshire and Humber

  214

  No (PFI)

  London Underground Northern Line Trains

  London

  409

  No (PFI)

  PFI transport projects in England (under construction)

  Highways Agency Birmingham Northern Relief Road

  West Midlands

  485

  No (Concession)

  Brent street lighting

  London

  8

  1Yes

  Doncaster Interchange

  Yorkshire and Humber

  26.2

  1Yes

  Vehicle Inspectorate MOT Computerisation

  UK

  31

  No (PFI)

  A130 (Al2-Al27)

  Eastern

  90

  1Yes

  Nottingham Express Transit

  East Midlands

  140

  1Yes

  London Underground British Transport Police

  London

  13

  No (PFI)

  London Underground Connect

  London

  355

  No (PFI)

  London Underground Power

  London

  108

  No (PFI)

  London Transport Prestige

  London

  137

  No (PFI)

  PPP transport projects in England (constructed)

  Highways Agency Second Severn Crossing

  South West

  331

  No (concession)

  Highways Agency Queen Elizabeth II Bridge (Dartford River Crossing)

  South East

  180

  No (concession)

  Midland Metro

  West Midlands

  145

  Yes (capital grant)

  Docklands Light Railway Extension to Lewisham

  London

  202

  Yes (capital grant)

  Croydon Tramlink

  London

  205

  Yes (capital grant)

  Manchester Metrolink Extension to Salford Quays and Eccles

  North West

  160

  Yes (capital grant)

  PPP transport projects in England (under construction) Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  South East

  4,178

  Yes (capital grant)

  PFI transport projects in Wales (constructed) A55

  —

  100

  No (PFI)

  PFI transport projects in Wales (under construction) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  PPP transport projects in Wales (constructed) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  PPP transport projects in Wales (under construction) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  PFI transport projects in Scotland (constructed)

  Skye Bridge

  —

  23.6

  2Yes

  M6 DBFO

  —

  96

  No (PFI)

  Inverness Airport Terminal—Highlands and Islands

  —

  9.5

  No (PFI)

  PFI transport projects in Scotland (under construction) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  PPP transport projects in Scotland (constructed) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  PPP transport projects in Scotland (under construction) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  Transport Projects
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the location and cost of transport projects over £1 million was in each region and nation of the United Kingdom which has received Government funding(a) in whole and (b) in part and (i) are being constructed and (ii) have been constructed under (A) PPP and (B) PFI; and if he will make a statement. [6951]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table provides details of the PFI and PPP transport projects valued at over £1 million in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and states whether the projects have completed their construction phase, or are under construction, and whether they have received Government funding.
  897W

  Government funding of PFI and PPP projects in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

  Name of Project

  Location

  Cost (£ million)

  Government funding?

  PFI transport projects in Northern Ireland (constructed) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  PFI transport projects in Northern Ireland (under construction) DVTA Vehicle Testing Project

  —

  11

  No (PFI)

  PPP transport projects in Northern Ireland (constructed) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  PPP transport projects in Northern Ireland (under construction) N/a

  —

  —

  —

  1 Local authority PFI attracting additional revenue support

  2 Although a concession, Government grant was payable to funding the construction of approach roads.

  Note:

  For the purposes of this table the cost of a project is deemed to be its capital value

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the total running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6801]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The total running costs for the buildings used, owned, or rented by DTLR, including the Government Office Estate, is £103.6 million per annum. We do not hold this figure at regional or national level.

  The average cost per square metre for properties across the Department is £292. The average figures for the nine English regions and Scotland and Wales are listed in the table.

  £

  Region

  Cost per m2

  East Midlands

  210

  East of England

  210

  Greater London

  470

  North East

  210

  North West

  125

  South East

  275

  South West

  305

  West Midlands

  270

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  160

  Scotland

  260

  Wales

  170

  1 This figure is distorted because DVLC Swansea is a freehold. No notional rent is included because this information is not available. The figure for Wales excluding the DVLC is £152 per square metre.

  Note:

  1. The information and analysis provided is for the DTLR's 135 key properties, i.e. those buildings over 350 m2 These properties account for 76 per cent. of the total running costs of the Estate, 95 per cent. of the staff and 74% of floor area of the total property portfolio.

  2. The costs are as provided by DTLR and its agencies under the headings: Rent, Rates, Service Charge, Utilities, All Maintenance, and Additional running costs.

  London Weighting
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the total value of London Weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6800]
  898W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions consists of a Central Department and 10 Executive Agencies. The Central Department and seven of the Agencies do not pay a London Weighting Allowance. Where this had been paid previously it has been consolidated into basic salaries. Three of the Agencies continue to pay a London Weighting allowance:Vehicle Inspectorate:£2,300.
  Driving Standards Agency has three rates: £736 for outer London areas, £1,015 for intermediate London areas and £1,776 for the Inner London Area.
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency also has three rates: £805 for outer London areas, £1,015 for intermediate London areas and £1,715 for the Inner London Area.

  Housing Debt
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list those local authorities which have applied to HM Treasury for moneys to pay off overhanging housing debt; and if he will list those local authorities which(a) have received such moneys since May 1997 and (b) will receive such moneys pending residents' voting in favour of housing stock transfers; [7739]

  (2) if he will list the criteria used to determine the order of preference in which local authorities which have applied to HM Treasury for moneys to pay off overhanging housing debt receive such moneys. [7747]

  Ms Keeble
  A stock transfer proposal from a local authority with overhanging housing debt is required to meet the same criteria as other applicant authorities in order to obtain a place on the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) Programme and, if tenants support the proposal, the Secretary of State's consent to transfer. The receipt from the transfer must be sufficient to meet the premium payable to the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) for early repayment of the authority's PWLB debt.

  To date, four one-off payments have been made by the Exchequer to meet overhanging housing debt. In 1999–2000 a payment was made to Burnley borough council. In 2000–01 payments were made to Coventry city council, Calderdale borough council and Blackburn with Darwen borough council.
  899W
  Six local authorities on the 2001–02 transfer programme (Bradford city council, Carlisle city council, Dudley metropolitan borough council, Knowsley metropolitan borough council, St. Helens metropolitan borough council and Walsall metropolitan borough council) will potentially require a one-off payment to meet their overhanging housing debt. I have held open a place on the 2001–02 Programme for Birmingham city council, subject to agreeing its stock valuation. If Birmingham is accepted onto the programme, it too will require a one-off payment from the Department.

  To date, all proposals meeting the Secretary of State's criteria and gaining the support of a majority of tenants have been granted consent to transfer. It has not been necessary to prioritise transfer applications.

  Second Home Owners
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the total revenue which would be raised by local authorities as a result of a change in law requiring second home owners to pay the full council tax at current levels, broken down by local authority area [6362]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Second home owners are presently entitled to a 50 per cent. council tax discount. If all had been required to pay the full council tax in 2001–02, we estimate that an additional amount of approximately £80 million would have been raised. Accurate figures for individual local authority areas are not available.

  In the Rural White Paper, we said that we would consult on giving local authorities discretion to remove or reduce the 50 per cent. council tax discount for second home owners. We will also consult on giving local authorities discretion to remove or reduce the 50 per cent. discount for long-term empty properties.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoner Deaths
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners(a) committed suicide, and (b) died in custody in 2000–01. [4843]

  Expenditure on education 1991–92 to 2000–01

  Year

  Actual spend (£)

  At 2000–01 prices (£)

  Percentage change

  1Average population

  1Average cost per head at 2000–01 prices (£)

  1991–92

  29,372,748

  36,951,501

  —

  45,162

  818

  1992–93

  31,227,172

  38,042,946

  2.95

  43,705

  870

  1993–94

  31,089,033

  36,896,112

  -3.01

  45,106

  818

  1994–95

  36,756,960

  43,017,262

  16.59

  47,784

  900

  1995–96

  36,956,087

  42,041,895

  -2.27

  49,574

  848

  1996–97

  34,507,378

  38,032,622

  -9.54

  54,359

  700

  1997–98

  36,174,320

  38,770,385

  1.94

  60,739

  638

  1998–99

  39,049,875

  40,690,517

  4.95

  60,751

  670

  1999–200022

  47,445,945

  48,338,269

  18.79

  59,857

  808

  2000–012

  50,890,134

  50,890,134

  5.28

  59,044

  862

  1 Excluding privately operated prisons

  2 Due to changes in the recording of expenditure the figures are not all on a like for like basis. Those for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 are net of recoverable VAT, where applicable. Whereas those for previous years and those for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are gross expenditure with no reduction for VAT refunds.

  900W
  Beverley Hughes
  The figures requested are given in the table:

  Table showing the number of deaths that occurred in prison establishments in England and Wales for the financial year 2000–01

  Financial Year

  Self inflicted deaths1

  Natural causes deaths

  Homicides

  2000–01

  76

  60

  2

  1 The term "self-inflicted deaths" includes not only those deaths which resulted in a verdict of "suicide" at the Coroner's Inquest, but also those deaths where it appears that the person's own actions caused his/her death. Such deaths might result in a verdict of "open" or "misadventure" at the Inquest if, for example, there was doubt about the person's intent to take his/her life.

  Comparable figures for 1999–2000 were 91 self-inflicted deaths, 54 natural causes and one homicide.

  The Prison Service undertook a review of suicide prevention procedures last year and subsequently announced a new proactive strategy to reduce suicides in Prison. The strategy is overseen by a Working Group which I chair.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total expenditure was on education in prisons in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; what was the real terms change in each year; what was the total amount per prisoner based on average prison population figures in each year; and if he will make a statement. [5117]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]The information in the table is available for certain identifiable areas of education expenditure, covering payments to education and library service providers and purchase of education materials. It does not include the private sector managed prisons. The cost per prisoner calculation excludes the average population figures for those prisons.

  It should be noted that due to changes in the way expenditure has been recorded the figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 include VAT payments, where applicable, but do not include refunds to prisons of any recoverable VAT, details of which are not readily available, whereas the figures for the preceding three years do include such refunds.

  Prisoners' Conditions
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time out of cell was for prisoners in 2000–01. [4846]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average weekday time out of cell for prisoners during the year 2000–01 was 10 hours.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of(a) the adequacy and (b) the equal availability of education and training facilities for inmates in Her Majesty's prisons. [6204]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government have put additional resources into education and training in prisons. Direct expenditure on education and library provision alone currently stands at over £55 million for all prisoners including juveniles, and is set to increase to around £70 million by 2003–04. The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit, based at the Department for Education and Skills, has been established to advise on how to fulfil the Government's policy to bring about dramatic improvements in the quality and quantity of prison education and training. It will be looking, among other things, at how to ensure equality of access to high-quality provision across the prison estate.

  Asylum Detainees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are being held in detention in England and Wales pending the hearing of their asylum appeal; and if he will make a statement. [2525]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information on the number of asylum seekers detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 June 2001. As of that date, 1,205 males and 30 females (to the nearest five) were being held in detention in England and Wales under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having claimed asylum at some point. These figures include persons held in immigration detention centres and Prison Service establishments, some of whom are detained under dual immigration and other powers, and exclude the Oakington reception centre, for which gender information is not available.

  Information on which of these are pending the hearing of their asylum appeal is not available and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum applications sent to Oakington reception centre who have a negative initial decision, have had that decision overturned on appeal; and if he will make a statement. [1510]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]On the basis of provisional Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) data up to 23 September, 5 per cent. of all those applicants sent to Oakington reception centre, who have had an appeal determined, have had their initial decision overturned by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Department for International Development on policies to support the rural economy in Kosovo to help reduce the pressure of economic migration to(a) the UK and (b) other countries in the European Union. [5283]

  Angela Eagle
  Our Departments have engaged in extensive discussion on all aspects of the Kosovo crisis. In 1999–2000 the United Kingdom committed £110 million to humanitarian assistance, including support to Kosovan refugees in neighbouring countries. In January 2000 it was agreed the UK would commit a further £5 million a year to a longer-term programme of technical assistance, including mine clearance and improvements to community infrastructure. We also participate in the work of the European Commission, which focuses on helping to restart the rural community, including by providing agricultural inputs and audits for farmers and other rural workers.

  The aim of the Government's engagement in the Balkans is to promote peace and stability and alleviate poverty in the region. Providing stability and economic opportunities for the people of Kosovo is an essential pre-requisite to reducing emigration pressures.

  Cleansing Tablets (Prisons)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the evaluation of the pilot project into the provision of cleansing tablets in prisons to reduce transmission of HIV and hepatitis viruses will be made available; [5529]

  (2) when the pilot project on the provision of cleansing tablets in prisons to reduce transmission of HIV and hepatitis viruses will be expanded throughout the country. [5527]

  Beverley Hughes
  The pilot project run by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has finished. The Prison Service is about to report on the findings and I shall write to my hon. Friend when I have considered the recommendations.

  Condoms
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will list the prisons in England and Wales that distributed condoms to inmates in the last year for which figures are available. [5526]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not currently collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were recruited in the Thames Valley force; and how many special constables left the force, in each year from 1996 to 2000. [5759]

  Mr. Denham
  The recruitment and wastage figures for Thames Valley Special Constabulary for the period 30 September 1996 to 30 September 2000 are set out in the tables.
  903W

  Year

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  1996

  185

  168

  1997

  173

  220

  1998

  74

  122

  1999

  65

  101

  2000

  46

  114

  Source:

  Statistics provided by Research. Development and Statistics Department

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and we are looking carefully at radical improvements in their management, welfare and deployment as part of the police reform process.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what roles are performed by special constables in the West Midlands Police Force. [7087]

  Title

  (a) Value £ (exc. VAT)

  (b) Name of successful contractor

  (c) Benefited from refinancing?

  (d) Value of benefit accrued to company aconcerned

  (e) Extent of clawback

  IT2000 (Sirius)

  360 million

  ICL Alcedo Ltd. (Prime Contractor ICL UK Ltd.—key sub-contractors: Price WaterhouseCoopers, Global

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Crossing

  Criminal Record Bureau

  400 million

  Capita

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Passport Application Support System—Front End

  100 million

  Siemens Business Services

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Passport Application Support System—Back End

  300 million

  Security Printing and Systems Ltd.

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Medway Secure Training Centre (STC)

  48.5 million

  Rebound ECD Ltd. (Group 4 and Tarmac (now Carilion))

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Rainsbrook STC

  43.6 million

  Rebound ECD Ltd.

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Hassockfield STC

  48.2 million

  Medomsley Training Services Ltd. (Premier Prison Services and Kvaerner Construction)

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Airwave

  2.5 billion

  BT

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Quantum—Prison Service IT and telecommunication services

  200 million

  EDS

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  HMYOI Ashfield

  121 million

  Pucklechurch Custodial Services Ltd.

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  HMP Forest Bank

  197 million

  Agecroft Prison Management Ltd.

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  HMP Rye Hill

  154 million

  Onley Prison Services Ltd.

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  HMP Dovergate

  240 million

  Moreton Prison Services Ltd.

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  Heat Energy Services at:

  7 million

  Energy Services (UK) Ltd.

  No

  n/a

  n/a

  HMP Blundeston

  7 million

  HMP Camp Hill

  6 million

  HMP Chelmsford

  10 million

  HMP Dartmoor

  8 million

  HMYOI Deerbolt

  6 million

  HMP Lewes

  8 million

  HMP Parkhurst

  2 million

  HMP Usk/Prescoed

  —

  Total

  4,766.3 million

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the economic penalties imposed on private sector firms in each of the last five years for failures to deliver in relation to key performance indicators in projects involving the Private Finance Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [5733]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]Information on the detailed operation of individual contracts is not held centrally and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many life sentence prisoners
  904W
  Mr. Denham
  Special constables perform a variety of duties in the West Midlands Police Force. These include high-visibility foot patrol, supporting regular officers at public events, crime prevention initiatives and traffic-related duties. Specials also perform driving duties, following up inquiries and attending to non-urgent call-outs.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the PFI contracts entered into since 1997, indicating(a) the value of the PFI, (b) the name of the successful contractor, (c) those PFIs which have benefited from refinancing arrangements, (d) the value of the benefit accrued to the company concerned and (e) the extent of the clawback. [4532]

  Mr. Blunkett
  From the best information available, I list the details requested.

  are being held in prisons in England (a) whose last place of residence before sentence was in Wales or (b) who have requested a transfer to prison in Wales; [5200]

  (2) are being held in prisons in Wales (a) whose last place of residence before sentence was in England and (b) who have requested a transfer to prison in England; [5201]

  (3) how many life sentence prisoners are (a) held in prisons in England who were sentenced in Wales and (b) held in prisons in Wales who were sentenced in England; [5199]

  (4) how many life sentence prisoners are held in prisons in (a) England and (b) Wales. [5198]

  905W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]Provisional information shows that on 31 August 2001 there were 30 life sentence prisoners in prisons in Wales, and 4,925 in prisons in England. Of the 30 in prisons in Wales, provisional information shows that 21 were committed at courts in England, and of those in prisons in England 193 were committed in courts in Wales.

  There are no data held centrally of the last place of residence for a prisoner before they were sent to prison in England and Wales. Offenders tend to be sentenced in a court nearest to their place of residence so the numbers give an approximation of whether the last place of residence was in England or Wales. Data on requests for transfers are not held centrally by the Prison Service.

  Animal Experiments
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to modify the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 following developments in genetic modification; [2559]

  (2) what guidance has been issued on the assessment of applications to produce animals by nuclear transfer cloning under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [2561]

  (3) what plans the Government have to consult on the banning of genetic modification of non-human primates. [2560]

  Angxela Eagle
  We have no current plans to modify the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 following developments in genetic modification. The Act provides that all use of the animals covered by its licensing controls must be justified, and that consequent animal suffering should be minimised. The terms of the Act are sufficiently broad and flexible to take account of scientific developments, without compromising the protection it affords to the animals concerned.

  No specific guidance has been issued on the assessment of applications under the 1986 Act to produce animals by nuclear transfer cloning, though general guidance to applicants applies as much to this area of scientific research as to any other. All such applications are however considered at a central point within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. This ensures consistency of approach and identifies any cases that may need to be drawn to the attention of Ministers, who may seek further advice as required from the Animal Procedures Committee (APC), external assessors and others.

  We have no plans at present for consultation on the subject of genetic modification of non-human primates. No applications to conduct such work have so far been made under the 1986 Act—either to produce such animals in the United Kingdom or to use such animals imported from elsewhere. Any applications would be considered in the light of advice from the Inspectorate and the APC.

  HMP Swansea
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of and timetable for the planned programme of capital works are at HMP 906W
  Swansea; when it will be completed; and what plans exist to bring the remainder of the prison buildings back into prison service use. [5202]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]The only capital project currently under way at Her Majesty's Prison Swansea is the replacement of the central heating boilers. The expected cost of this project is £1,040,000 and it is expected to be completed in November 2001. This work has not involved loss of accommodation.

  Capital works in A Wing to remove asbestos, renew the heating system and install in-cell electricity at a total cost of £520,000 have been completed during September 2001 and the accommodation is being brought back into use in a phased programme to be completed by mid-October.

  Twenty-five work places in Workshop 3 have been temporarily closed for a six-week period for essential electrical maintenance.

  Most of B Wing remains out of use. There are no plans to return this accommodation to use. B Wing is a listed building and, as a result of the conditions required by CADW/Welsh Historic Monuments, the cost of the works needed to bring it up to current standards, including in-cell sanitation, mean it is not viable to restore it.

  A capital project to the value of £147,000 has been authorised in the health care centre to provide improved cells and a lift for disabled prisoners. The contract for this work has not yet been let and there is therefore no definite timetable for it. It will not involve taking prisoner accommodation out of use.
  It is also expected that various roofing repairs will take place at Swansea in the current financial year. The details have not yet been finalised. This is also not expected to involve the loss of accommodation.

  Private Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions private prison operators have been(a) fined and (b) had payments withheld for breaking contract conditions; if he will provide details of each default notice issued, indicating the dates and amounts concerned; and if he will make a statement. [5106]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]The contractors running privately managed prisons are financially penalised in the form of deductions from the fee payable to them by the Prison Service. There have been 36 occasions on which deductions have been made; these are listed in the tables for each of the five prisons which have incurred deductions, together with the amounts, reasons and dates. The five remaining privately managed prisons have not incurred deductions: Ashfield, Doncaster, Dovegate, Forest Bank and Rye Hill prisons. Buckley Hall prison transferred to Prison Service management on 26 June 2000; a fine of £526 was deducted in February 1997 for performance points while under private management.
  907W

  Number of occasions

  Penalty: £

  Reasons: PP = performance points

  Dates

  HMP Altcourse

  1

  2,368.50

  PP's for Qtr 2

  September 1998

  2

  195,000

  PP's and Doubling Qtrs 2,3 and 4

  November 1998

  3

  4,144.97

  PP's for Qtr 3

  December 1998

  4

  3,954.04

  PP's for Qtr 4

  March 1999

  5

  3,511.23

  PP's for Qtr 1

  June 1999

  6

  3,304.27

  PP's for Qtr 2

  September 1999

  7

  440.40

  PP's for Qtr 3

  December 1999

  8

  108,039.25

  PP's for Qtr 4

  February 2000

  9

  4.82

  PP's for Qtr 4

  March 2000

  10

  34,061.74

  PP's for Qtr 1

  May 2000

  11

  9.77

  PP's for Qtr 1

  June 2000

  HMP Blakehurst

  1

  25,000

  Escape

  November 1998

  HMP Lowdham Grange

  1

  702.00

  PP's for Qtr 1

  June 1998

  2

  45,080.00

  PP's for Qtr 2

  August 1998

  3

  31,231.00

  PP's for Qtr 3

  November 1998

  4

  6,334.00

  PP's for Qtr 4

  February 1999

  5

  11,865.00

  PP's for Qtr 4

  February 2000

  6

  5,703.00

  PP's for Qtr 1

  May 2001

  HMP Parc

  1

  54,782

  Performance points

  March 1998

  2

  1,308.56

  PP's for Qtr 1

  July 1998

  3

  298.09

  Doubling

  June 1998

  4

  750,000.00

  PP's for Qtr 3 + doubling

  November 1998

  5

  7,520.17

  PP's for Qtr 1 doubling

  May 1999

  6

  80,390.38

  Doubling Qtr 2

  August 1999

  7

  2,296.94

  Doubling Qtr 2

  September 1999

  8

  109,329.27

  Doubling Qtr 3

  November 1999

  9

  601.77

  Doubling Qtr 4

  January 2000

  10

  7,708.10

  PP's for Qtr 1

  April 2000

  11

  5,401.68

  PP's for Qtr 2

  July 2000

  12

  3,448.07

  PP's for Qtr 3

  October 2000

  13

  59.22

  PP's for Qtr 4

  January 2001

  HMP Wolds

  1

  3,607.50

  PP's Qtr 3

  October 1999

  2

  10,432.50

  PP's Qtr 4

  January 2000

  3

  15,353.00

  PP's Qtr 2

  July 2000

  4

  9,782.50

  PP's Qtr 3

  October 2000

  5

  4,680.00

  PP's Qtr 4

  January 2000

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the basis is on which financial penalties imposed on contractors of privately managed prisons are calculated; and if he will make a statement. [5105]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]There are three ways in which contractors can incur financial penalties. The contracts for privately managed prisons require the contractor to operate to a range of standards measuring the performance of the prison. Failure to reach any of these standards results in the accumulation of penalty points; the number of points incurred depends on the seriousness of the failure. If these accumulated penalty points exceed a specified threshold, financial penalties are imposed by means of deductions from the fee payable to the contractor. There is an upper limit to the level of financial penalties that can be imposed. In some contracts an escape attracts a fixed fine.

  Additionally contractors can be penalised for unauthorised overcrowding, if the contractor holds more than a specified number of prisoners in a cell, and for
  908W
  unavailable places, the criteria for which include levels of security, control of prisoners and physical requirements such as lighting and heating.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former Home Office officials and Prison Service staff have taken paid employment with private companies involved in the operation, management and building of private prisons in each of the last 10 years; how many of those employees were formerly responsible for overseeing, managing and inspecting contracts for private prisons; and if he will make a statement. [5103]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]There is no contractual requirement for companies to record the information requested. Such information as has been recorded could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  National Address Database
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government are making
  909W
  to create a single national address database; what the expected timescale is for the implementation of this project; and what its purpose is. [4942]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]There are no current plans to establish such a database.

  Police (Child Protection)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what key performance indicators have been set by or for the police in respect of child protection. [5410]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently no specific best value performance indicators set for the police in respect of child protection. It is open to police authorities to set local performance indicators, in addition to those set centrally, if they wish.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rates of sickness absence in the Prison Service were in each of the last four years. [5503]

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  National cost per prisoner (£ cash)

  18,696

  20,502

  21,932

  23,292

  Southern area (£ cash)

  20,612

  20,091

  21,204

  21,915

  Southern area as a percentage of 1997 expenditure

  6.6

  6.9

  7.3

  7.5

  IoW prisons (£ cash)

  21,520

  21,355

  21,872

  21,886

  IoW prisons as a percentage of 1997 expenditure

  2.3

  2.4

  2.5

  2.5

  Southern area data have been derived by summing the 10 establishments in the Prison Service area Thames Valley and Hampshire. The prisons on the Isle of Wight are Albany, Camp Hill and Parkhurst. The national cost per prisoner does not include headquarters overheads and is therefore not comparable to the Prison Service cost per prisoner key performance indicator. Data on expenditure, population and other key performance indicators are published in the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the capital budget was of HM Prison Service(a) nationally, (b) in the southern area and (c) for Isle of Wight prisons, for each year since 1997 (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of 1997 budgets. [7182]

  Gross capital expenditure (£000)

  Prison Service

  Thames Valley, Hampshire and IOW

  Albany

  Camp Hill

  Parkhurst

  1997–98 spend

  284,056

  1,646

  196

  183

  82

  1998–99 spend

  218,894

  1,688

  63

  105

  186

  1998–99 at 1997–98 prices

  212,942

  1,642

  61

  102

  181

  1998–99 at 1997–98 prices as % of 1997–98

  75

  100

  31

  56

  221

  1999–2000 spend

  165,525

  2,029

  193

  165

  169

  1999–2000 at 1997–98 prices

  157,083

  1,196

  184

  156

  160

  910W
  Beverley Hughes
  The annual sickness absence rates per member of staff since January 1999 are shown in the table. Sickness absence data prior to January 1999 are not available.

  Working days lost

  Annualised rate of sickness absence

  1999

  537,269

  12.56

  2000

  588,078

  13.43

  20011

  407,611

  13.93

  1 January to August

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the revenue expenditure was per prisoner of the Prison Service(a) nationally, (b) in the southern area and (c) for Isle of Wight prisons for each year since 1997, expressed (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of 1997 expenditure. [7183]

  Beverley Hughes
  The cost per prisoner of the Prison Service(a) nationally, (b) in the southern area and (c) for the Isle of Wight (IoW) for each year since 1997 expressed in (i) cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of 1997 expenditure is set out in the table.

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows actual expenditure on capital for the years 1997–98 to 2000–01 for the Prison Service, for the Thames Valley, Hampshire and Isle of Wight area and for the three Isle of Wight prisons: Albany, Camp Hill and Parkhurst. For comparison purposes the figures have been converted to 1997–98 prices.

  The Isle of Wight prisons fall within the Thames Valley, Hampshire and Isle of Wight area. This area has been in existence only since April 2000 when the area structure of the Prison Service was revised to bring it into line with other criminal justice agencies. The area figures for earlier years have been adjusted so that they cover the same group of prisons. The figures for the Thames Valley, Hampshire and Isle of Wight area and for the three Isle of Wight prisons cover only capital spend incurred locally; they do not include any major capital projects which would have been funded centrally by Construction Unit in Prison Service headquarters.
  911W

  Gross capital expenditure (£000)

  Prison Service

  Thames Valley, Hampshire and IOW

  Albany

  Camp Hill

  Parkhurst

  1999–2000 at 1997–98 prices as % of 1997–98

  55

  117

  94

  85

  196

  2000–01

  147,652

  642

  96

  103

  38

  2000–01 at 1997–98 prices

  137,711

  599

  90

  96

  35

  2000–01 at 1997–98 prices as % of 1997–98

  48

  36

  46

  53

  43

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the management of the Prison Service facilities for juveniles and young adults. [6376]

  Beverley Hughes
  From April 2000, the Youth Justice Board took responsibility for commissioning and purchasing all secure accommodation including Prison Service accommodation for children and young persons sentenced to custody.

  The creation of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales sees for the first time a single organisation with oversight and responsibility for the care and well-being of 10 to 17-year-old offenders. The board's purpose is to monitor the operation of the youth justice system, to identify and promote good practice and to advise the Home Secretary how to deliver the statutory aim of preventing offending by children and young people. The board is also responsible for commissioning services for young offenders in secure facilities.

  In response to these changes the Prison Service has created a new distinct estate for 15 to 17-year-old boys, comprising both designated juvenile units in young offender institutions. For the first time, the vast majority of under-18s are held in dedicated under-18 establishments, or in dedicated under-18 living units within other establishments.

  As part of the Juvenile Estate three special units have been opened at Castington, Huntercombe and Hollesley Bay offering enhanced regimes for the more vulnerable boys who have been convicted of serious offences and have been given longer sentences under section 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (formerly section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).

  Improvements are being made to the quality of accommodation, the level of care and to regime standards. The new regimes are underpinned by a Prison Service Order (PSO 4950), which defines the principles upon which governors must build and operate regimes.

  From 1 April 2001, a new Operational Manager (Assistant Director, Juveniles) has taken direct responsibility within the Prison Service for the operational management of four establishments holding juveniles (Ashfield, Huntercombe, Werrington and Wetherby) and for the regimes and performance of the juvenile side of young offender institutions holding both juveniles and young offenders.

  There is a manifesto commitment to build on the Government's youth justice reforms to improve the standard of custodial accommodation and offending programmes for 18 to 20-year-olds. I am currently considering with others what is needed for young adult offenders and how best to deliver it.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed on governor grades as a percentage of the total number of prison officers in each prison. [5504]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of staff employed on governor grades as a percentage of the total number of prison officers in each prison is shown in the table.

  Senior operational managers (previously governor grades) as a percentage of prison officer grades as at 31 August 2001

  Establishment

  Senior operational managers

  Officer grades

  Percentage

  Acklington

  8

  209

  3.83

  Albany

  7

  143

  4.90

  Ashwell

  5

  101

  4.95

  Askham Grange

  3

  28

  10.71

  Aylesbury

  11

  175

  6.29

  Bedford

  5

  151

  3.31

  Belmarsh

  12

  520

  2.31

  Birmingham

  10

  305

  3.28

  Blakenhurst

  8

  152

  5.26

  Blantyre House

  2

  35

  5.71

  Blundeston

  5

  158

  3.16

  Brinsford

  9

  214

  4.21

  Bristol

  9

  297

  3.03

  Brixton

  8

  269

  2.97

  Brockhill

  4

  89

  4.49

  Buckley Hall

  4

  105

  3.81

  Bullingdon

  10

  249

  4.02

  Bullwood Hall

  5

  73

  6.85

  Camp Hill

  6

  148

  4.05

  Canterbury

  4

  119

  3.36

  Cardiff

  9

  228

  3.95

  Castington

  7

  209

  3.35

  Channings Wood

  8

  148

  5.41

  Chelmsford

  7

  202

  3.47

  Coldingly

  4

  93

  4.30

  Cookham Wood

  3

  53

  5.66

  Dartmoor

  10

  232

  4.31

  Deerbolt

  6

  143

  4.20

  Dorchester

  5

  83

  6.02

  Dover

  5

  113

  4.42

  Downview

  5

  113

  4.42

  Drake Hall

  4

  65

  6.15

  Durham

  13

  419

  3.10

  East Sutton Park

  2

  25

  8.00

  Eastwood Park

  4

  111

  3.60

  Elmley

  8

  271

  2.95

  Erlestoke

  5

  99

  5.05

  Everthorpe

  5

  125

  4.00

  Exeter

  7

  179

  3.91

  Featherstone

  7

  144

  4.86

  Feltham

  15

  370

  4.05

  Ford

  4

  59

  6.78

  Foston Hall

  5

  76

  6.58

  Frankland

  13

  483

  2.69

  Full Sutton

  15

  480

  3.13

  Garth

  10

  247

  4.05

  913W

  Senior operational managers (previously governor grades) as a percentage of prison officer grades as at 31 August 2001

  Establishment

  Senior operational managers

  Officer grades

  Percentage

  Gartree

  8

  147

  5.44

  Glen Parva

  12

  275

  4.36

  Gloucester

  5

  121

  4.13

  Grendon

  8

  173

  4.62

  Guys Marsh

  5

  123

  4.07

  Haslar

  3

  45

  6.67

  Hatfield

  4

  40

  10.00

  Haverigg

  6

  130

  4.62

  Hewell Grange

  4

  30

  13.33

  Highdown

  10

  280

  3.57

  Highpoint

  9

  147

  6.12

  Highpoint North

  4

  85

  4.71

  Hindley

  11

  221

  4.98

  Hollesley Bay

  7

  152

  4.61

  Holloway

  11

  271

  4.06

  Holme House

  9

  301

  2.99

  Hull

  9

  244

  3.69

  Huntercombe

  5

  153

  3.27

  Kingston

  4

  74

  5.41

  Kirkham

  6

  84

  7.14

  Kirklevington

  3

  37

  8.11

  Lancaster

  4

  89

  4.49

  Lancaster Farms

  8

  198

  4.04

  Latchmere House

  3

  38

  7.89

  Leeds

  10

  416

  2.40

  Leicester

  6

  144

  4.17

  Lewes

  6

  179

  3.35

  Leyhill

  7

  65

  10.77

  Lincoln

  5

  225

  2.22

  Lindholme

  9

  175

  5.14

  Littlehey

  6

  161

  3.73

  Liverpool

  9

  541

  1.66

  Long Lartin

  13

  396

  3.28

  Low Newton

  6

  121

  4.96

  Maidstone

  9

  185

  4.86

  Manchester

  16

  462

  3.46

  Moorland

  6

  273

  2.20

  Morton Hall

  3

  68

  4.41

  New Hall

  6

  141

  4.26

  North Sea Camp

  4

  35

  11.43

  Northallerton

  5

  79

  6.33

  Norwich

  9

  234

  3.85

  Nottingham

  9

  177

  5.08

  Onley

  9

  230

  3.91

  Parkhurst

  9

  198

  4.55

  Pentonville

  13

  368

  3.53

  Portland

  8

  180

  4.44

  Preston

  8

  258

  3.10

  Ranby

  6

  216

  2.78

  Reading

  4

  123

  3.25

  Risley

  9

  269

  3.35

  Rochester

  7

  159

  4.40

  Send

  5

  71

  7.04

  Shepton Mallet

  4

  64

  6.25

  Shrewsbury

  4

  114

  3.51

  Stafford

  6

  179

  3.35

  Standford Hill

  6

  81

  7.41

  Stocken

  5

  144

  3.47

  Stoke Heath

  9

  225

  4.00

  Styal

  8

  169

  4.73

  Sudbury

  6

  62

  9.68

  Swaleside

  9

  241

  3.73

  Swansea

  5

  127

  3.94

  Swinfen Hall

  4

  130

  3.08

  The Mount

  6

  153

  3.92

  The Verne

  7

  124

  5.65

  Thorn Cross

  6

  116

  5.17

  Usk/Prescoed

  3

  88

  3.41

  Wakefield

  16

  362

  4.42

  Wandsworth

  9

  404

  2.23

  914W

  Senior operational managers (previously governor grades) as a percentage of prison officer grades as at 31 August 2001

  Establishment

  Senior operational managers

  Officer grades

  Percentage

  Wayland

  6

  140

  4.29

  Wealstun

  7

  145

  4.83

  Weare

  5

  118

  4.24

  Wellingborough

  5

  154

  3.25

  Werrington

  4

  77

  5.19

  Wetherby

  6

  147

  4.08

  Whatton

  3

  72

  4.17

  Whitemoor

  l0

  479

  2.09

  Winchester

  6

  211

  2.84

  Woodhill

  10

  431

  2.32

  Wormwood Scrubs

  11

  340

  3.24

  Wymott

  11

  202

  5.45

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of violence to prison officers have been recorded(a) nationally, (b) in the southern area, and (c) in Isle of Wight prisons for each year since 1997, expressed (i) in total and (ii) per 1,000 officers. [7187]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Adjudications on incidents of violence against prison officers in England and Wales since 1997, broken down by year and area1 heard

  England

  Wales

  Southern area

  Isle of Wight

  1997

  2,184

  33

  505

  24

  1998

  2,345

  54

  573

  32

  1999

  2,295

  36

  552

  28

  2000

  2,346

  33

  601

  25

  20012

  1,965

  18

  509

  39

  Adjudications on incidents of violence against prison officers in England and Wales since 1997, broken down by year and area1 heard, per 1,000 officers3

  England

  Wales

  Southern area

  Isle of Wight

  1997

  121.7

  88.2

  151.3

  50.2

  1998

  128.8

  148.4

  170.6

  77.5

  1999

  124.1

  98.4

  161.4

  69.7

  2000

  126.0

  89.4

  175.2

  65.6

  20012

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Figures cannot be added to make area totals as prisoners appear in more than one category

  2 From 1 January to 30 September

  3 Figures do not include private prisons, and are for 31 March of each year

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional discretion in the conduct of their duties has been devolved to prison governors over the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [5505]
  915W
  Beverley Hughes
  We keep the balance between a prison governor's local autonomy and direction from headquarters under constant review. In the last four years, prison governors have been given additional discretion in the conduct of their duties in a number of areas including:in August 2000, contractual delegation under full competition increased to £25,000 for spot/annual contracts and to £75,000 where the strategy is for a three year period contract (lower levels of authority apply for single tender actions and on other sensitive procurements);
  central training requirements and giving governors discretion to decide which of their members of staff should attend particular courses;
  in February 2001, governors were given responsibility for approving applications for release on temporary licence for life sentence prisoners preparing for release in open and resettlement prisons. This is subject to an initial application being approved by Lifer Unit at Prison Service Headquarters.
  We expect governors to work autonomously to improve performance and maintain decent conditions for prisoners within the guidelines set down by the Prison Service Management Board.

  Prison Reprofiling
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons which have been reprofiled in the last four years; and what change there was in the number of jobs recommended in each reprofiling exercise. [5502]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information sought is not available centrally and could be acquired only at disproportionate cost.

  Police (Absence)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days off sick were taken by police officers in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [5788]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of days taken off sick by police officers are set out in the table.

  Years

  Days lost

  1996–97

  1,612,038

  1997–98

  1,597,000

  1998–99

  1,468,140

  1999–2000

  1,432,963

  2000–01

  1,516,147

  Source:

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

  We are currently considering, with stakeholders, how we can improve the fitness, the readiness and the availability of the police service as part of the police reform process.

  SO19 Specialist Firearms Unit
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the manpower available to the Metropolitan Police SO19 specialist firearms unit. [5784]
  916W
  Mr. Denham
  The allocation of resources within the Metropolitan Police Service is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As at 31 August, S019's actual strength was 335.

  Policing (Civilians)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to allow civilians to carry out policing and detection tasks. [5782]

  Mr. Denham
  Two key objectives of the police reform programme are to ensure modern working practices and the highest standards of detective capability. Civilians already carry out many tasks in support of policing and there is potential for them to do more. Issues about how the reform process might be used to develop the part civilians play within policing remain under discussion with representatives of the service.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to create a national register of drug dealers; and if he will make a statement. [6219]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We gave a manifesto commitment to create a register of drug dealers. We are currently considering the options for creating such a register, and consulting with the enforcement agencies on the practicalities.

  Essex Police
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving constables there were in the Essex police force(a) in 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available. [6226]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on police numbers is collected twice a year on 31 March and 30 September. The Essex police had 2,269 constables on 31 March 1997 and 2,234 constables on 31 March 2001.

  The Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) is providing Essex police with 197 CFF posts over the three-year period 2000–01 to 2002–03. Essex police plan to recruit 132 CFF posts this year. All these will be constables.

  Essex police employed 1,199 civilian staff in March 1997 and 1,447 in March 2001.

  Case Reviews
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines have been issued to police forces on the criteria used in determining cases to be reviewed because of new evidence becoming available, with particular reference to DNA proofing techniques; and if he will make a statement. [5564]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]There are no general guidelines issued to police forces on the criteria for determining which cases should be reviewed. Forces make decisions based on the circumstances of individual cases and the nature of the new evidence which has become available.
  917W
  The Forensic Science Service advises forces when new techniques emerge which may be relevant to unsolved cases. The Association of Chief Police Officers provides guidance to forces on reviewing unsolved murders where there is an issue of new evidence.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were sent to prison by courts in England and Wales during each of the last three years. [6371]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information, taken from the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database, is given in the table.

  Number of women sentenced to immediate custody, England and Wales 1997–99

  Number

  1997

  5,473

  1998

  6,567

  1999

  7,504

  Note:

  Immediate custody comprises unsuspended imprisonment, detention in a young offender institution, secure training orders and detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  Persons proceeded against for making off without payment (bilking)1 in England, Wales and Luton Petty Sessional Division 1995–1999

  Area

  Proceedings type

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  England

  Apprehension/Summons by the police

  1,491

  1,425

  1,493

  1,621

  1,832

  Summons other than by police

  17

  18

  13

  8

  6

  Total

  1,508

  1,443

  1,506

  1,629

  1,838

  Wales

  Apprehension/Summons by the police

  117

  88

  110

  140

  149

  Summons other than by police

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  117

  89

  111

  140

  149

  Luton Petty Sessional Area

  Apprehension/Summons by the police

  3

  4

  4

  3

  8

  Summons other than by police

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3

  4

  4

  3

  8

  1 Theft Act 1978, Section 3

  Source:

  Home Office Crime and Criminal Justice Unit

  Wide Loads (Police Escorts)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was to the Metropolitan police of escorting wide loads in each year since 1997. [6283]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the distances travelled by the police escorting wide loads and on the time spent by officers in escort duties is not collected centrally or by the Metropolitan police. It is not possible, therefore, to calculate the costs of this to the Metropolitan police. The available information relates only to the number of wide loads escorted. The figures are:

  Number

  1998

  1,267

  1999

  1,229

  2000

  924

  2001 (to 30 September)

  469

  Note:

  Figures are not available prior to 1998

  Bilking
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many petrol station bilking incidents in each of the last five years in which police were involved occurred in(a) England and (b) Luton; [6387]

  (2) how many petrol station bilking incidents where police were involved led to prosecutions in (a) England and (b) Luton; and in each of the last five years in what percentage of such incidents police attended; [6388]

  (3) if he will estimate the cost of police involvement in bilking at petrol stations in each of the past five years in (a) England and (b) Wales. [6385]

  Mr. Denham
  The statistics collected centrally do not include the circumstances of the offence so that offences of making off without payment (bilking) from petrol stations cannot be distinguished from similar offences at other premises.

  The number of such incidents, the percentage of such incidents being attended by the police and the estimated cost to the police are therefore not centrally available.

  The table provides information from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database and shows the total number of prosecutions for making off without payment (bilking) in England, Wales and in the Luton Petty Sessional Area.

  Feltham B Young Offenders Institution
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on conditions at Feltham B Young Offenders Institution. [6378]

  Beverley Hughes
  In a report published on 26 July, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, rightly criticised the poor regime at Feltham B and compared it to that for under 18-year-old prisoners at Feltham A, which had benefited from major investment to meet Youth Justice Board standards.

  Improvements to the regime on Feltham B are now a priority. Purposeful activity is currently over 23 hours per week. Two additional physical education instructors and one horticultural craftsman have been appointed, with further additional posts approved. The completion of a new education facility for under-18s means that the original facility is now exclusively available to Feltham B prisoners, providing up to 70 places a day. £500,000 is being invested from the Custody to Work programme to help the

  919W
  employability of young people on release, and £575,000 is being spent to convert existing buildings into a new gymnasium.

  Four bedded units have been reduced to two-person occupancy, and doubling in cells intended for one has ended. In-cell electricity has been installed in four units with a fifth under way.

  I am taking a close personal interest in developments at Feltham and I am determined to see that progress is maintained.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Chief Inspector of Prisons with regard to the management of Feltham B Young Offenders Institution; and if he will make a statement. [6379]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend met the former Chief Inspector of Prisons on 11 July although they did not specifically discuss Feltham B. I visited Feltham B with Sir David Ramsbotham on 16 July and subsequently discussed what I had seen there with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has given his full support to my determination, and that of the Director General, to implement fundamental improvements at Feltham.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many average hours of purposeful activity there were at Feltham B Young Offenders' Institute in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [6377]

  Beverley Hughes
  Figures for purposeful activity were not collected separately for Feltham A and Feltham B in previous years. The average figures for purposeful activity across the whole of Feltham young offender institution were 15.2 hours a week in 1999–2000 and 14.4 hours a week in 2000–01.

  Improving purposeful activity in Feltham B is a priority for the Prison Service. Separate figures are now kept, and purposeful activity in Feltham B has increased from 11.7 hours in April this year to over 23 hours a week.

  I am determined this improvement should be maintained.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 43W, on the home detention curfew scheme, if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the third rape committed by a prisoner while on home detention curfew. [6319]

  Beverley Hughes
  The person referred to in the right hon. Member's question has appeared before the courts and was acquitted.

  Stop and Search
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the effect on the level of police paperwork of the requirement to record all stops; and if he will make a statement; [6375]
  920W
  (2) when the requirement on the police to record the ethnicity of all suspects stopped by the police will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [6370]

  Mr. Denham
  Following extensive consultation with the police, communities and other key stakeholders, we have agreed in principle to accept recommendation 61 of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, which was that all police "stops" and "searches" should be recorded and a record given to the person stopped. We have asked the stop and search sub-group of the Lawrence Steering Group to draw up detailed implementation plans for this recommendation and to finalise the definition of a stop for recording purposes. We have particularly asked them to have regard to minimising the burden on police officers.

  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. [6380]

  Beverley Hughes
  The role of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, which is fixed by statute, is to:inspect or arrange the inspection of prisons in England and Wales and report to the Home Secretary;
  in particular report to the Home Secretary on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons;
  report to the Home Secretary on matters connected with the prisons in England and Wales and prisoners in them as the Home Secretary directs; and
  submit an annual report to the Home Secretary in a form which the Home Secretary determines to be laid before Parliament.

  Terms of reference have been completed as a public record of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' (and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation's) statutory remit, responsibilities and entitlements. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library.

  Ouseley Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of Sir Herman Ouseley's report on the impact of segregated schools on the riots in Bradford. [7120]

  Angela Eagle
  Lord Ouseley's report was commissioned and prepared for Bradford Vision, a partnership involving local government, police and other agencies.

  The ministerial group on Public Order and Community Cohesion delivered its first report to the Home Secretary on 8 October. The report covers progress on the measures put in hand immediately following my statement to the House on 10 July 2001, Official Report, column 663, and makes proposals for further measures to address the issues raised by the serious public order disturbances earlier this summer.

  The ministerial group expects to complete its work in December when it will submit a further report. That report will, among other things, take account of the independent Review Team, which I also established following the disorders in Bradford in July. Once the group has presented its final report and we have concluded our review I shall be making a statement.

  Prisoners (Meditation)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the benefits of meditation practices to prisoners. [8011]

  Beverley Hughes
  Meditation is one of a limited number of complementary therapies which Prison Service establishments were instructed in 1998 could be made available to individual prisoners on the recommendation of the prison doctor, strictly for health reasons. When drawing up the relevant instruction the Prison Service took advice from the Department of Health. The Prison Service has made no formal assessment of the benefits to prisoners of meditation practices since that instruction was issued.

  Congestion Charging
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use by police forces for unconnected purposes of information collected as part of congestion charging arrangements. [6023]

  Mr. Denham
  The disclosure of information by police forces is subject to compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The general position is that the police may use personal information in their possession as long as this is necessary for pursuing a legitimate policing purpose.

  An individual's details would not normally be disclosed for another purpose unless the consent of the individual is first obtained, or it was required for compliance with a legal obligation, or there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

  Firearms
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving the use of firearms have been recorded for each of the last five years where the offender was(a) under 10, (b) 10, (c) 11, (d) 12, (e) 13, (f) 14, (g) 15, (h) 16 and (i) 17 years. [7248]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the(a) sale, (b) possession and (c) use of air guns and rifles. [7246]

  Mr. Denham
  There are already laws which govern the circumstances in which air weapons can be sold, possessed or used. We believe that much can be done to tackle air weapon misuse through the enforcement of these laws and through public education on the safe and responsible handling of these firearms. We have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee to consider how best to take this forward and to consider whether there are any other measures which might usefully be taken to guard against misuse.

  GM Animals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason no data is collected in respect of(a) deaths occurring prior to birth during the production of genetically modified animals and (b) the stage of foetal development at which failures occur. [8002]
  922W
  Angela Eagle
  The production of genetically modified animals (as well as their use in experiments or other scientific procedures) is controlled under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The production and use of such animals allows new areas of medical and other scientific research to be explored; provides the potential for investigating a wide variety of conditions including cancer, cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis; and allows the quality of the science in many areas of research and testing to be improved.

  Table 3 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2000 (Cm 5244) provides comprehensive data on scientific procedures by species of animal, primary purpose (including breeding) and genetic status. Paragraph 12 of the Introductory Notes to the statistics explains that details of procedures on animals in foetal, larval or embryonic form are collected but not enumerated because it may be impracticable in some cases to count such procedures.

  Foetal deaths in the species that are commonly genetically modified are difficult or impossible to enumerate as a result of resorption of the foetal material and there may be no outward sign that this has happened. It may never have been established that the animal was pregnant, it will not have been known how many embryos were conceived, nor how many reached halfway through gestation. It would not therefore be feasible to collect the information in question. Embryonic forms do not become protected animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 until they are beyond halfway through gestation.

  Dr. Ali Dizaei
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on developments in the investigation of Dr. Ali Dizaei, including its costs. [7151]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the investigation is still active and on-going.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of illegal immigrants employed in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [7211]

  Angela Eagle
  No such estimate has been made in the last five years or previously of the numbers of those involved in illegal employment. The Home Office will shortly be commissioning research to obtain information about the size and characteristics of the illegal population.

  The Government are, however, determined to tackle the criminal gangs who are trading in human misery. Last year a multi-agency task force, chaired by the National Crime Squad, was created and is leading the United Kingdom's response to this problem.

  Digital Television (Prisons)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what expenditure has been
  923W
  (a) incurred to date and (b) budgeted for in (i) monthly and (ii) quarterly subscriptions for digital television in prisoners' cells; [7495]

  (2) what expenditure has been (a) incurred to date and (b) is projected during the next year on installation of in-cell digital TV services for convicted prisoners; [7497]

  (3) how many convicted prisoners have access to (a) ITV digital and (b) other digital TV services in their own cells. [7496]

  Beverley Hughes
  The policy of the Prison Service is that prisoners should have access only to the five analogue terrestrial television channels in their cells.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants have been dispersed to the borough of Trafford in each of the last five years. [7208]

  Angela Eagle
  Asylum seekers were not dispersed centrally before April 2000.

  Information recorded by National Asylum Support Service (NASS) shows that as at the end of July 2001, 501 asylum seekers, including dependants, were being supported in NASS accommodation in Trafford after dispersal.
  1Figure rounded to the nearest 10.

  Enforcements (Immigrants)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many enforcements were made on immigrants in each month from May; what the nationalities of those removed was; how many of those removed were asylum seekers; to which countries they were sent; on which airlines they were removed; and how many were removed by charter flights. [7683]

  Angela Eagle
  Enforcement action relates to the removal of people who have entered the United Kingdom, either legally or illegally. It does not include cases dealt with "on-entry".

  Information for the period requested is not available. The most recent information was published in the "Control of Immigration Bulletin, United Kingdom 2000" on 24 August 2001. This shows that 8,370 persons had been removed of whom 3,540 had sought asylum at some stage. This figure excludes dependants, but includes persons leaving under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme.

  More recent information shows that during the second quarter of 2001, 1,500 persons who had sought asylum at some stage either left the United Kingdom or were removed after enforcement action had been initiated. This figure includes dependants and persons leaving under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme. Corresponding information on non-asylum removals is not, at present, available for the period.

  I regret that information on the nationality, destination and flight details is not available.

  Asylum Voucher System
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his review of the operation of the asylum voucher system; and if he will make a statement. [7629]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Secretary intends to report on the reviews of the voucher and dispersal schemes when he announces his proposals about immigration and asylum policy later this month.

  Immigrant Detainees
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained under immigration rules at the end of(a) July, (b) August and (c) September; what the nationalities of those detained is; what the location of those detained is; and how many have been detained more than (i) two, (ii) three, (iii) four and (iv) five months. [7684]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 June 2001; the location, nationality and length of detention of persons detained as at this date is given in the tables. Of the total, 245 persons are being detained under dual Immigration and other powers.

  Location

  Immigration Act detainees as at 30 June 20011

  Armley

  10

  Belmarsh

  50

  Brixton

  15

  Campsfield House

  185

  Cardiff

  45

  Dover Harbour

  5

  Harmondsworth

  80

  Haslar

  155

  High Down

  45

  Holme House

  55

  Lindholme

  110

  Liverpool

  85

  Longport

  10

  Manchester Airport

  15

  Rochester

  180

  The Mount

  10

  The Verne

  l0

  Tinsley House

  125

  Wandsworth

  55

  Winchester

  45

  Wormwood Scrubs

  25

  Other prison establishments2

  180

  Oakington Reception Centre

  265

  Total

  1,760

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and exclude persons detained in police cells. Figures include 245 persons who are recorded as being detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  2 Other prison establishments with five or fewer detainees.

  Nationality

  Immigration Act detainees as at 30 June 20011

  Afghanistan

  25

  Albania

  80

  Algeria

  75

  Angola

  10

  Bangladesh

  50

  Cameroon

  20

  China, People's Republic of

  85

  Colombia

  15

  925W

  Nationality

  Immigration Act detainees as at 30 June 20011

  Czech Republic

  115

  Gambia

  10

  Ghana

  40

  India

  115

  Iran

  15

  Iraq

  30

  Ivory Coast

  15

  Jamaica

  110

  Kenya

  25

  Latvia

  10

  Lithuania

  30

  Moldova

  10

  Morocco

  15

  Nigeria

  85

  Pakistan

  140

  Poland

  35

  Romania

  40

  Russia

  15

  South Africa

  15

  Sri Lanka

  65

  Turkey

  35

  Uganda

  20

  Ukraine

  45

  Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of

  125

  Zimbabwe

  110

  Other nationalities2

  140

  Total

  1,760

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and exclude persons detained in police cells. Figures include 245 persons who are recorded as being detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  2 Other nationalities with five or fewer detainees.

  Length of detention1

  Immigration Act detainees as at 30 June 20012

  More than 2 months

  660

  of which, more than 3 months

  475

  of which, more than 4 months

  380

  of which, more than 5 months

  300

  1 Relates to current period of detention; where persons have been transferred to and subsequently from the Oakington Reception Centre, excludes time in detention prior to transfer from Oakington.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and exclude persons detained in police cells and the Oakington Reception Centre. Figures include 130 persons who are recorded as being detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review (1) the immigration status of Abu Hamza; and if he will make a statement; [7533]

  (2) the indefinite leave to remain status of Omar Bakri Mohammed granted in 1993; and if he will make a statement. [7532]

  Angela Eagle
  The police are well aware of the statements made by these individuals in recent weeks and are monitoring the situation and are considering whether any offences have been committed.

  Race Hate Legislation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce proposals to amend race hate laws to include an offence of incitement of race hatred outside the UK through statements made inside the UK; and if he will make a statement. [7529]
  926W
  Angela Eagle
  The Government intend to bring forward proposals to amend the law on incitement to racial hatred, as my hon. Friend suggests, to remove the existing limitation in the law which means that only hatred directed at a group of persons in Great Britain is covered by the offences.

  The Government have also announced their intention to propose this change as part of a package of measures to strengthen the incitement to racial hatred provisions contained in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 and in particular to extend those provisions to the incitement to religious hatred.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the efficiency and accountability of the National Asylum Support Service. [7416]

  Angela Eagle
  The efficiency of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) in delivering its operations is kept under review by its senior management who report to Ministers as necessary. The reviews of the voucher and dispersal schemes have also involved looking at the way NASS operates and whether this can be improved.

  As a part of the Home Office, NASS is accountable to Ministers for what it does. It also is open to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

  Police Force Boundaries
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of a police force based on local authority district boundaries. [6079]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no present plans for the alteration of police areas.

  Forces based on local authority districts would be unable economically to provide the full range of police services and the capacity to respond to major incidents.

  Unauthorised Encampments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the law on unauthorised encampments. [7149]

  Mr. Denham
  The police already have powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to direct travellers or other trespassers to leave land when the appropriate statutory requirements are met. These are discretionary powers and it is the operational responsibility of the chief officer of the force concerned to decide when and how to enforce these powers. The effectiveness of this legislation is kept under regular review.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review guidance to police forces about the enforcement of public order legislation on travellers' camps. [17156]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) provides operational guidance to police forces on
  927W
  powers to direct travellers or other trespassers to leave land when the appropriate statutory requirements are met. This guidance is kept under regular review.

  Research has been conducted to review the effectiveness of the current Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)/Home Office Good Practice Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping. I understand that the DTLR will be publishing a summary of the findings shortly, in the week commencing 29 October.

  Long Lartin Prison
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for further development at Long Lartin prison; and if he will make a statement. [6610]

  Beverley Hughes
  A major refurbishment of older prisoner accommodation at the prison will begin early next year. This programme of work is due for completion in late 2003. Long Lartin has recently been granted Department of Health funding to allow a small unit to be constructed within the prison to cater for the mental health needs of prisoners. Funding has also been provided to allow Long Lartin to designate a small number of cells in the segregation unit for monitoring and support of prisoners who have refused to co-operate with the Close Supervision Centre system for disruptive prisoners.

  Youth Justice Board Review 2000–01
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of publication and circulation of the Youth Justice Board Review 2000–01; and to whom the document was circulated. [6521]

  Beverley Hughes
  The publication costs of the Youth Justice Board's Annual Review 2000–01 were £26,785 with circulation costs of £4,856.28. Copies were distributed to youth offending teams; senior officers in social services, police, probation, education and health; magistrates and the courts; the juvenile secure estate, Members of Parliament and Ministers.

  Miscarriages of Justice (Compensation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent changes have been made to the method of calculation of compensation to be awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice; if he will place a document setting out the Independent Assessor's approach in the Library; what measures he will take to ensure that victims may benefit proportionately from these changes; and how many people are awaiting settlement of compensation claims. [7081]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In calculating the amount of compensation to be awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice, the independent assessor applies principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs. He must, therefore, give effect to any developments which may occur in the law and have regard to such judicial authority as there may be at the time of making an assessment. To that extent, the background against which he has to assess compensation 928W
  is changing all the time. There has recently been a change of assessor (Lord Daniel Brennan succeeded Sir David Calcutt with effect from 27 July) but that does not mean that there has been a change in how compensation is calculated because, whoever is the assessor, the same principles will be applied.

  The basis on which compensation is assessed is made clear in statute (section 133(4A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988); in the Home office "Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice—Note for Successful Applicants" (copies of which have already been placed in the Library); and in individual Assessments.

  As at 20 September 2001 there were 112 cases where a decision had been made to pay compensation but for a variety of reasons the claim had yet to be settled. These range from the many cases where successful applicants have yet to submit the details of their claims to the few where a final assessment has been made but not yet accepted.

  Strip Searches (Holloway)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what method the number of strip searches is recorded at HMP Holloway; how many searches carried out in(a) the last year and (b) each of the previous five years; and what items of (i) contraband and (ii) other confiscated items have been recorded in each year. [7080]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information on the number of searches is set out in the table. Prisoners are required to undergo strip searches in a number of circumstances, including whenever they pass through reception on their way into or out of prison establishments; prior to providing a sample of urine for a mandatory drugs test (MDT); and in connection with routine and targeted strip searches. A percentage of prisoners are strip searched before and after visits, and prisoners may also be strip searched at any time when it is believed that they may be concealing unauthorised articles. Prisoners in the Health Care Centre and Detox Units at Holloway prison may also be strip searched if staff believe they may be concealing articles which could be used to harm themselves or others.

  In my written answer on 3 July 2001, Official Report, column 99W, to my hon. Friend, I referred to the consideration being given to upgrading the prisoner database to provide statistical recording and monitoring of strip searches. That work is still continuing. In the meantime, the position at Holloway is that a register is maintained of strip searches associated with visits. A separate register is maintained of prisoners undergoing MDT. Cell searches are recorded on the appropriate form. However, while movement through reception will be recorded against the individual prisoner's record on the Local Inmate Database System, there is no requirement to record strip searches conducted in reception.

  It is not possible to identify the unauthorised articles for every find, but the principal finds at Holloway have been of drugs and tablets, tobacco, jewellery, telephone cards, cash, confectionery and unauthorised correspondence. In 1998 and 2000, there were also instances of weapons being discovered in searches prior to MDT.
  929W

  Number of strip searches undertaken

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Visits

  315

  425

  201

  121

  26

  Cell searches

  2—

  2—

  2—

  31,034

  505

  Segregation unit

  2—

  31,326

  31,200

  31,334

  3823

  MDT

  2—

  805

  740

  646

  458

  Reception

  318,000

  318,000

  318,000

  318,000

  318,000

  1to 29 September

  2not available

  3approximately

  South Africa
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people arrived from South Africa and took advantage of their eligibility to live in the United Kingdom in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [6636]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the total number of South Africans given leave to enter the United Kingdom is given in the table. The following categories are those which identify passengers who are eligible to remain in the United Kingdom for more than six months:United Kingdom ancestry and their dependants
  Work permit holders and their dependants
  Family reasons
  Accepted for settlement on arrival
  Other categories eligible for admission for more than six months
  Refugees, exceptional leave cases and their dependants

  Nationals of South Africa given leave to enter the United Kingdom by selected purpose of journey, 1999 and 2000

  1999

  2000

  Total admissions

  349,000

  415,000

  Of which:

  UK ancestry1

  2,540

  2,470

  Work permit holders and their dependants

  4,360

  5,360

  Family reasons

  1,820

  1,540

  Accepted for settlement on arrival2

  200

  110

  Other categories eligible for admission for more than six months3

  15,700

  11,700

  Refugees, exceptional leave cases and their dependants4

  10

  5—

  Categories given short-term admission up to six months and passengers returning after a temporary absence abroad

  325,000

  394,000

  1South African citizens with a United Kingdom born grandparent taking or seeking employment

  2Excludes asylum related cases given indefinite leave to enter

  3Excludes exceptional leave cases given leave to enter

  4Excluding such persons given temporary admission

  5Negligible 5 or fewer

  Note:

  Data rounded to three significant digits; because of this the sum of the constituent items may not agree with the total shown.
  930W

  Exclusion Orders
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of the individuals who are excluded from entering Britain because exclusion orders have been served on them, specifying in each case the date on which the order was served and the reason for which the order was served. [6560]

  Angela Eagle
  It is Home Office policy not to reveal any individual's immigration status to a third party. I am unable, therefore, to provide a list of named individuals who are currently excluded from the United Kingdom.

  The Home Secretary's personal power to exclude is used carefully to ensure the protection of public order, national security, and for purposes of foreign relations. In the year 2000 26 people were excluded. Since 1990 a total of 297 people have been excluded.

  Prison Education Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the rationale for the transfer of responsibility for purchasing and commissioning prison education services from governors; [7199]

  (2) who in the prison service will be responsible for commissioning and purchasing prison education services when that responsibility transfers from governors. [7198]

  Beverley Hughes
  Contracts for prison education services are due to run until 2004. Under these arrangements, prison governors retain the responsibility for commissioning and purchasing services. The prisoner Learning and Skills Unit based at the Department for Education and Skills will be reviewing mechanisms for funding, procurement and delivery of education and training. The outcomes of this review will determine where responsibility will lie after 2004.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) NVQs and (b) other nationally recognised qualifications have been achieved by prisoners in each year since 1997. [7202]

  Beverley Hughes
  Last year, over 60,000 certificates were awarded to prisoners for units of attainment leading to nationally recognised qualifications, including nearly 12,500 full qualifications at basic skills level 2. No reliable information is available on the achievement of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) specifically, or for qualifications achieved in the period before 2000. The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit located in the Department for Education and Skills will be implementing new procedures next year to capture this kind of information.

  Offending Behaviour Courses
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offending behaviour courses have been completed by prisoners(a) nationally, (b) in the southern area and (c) in Isle of Wight prisons, for each year since 1997, expressed (i) in total and (ii) per 1,000 prisoners. [7189]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total number of accredited offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) completed by prisoners (a) nationally, (b) in the south of England and (c) in Isle of Wight (IoW) prisons since 1997–1998, and per 1,000 prisoners are set out in the tables.

  Total accredited offending behaviour programmes (OBPs)

  Total OBPs

  Thames Valley and Hampshire

  IoW prisons

  1997–98

  2,240

  260

  201

  1998–99

  3,129

  333

  184

  1999–2000

  4,664

  503

  243

  2000–01

  5,986

  483

  266

  Total accredited offending behaviour programmes per 1,000 prisoners

  Total OBPs

  Thames Valley and Hampshire

  IoW prisons

  1997–98

  35.9

  68.4

  156.5

  1998–99

  48.0

  81.5

  140.3

  1999–2000

  71.6

  121.3

  180.7

  2000–01

  92.5

  118.7

  194.8

  South of England data have been derived by summing the ten establishments in the Prison Service area Thames Valley and Hampshire. The prisons on the Isle of Wight are HMP Albany, HMP Camp Hill and HMP Parkhurst.

  Data on accredited offending behaviour programmes and other key performance indicators are published in the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts 2000–2001 (HC29).

  Data are subject to rounding.

  Category C Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category C prisoners are held in category B establishments(a) nationally, (b) in the southern area and (c) in Isle of Wight prisons (i) in total and (ii) per 1,000 prisoners. [7200]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is contained in the table and was the position as at 9 October 2001.

  England and Wales

  Within the Southern Area

  On the Isle of Wight1

  part 1

  Number of category C

  Prisoners held in category B

  prisons2

  14,053

  1,117

  91

  Part 2

  Number of category C

  prisoners held in category B

  prisons per 1,000 prisoners

  held in category B prisons

  385

  335

  107

  932W

  1 For the purposes of this answer, the southern area is taken to be the Prison Service management area of Thames Valley, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

  2 Category B prisons include adult male local and adult male category B training prisons

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been conducted to identify the incidence of drug-induced psychosis among mentally ill prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [7201]

  Beverley Hughes
  We do not know of any research that has been conducted specifically to identify the incidence of drug-induced psychosis among mentally ill prisoners in England and Wales. Information about rates of psychosis in the prison population as a whole is contained in the report, "Psychiatric Morbidity Among Prisoners", published by the Office For National Statistics in 1998.

  Non-life-Sentenced prisoners
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to plan and monitor the prison career of non-life-sentenced prisoners. [7188]

  Beverley Hughes
  In 1992, the Prison Service introduced the current sentence planning arrangements for non-life-sentenced prisoners. Sentence plans are now prepared for all adult prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or more (with at least six months to serve post sentence) and all young offenders with at least one month to serve post sentence. Life sentenced prisoners have their own sentence planning system. Juveniles (under 18s) have equivalent training plans.

  The Prison Service sentence planning system is designed to co-ordinate the efforts of different individuals and agencies involved with the prisoner. It is used to help prepare prisoners for safe release and to make best use of the prisoner's time. It does this by encouraging them to address the reasons for their offending behaviour and by giving planned experience of work, training and education. Targets are set and progress reviewed at specified intervals. All prisoners involved in sentence planning are subject to a period of supervision under licence by the probation service after release.

  Short-sentence prisoners, not covered by sentence planning, are still subject to various assessments. All prisoners have a health care assessment on reception and then, during induction, staff will begin to assess prisoners for drug treatment needs, education and resettlement needs.
  933W
  A new system to assess prisoner risk and need, target interventions and plan for prisoners' release is currently being piloted.

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will(a) list those organisations which he regards as terrorist and (b) make a statement on the strategies he proposes to deploy to counter their threat. [7425]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which came into force on 19 February 2001, lists those organisations which are proscribed through being concerned in terrorism. The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which came into force on 29 March, added 21 organisations to the 14 already in Schedule 2. Copies of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001 are available in the Library.

  The Terrorism Act 2000 provides a new legal framework, responding to the continuing need for specific powers to combat the current and future threat from all kinds of terrorism. I announced on 3 October further details of the package of anti-terrorism measures which are under consideration as part of the Government's legislative response to terrorism. The bills that the Government will put before Parliament will focus on practical measures which will deter and disrupt the activities of terrorists in the United Kingdom, and build on our current tough framework of anti-terrorism legislation.

  Unaccompanied Luggage
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported cases of(a) unidentified, and (b) other unaccompanied luggage arriving at British airports there have been since 11 September; which airports have received such luggage; which airlines have transported the luggage; what action the Minister plans to take against airlines which allow such practice to continue; and if he will make a statement. [7432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not require any records to be kept of unidentified or unaccompanied baggage arriving in the UK. Any such baggage which is leaving the UK for a flight to any other destination will be screened to a higher standard before being loaded for flight under existing security requirements.

  City Status
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects the announcement will be made on which town has been granted city status to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne; [6320]934W

  (2) if applications by those towns which applied unsuccessfully for city status to commemorate the Third Millennium will be considered as applications for city status to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne; [6321]

  (3) what plans he has to publish criteria for towns wishing to apply for city status to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne; and if he will make a statement; [6322]

  (4) when he will invite applications for city status to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne. [6323]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) on 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 787W.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will sit on the committee which will consider applications by towns which wish to be granted city status to commemorate the 50 Anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the Throne. [6339]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Decisions on the grant of city status are made by the Queen, under the royal prerogative, on the advice of Ministers. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be responsible for advising the Queen on the towns in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be granted city status to mark Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee after consulting other Ministers as he judges appropriate. These will include the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Ministers will be advised by their officials in the normal way. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department and I will not be involved in the consideration process because of our constituencies' potential interests in the outcome.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the titles and dates of films held by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down which recorded the establishment's trials with the chemical agent BZ in the 1960s. [6562]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following is a list of items from the archive at Porton Down which have been identified as relating to trials involving the incapacitating agent referred to as BZ. Some of these items are films and others are sound tracks only. The records are not dated and there may be other material in the archive concerning BZ which has not been identified or catalogued as BZ. These items listed are currently held by the Wiltshire police as part of their investigation into the Porton Down Volunteer programme.
  935W

  Identified as:

  Film/sound

  RF98

  Sound

  REl7B

  Film

  'BZ Trial'

  Sound

  Reel 4

  Film

  Reel 5

  Film

  Reel 6

  Film

  Reel 7

  Film

  Reel 8

  Film

  Reel 9

  Film

  Reel 11

  Film

  Reel 12

  Film

  Box Marked 'BZ Trial'

  1Sound

  RE17C

  Sound

  RE17

  Film

  RF98

  Film

  Box Marked 'Jim Sound'

  2Sound

  1 Five sound recordings

  2 Five relate to BZ recordings

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MoD police officers have been involved in Wiltshire Constabulary inquiries into events at CBD Porton Down; what has been the cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [7376]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two Ministry of Defence Police Officers have been working with the Wiltshire Constabulary on Operation Antler, the inquiry into the Porton Down Service volunteer programme. The cost to date has been approximately £170,000 which includes salary and support costs.

  In addition, one Royal Navy Rogulator, two Royal Military Policemen and two Royal Air Force Policemen have been working with the Wiltshire Constabulary on this inquiry at an approximate total cost of £143,000.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a representative of the Porton Down Veterans Support Group will be invited to the seminar in October at the head office of the Medical Research Council to discuss the epidemiological study of service volunteers who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [6576]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the independent Ethics Committee of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, scrutinised the study which took place in August 2000 involving RAF volunteers at the Rapier Detachment Engagement Trainer at RAF Honington; and if he will place in the Library copies of the papers of the committee which relate to the discussion of this study. [6561]

  Dr. Moonie
  The protocol for the study at RAF Honington was reviewed and approved by the Independent CBD Ethics Committee during their 22nd meeting held on 4 September 1997.

  The discussions of the Independent CBD Ethics Committee are undertaken in confidence and I am therefore withholding the release of the complete minutes under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice to Access to Government Information. I will, however, place the section of the minutes relevant to this trial in the Library of the House.
  936W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the reports produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down(a) in 1972 entitled, "The effect of miosis on visual acuity in dim light", and (b) recording the results of an experiment in 1983 in which service personnel were exposed to sarin nerve gas via single fibre electromyography. [6574]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes. I will also place in the Library of the House copies of two internal Porton Down papers that record the preliminary data and conclusions of the 1983 Study. The full results and final conclusions of this 1983 study have already been published entitled: Single fibre electromyographic changes in man after organophosphate exposure (Human and Experimental Toxicology 1996, 15, 367–75).

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the protocol drawn up by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, to carry out the study in August 2000 involving RAF volunteers at the Rapier Detachment Engagement Trainer at RAF Honington. [6581]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down in 1973 entitled "A comparative study of central visual field changes induced by GB vapour and physostigmine salicylate eyedrops". [6563]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report arising out of the study in August 2000 involving RAF volunteers at the Rapier Detachment Engagement Trainer at RAF Honington organised by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [6580]

  Dr. Moonie
  The report in question contains operational information. I am therefore withholding its release under exemption 1(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates staff of his Department held meetings with the Medical Research Council prior to 21 November 2000 to discuss seeking advice from the Council on the feasibility of an epidemiological study into volunteers who took part in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [6577]

  Dr. Moonie
  No such meetings were held with the Medical Research Council prior to 21 November 2000.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the War Pension Agency started on 19 February to identify as separate records claims for war pensions from service personnel who took part in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [6564]

  Dr. Moonie
  In order to improve available management information the War Pensions Agency decided to record separately War Pension claims from
  937W
  ex-Service personnel who participated in trials at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will transfer films from the archives of the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, to the Imperial War Museum. [6575]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 9 May 2001,Official Report, column 196W.

  Service Discipline
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many courts martial there were in each service in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [7403]

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

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the costs and benefits of(a) maintaining the courts martial system and (b) maintaining services disciplinary processes while transferring criminal cases to the ordinary courts. [7405]

  Mr. Ingram
  The system of military law, delivered through the Services' disciplinary processes which include courts martial, upholds the discipline structure inherent throughout the armed forces, and underpins tri-Service doctrine and the military chain of command that are both necessary for good order and operational effectiveness to be maintained. The military courts martial system has the statutory power and capability to deal with all but the most serious of criminal cases in the UK, subject to discussion over jurisdiction rights with appropriate civilian law agencies. Overseas, the military courts martial system has the power to deal with all military and civilian criminal cases, subject to agreement with the local authorities over jurisdiction rights. The benefit of transferring the most serious criminal cases to the ordinary courts allows a balance to be maintained between the military and civilian judicial systems. The costs of service courts martial accrue across the entire military system and are part of the running costs of each of the Services. It is therefore not possible to quote a figure separately for the military courts martial system.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when there was last a review of the courts martial system. [7404]

  Mr. Ingram
  The system for administering discipline in the armed forces is kept under review, with the principal vehicle for any legislative changes that may be necessary being the five-yearly Armed Forces Acts. The Armed Forces Act 1996 made substantial changes in order to reinforce the independence of courts martial, and these came into effect on 1 April 1997. Further changes on this scale were not considered necessary as a result of the most recent review, which led to the Armed Forces Act 2001, not least because the procedures introduced in 1997 have worked very well.

  We have announced the intention to replace the present legislative framework for the armed forces, particularly the separate discipline Acts for each of the three services, with a single tri-service Act. The work on this will provide a further opportunity to consider whether changes
  938W
  are required to the overall system of discipline, including courts martial, but the key consideration will be to ensure that it continues to underpin operational effectiveness.

  Type 42 Destroyers
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the last of the type 42 destroyers is scheduled to be withdrawn from active service. [6983]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans, the last type 42 destroyer is scheduled to be withdrawn from active service in 2014.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what age is the oldest type 42 destroyer still in active service with the Royal Navy. [6982]

  Mr. Ingram
  The oldest type 42 destroyer still in active service with the Royal Navy is the 23-year-old HMS Newcastle, which was commissioned in March 1978.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who decides the priority of need in(a) the upgrade programme and (b) the routine maintenance programme at the Larkhill married quarters estate. [7371]

  Dr. Moonie
  The assessment of need for routine maintenance is undertaken at Defence Housing Executive (DHE) Area level. In-house teams are advised by our professional establishment works consultants and works services managers in formulating the forward maintenance plan. DHE staff also undertake regular discussions with local families through the Larkhill Resident's Association and through our regular meetings with the Garrison staff.

  Assessment of upgrade requirement is undertaken on a DHE regional basis (Larkhill is within DHE South West Region covering all properties west of Andover) by the regional controller and her team. Regional recommendations are then judged by DHE HQ staff against competing priorities across the entire married quarter estate in Great Britain. The services are consulted throughout.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Larkhill married quarters estate is included in the upgrades proposed by Project Allenby. [7363]

  Dr. Moonie
  Project Allenby is a Ministry of Defence Study into the Public Private Partnership (PPP) potential for the redevelopment and maintenance of the MOD estate and the provision of supporting services for garrisons in the Salisbury Plain and Aldershot areas. It does not include the married quarters estate.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the grading of dwellings in the Larkhill married quarters estate is. [7364]

  Dr. Moonie
  The condition of married quarters is assessed against the criteria of standards, one to four. At present the core long-term estate at Larkhill has 67 properties at standard 1 for condition, 314 at standard 2, 142 at standard 3 and 49 at standard 4.
  939W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the planned maintenance programme for the defence married quarters estate includes provision for(a) gutters, (b) downpipes, (c) underground pipes (d) drain covers and (e) garden fences; and if he will make a statement. [7366]

  Dr. Moonie
  Planned maintenance programmes extend to 10 years and with the help of Establishment Works Consultants and Works Services Managers, Defence Housing Executive's property managers determine comprehensive schedules of work. These items are then categorised for relative priority against other maintenance requirements (with health and safety issues given highest priority). If gutters, downpipes, underground pipes, drain covers and garden fences, among other items, are not assessed as requiring attention for health and safety reasons they will not necessarily attract high priority although they will be included in planned maintenance programmes for the future.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the budget and (b) the management of the planned maintenance programme for the married quarters estate. [7368]

  Dr. Moonie
  DHE's overall works budget of £155 million in 2001–02 is negotiated within the Department's overall process for future planning and resource allocation. Funds are bid for against (a) upgrade projects and (b) planned and response repairs. DHE's Areas and Regions produce planned maintenance programmes for a minimum of three years ahead and funds secured are delegated to Regions and thence the Areas according to a number of factors including numbers and condition of properties and levels of statutory and mandatory work. Area Property Managers manage expenditure using the services of a commercially contracted Works Services Management company. However, upgrade funding is managed from defence Housing Executive HQ and delegated with final approval of upgrade projects.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the target for completion of the married quarters upgrade programme has been made 2005. [7370]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1996, its first year of operation, the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) estimated that the upgrade programme could be completed by 2003, subject to a full housing survey. The subsequent survey, completed in 1998, revealed that the extent of the work required was considerably more than originally estimated. It was therefore agreed that DHE would be set an achievable but challenging key target of achieving Standard 1 for Condition for core properties by November 2005. This target has been in place since 1998–99.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he expects the married quarters upgrade programme to be completed by the end of 2005. [7369]

  Dr. Moonie
  The programme to upgrade core family quarters stock should be substantially complete by November 2005.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the budget for(a) property refurbishment and (b) property maintenance in the Larkhill married quarters estate for (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii)) 2002. [7365]
  940W
  Dr. Moonie
  The budgets for refurbishment and property maintenance are managed on a much wider geographical basis to provide flexibility and assessment of relative priorities. Funding in support of Larkhill is managed within the Defence Housing Executive area 6 budget, which is detailed below:

  £million

  Financial year

  Property maintenance

  2000–01

  6.523

  2001–02

  6.072

  2002–03

  1—

  1not net known

  £285,000 has been made available within this period for refurbishment work in Larkhill.

  Area 6 also includes housing at Wilton, Boscombe Down, Winterbourne Gunner, Upavon, Netheravon, West Moors, Bovington, Middle Wallop, Blandford, Lulworth, Andover and Salisbury.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the relationship is between the functions of(a) the Larkhill Garrison Commander, (b) area 6 of the Defence Housing Executive, (c) EWC Ltd., (d) Atkins Ltd. and (e) Turners Ltd. [7372]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Larkhill garrison commander has overall responsibility for the operational effectiveness of his garrison. The Defence Housing Executive area 6 team have responsibility for the management of the married quarter estate and undertake regular consultations with the garrison and families.

  The DHE area team are supported by professional establishment works consultants (EWC-Carillion Services Ltd.), which provides an independent assessment of the services provided by our current works services manager (WSM)—W S Atkins Ltd.

  W S Atkins Ltd. will be replaced by Turners Ltd. in January 2002 as our works services manager for DHE area 6. The role of the WSM is to provide and manage all works requirements in support of the married quarters estate.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what money is budgeted in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 for (i) refurbishment and (ii) maintenance of the married quarters estate within Larkhill garrison as a result of the arrival of 19 Regiment RA; how many homes will be improved; at what locations; and by what dates. [7362]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the current financial year 2001–02, an additional £240,000 has been allocated to make ready some 180 houses for the arrival of 19 Regiment. Improvements will include general internal redecoration and re-carpeting. Where necessary, some minor alterations to kitchens will also be undertaken. The houses are located throughout the Larkhill estate. Completion of this programme is planned for March 2002.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if annual checks on all hot water and central heating boilers required under health and safety legislation have been completed this year in all service married quarters. [7367]

  Dr. Moonie
  The annual gas safety inspection tests are carried out on a rolling programme over the year. Nationally, the Defence Housing Executive has
  941W
  approximately 45,000 properties requiring a test, which means that on average some 3,750 properties are inspected each month. The latest figures available, for August 2001, indicate that 529 properties were overdue for testing. This is due to problems with gaining access to carry out the necessary inspections. The figure tends to vary over the year due to factors such as holiday seasons or during military operations when families left behind often take the opportunity to visit relatives.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when work will commence to upgrade the roads at the former married quarters estate at Boscombe Down; and if he will make a statement. [7374]

  Dr. Moonie
  Legal agreement with adjoining house owners is near completion and the Ministry of Defence is currently seeking, in conjunction with Amesbury town council, to resolve an outstanding issue of grass verge/village green elements of the estate owned by a third party. Construction is expected to commence mid 2002.

  Menwith Hill and Fylingdales
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence role in the security of the United Kingdom is played by(a) Menwith Hill and (b) Fylingdales; and if he will make a statement. [7173]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Menwith Hill is an integral part of the world-wide US Department of Defence communications network, which supports UK, US and NATO interests. RAF Menwith Hill is also the site for the European Relay Ground Station, which is part of the US Space Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS). SBIRS will be a world-wide satellite based system designed to provide early warning of ballistic missile launch. It will replace the ageing US Defence Support Programme (DSP) satellite system, which has for some years contributed to the security of the UK and NATO. Information on detailed operations at the base is withheld under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Fylingdales provides the UK with early warning of ballistic missile attack against the UK and Western Europe, and the US with early warning for North America.

  Widows' Pensions
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will amend the rules governing the entitlement to benefit of widows of retired servicemen to allow them to receive pension in respect of service prior to 1978. [6525]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have no plans to increase the current Armed Forces Pension Scheme provisions for post retirement widows. Following longstanding practice, improvements to the armed forces and other Public Sector pension schemes do not apply retrospectively.

  Air Squadrons
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which UK air squadrons are at full complement; what proportion this represents of the total; and if he will make a statement. [6957]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have assumed this question relates to pilots and navigators only. As at early October 2001, 19 squadrons out of a total of 72 were at full complement. This represents 26 per cent. of the total. In total, 40 squadrons (56 per cent.) were manned at 90 per cent. or better. The shortfall in aircrew is a well-recognised problem and the Ministry of Defence is taking a number of measures to address.

  The squadrons at full complement are: 3, 8, 78, 84, 99, 201, 654, 655, 656, 663, 664, 665, 669, 771, 801, 820, 845, 846, 849.

  As well as these, the following squadrons are manned at 90–99 per cent.: 1, 4, 13, 14, 22, 23, 32, 39, 47, 51, 54, 70, 101, 202, 206, 216, 662, 702, 815, 819, 848.

  Canal Zone Campaign
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the establishment of a medal for those who served in the Canal Zone campaign 1951–54. [7174]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to institute a medal to recognise service in the Suez Canal Zone during the period 1951 to 1954. The matter was reviewed in 1998 by the then Minister for the armed forces who found no evidence that he believed would enable him to persuade the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals to overturn their policy of non-retrospection, or to revoke any of the decisions made at the time or following various departmental reviews since 1990. No such evidence has since come to light.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by his Department in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6596]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officials in the Ministry of Defence are currently co-ordinating the information requested. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7231]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministry of Defence employees work in some 200 grades which are grouped together into five bands for pay, promotion and career development purposes. Normal retirement age is dependant upon grade, and an extract from MOD's Personnel Manual follows which lists them. About two-thirds of the work force, mainly those in support, technical and industrial grades, can retire at 60 but have the option to work to age 65.

  943W
  The balance, mainly managerial and professional grades, have a normal retirement age of 60. Like all Departments, we are reviewing our age retirement policy in accordance with the Government's policy of expanding the opportunities for older people in the work place.

  Normal retirement ages

  Grade

  Pay band

  NRA

  Assistant Information Officer

  R

  65

  Admin Assistant

  E2

  65

  Academic Professor of Music

  R

  60

  Assistant Chief Constable Police

  R

  60

  Air Ops Officer

  D

  65

  Admin Officer

  E1

  65

  Area Education Officer

  R

  60

  Accommodation Services Accountant

  El

  65

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  El

  60

  Assistant Librarian

  D

  65

  Assistant Statistician

  D

  60

  Assistant Telecommunications Technical Officer

  R

  65

  British Frontier Guard 2 (Customs and Immigration)

  R

  65

  British Frontier Guard 3 (Customs and Immigration)

  R

  65

  British Frontier Guard 4 (Customs and Immigration)

  R

  65

  Chief Inspector Police

  R

  60

  Chief Police Adviser (BAOR)

  R

  65

  Chief Superintendent Police

  R

  60

  Captain of the Queen's Flight

  R

  65

  Career Adviser

  R

  60

  Civilian Accommodation Services Officer

  D

  63

  Chief Constable Police

  R

  60

  Chief Civilian Nursing Officer

  R

  60

  Civilian Dental Practitioner

  R

  65

  Chief Fire Service Officer

  R

  65

  Chief Superintendent of Police (SBA)

  R

  65

  Chief Typing Manager

  C2

  60

  Chaplains Assistant

  D

  65

  Chef 1/Chief Cook 1

  R

  65

  Chef 2/Chief Cook 2

  R

  65

  Civilian Medical Practitioner

  R

  65

  Communications Officer 1

  C2

  65

  Communications Officer 2

  D

  65

  Communications Officer 3

  El

  65

  Communications Officer 4

  E2

  65

  Conservation Officer F

  D

  65

  Constable

  R

  60

  Co-ordinator Anglo-American Relations

  R

  65

  Chief of Police (SBA)

  R

  65

  Community Relations Adviser

  D

  65

  Civilian Security Officer 1

  C1

  65

  Civilian Security Officer 2

  C2

  65

  Civilian Security Officer 3

  D

  65

  Civilian Security Officer 4

  El

  65

  Civilian Security Officer 5

  E2

  65

  Catering Manager 3

  R

  65

  Curatorial Officer C

  Cl

  65

  Curatorial Officer D

  C1

  65

  Curatorial Officer E

  C2

  65

  Curatorial Officer F

  D

  65

  Curatorial Officer G

  El

  65

  Deputy Area Officer Social Worker

  R

  60

  D Con 2 SCEA

  R

  60

  Director of Patents

  R

  60

  Director of Studies

  R

  60

  Deputy Chief Constable Police

  R

  60

  Deputy Chief of Police (SBA)

  R

  65

  Deputy Director of Studies

  R

  60

  Defence Courier

  R

  65

  Educational Psychologist

  R

  60

  Executive Officer

  D

  60

  Estate Warden

  El

  65

  Families Officer

  D

  65

  Fiscal Officer (SBA)

  R

  65

  Fire Service Officer 1

  R

  65

  Fire Service Officer 2

  R

  65

  Fire Service Officer 3

  R

  65

  General Education Adviser

  R

  60

  Graphics Officer

  D

  60

  944W

  Normal retirement ages

  Grade

  Pay band

  NRA

  Graphics Technical Grade

  E1

  60

  G6/A DIR DIS

  B1

  60

  G6/A PROF SG

  B1

  60

  G6/ACCHO

  B1

  60

  G6/CIO(B)

  B1

  60

  G6/CMRO

  B1

  60

  G6/CSALMO

  B1

  60

  G6/HP

  B1

  60

  G6/P&T SUPG

  B1

  60

  G6/S PRIN LB

  B1

  65

  G6/SNR P PSY

  R

  60

  G6/SNR PRIN

  B1

  60

  G6/SPSO

  B1

  60

  G6/STATISTN

  B1

  60

  G7/ECON ADVR

  B2

  60

  G7/HD HIST B

  B2

  65

  G7/HP

  B2

  60

  G7/P GRAPH O

  B2

  60

  G7/P INF OFR

  B2

  65

  G7/P LEC S/G

  B2

  60

  G7/PCHO

  B2

  60

  G7/Principal Intelligence Officer

  B2

  65

  G7/Principal Intelligence Officer (Army)

  B2

  60

  G7/PMRO

  B2

  60

  G7/PMSO

  B2

  60

  G7/PPTO

  B2

  60

  G7/PRIN LIBN

  B2

  65

  G7/PRIN PSY

  B2

  60

  G7/PRINCIPAL

  B2

  60

  G7/PRN INV O

  B2

  65

  G7/PRO

  B2

  60

  G7/PSALMO

  B2

  60

  G7/PSO

  B2

  60

  G7/STATISTN

  B2

  60

  Higher Executive Officer

  C2

  60

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  C2

  60

  Higher Graphics Officer

  C2

  60

  Higher Instructional Officer

  C2

  65

  Higher Psychologist

  C2

  60

  Higher Intelligence Officer

  C2

  65

  Historian 2

  R

  65

  Higher Linguist Officer

  C2

  65

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  C2

  60

  House Parent

  R

  60

  Higher Professional Photographer

  C2

  60

  HPTO

  C2

  60

  HPTO(D)

  R

  60

  HPTO/HSO (HP)

  R

  60

  House Matron

  R

  60

  Higher Scientific Officer

  C2

  60

  Higher Scientific Officer (D)

  R

  60

  Higher Telecommunications Technical Officer

  C2

  65

  Instrumental Professor of Music

  R

  60

  Information Officer

  R

  65

  Instructional Officer 1

  D

  65

  Instructional Officer 2

  D

  65

  Inspector Police

  R

  60

  Investigating Officer 1

  R

  65

  Investigating Officer 2

  R

  65

  Information Officer 1 (Army)

  R

  60

  Information Officer 2 (Army)

  R

  60

  Judge (SBA)

  R

  65

  Legal Adviser (SBA)

  R

  65

  Lecturer D/S

  R

  60

  Legal Adviser (BAOR)

  R

  65

  Legal Aid Officer

  R

  60

  Librarian

  C2

  65

  Linguist Officer

  R

  65

  Manager RNFC

  R

  65

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  D

  60

  Mapping and Charting Tech Grade 1

  El

  65

  Mapping and Charting Tech Grade 2

  E2

  65

  Mess Manager A

  R

  65

  Mess Manager B

  R

  65

  MLSO 1

  R

  65

  MLSO 2

  R

  65

  945W

  Normal retirement ages

  Grade

  Pay band

  NRA

  Medical Officer

  R

  60

  Museum Support Grade 1

  D

  65

  Museum Support Grade 2

  D

  65

  Museum Support Grade 3

  E1

  65

  Museum Support Grade 4

  E1

  65

  Museum Support Grade 5

  E2

  65

  Marine Services Officer 1

  R

  60

  Marine Services Officer 2

  R

  60

  Marine Services Officer 3

  R

  60

  Marine Services Officer 4

  R

  60

  Museum Technician 2

  D

  65

  Museum Technician 3

  D

  65

  Naval Regional Officer

  R

  65

  P&GS A

  R

  60

  P&GS B

  R

  60

  P&GS C

  R

  60

  P&GS D

  R

  60

  P&GS E

  R

  60

  Principal Lect RMAS/BRNC

  R

  60

  Principal Patent Officer

  R

  60

  Patent Officer

  R

  60

  Principal Health and Safety Officer

  R

  60

  Principal Linguist Officer

  R

  65

  Principal Medical Officer

  R

  60

  Police Adviser (BAOR)

  R

  65

  Professional Photographer

  D

  60

  Personal Secretary

  E1

  65

  PTO

  D

  60

  PT0 4

  D

  65

  Radio Officer

  D

  65

  Record Reviewer

  R

  65

  Reviser SDS

  R

  65

  RO(Prin)

  R

  65

  RO1

  R

  65

  RO2

  R

  65

  RO3

  R

  65

  Research Officer (R&P)

  R

  60

  Senior Career Adviser 6

  R

  60

  Senior Civil Servants (formerly Grades 1–5)

  R

  60

  Senior Educational Psychologist

  R

  60

  Senior Information Officer

  R

  65

  Senior Inspector Adviser

  R

  60

  Senior Lect D/S

  R

  60

  Senior Lect S/G

  R

  60

  Senior Patent Officer

  R

  60

  Salvage and Mooring Officer (SALMO)

  R

  65

  School Catering Adviser

  R

  60

  Senior Instructional Officer

  C1

  65

  Senior Investigating Officer

  R

  65

  Senior Librarian

  C1

  65

  Senior Executive Officer

  C1

  60

  Senior Executive Officer (COMMS)

  C1

  60

  Senior Fire Service Officer

  R

  65

  SGB 1

  E1

  65

  SGB 2

  E2

  65

  Shore Galley Design and Equip Adv

  C1

  65

  Senior Graphics Officer

  C1

  60

  Sergeant Police

  R

  60

  Senior Health and Safety Officer

  R

  60

  Senior Intelligence Officer

  C1

  65

  Senior Intelligence Officer (Army)

  R

  60

  Senior Linguist Officer

  C1

  65

  Support Manager 1

  C2

  60

  Support Manager 2

  D

  60

  Support Manager 3

  D

  65

  Senior Mapping and Charting Officer

  C1

  60

  Senior Medical Officer

  R

  60

  Senior A/Statistician

  C2

  60

  Senior Economic Assistant

  C2

  60

  Senior Lecturer SR

  R

  60

  Senior Photographer

  C1

  60

  Senior Psychologist

  C1

  60

  Senior Social Worker

  R

  60

  Scientific Officer

  D

  60

  Social Worker

  R

  60

  SOG A

  C1

  60

  946W

  Normal retirement ages

  Grade

  Pay band

  NRA

  SOG B

  C2

  60

  SOG C

  D

  60

  SOG D

  D

  60

  Senior Professional Photographer

  C1

  60

  Senior Personal Secretary

  D

  60

  SPTO

  C1

  60

  SPTO/SSO(HP)

  C1

  60

  Senior Research Officer

  C1

  60

  Senior Scientific Officer

  C1

  60

  Station Warden

  E1

  65

  Senior Telecommunication Technical Officer

  C1

  65

  Subject Adviser

  R

  60

  Supervising Traffic Rep

  R

  65

  Superintendent Police

  R

  60

  Supervising Radio Officer

  C2

  60

  Tech Grade 1

  E1

  65

  Tech Grade 2

  E2

  65

  Traffic Rep

  R

  65

  Telecommunications Technical Officer

  D

  65

  Typing Manager

  D

  65

  Typist

  E2

  65

  Vet Officer

  R

  60

  All Industrial grades

  R

  65

  Anti-armour Weapon Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the value of the British Army next generation anti-armour weapon contract is; when the tender closing date is; when the contract start and completion dates are; and if he will make a statement; [7180]

  (2) if he will list the companies which have bid for the British Army next generation anti-armour weapon, indicating which ones are United Kingdom only companies; and if he will make a statement. [7181]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 15 October 2001:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence on the British Army's next generation anti-armour weapon programme. The programme to which you refer is the Next Generation Light anti-Armour Weapon, known as NLAW. These matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The companies, which have submitted bids to meet this requirement, are SAAB Bofors Dynamics AB and Matra BAe Dynamics (UK) Ltd. Neither are wholly UK owned companies, however, Matra BAe Dynamics (UK) Ltd. is a UK registered company jointly owned by BAE Systems and EADs. BAE Systems also have a shareholding in SAAB Bofors Dynamics parent company.
  The final cost of the NLAW contract is subject to negotiation, but it is expected to be in the order of £400m. The tender closing date was 21 September 2001 and it is anticipated that the contract will be let next year. The contract could run for up to 25 years, if all the in-service support options are selected, but it is expected that the Development and Production elements will be complete by 2009.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when MBT-Law UK's British Next Generation anti-armour weapon will be ready for service; what the projected cost of this contract is; and if he will make a statement. [7340]
  947W
  Dr. Moonie
  MBT-LAW is one of the competitors to meet the Next Generation Light anti-armour weapon (NLAW) requirement. The preferred bidder will be announced next year, and a contract let shortly afterwards. We currently anticipate this system being ready for service in 2006–07. The final cost of the NLAW contract is subject to negotiation but it is expected to be in the order of £400 million.

  Australian Bushmaster
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to purchase Australian Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [7243]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 15 October 2001:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to purchase the Australian Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The Australian Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicle was a contender for the Future Command and Liaison Vehicle programme, but the manufacturer withdrew the vehicle during the concept stage of the project in 2000. As a result there are no current plans to purchase the Bushmaster vehicle.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers have(a) died and (b) been injured as a result of firearms discharged on army property since the IRA ceasefire; on what dates; what the results were of (i) internal investigations and (ii) coroner's inquests in each case; where other soldiers were involved, what disciplinary measures were taken; where papers were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, how long he took to reach a decision on prosecution and what the result was. [7082]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were no deaths or injuries in 1994 as a result of firearms discharged on Army property in Northern Ireland since the IRA ceasefire of 31 August.

  In 1995 there were three deaths which occurred on 21 June, 13 September and 25 September. The Coroner's verdict was that each soldier died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head. One injury occurred on 26 December. It is not normal practice to comment on the result of internal investigations or any resultant disciplinary action as this is a personal matter for the parties involved. However, I can confirm that one other soldier was involved in this injury and the matter was resolved under military jurisdiction. No papers were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  In 1996 one death occurred on 20 July. The Coroner's verdict stated that the death was consistent with a bullet wound to the chest. There were no injuries in that year. It is not normal practice to comment on the result of internal investigations. No papers were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  948W
  There was one death in 1997 which occurred on 3 September. The verdict of the Coroner was that death was consistent with a bullet wound to the chest. There were also two injuries that year. These occurred on 9 and 16 August. It is not normal practice to comment on the result of internal investigations or any resultant disciplinary action as this is a personal matter for the parties involved. However, I can confirm that two soldiers were questioned regarding the incident on 9 August under military jurisdiction. No papers were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  There were no deaths or injuries in 1998.

  In 1999 there were no injuries but one death occurred on 23 November. The circumstances surrounding the death have yet to be heard in the Coroner's Court. It is not normal practice to comment on the result of internal investigations. No papers were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  There were no deaths or injuries in 2000.

  Up until 31 September 2001 two deaths were recorded. These were on 25 January and 30 July. The circumstances surrounding the first death is under consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions and both deaths are awaiting a Coroner's Inquest. It is not normal practice to comment on the result of internal investigations. There were no injuries during that period.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish, for every year since the first paramilitary ceasefires for which it is possible(a) figures on the frequency and duration of (i) military and (ii) other helicopter flights, (b) the number of civilian complaints and amount of compensation paid during this period in relation to such flights and (c) the steps taken to scale down military presence according to perceived terrorist threat; and if he will set out the means by which he informs himself of the nature and purpose of each helicopter flight and monitors the progressive reduction of flights. [7084]

  Mr. Ingram
  As Minister for the Armed Forces I can reply only on military aircraft. Records of individual military flights in the Province are not maintained but are recorded in flying hours and are shown in the table:

  Dates

  Flying hours

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  31,289

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  27,827

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  28,088

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  28,772

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  24,620

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  24,734

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  25,717

  1 April 2001 to 31 August 2001

  11,324

  Compensation is paid out during the financial year and the figures shown in the following table relate to the cases that were settled during that year:

  Dates

  Compensation paid (£)

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  6,365,380

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  1,726,693

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  645,260

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  903,350

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  880,040

  949W

  Dates

  Compensation paid (£)

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  1,005,648

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  922,671

  1 April 2001 to 31 August 2001

  216,404

  Formal records on complaints about military helicopters were not kept until the beginning of 1997. They are recorded by calendar year and are set out as follows:

  Year

  Complaints

  1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997

  1647

  1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998

  511

  1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999

  439

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  553

  1 January 2001 to 31 August 2001

  288

  1 This figure differs from that which was given on 3 November 1998, Official Report, column 442W. It has become clear that, due to the wide variety of agencies dealing with helicopter complaints, there was an element of duplication in the figures provided earlier. The number of complaints has been revised to take account of this.

  Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement a number of steps have been taken to scale down the level of helicopter activity. Since March 1999 Chinook and Sea King helicopters have been rear based on the Mainland. The operational profile has been altered to minimise intrusion, which includes operating at greater altitudes to reduce noise and modifying approach paths to avoid built-up area where topography and weather conditions permit. Also no helicopters are flown between 2300 hours and 0600 hours, except when operationally essential.

  The General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland keeps the use of helicopters constantly under review and steps are taken, where possible, to reduce the helicopter profile. However, this is dependent on the security situation and the threat posed by terrorists. As can be seen from the table on flying hours there has been an increase in the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 which can be attributed to the increased terrorist threat from Dissident Republicans.

  Independent Assessor of Military Complaints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to the 8th annual report of the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints with particular reference to the recommendations of the report(a) to take steps to reduce the number of complaints about helicopters and to make pilots aware of the costs of compensation claims, (b) to carry out an independent evaluation of community awareness training and (c) to take steps to promote the informal resolution of complaints. [7083]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Independent Assessor of Military Complaints submits his report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as required by Section 98 and Schedule 11 to the Terrorism Act 2000. In the last couple of his reports the Independent Assessor has concentrated on helicopter complaints which is understandable given the continued need for the use of helicopters owing to the terrorist threat from Dissident Republicans.

  The Ministry of Defence values the views of the Independent Assessor and has taken on board the three recommendations he made in his latest Report. Details of
  950W
  compensation awards as a result of helicopter activity are now sent to the Commander of the Joint Helicopter Force (Northern Ireland) so that pilots can be made aware of the financial impact their actions can have. Headquarters Northern Ireland (HQNI) are also considering how best the Community Awareness Training might be evaluated by an independent body and are looking at a number of agencies that may be able to carry out this task. The emphasis on informal resolution of complaints remains a priority for HQNI and they continue to work closely with the Civil Representatives from the Northern Ireland Office in achieving this goal.

  HMS Dryad
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of HMS Dryad. [6572]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 July 2001 Official Report, columns 334–5W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) in which I advised the House that, in parallel with the work on the Defence Training Review, the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency had conducted a comprehensive review of its training estate. As a result, work has been started on the development of the Integrated Maritime Warfare School at HMS Collingwood, in Fareham, which will deliver maritime warfare training from a single site and encompass the warfare training currently undertaken at HMS Dryad. Under this programme, as I advised the House at the time, HMS Dryad will become surplus to requirements.

  The target date for closure is no later than 2011, but it is planned to transfer elements of training from HMS Dryad to HMS Collingwood progressively over the next few years, with a view to achieving an earlier closure if possible. This will help us to maximise the operational and financial benefits from the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency's estate rationalisation programme. While the closure of Dryad is expected to result in a reduction of some 70 Service and 40 MOD civilian posts in the NRTA, this will be more than offset by the proposed move of elements of Fleet to HMS Excellent, which will take place before the closure of HMS Dryad. Taken together these two proposals are expected to produce a net increase of about 25 Service and 60 civilian posts in the Portsmouth area.

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

  Kursk
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to the United Kingdom has been of helping to raise the Russian submarine Kursk; and if he will make a statement. [7185]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been no United Kingdom Government involvement in the Kursk recovery operation and therefore no costs have arisen.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of QinetiQ's research and development projects will be focused on(a) defence

  951W
  technologies, (b) telecommunications, (c) health care and (d) non defence related technologies; and if he will make a statement. [7335]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence research contracts currently account for 35 per cent. of QinetiQ's income. A further 44 per cent. of QinetiQ's income comes from other non-research work such as project support work for the Defence Procurement Agency and technical advice to the operational commands. The balance of QinetiQ's income is from non-MOD sources including commercial customers. It would not be in the commercial interests of the company, or the Government as future vendor, to release detailed financial information at this stage in the PPP process.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much QinetiQ's new medium wave infra-red telescope cost to produce; and if he will make a statement. [7322]

  Dr. Moonie
  The medium-wave infra-red telescope is part of a Ministry of Defence research programme begun in the early 1990s designed to understand the phenomenology of aircraft infra-red signatures and investigate detector technologies. The telescope is owned by the MOD and operated by QinetiQ.

  It is not our practice to release costs of individual research programmes as this may allow a detailed picture to be built up of the UK's defence research priorities and future defence capabilities. I am accordingly withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much QinetiQ's new submarine research and technology centre cost to build; what alternative sites were explored; and if he will make a statement. [7341]

  Dr. Moonie
  The centre cost in the order of £462,000 to set up and was formed by co-locating existing research capabilities, facilities and equipment from QinetiQ laboratories at Winfrith and Bincleaves into one building on the Winfrith site. The figure does not include the past investment in equipment which has been co-located.

  Several possible sites around the south coast area in Dorset were explored. The eventual decision reflected the most cost effective solution, and minimised disruption and inconvenience to staff.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the US State Department has given its approval to amend the manufacturing licence for the UK Apache Attack Helicopter to enable QinetiQ to access US proprietary data. [5860]

  Dr. Moonie
  The US State Department gave its approval on 1 October 2001.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to dispose of the former RAF Chilmark site; and if he will make a statement. [7375]

  Dr. Moonie
  Much of RAF Chilmark including outlying areas has now been sold. Part of the remaining area is of high conservation and wildlife value, and a trust consisting of the local authorities and interest groups has 952W
  been constituted with a view to buying and managing the site. The Ministry of Defence is in discussion with representatives of the trust, and it is hoped that terms for a sale to take place during 2002 can be agreed shortly.

  The remainder of the site, which the trust does not intend to purchase, still requires clearance of explosive ordnance residues. A decision on the disposal of this final part will be made once the extent of residual contamination has been determined.

  Hunting Plc
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) total cost, (b) life span and (c) cost to his Department of each contract with Hunting PCC in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [7193]

  Dr. Moonie
  Hunting PCC is not recognised as a Ministry of Defence supplier; it is assumed that the question is referring to Hunting plc and information is provided on that basis. Data at the level requested are not routinely held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am, however, able to advise that during the past five years 130 contracts with a total value of just over £430 million have been placed with Hunting plc by the Ministry of Defence.

  Indian Armed Forces (Training)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of India's armed forces have been in the UK for training over the last four years; what the cost to his Department has been; and if he will make a statement. [7196]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 1 September 1997 to 31 August 2001, 24 officers of India's armed forces were trained in the UK at a cost to the Ministry of Defence Fund of £317,822.59. The officers attended courses at the Royal College of Defence Studies, the Joint Services Command and Staff College, the Royal Military College of Science and the Royal Defence Medical College.

  Overseas Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department has given to United Kingdom-based companies bidding for the New Zealand MoD contract for light armoured vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [7186]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Export Services Organisation in MOD provided general marketing advice to a number of UK companies which were interested in the New Zealand requirement.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom companies his Department supported in a bid for the Polish MoD contract for a new 8x8 wheeled armoured carrier; and if he will make a statement. [7184]

  Dr. Moonie
  To date the Ministry of Defence has not been approached by British companies for support in connection with the Polish requirement. Should we be asked to provide assistance in the future, we would of
  953W
  course respond as positively as possible, in line with the Government support for UK defence industry and legitimate defence exports.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former members of the Force Research Unit(a) have been interviewed by the Stevens Inquiry team, (b) have refused to be interviewed and (c) are prevented from being interviewed by (i) legal and other impediments. [7115]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is fully supportive of the Stevens Inquiry and will continue to provide it with whatever assistance it can. It would, however, be inappropriate for me to comment further on an ongoing police inquiry.

  Departmental Properties
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by his Department, including and distinguishing between the Department itself, its next step agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7811]

  Dr. Moonie
  My officials are currently investigating the information requested. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Armaments Procurement Contracts
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which armaments procurement contracts, with a value greater than £1 million, will(a) go out to tender and (b) have contracts signed, in the next financial year; [6954]

  (2) if he will list the current armament procurement contracts in respect of which there is a delay in (a) delivery date and (b) anticipated date of entry into service of more than (i) six months, (ii) one year and (ii) two years; and what additional costs have arisen from such delays. [6955]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Weapons Accident Response Exercises
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exercises to test procedures for dealing with accidents involving nuclear weapons will be held in 2001; what the(a) dates and (b) locations are of each of these exercises; what the titles and scenarios are of each of these exercises: and how many of these exercises involve the US Government. [6573]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following table gives the current date, name and location of nuclear weapon accident response exercises for 2001. I am withholding details of the exercise scenarios under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can confirm that none of the exercises involves US participation.
  954W

  Month

  Name

  Location

  May

  NW Convoy Group Standardisation

  Lincolnshire

  June

  Exercise Bowline

  Coulport

  July

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Wiltshire

  September

  MOD Police Nuclear Weapon Convoy Standardisation

  Lincolnshire

  October

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Suffolk

  October

  Bronze Endeavour

  Norfolk

  November

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Oxfordshire

  November

  Exercise Senator

  Bedfordshire

  1 RAF Station Nuclear Accident Response (NAR) teams provide immediate response forces for the air transportation of nuclear weapons

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value is of contracts let in connection with RAF Menwith Hill in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001; how many such contracts have been let; to whom they have been let; and what percentage of contracts have been let to UK firms. [6259]

  Mr. Ingram
  The value and numbers of contracts let by the Ministry of Defence in connection with RAF Menwith Hill were as follows:

  Financial years

  Contracts let

  Value £ million

  1998–99

  199

  3,168

  1999–2000

  313

  4,747

  2000–01

  414

  3,296

  1 April 2001 to 14 September 2001

  242

  2,798

  Note:

  Figures are exclusive of VAT

  Details of individual contracts have been withheld under exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and the names of individual contractors have been withheld under exemption 4e of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The majority of contracts have been awarded to UK Prime Contractors, but this work may be sub-contracted to UK or other companies.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the complement was of Ministry of Defence police at RAF Menwith Hill on(a)1 January and (b) 15 July; and what percentage of the cost of these personnel on each date was met by the US Government. [6258]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding details of the MDP complement (on 1 January 2001 and 15 July 2001) at RAF Menwith Hill in accordance with exemption 1 (defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can, however, confirm that staffing levels have been significantly increased in recent months.

  The financial arrangements governing the MDP presence at RAF Menwith Hill are covered by a memorandum of understanding between the UK and US Governments. The costs incurred by HMG for the MDP presence at RAF Menwith Hill are reimbursed by the US Government, except where overtime is occasioned by the activities of protesters, which is a direct cost to the UK.
  955W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many alleged breaches of security have occurred at RAF Menwith Hill in each year from 1990 to date. [6263]

  Mr. Ingram
  Central records of incursions at RAF Menwith Hill were not kept prior to 1996. Since then, the figures are:

  Number

  1996

  17

  1997

  51

  1998

  30

  1999

  1

  2000–01

  1

  The noticeable drop since 1999 reflects the erection of a perimeter security fence at the site.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MoD personnel at RAF Menwith Hill are under the operational control of US visiting forces. [6260]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 October 2001, 257 Ministry of Defence personnel employed at RAF Menwith Hill are under the line management of the United States visiting force as part of their day-to-day duties.

  Defence Research and Development Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the projects and European countries involved in collaborating with the MoD on specific defence research and development projects. [7336]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under bilateral or multilateral arrangements relating to research, the Ministry of Defence has significant numbers of joint programmes or information exchanges with the following countries or organisations:

  Country/organisation

  Number of programmes

  France

  60

  Sweden

  28

  Netherlands/Norway

  31

  Germany

  20

  WEAG1/EUCLID2

  38

  Miscellaneous

  10

  1 Western European Armaments Group: informal grouping of European Defence Ministers providing policy direction for armaments and research issues.

  2 European Co-operation for the Long-term in Defence (EUCLID) based on competition and contracts placed on lead contractors, usually with some industrial funding.

  International research collaboration also takes place under the umbrella of NATO. Details are not included as NATO also includes non-European countries.

  Many technologies are involved, including:
  Energetic Materials and Plasmas
  Structural Materials and Structural Effects Analysis
  Sensor Systems
  Computer Applications and Information Processing
  Design Aspects—Platforms and Weapons
  Photonic/Optical Materials and Devices
  Electronic and Electrical Devices
  Signature Control and Signature Reduction
  956W
  Computing Technologies
  Operating Environmental Issues
  Communications and CIS Related Technologies
  Integration and other Systems Issues
  Guidance and Control Systems (Weapons and Platforms)
  Propulsion and Powerplants
  Electronic Materials
  Manufacturing Processes/Design tools/Techniques.

  Weather Modification Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on weather modification experiments undertaken on behalf of his Department. [8009]

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

  Roving Sands Exercise
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes, of 16 July 2001,Official Report, column 7W, what scenario was assumed in this year's Roving Sands exercise. [6356]

  Mr. Ingram
  This year, exercise Roving Sands was based on the scenario of a multi-national coalition of air defence assets in a high-intensity conflict.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) UK and (b) US (i) military and (ii) civil personnel are deployed at RAF Fylingdales. [6264]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 5 September 2001, there were 81 UK military, 318 UK civilian, one US military and 10 US civilian personnel deployed at RAF Fylingdales.

  RAF Feltwell
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he ensures, in the absence of RAF personnel at RAF Feltwell, that the activities undertaken at the base are consistent with the UK national interest. [6261]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Feltwell falls within the administrative responsibility of the RAF Commander Lakenheath, who regularly visits the base in the course of his day-to-day duties.

  Fishing (Luce Bay)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects the ban on fishing extending across Luce Bay in Wigtownshire to remain in place due to unrecovered ordnance left by the RAF after testing procedures. [6087]

  Dr. Moonie
  The area of Luce Bay currently closed to fishing covers approximately 2 square miles. Officials are working with the appropriate authorities to have navigation buoys put in place to mark clearly an area of 0.103 square miles which will be permanently closed to fishing. The work to place the buoys is expected to be completed shortly.
  957W
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to agree compensation provisions for fishermen excluded by MOD restriction orders from fishing grounds in Luce Bay, Wigtownshire. [6086]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has no special plans to agree compensation provisions for fishermen excluded from the fishing grounds in Luce Bay, Wigtownshire. When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation, we do so.

  One claim for compensation has been received from a fisherman alleging a loss of earnings caused by his exclusion from fishing grounds in Luce Bay. On investigation, it was determined that in excluding this individual from the area for reasons of safety, the range authorities were acting within their legal rights as laid down in the relevant local bye-laws. As a result, liability was denied and no compensation has been paid.

  Dundrennan Range, Kirkcudbrightshire
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for future capital investment by his Department at Dundrennan Range, Kirkcudbrightshire. [6085]

  Dr. Moonie
  The facilities at Dundrennan are used primarily for infantry training and also offer facilities for ammunition testing. In terms of infantry training, the facilities represent a valuable resource and we wish to maximise their utility. Starting in June next year, a programme of building will commence which will provide training accommodation with supporting infrastructure to house up to 500 personnel and an infantry field firing range complex. There are no plans to develop the ammunition testing facility.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the size of the(a) regular and (b) Territorial Army beyond the levels envisaged in the Strategic Defence Review. [6990]

  Mr. Ingram
  Decisions were taken in the Strategic Defence Review about the size and structure of the Army, which included the creation of a sixth deployable brigade and a second line of communication. It is intended to man the Army to achieve this, and it will require an increase in its strength from current levels. The extent of the increase will depend in part on the outcome of on-going studies into the best ways of delivering the military capability required of the Army.

  There are no plans to reduce the Territorial Army below the size announced in November 1998.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army units are commanded by(a) Regular Army and (b) Territorial Army officers. [6997]
  958W
  Dr. Moonie
  A total of 59 Territorial Army units are commanded by Regular Army officers and 46 are commanded by Territorial Army officers.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) two-star generals and (b) generals above this rank serving in the Army are Territorial Army officers. [6988]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no two-star generals or generals above this rank currently serving in the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) actual strength was of the Territorial Army on 1 July. [6993]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 July, the actual strength of the Territorial Army (less non-regular permanent staff) was 40,409, some 800 below the agreed establishment of 41,204.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which the most undermanned unit is in the Territorial Army, expressed as actual strength as a percentage of establishment strength. [6991]

  Dr. Moonie
  The most undermanned unit in the Territorial Army (TA) is 203 Field Hospital Royal Army Medical Corps (Volunteers). The actual strength of this regiment is currently 59 per cent. of its establishment strength. As the hon. Member may know, there is a general shortfall in numbers in the Army Medical Services (TA) and a recruiting campaign is in place to address this. Numbers are beginning to increase and I expect this trend to continue.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been realised by the sale of Territorial Army centres since May 1997. [6996]

  Dr. Moonie
  Figures are not available for the period before April 1998. Since that date, some £7 million in receipts has been achieved from the sale of sites used primarily by the Territorial Army, in addition to a receipt in excess of £66 million for the Duke of York's HQ in London. A number of disposals of such sites are still in progress.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers have been commissioned in the Territorial Army in the last three years. [6994]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last three years, 2,314 officers have been commissioned into the Territorial Army. This figure excludes non-regular permanent staff.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers have left the Territorial Army, including those transferring to the long-term reserve list, in the last three years. [6995]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last three years, 2,663 officers have left the Territorial Army. This figure excludes non-regular permanent staff.

  Royal Navy Reserve
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength was of the Royal Naval Reserve on 1 July. [6998]

  Dr. Moonie
  The strength of the Royal Naval Reserve on 1 July 2001 was 3,144.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it remains his policy to maintain a one Army concept for the Regular and Territorial Armies. [6989]

  Dr. Moonie
  We remain fully committed to a TA that is relevant, usable and fully integrated into our armed forces.

  Salisbury Plain Training (Accidents)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the result was of the investigation into the cause of the fatal accident to a Challenger II tank on Salisbury Plain on 11 July; [5859]

  (2) how many fatal accidents have occurred on Salisbury Plain training estate since 1 January 2000; what vehicles were involved; and what the cause of death was, and which emergency service was first on the scene, in each case. [5858]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been two fatal accidents on Salisbury Plain training area since 1 January 2000. Private Christopher France died in an accident on 6 April 2000 after being struck by a Pinzgauer vehicle, and Lieutenant Paul Syred and Corporal Michael Paterson were killed in July this year when the Challenger 2 tank in which they were travelling overturned. The police and ambulance services arrived promptly at the scenes of both incidents.

  The Ministry of Defence continues to investigate both accidents and I am therefore unable to provide further details at this stage.

  Japanese PoWs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compensation applications have been received for former PoWs held by the Japanese under his Department's new scheme; how many have been approved; how many have been rejected; and how many have been upheld after appeal. [7613]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 9 October 2001, a total of 27,628 claims have been received for payments under the ex-gratia scheme. 22,437 payments have been made, 3,761 claims have been rejected. As the payments are made on an ex-gratia basis, there is no formal right of appeal against rejection. However the War Pensions Agency will reconsider any claim on receipt of further representations.

  London Weighting
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total value of London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6830]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of the various London payments made to service and civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence is £20.3 million. Some 13,300 military and civilian staff are in receipt of such payments.

  Departmental Spending
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in 960W
  the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6833]

  Dr. Moonie
  I regret that data on defence expenditure as a whole are not available by nation and region of the UK and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I draw the hon. Member's attention to the recently published document, "Defence Statistics 2001". a copy of which is available in the Library. Table 1.9 contains data on defence expenditure on equipment by region and nation.

  Departmental Properties
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total annual running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6831]

  Dr. Moonie
  Decisions about the Ministry of Defence use of buildings are not made primarily on the basis of cost. Operational and other factors also play a part. Running costs for MOD buildings are not as present held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, with the publication of "In Trust and On Trust: A Strategy for the Defence Estate" in June 2000, MOD has begun to establish a basis on which such information can be more easily collected and assessed. This process may, however, take some time to complete to the level of detail requested.

  Legal Services
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the numbers of qualified lawyers and support staff in each of the armed services' legal departments, identifying where possible those concerned with courts martials, in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [7402]

  Mr. Ingram
  The employment of qualified lawyers and support staff in the armed forces, and the organisation of the individual service legal branches, varies greatly.

  The Naval Service—the number of qualified lawyers in the Royal Navy for the years requested are:

  Year

  Qualified lawyers

  1980

  29

  1990

  29

  2000

  33

  The Royal Navy does not have a dedicated legal branch. Instead, qualified naval barristers are employed in legal posts throughout the service. In the year 2000, there were 21 legal posts of which 17 were filled by barristers. The remaining 16 lawyers will have been employed in normal naval duties afloat and ashore. Unfortunately, no such statistics exist for the years 1980 and 1990. It is estimated that between one third and one half of the qualified legal personnel will have been involved in court martial proceedings as a part of their duties.
  961W
  As the naval service does not possess a dedicated legal department, there are no dedicated support staff. It is estimated that about 12 senior and junior RN ratings would have supported the various naval barristers whose work included court martial proceedings. In 1996, a dedicated court martial management cell was established specifically to administer courts martial, consisting of five service and civilian support personnel.

  The Army—in both 1980 and 1990, the lawyer strength of the Adjutant General Corps Army Legal Services (AGC(ALS)), formerly the Army Legal Corps, was approximately 53, with the number of these involved in court martial related work estimated as 32. The lawyer strength for 2000 is 97. It is estimated that about 25 to 30 support staff existed in the years 1980 and 1990, and that there were approximately 72 support staff in the year 2000. The exact figures cannot be quoted as a number of the support staff were locally employed personnel at overseas stations, and the figures are not held centrally.

  In April 1997 the Army Prosecuting Authority (APA) was formed, with two branches—one in the UK, the other in Germany. The total strength of the APA during the year 2000 dealing with courts martial was:

  Number

  Lawyers

  30

  Support staff

  32

  The Royal Air Force—the number of qualified lawyers in the RAF, for the years requested, are:

  Year

  Qualified lawyers

  1980

  21(8)

  1990

  24(9)

  2000

  32(12)

  The bracketed figures represent the estimated number of qualified RAF legal officers who were involved in discipline casework, which includes courts martial. Prior to the establishment of the RAF Prosecuting Authority in 1997, some legal officers, particularly in overseas locations, combined a small amount of court martial work with other duties. It is estimated that the number of RAF legal support staff has remained constant at approximately 13 (one NCO and 12 civilians) for each of the dates requested.

  Training (Canada)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK service personnel have been involved in training in Canada in each of the last three years; how many have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured; how many incidents there have been involving live firing; and if he will make a statement. [7179]

  Mr. Ingram
  The facilities used by the UK armed forces in Canada at Suffield and Wainwright offer excellent training opportunities and, as is the case wherever we train, safety is of paramount importance.962W
  Safety is managed by trained staff using GPS, cellular phone and terrain data base technology. Any death or injury is, of course, a matter of great regret, but our safety record in Canada—as elsewhere—is good.

  The numbers of UK service personnel involved in training in Canada in each of the last three years, the numbers killed and seriously injured, and the number of live firing incidents that were investigated by the land accident investigation team (LAIT) are shown in the table.

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Numbers of UK Service personnel involved in training

  5,665

  5,579

  7,712

  Numbers killed

  0

  1

  1

  Numbers seriously injured

  1

  1

  3

  Numbers of live firing incidents investigated by LAIT

  4

  8

  3

  1 To date

  Terrorist Attacks (USA)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his counterparts in(a) NATO and (b) the European Union on the United Kingdom's response to the events in the USA on 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [7170]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are committed to pursuing concrete steps to counter terrorism in a number of international forums, and continue to meet overseas colleagues as part of the effort to build a strong international coalition against terrorism. In particular, I have met with NATO and EU colleagues on a number of occasions since 11 September, including during the NATO and EU informal ministerial meetings in Brussels on 26 September and 12 October respectively, to discuss measures to be taken in response to the attacks on the United States.

  For the first time in its history, NATO has invoked article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, which states that an armed attack on one ally is an attack on all. Allies have now agreed material assistance to the US in response to the 11 September outrages, including the deployment of AWACS early warning aircraft and the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean

  The EU Special Council on 21 September agreed to co-operate with the US in bringing to justice and punishing the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks, and approved a set of measures to combat terrorism, including enhancing police and judicial co-operation, developing international legal instruments, putting an end to the funding of terrorism and strengthening air security. The General Affairs Council on 8 October confirmed that all partners strongly support the US and UK military action.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used to determine terrorist targets to be attacked by NATO in response to the American World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks. [7135]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO, as an organisation, has not participated in attacks on terrorist targets in Afghanistan. The alliance has, however, invoked article 5 of the Washington treaty, which states that an armed attack on
  963W
  one ally is an attack on all, in response to the 11 September terrorist attacks. This is the strongest possible message that NATO allies stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in response to these outrages. Further to a request from the US, allies have agreed to take 8 measures in support of the US response to the terrorist attacks, including deployment of AWACS early warning aircraft to the United States.

  US and British forces operations in Afghanistan over recent days are designed to damage, disrupt and destroy al-Qaeda's terrorist network and elements of the military infrastructure of the Taliban, whose support has allowed

  Number of staff by grade level and region (Full-time equivalent) April 2000

  Grade equivalent (paid grade)

  Government office region

  SCS

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Industrial/other grades

  All grades

  London

  130

  707

  2,377

  1,621

  3,198

  557

  8,590

  South East

  71

  1,283

  5,268

  4,102

  6,688

  4,962

  22,375

  South West

  89

  1,170

  6,038

  4,221

  7,268

  3,986

  22,772

  West Midlands

  17

  499

  1,498

  1,239

  2,177

  2,583

  8,014

  North West

  1

  17

  260

  325

  1,109

  445

  2,156

  North East

  —

  —

  42

  42

  173

  230

  487

  Yorks and Humber

  2

  21

  293

  693

  1,011

  966

  2,986

  East Midlands

  —

  22

  331

  339

  982

  952

  2,626

  Eastern

  8

  164

  1,391

  1,331

  2,430

  1,061

  6,385

  England total

  318

  3,881

  17,499

  13,914

  25,038

  15,743

  76,392

  Wales

  3

  37

  328

  711

  1,384

  2,512

  4,975

  Scotland

  3

  90

  1,080

  1,430

  3,811

  2,980

  9,394

  Northern Ireland

  1

  13

  215

  241

  1,103

  1,655

  3,228

  Unreported and elsewhere

  40

  261

  1,571

  616

  710

  3,146

  6,344

  Grand total

  365

  4,282

  20,693

  16,912

  32,046

  26,036

  100,333

  Number of staff by grade level and region (Full-time equivalent) April 2000

  Grade equivalent (paid grade)

  Grade equivalent (paid grade)

  SCS

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Industrial/other grades

  All grades

  London

  36

  17

  11

  10

  10

  2

  9

  South East

  19

  30

  25

  24

  21

  19

  22

  South West

  24

  27

  29

  25

  23

  15

  23

  West Midlands

  5

  12

  7

  7

  7

  10

  8

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Yorks and Humber

  1

  —

  1

  4

  3

  4

  3

  East Midlands

  —

  1

  2

  2

  3

  4

  3

  Eastern

  2

  4

  7

  8

  8

  4

  6

  England total

  87

  91

  85

  82

  78

  60

  76

  Wales

  1

  1

  2

  4

  4

  10

  5

  Scotland

  1

  2

  5

  8

  12

  11

  9

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  6

  3

  Unreported and elsewhere

  11

  6

  8

  4

  2

  12

  6

  Grand total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Median salary by pay band as at September 2000

  Grade equivalence pay band

  Salary (£)

  SCS

  56,990

  Band B

  35,639

  Band C

  20,873

  Band D

  18,400

  Band E

  16,771

  Industrial/other grades

  26,075

  964W
  Afghanistan to be used as a base for terrorism across the world. The targets included terrorist training camps, military airfields and air defence sites.

  Civil Service
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what proportion of each civil service grade in his Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement. [6832]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information required is given in the following tables:

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels are(a) ready for active service, (b) currently undergoing refit and (c) out of service but not currently undergoing refit; what proportion of all vessels each category represents; and if he will make a statement. [6956]
  965W
  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows, as at 1 October 2001, the Royal Navy vessels undergoing refits or docking periods and the total number of vessels in each class. There are currently no vessels held out of service.

  Type

  (ii) Vessels undergoing refit/docking period

  (iii) Percentage of vessels

  (iv) Total number

  SSBN

  0

  0

  4

  SSN

  Sceptre

  42

  12

  Spartan

  Torbay

  Trenchant

  Turbulent

  CVS

  Invincible

  66

  3

  Ark Royal

  Destroyers/Frigates

  Liverpool

  22

  32

  Manchester

  Iron Duke

  Cardiff

  Cumberland

  Somerset

  Grafton

  Minor war vessels

  Cottesmore

  9

  22

  Sandown

  Patrol vessels

  Dumbarton

  28

  7

  Castle

  Royal fleet auxiliaries

  Orangeleaf

  6

  17

  All RN vessels other than those listed at (ii) above are within the operation of the fleet and as such are ready for active service within agreed timescales.

  Awareness Events
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) national and (b) international awareness events his Department has participated in since June 1997 in the form of (i) sponsorship, (ii) departmental attendance, (iii) similar departmental activities and (iv) a message of support. [5036]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he was consulted on the ending of shortwave broadcasting by the BBC World Service to North America and Australasia; and if he will make a statement. [7355]

  Mr. MacShane
  Operational decisions on resource allocation are for the World Service, working within the framework of overall objectives agreed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The World Service informed the Government of its plan to withdraw from short wave broadcasts to the regions concerned in advance. The Government have asked the World Service to review the impact on audience figures next year.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to Pakistan regarding their use of the death penalty to enforce their blasphemy laws. [7300]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We were instrumental in ensuring that the EU followed up an earlier demarche to the Pakistani Attorney-General and Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Ms Shahida Jamil, on 28 August, which reiterated the EU's concern about the misuse of the blasphemy laws and the unacceptability of the death penalty in Pakistan.

  Along with our EU partners, we will continue to look for appropriate opportunities to raise our concerns about the blasphemy laws and the application of the death penalty with the Pakistani authorities.

  Coalition against Terrorism
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the United States Government regarding the role of(a) Iran and (b) Saudi Arabia in the coalition against terrorism. [7830]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government cannot disclose the detail of confidential discussions. We are committed to building international consensus against terrorism through bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is regarding the situation in Kashmir. [7832]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned by the situation in Kashmir and continue to urge India and Pakistan to persevere with dialogue to resolve all issues outstanding between them. In this context, we welcome the recent contacts between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for the people of Kashmir following the meeting between Indian and Pakistani leaders. [7090]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We welcomed the talks between Prime Minister Vajpayee and General Musharraf in July. We hope that India and Pakistan will persevere with dialogue and reach a peaceful settlement to this issue.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made since July in allowing international human rights monitors to enter Kashmir. [7089]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I regret that there has been no progress since my answer to the same question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ro hdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) on 10 July 2001, Official Report, column 474W. We continue to impress upon the Indian Government the benefits of transparency and regularly urge them to allow access for human rights bodies, including the UN Rapporteurs on

  967W
  Torture and on Extra-judicial Executions, the Working Group on Disappearances and groups such as Amnesty International.

  Royal Prerogative
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions since 26 July when he has exercised his powers under the royal prerogative. [8010]

  Mr. MacShane
  A number of powers under the royal prerogative are exercised on the advice of the Secretary of State. These include the conduct of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the management of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Records are not kept centrally of the individual occasions on which such powers are exercised.

  Brazil
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) ministerial visits and (b) visits by officials to Brazil in the last year. [7209]

  Mr. MacShane
  In the 12-month period prior to the date this question was tabled, the following outward ministerial visits took place to Brazil:18 to 24 September 2000: The Attorney-General
  5 to 19 October 2000: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
  4 to 8 November 2000: The Minister for Housing
  6 to 7 December 2000: The Minister for Schools
  30 July to 1 August 2001: The Prime Minister (accompanied by the Minister of State for Trade and Investment and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and myself).

  In the same period, the following senior officials visited Brazil:
  2 to 6 October 2000: Chief Clerk, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  26 November to 1 December 2000: Chief of Air Staff, Ministry of Defence
  27 November to 1 December 2000: Director Americas, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  7 to 8 June 2001: Director General for Trade Policy, Department of Trade and Industry
  19 to 27 June 2001: Director Americas, Trade Partners UK
  16 to 19 July: Director Americas, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  All visiting Ministers were accompanied by at least one official. In the case of the Prime Minister, the official delegation to Brazil comprised 24 persons.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Ages)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7240]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The normal retirement age for all employees in the FCO and in the non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies for which it is responsible is 60. However, for each completed year of service in 968W
  certain posts overseas (prior to 1972), the retiring age is reduced by 3 months, though not so as to reduce it below 55.

  Retirement on compulsory, flexible or approved early retirement terms applies to staff aged 50 or over.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has collated about the number of civilians killed in Aceh, Indonesia, since the commencement of the current military operation on 2 May; and what representations his Department has made to the Indonesian Government concerning their cessation of that operation. [6556]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Precise figures for the number of deaths from violence in Aceh are not available, but an estimated 800 civilians have died during 2001 (up to early October). During a visit to Aceh on 1 October by EU Ambassadors based in Jakarta, the Deputy Chief of Police said that approximately 70 police had been killed, along with 30 military personnel and 100 members of the GAM (Free Aceh Movement).

  HMG has made it clear to all the parties concerned on numerous occasions that the only basis for a peaceful, durable settlement is through negotiation.

  I raised the issue with the Indonesian Authorities on 28 August and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holms) raised it with President Megawati and others on 11 September.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the use of British-made armoured vehicles by the North Sumatra Military Command, Bukit Barisan. [7693]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Indonesian Government have told us that there are no Saladin armoured vehicles, or other British built equipment in Aceh. We are aware that an Indonesian magazine "Gatra", on 14 April 2001 showed a Saladin (not Saracen) patrolling the North Sumatra/Aceh border area, but on the North Sumatra side. Saladin armoured vehicles are 45 years old and are generally used for protected mobility of troops.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage the Indonesian Government to invite UN experts on(a) extrajudicial executions, (b) torture, (c) arbitrary detentions, (d) the independence of judges and lawyers and (e) human rights defenders to visit Indonesia to carry out assessments on issues of concern. [6555]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is British Government policy to encourage all Governments to co-operate with UN mechanisms including the special procedures appointed to investigate specific thematic issues such as extra judicial executions and torture. If one of the UN Special Rapporteurs thought that it would be appropriate to visit Indonesia, we would encourage the Indonesian Government to facilitate such a visit.

  We raise human right issues with the Indonesian authorities, both bilaterally and through the European Union, at every appropriate opportunity.
  969W
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the human rights situation in Aceh and West Papua is being undertaken by the British Embassy in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [6948]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Embassy in Jakarta maintains regular contact with a wide range of NGOs, civil society, local government and parliament representatives to share information on human rights issues within Indonesia. In addition the Ambassador and his staff make regular visits to Aceh and West Papua, most recently in October 2001.

  The British Government remain concerned about a range of human rights issues in Indonesia and I discussed these with the Vice President and the Attorney-General when I visited Jakarta in August.

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for peace in Angola; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UN sanctions on the Unita forces in Angola; and what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development about the human consequences of the civil war in Angola. [7439]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The way to a lasting peace in Angola is through dialogue, which must include the broadest possible range of Angolans.

  The UN Monitoring Mechanism on Angolan Sanctions has just published its report (on 9 October). We are still studying its findings.

  My noble Friend Baroness Amos, the Minister responsible for Africa last met the Secretary of State for International Development on 12 September to discuss Angola. We remain concerned at the human consequences of the civil war, which include widespread suffering, violation of human rights and the exclusion of civil society from the political process. We continue to urge dialogue, involving all parties to the conflict, as an essential first step towards addressing these problems.

  Afghanistan
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions UK representatives have had with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [7435]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British officials maintain regular contact with the Northern Alliance through the Charge d'Affaires at the Afghan Embassy in London. Officials have also had a range of contacts with other members of the Northern Alliance including in Afghanistan and during visits by them to Europe.

  Morocco
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the United Nations and the Government of Morocco concerning the holding of an 970W
  independent referendum to allow the Saharwi people to decide their own future, including the option of independence. [7279]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK supported United Nations Security Council resolution 1359 that was passed unanimously on 29 June 2001. This reiterated full support for the ongoing efforts of MINURSO to implement the Settlement Plan and the agreements by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary General to invite all parties to meet directly, or through proximity talks under the auspices of his personal Envoy, James Baker, in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to this issue and we continue to encourage all parties to do so.

  We regularly discuss the issue of Western Sahara with the Government of Morocco, most recently during my visit to Morocco on 24 to 26 September.

  International Army Fair
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visitors, and from which countries, were granted entry to the United Kingdom, under immigration law, to attend the International Army Fair held in London from 11 September. [7281]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not keep records of the number of visitors or their nationalities granted entry to the United Kingdom to attend specific events. To provide the information requested would require manual searches of records at overseas Posts and ports of entry, which could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Chechnya
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the human rights situation in Chechnya is being undertaken by UK representatives; and if he will make a statement. [6987]

  Peter Hain
  We remain very concerned about human rights in Chechnya although security concerns preclude travel there, officials in London and overseas monitor the human rights situation closely. Apart from media reports, UK representatives receive regular updates from the Council of Europe and the OSCE Assistance Group, and from a number of humanitarian relief agencies. In addition, the FCO is in frequent contact with human rights organisations inducing Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Russian NGO, Memorial. They all make an invaluable contribution to our assessment of the human rights situation in the republic.

  Chagos Islands
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits to the Chagos Islands have been facilitated for the Ilois people by the High Commissioner; and if such visits include Diego Garcia. [7283]
  971W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory has received a request to facilitate a visit by a party of Ilois to the outer islands of the Territory. This is still under consideration.

  Burma
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Burma concerning human rights abuses and political freedoms. [6773]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take every opportunity to register our concerns through our Embassy in Rangoon and visiting officials although our contacts with the Burmese regime are naturally limited. In addition we regularly make our views known through the EU and also the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's public statement of 31 August welcomed the continued release of political prisoners and called for urgency to be injected into the process under way in Burma.

  Visas (Subcontinent)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the main reasons for refusal of applications for family visit visas in(a) Islamabad and (b) New Delhi. [7091]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ministers have made no formal assessment. However, the Independent Monitor for entry clearance refusals without the right of appeal has a remit to review refusals of family visit visas up to 2 October 2000, when the right of appeal for this category of visitor was reintroduced. He will present his conclusions later this year in his annual report to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will lay a copy of the report in both Houses.

  Settlement Visas
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for settlement visas were made by those wishing to live in same-sex relationships with UK citizens in each year since 1998; how many were granted; how many(a) applications and (b) appeals are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [6438]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The total number of settlement applications received, issued and refused by those wishing to live in same-sex relationships for 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 are as follows:

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  1998

  109

  95

  14

  1999

  96

  91

  5

  2000

  146

  140

  6

  2001

  94

  89

  5

  The 2001 figures are based on monthly statistical reports received from the 109 largest entry clearance posts up to June 2001. The remaining entry clearance posts
  972W
  submit information on an annual basis. To answer this question for all 164 posts could be done only at disproportionate costs.

  We have no record of any outstanding applications.

  We do not record separately how many appeals are outstanding. Manual searches would be required to obtain such information and could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Fundamentalist Paramilitary Groups
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of UK citizens involved with fundamentalist paramilitary groups in(a) Afghanistan, (b) Kashmir, (c) Pakistan (d) Chechnya, (e) Lebanon and (f) Palestinian Authority territories; and if he will make a statement. [7531]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have no accurate figures for the number of UK citizens who may be involved with terrorists or other such groups in the places named.

  Terrorist Attacks (USA)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in(a) NATO and (b) the European Union on the United Kingdom's response to the events in the USA on 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [7169]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are committed to pursuing concrete steps to counter terrorism in a number of international fora, including the UN, NATO and the European Union. As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on 4 October 2001,Official Report, columns 671–75, he and the Foreign Secretary have been in intensive contact with foreign leaders from every part of the world over the past few weeks. The Prime Minister visited Berlin. Paris, New York and Washington on 19–21 September; Moscow, Islamabad and New Delhi on 4–6 October; and Oman and Cairo on 10–12 October; and the Foreign Secretary visited Jordan, Iran, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt on 24–27 September as part of the effort to build a strong international coalition against terrorism.

  We are also taking action in international institutions:

  UN Security Council resolution 1368 was adopted on 12 September. The Council unanimously expressed its readiness to take all necessary steps in response to the attacks. The resolution also stated that the Council would hold accountable those indirectly responsible for these acts—those who aid, support or harbour the perpetrators—as well as those directly responsible. On 28 September, the Council adopted resolution 1373, which contained a series of measures to tackle the roots of terrorism. In particular, it stated that all countries should target terrorist finances and ensure that no safe haven is provided to any known terrorist organisations.

  Also on 12 September, the North Atlantic Council (NAC) agreed that if the attack against the US was directed from abroad it should he regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 is the collective self-defence commitment at the core of NATO, under which the Parties agree that an

  973W
  armed attack against one or more of them shall be considered an attack against them all. On 2 October the US briefed the NAC on the results of their investigations. Lord Robertson, the NATO Secretary General, concluded that it was now clear that the attack had been directed from overseas and that Article 5 was therefore now operational. This is the first time in the history of NATO that Article 5 has been invoked, and is the strongest possible signal of Allied solidarity in the face of the attacks on the US. NATO's North Atlantic Council has now agreed material assistance to the US, including the use of AWACS early warning aircraft.

  The Heads of State and Government of the European Union at the Special European Council on 21 September expressed their total support of the American people in the face of the deadly terrorist attacks. They agreed to co-operate with the US in bringing to justice and punishing the perpetrators, sponsors and accomplices of such barbaric acts. The Council also approved a concrete set of measures to combat terrorism, including enhancing police and judicial co-operation, developing international legal instruments, putting an end to the funding of terrorism and strengthening aviation security. The General Affairs Council on 8 October confirmed the EU's strong support for US and UK military action.

  We will continue our diplomatic effort in the coming weeks to strengthen international efforts against terrorism.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the role of the security services in(a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom and (c) other members of the European Union in identifying potential terrorist attacks; and if he will make a statement. [7172]

  Mr. Straw
  The hon. Member will be aware that it is long-standing Government policy not to comment on operational intelligence matters. However, while that policy is not going to change, it is no secret that we work closely with the US and other allies to counter the threat of terrorism, which is kept under constant review; where we have specific information, we act on it.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for international security of the recent atrocities in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. [7171]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  What happened on 11 September was an act without parallel in the history of terrorism.

  The fight against terrorism needs to be a global one. As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on 4 October 2001, Official Report, columns 671–75, we have been in intensive contact with foreign leaders from every part of the world over the past few weeks. What we have encountered is an unprecedented level of solidarity and commitment to work together. We are continuing our intensive diplomatic effort to build a strong international coalition against terrorism. We are taking action in the UN, G8, EU and NATO.

  The Prime Minister also stated on 4 October that, in the face of the evidence, our immediate objectives are clear. We must bring bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice and eliminate the terrorist threat they pose. And
  974W
  we must ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism. But we also have to continue our attempts to resolve conflicts, defuse tensions and work for peace in other troubled regions of the world.

  The military action we are taking with the US is targeted against places we know to be involved in the operation of terror or against the military apparatus of the Taliban. The military plan has been put together mindful of our determination to avoid civilian casualties.

  Departmental Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate total annual staff costs for his Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6817]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have a national or regional distribution of staff. Almost all Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff within the UK are located in our offices in London or Hanslope Park. A very small number may at any time be on secondment to other Government Departments, Government agencies or private institutions around the UK.

  London Weighting
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the total annual value of London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6818]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not pay any separate London weighting or London living allowance.

  Correspondence
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what was, for each year since 1995, the total number of(a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement; [7035]

  (2) what was, for each year since 1995, the average response time for providing a substantive answer to (a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords. [7034]

  Mr. Straw
  The effective handling of correspondence and PQs is a issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance.

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28W and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W.
  975W
  On Parliamentary Questions, I refer to the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the then Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 29 March 2001, Official Report, column 743W.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) EU member states and (b) the accession countries about reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if he will make a statement. [7987]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is in regular dialogue with her counterparts in the European Union and candidate countries on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. I frequently raise the importance of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy with European Union and other Governments, as do other members of the Government including the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  Our goals are reduction of the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy and better delivery of policy outcomes. We want to reduce the overall burden of the Common Agricultural Policy, align European Union and world prices more closely, and target support measures on the rural economy and the environment. These are also important for our ambitions for a new World Trade Organisation round for enlargement of the European Union.

  There has been progress. In the 1980s spending on the Common Agricultural Policy was over 60 per cent. of European Community budget. In 2001 it will be around 45 per cent.

  As a result of the Agenda 2000 package agreed by Heads of State at the 1999 Berlin European Council, spending on the Common Agricultural Policy will decline in real terms for 2002. Mid-term reviews of the Common Agricultural Policy are scheduled for 2002–03. The Government's objective is to secure changer that benefit consumers, taxpayers, the rural economy, the farming community and the environment. There is increasing recognition within the European Union of the need for reform.

  Sudan
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application for an export licence for the supply of one Bedford refuelling tanker to Blue Bird Aviation Ltd. (Sudan). [8045]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government recently approved an application for a licence to export on Bedford refuelling tanker for Blue Bird Aviation Ltd. (Sudan). Although the tanker is on the Military List, it will be used to refuel light civilian aircraft at Khartoum airport, including those operated by UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the ICRC, all of which are working to alleviate the suffering in Sudan. This decision does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU common position on arms exports to Sudan.

  European Governance White Paper
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the publication of the European Commission's White Paper on European Governance. [8044]

  Peter Hain
  I welcome the publication of the White Paper. It is an important initiative in the effort to make the EU's institutions more efficient, effective, transparent and accountable. I particularly welcome the emphasis of the White Paper on practical ideas which can be implemented without the need for Treaty change. A copy of the White Paper has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Lord Ashcroft
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date his Department received a letter from Lord Ashcroft and Carlisle Holdings regarding alleged remarks made by the Secretary of State for International Development at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle in 1999; on what date his Department responded to the letter; if he will place in the Library copies of this correspondence; and if he will make a statement. [6582]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. member to the answer I gave him on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 484W.

  European Union
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he expects a draft constitution for the European Union produced by one of the Union's institutions to be brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government before the next IGC. [7426]

  Peter Hain
  The Prime Minister said in his speech in Warsaw last year that"there is an important debate about a Constitution for Europe. In practice I suspect that, given the sheer diversity and complexity of the EU, its constitution, like the British constitution, will continue to be found in a number of different treaties, laws and precedents. It is perhaps easier for the British than for others to recognise that a constitutional debate must not necessarily end with a single, legally binding document called a Constitution for an entity as dynamic as the EU."

  The Government have suggested that there could be a clear political statement of principals. Others will no doubt make their own contributions to this debate, and we will look at each proposal on its merits.

  Departmental Properties
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by his Department in (i) the current year and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6584]

  Mr. MacShane
  I list the projects, some contractually committed, and others planned to start (budget permitting), during financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  I must caution however, that it is almost certain that due to changing priorities and budget availability, the timing of some of the planned projects may slip and that some may even have to be postponed indefinitely.
  977W
  A baseline capital budget of £32 million is available in each of these two financial years to fund the listed projects. In addition to this figure, and in accordance with an asset recycling agreement with the Treasury, the funding of many of the listed projects is dependent on the capital realised through the sale of existing properties.

  Estate strategy unit: contractually committed projects over £1 million

  Post

  Project

  Background

  Current total estimated cost £K

  Accra

  Build new visa office

  Visa demand increase

  3,330

  Beirut

  Fit out new leased office

  Present office unsatisfactory; relocation required

  1.780

  Buenos Aires

  Residence—services renewal and consequential repairs

  Need

  3,140

  Dar es Salaam

  New offices

  Present office unsatisfactory—security

  7,200

  Lima

  New offices ingoing works

  Present office unsafe in earthquake zone

  1,400

  Los Angeles

  Fit out new office

  Moving to smaller, more efficient offices

  1,080

  Moscow

  Residence conversion of two wings to provide staff accommodation

  Spend to save

  2,390

  Sofia

  Fit out leased office

  Former office unsatisfactory, Expansion—EU/NATO applicant

  1,860

  Tirana

  Extension of office

  Expansion of mission

  1,890

  Washington

  Office replacement windows

  Existing windows now 40+ years old and worn out

  2,820

  Yerevan

  New offices

  Existing leased offices inadequate for permanent occupation

  2,940

  Total

  29,830

  Estate strategy unit: contractually committed projects over £1 million—planned

  Post

  Project

  Background

  Planned start

  Baku

  New leased office and residence ingoing work

  Expansion of the post

  FY 2001–02

  Bucharest

  New residence ingoing works

  Replacement of unsatisfactory least d residence

  FY 2001–02

  Cairo

  New visa office

  Replacement of structurally unsound and unsuitable building

  FY 2001–02

  Caracas

  Fitting out new office suite

  Existing building no longer suitable

  FY 2002–02

  Doha

  New compound—move to diplomatic enclave

  Replacement of three existing unsatisfactory offices and residence

  FY 2002–03

  Dubai

  Build six staff houses in compound

  Spend to save

  FY 2001–02

  Dublin

  Conversion and fitting out new residence

  Enabled sale of existing residence and valuable grounds Spend to save

  FY 2001–02

  Dublin

  Build senior staff houses

  Spend to save

  FY 2002–03

  Islamabad

  New visa office

  Needed to handle large increase in visa demand

  FY 2002–03

  Istanbul

  Pera House major repairs

  Fire damage

  FY 2001–02

  Kampala

  Build new office

  Replacement of insecure 1960s building

  FY 2002–03

  Kiev

  Reconfigure office

  To accommodate expansion

  FY 2002–03

  Lagos

  Junior staff housing

  Spend to save

  FY 2002–03

  Madras

  Provide new offices in compound

  Visa demand increasing and replacement of unsound building

  FY 2002–03

  Nairobi

  Build new visa office including site purchase

  Visa demand increase

  FY 2002–03

  Rabat

  Purchase site and build new office

  Replacement of undersized 1970s leased building

  FY 2002–03

  St. Petersburg

  Convert top floor of office to residence

  Utilising surplus office space to enable all other staff to be housed in existing residential block

  FY 2002–03

  Tbilisi

  Fit out new office

  To replace unsatisfactory office in an hotel building

  FY 2002–03

  Tunis

  Residence refurbishment

  Essential renewal of building services

  FY 2002–03

  Vilnius

  Residence ingoings

  Expansion-EU/NATO applicant. New residence releases space for office expansion

  FY 2001–02

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  London Weighting
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the total value of London weightings and London living allowances for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [6836]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry consolidated London weighting and local pay additions into base pay in 1997. Since then, it has paid staff in London at a higher rate than equivalent staff in the National area through the use of separate pay ranges.
  978W
  The list includes only projects valued at over £1 million. To include the smaller projects at our posts overseas would involve disproportionate cost. Budgeted expenditure has been included on the list only for those projects that are contractually committed. We have not provided budgeted expenditure for the remaining projects, as its disclosure could prejudice the outcome of competitive tendering.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the total running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by her Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by her Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6837]

  Ms Hewitt
  The estimated Running costs for Department of Trade and Industry properties in the United Kingdom for the financial year 2001–02 are shown in the table.
  979W

  Area/m2

  Total running cost (£)

  Cost (£)/m2

  Nation

  England

  101,014.65

  50,381,200.00

  498.75

  Scotland

  11,993.00

  1,524,000.00

  127.07

  Wales

  3,359.00

  211,000.00

  62.82

  Northern Ireland

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Total UK

  116.366.65

  52,116,200.00

  447.86

  English regions

  North East

  1,330.65

  136,200.00

  102.21

  North West

  309.00

  82,000.00

  265.37

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2,016.00

  401,000.00

  198.91

  East Midlands

  213.00

  54,000.00

  253.52

  West Midlands

  1,349.00

  389,000.00

  288.36

  East

  1,316.00

  220,000.00

  167.17

  South East

  701.00

  249,000.00

  355.21

  South West

  190.00

  13,000.00

  68.42

  London

  93,590.00

  48,837,000.00

  521.82

  Total regions

  101,014.65

  50, 381,200.00

  498.75

  Note:

  Total running costs exclude VAT

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by her Department in (i) the current year and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6592]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has two projects exceeding £1,000,000.

  The extension of the Conference Centre in 1 Victoria Street is forecast to cost £3,191,000. The expenditure is spread over three financial years.

  Year

  £

  2000–01

  416,000

  2001–02

  2,709,000

  2002–03

  66,000

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by her Department, broken down by leases by the Department itself, its next step agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7820]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This information is not held centrally and to obtain this information would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.

  The PFI project to provide serviced accommodation for the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington involves a capital cost to the PFI contractor of £82,000,000.

  Xinjiang-Shanghai Pipeline
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage the Chinese authorities to undertake social and environmental impact assessments in connection with the proposed west-east pipeline from Xinjiang to Shanghai. [7085]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We take advantage of every relevant Ministerial visit, both inward and outward, to encourage the Chinese Government to take the social and 980W
  environmental aspects of any major project into account. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport highlighted this in connection with the proposed West-East pipeline project, to the Vice Chairmen of both the State Development and Planning Commission and State Economic and Trade Commission when he was in China in February.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, will stress the importance of the issue when he visits China later this month.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications have taken(a) up to one month, (b) two to three months, (c) three to six months and (d) over six months to decide in each of the last five years. [7210]

  Nigel Griffiths
  On 1 March 1999 a new IT system named ELATE was introduced to process Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) applications in the DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO). Data can therefore be given in the form requested from March 1999 and are included in the table. Prior to that date information on SIELs was not stored in a format which allows us to retrieve the data without incurring disproportionate cost.

  It would also entail disproportionate cost to provide the appropriate statistics for Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) applications.

  Details of licensing performance against published Government targets have been outlined in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls since 1997. These can be accessed via the Foreign Office web-site at www.fco.gov.uk.

  Breakdown of the number of SIELs issued in one, two to three, three to six and over six months1

  Year

  Processed in: (working days)

  Number of SIELs

  Per cent. of SIELs

  19992

  0–20

  5,077

  65.7

  21–60

  2,443

  31.6

  61–120

  197

  2.5

  Over 120

  9

  0.1

  20003

  0–20

  6,342

  59.9

  21–60

  3,381

  31.9

  61–120

  607

  5.7

  Over 120

  259

  2.4

  20014

  0–20

  4,722

  60.0

  21–60

  2,364

  30.0

  61–120

  484

  6.2

  Over 120

  299

  3.8

  1 Figures include all cases—both those circulated and not circulated by DTI to our advisory departments.

  2 1 March to 31 December

  3 1 January to 31 December

  4 1 January to 26 September

  Note:
  In June 2000 a change in the criteria for circulating cases meant that nearly all cases would, from that point, be circulated. The figures given do not therefore match those in the Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls because figures given in those reports made a distinction between circulated and non-circulated cases.
  981W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to ensure that advice and assistance given to exporters to(a) Pakistan and (b) China is consistent with the requirements of export licences; and if she will make a statement. [6558]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Trade Partners UK work in the United Kingdom and in overseas markets to offer appropriate advice to British exporters and investors seeking to do business. Trade Partners UK staff refer inquiries from companies about export licence requirements for all markets to the 'DTI's Export Control Organisation'. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the exporting company to ensure that any export it makes complies with export control legislation in force at the time of the export.

  Office of Communications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated cost of setting up and running the shadow Ofcom is. [7791]

  Mr. Alexander
  A "shadow Ofcom" is not proposed, however, The Office of Communications Bill proposes to establish Ofcom to prepare to receive its regulatory functions at a later stage.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications were registered by the Employment Tribunal Service in 2000–01; how many of these cases were disposed of; in how many of these cases costs were awarded against (i) the applicant and (ii) the respondent; and what the average costs award was in each case. [8066]

  Alan Johnson
  The Employment Tribunals Service registered 130,408 applications in 2000–2001.

  During this period, a total of 92,938 cases were disposed of, with costs being awarded in 247 cases, of which 167 were awarded against the applicant and 80 were awarded against the respondent.

  The average cost award was £295.

  Source:
  Employment Tribunals Service

  Airline Aid
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate competition between UK airlines, and between UK and overseas airlines, following recent state intervention to assist the airline industry. [8019]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Office of Fair Trading has the power to investigate any market in which it believes anti-competitive activity may be occurring as the independent competition authority charged with such powers.

  Indonesia (Saladin Armoured Vehicles)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences for Indonesia for components and associated equipment for Saladin armoured vehicles have been(a) applied for, (b) granted and (c) rejected since May 1997. [6545]
  982W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Inquiries are being made and I shall respond to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Regulations (Consultation)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which new regulations issued by her Department since 1997 have been subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks. [7799]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI has been responsible for over 500 regulations since May 1997, across the full range of its responsibilities, and records relating to these regulations are not held centrally, but by the management unit responsible for the policy area involved. The information requested could be obtained and collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Shops
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to implement the recommendations in the recent Better Regulation Task Force report, 'Local Shops; A Progress report on Small Firms Regulation'. [7805]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We plan to publish a Government response to the recommendations made in this report during October. The response will be laid in the Library of the House.

  Independent Company Law
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will consult on the recommendations made in the report of the independent company law review. [7797]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are studying carefully the recommendations of the Final Report of the independent Steering Group, which was published on 26 July. The report represents the results of three years' detailed work, and has been broadly welcomed. I am very grateful to all those who contributed to it.

  A further announcement will be made to Parliament in due course.

  Broad band Provision
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on broadband provision throughout the UK in(a) 2001 to 2003 and (b) 2003 to 2006. [6520]

  Mr. Alexander
  Access to broadband technologies such as ADSL, cable or wireless is rising. Over the period 2001–06, other technologies, such as satellite, are expected to be made available, meaning that broadband services will be available throughout the UK.

  The Government are seeking to help make the broadband market extensive and competitive. I recently invited Regional Development Agencies and the devolved administrations to put forward plans for the £30 million fund designed to develop innovative schemes to extend broadband networks. The Government seek to help and facilitate broadband strategies at regional or devolved level wherever possible. In addition, the Government are investigating the scope for aggregated public sector

  983W
  demand, and are considering further policies in light of the recommendations of the Broadband Stakeholder Group.

  Sakina Security Services Ltd.
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate the activities of Sakina Security Services Ltd; and if he will make a statement. [7554]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department may use discretionary powers under the Companies Acts to conduct inquiries on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where it appears that there has been misconduct in relation to the affairs of a company.

  Any evidence which might justify an investigation is given full consideration by the department

  Info 2000 Software Ltd.
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the action being taken concerning Info 2000 Software Ltd. [7672]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Info 2000 Software Ltd. was dissolved on 15 February 2000.

  Action against Terrorism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce fast track procedures to close down companies believed to be involved in supporting terrorism at home and overseas; and if he will make a statement. [7530]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Existing provisions allow for the winding up of companies and I understand my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be announcing shortly a number of steps including a package of financial measures to tackle terrorism.

  Booking Agencies
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it was the intention for the Employment Business Regulations 2001 in relation to individual booking agents to apply to employment agencies in the entertainment industry. [7857]

  Alan Johnson
  The provisions of the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001 will apply to entertainment agents, that is to businesses which provide services in the entertainment sector for the purpose of finding persons employment or of supplying employers with persons for employment by them.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to outlaw rebooking clauses whereby an agent procures a number of bookings for an artist in a venue for a period of time. [7869]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have no intention of outlawing rebooking clauses in contracts between employment agents, their clients and hirers.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to tighten the regulation of advertising relating to consumer credit; [6634]

  (2) what proposals she has to update the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [6631]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I published a consultation paper "Tackling loan sharks—and more!" on 25 July outlining my plans for updating our consumer credit legislation. In carrying out this review our key objectives will be to develop a new consumer credit regime that:targets rogue traders
  reduces burdens on legitimate businesses reflects market changes on consumer credit
  provides timely and effective advice to consumers and greater transparency when they take out loans.

  Copies of the consultation paper are available in the Library of the House.

  Dolphin Communications
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when officials from the Radiocommunications Agency met representatives of Dolphin Telecommunications Ltd. of Basingstoke to discuss television interference in the vicinity of their mast at Deptford, Wilshire; what advice the Agency gave to(a) local residents and (b) Dolphin Communications; and if he will make a statement. [5863]

  Mr. Alexander
  Officials from the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) of my Department and Dolphin Telecommunications Ltd. first discussed television interference affecting residents adjacent to Dolphin's mast at Deptford, Wiltshire on 23 February. Subsequently, the RA carried out a detailed investigation into the problem which established that the interference was due to the use of masthead amplifiers fitted to the affected TV installations. The mast head amplifiers were intended to improve reception from the Rowridge TV transmitter but were also inadvertently picking up signals from the Dolphin transmitter.

  RA tests showed that a suitable filter fitted between the amplifier and the TV aerial could resolve the interference and the affected residents were recommended to have such filters fitted to their TV installations. The RA established that Dolphin were operating within licence conditions. If any residents still have interference problems they should consult an aerial contractor for advice on fitting a suitable filter.

  Timber Products
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it a legal requirement that timber products imported and sold in the United Kingdom should have an independent chain of custody certificate showing forest origin of timber. [6654]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There is currently neither a practicable system nor sufficient consensual support from all stakeholders for an independent chain of custody certificate scheme to be a workable proposition.
  985W
  The Government are actively investigating a range of options for intergovernmental agreements to combat illegal logging.

  For their own purchases the Government have introduced a policy that requires their buyers actively to seek to buy timber and wood products from sustainable and legal sources.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what autonomy is given to RDA boards to spend their own budgets on a local basis. [7619]

  Alan Johnson
  Presently RDAs spend in accordance with set national programmes. From 1 April 2002 these will be replaced by a single broad programme giving greater freedom, subject to RDAs meeting agreed outcome and output targets. It is for each RDA, in consultation with regional partners, to assess the local priorities within the region in the Regional Economic Strategy and the Corporate Plan.

  Equal Pay (British Coal)
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the recent representations she has received about the equal pay claims of female canteen workers and cleaners against the former British Coal. [7537]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the last month I have received in the region of 110 representations on this issue. These have come from Members of Parliament and private individuals.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many payments have been made and what is the total amount paid to settle the equal pay claims between female canteen workers and cleaners and British Coal. [7536]

  Ms Hewitt
  To date we have made 1,256 payments totalling around £10.7 million. The total cost of settlement will be in the region of £14 million.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the supermarkets' voluntary code of practice toward suppliers in preventing monopoly practices. [7267]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is currently considering the Director General of Fair Trading's advice on a draft Code of Practice, recommended by the Competition Commission, to put relations between supermarkets and their suppliers on a clearer and more predictable basis.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices closed in each of the first two quarters of the 2001–02 financial year. [7665]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that total net closure of post offices in the first quarter of the current financial year was 119 and that figures for the second quarter to end September are not yet available.

  Enterprise Bill
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to publish an Enterprise Bill; and if she will make a statement. [7560]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The two White Papers "Productivity and Enterprise: A World Class Competition Regime" and "Productivity and Enterprise: Insolvency—A Second Chance" published on 31 July, set out the Government's proposals for a series of radical pro-enterprise reforms to competition and bankruptcy rules.

  The Government are committed to implementing these White Papers, and we have invited views on our proposals. Proposals for an Enterprise Bill were included in the Queen's speech in June of this year.

  Phoenix Fund Grants
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Small Business Service is taking to promote the availability of Phoenix Fund grants in deprived areas. [7804]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service is taking a range of actions to promote the availability of Phoenix Fund grants in deprived areas, including targeted mailshots to organisations that may wish to apply, news release for local press, TV and radio and information about the Fund on its website www.sbs.gov.uk/phoenix

  A total of 668 applications have been received to date and 111 projects are under way. A further bidding round for support under the Fund for Community Development Financial Institutions is currently being held with a closing date of 26 October.

  Devolved Administrations
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in h Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly committees; and to what categories of document she gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (w) Scottish Parliament, (x) Welsh Assembly, (y) Northern Ireland Assembly and (z) House of Commons select committees. [7051]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Cerebral Palsy Sufferers
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding streams are a available to voluntary organisations providing conductive education to children with cerebral palsy. [6265]

  Mr. Timms
  Any voluntary organisation or group in England which is working with or seeking to support pupils with special educational needs can apply to the Department for funding through the Special Educational Needs Small Programme Fund. The Fund supports projects that are time limited to one year to a maximum of £10,000.

  Language Qualifications
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if(a) GCSE, (b) A levels and (c) AS level qualifications are available in (i) Gujarati, (ii) Hindi, (iii) Somali and (iv) Urdu; which UK universities accept A levels or equivalent in these languages as satisfying admission criteria; and if she will make a statement. [6439]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  GCSE and AS/A level qualifications are available in Gujarati and Urdu. Hindi and Somali are not available at GCSE and AS/A level. Universities are autonomous bodies and each university is responsible for its own admissions criteria. The Department does not hold a list of the admissions criteria for each university. Candidates are advised to contact universities of their choice to find out entry requirements for careers they wish to pursue in advance of starting an A level course.

  Sixth Form Education
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to encourage more students to enter sixth form education; and it she will make a statement. [6642]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have set out our vision for post-16 learning in the recent White Paper "Schools Achieving Success". We want all young people to continue after the age of 16 in high quality learning opportunities which best meet their needs and potential. This may be in school, college or in the work based route. We have established the Learning and Skills Council to drive this forward and have put in place a number of measures which provide the support and incentives young people need to take up and succeed in learning. We are introducing the new Connexions Service to provide advice and guidance to young people on the full range of learning options open to them and to help them progress within their chosen learning environment. We are also addressing the financial barriers to participation through piloting the Education Maintenance Allowance Scheme; providing Discretionary Funding targeted at specific learner needs, and the Connexions Card, which offers discounts on transport and learning materials.

  Primary School Pupils (Travel)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary age pupils are obliged to travel more than three miles to school; and how many did so in the school year before key stage 1 and 2 classes were limited to 30. [6656]
  988W
  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not keep figures of primary school children obliged to travel more than three miles to school. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has provided the following figures for all school journey lengths from its National Travel Survey.

  Trips to school by length: age 5 to 10: 1998–2000 (latest years available)

  Percentage

  Under 1 mile

  58

  1 to under 2 miles

  22

  2 to under 3 miles

  7

  3 to under 5 miles

  7

  5 miles and over

  6

  Legislation to limit the size of infant classes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or fewer came into force in September. The limit does not extend to key stage 2 classes. In implementing the limit we have made it clear to local education authorities that no child should have to travel an unreasonable distance to school because of the class size limit.

  School/College Transport
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of education spending is taken up by home to school/college transport; and if she will make a statement. [6657]

  Mr. Timms
  Home to school/college transport accounts for some 2.5 per cent. of education spending.

  Teacher Training Students
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of teacher training students in England and Wales completed their courses successfully in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [6658]

  Mr. Timms
  The Initial Teacher Training Performance Profiles, published by the Teacher Training Agency show the percentage of final year trainees at 1 December in England who gained Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). Figures are only available for academic years 1996–97 to 1999–2000.

  Percentage of final year trainees awarded QTS in:

  Year

  1996–97

  87

  1997–98

  87

  1998–99

  89

  1999–2000

  88

  Note:

  1. The figures cover providers in England only.

  2. The numbers of final year trainees awarded QTS relate to final examination boards at the end of the academic year. QTS awards made after the November following a trainee's final year will not be included in these figures.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency, ITT Performance Profiles

  These figures do not take into account drop-out during earlier years of the course, which mainly applies to undergraduate trainees; nor do they include awards of qualified teacher status made after the November following a trainee's final year.
  989W
  For the figures for Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the Welsh National Assembly.

  School Curriculum
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review the 14 to 19 curriculum. [6730]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  On 5 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published the White Paper "Schools: Achieving Success" which makes it clear that we want to begin a debate about the best way to create a coherent phase for 14–19 education. The issues and our proposals will be set out in a consultation paper that will include:How to increase choice for young people from the age of 14, so that their individual aptitudes, abilities and preferences can be met;
  How to encourage all young people to stay in education and training beyond 16 and;
  How to ensure—and where desirable extend—breadth in the post-16 academic curriculum.

  Ministerial Travel
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in her Department for official overseas visits; what the(a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if she will make a statement; [6912]

  (2) if she will list the official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in her Department in each year since May 1997, indicating (a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if she will make a statement. [6911]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right lion. Friend the Prime Minister, at column 823W.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the funding mechanism is for faith schools; and what the cost to public funds of such schools was in the last year for which figures are available. [7130]

  Mr. Timms
  Maintained schools having a religious character receive recurrent funding in accordance with sections 45 to 51 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in the same way as other maintained schools. There may be slight variations in funding according to their status as voluntary or foundation schools, but such differences do not arise from their religious character as such. It is not possible to state the cost of maintaining such schools because they are not separately identified for funding purposes.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children of compulsory school age were(a) statemented for special educational needs or (b) assessed for special educational needs for each of the last five years. [7258]
  990W
  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of children of compulsory school age (5–15 years) with a statement of special educational needs in the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of children

  1996

  208,204

  1997

  215,909

  1998

  221,334

  1999

  231,312

  2000

  234,615

  The number of children (some of whom are not of compulsory school age) for whom a statement was made for the first time for the years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Year

  Number of children

  1996

  36,636

  1997

  35,648

  1998

  36,178

  1999

  35,421

  2000

  1—

  1 Not yet available

  The number of children of compulsory school age assessed for special educational needs is not collected centrally. However the total number of children assessed for special educational needs (some of whom are not of compulsory school age) is as follows:

  Year

  Number of children

  1996

  38,643

  1997

  37,339

  1998

  37,826

  1999

  37,069

  2000

  1—

  1Not yet available

  School Building Work
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were kept out of school at the beginning of the autumn term owing to uncompleted building work. [7260]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not collect this type of information. It is the responsibility of LEAs to set term dates and to ensure that schools must deliver a minimum of 380 half day sessions in the school year and that they must open for at least 190 days in each year. Under exceptional circumstances where school opening has been delayed for a short time, as a result of delayed building works or other urgent health and safety related grounds, we would expect LEAs to encourage schools to use training days to avoid defaulting on the number of sessions delivered. We expect LEAs and schools to programme building works in a way that minimises disruption; however, building work can still be delayed through unforeseen problems or inclement weather.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates she has made of the total sum
  991W
  of money raised by maintained schools from (a) parental contributions, (b) business sponsorship and (c) other sources in each of the last five years. [7272]

  Mr. Timms
  No information is held centrally regarding money raised by maintained schools from sources other than funding made available through local education authorities.

  School Places
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates she has made of the number of pupils of compulsory school age who had(a) not been offered a school place and (b) not accepted any school place offered on the first day of the current school term. [7273]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not collect this information. It is for local authorities to ensure that a place is available for every child whose parents want one and that any children of compulsory school age attend school regularly.

  State School Pupils
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of pupils attending state schools outside their own local education authority area in September. [7274]

  Number of schools which have been awarded specialist schools status in the last five years, by specialism

  Status

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Arts College

  6

  11

  12

  28

  34

  Sports College

  11

  15

  11

  30

  34

  Language College

  15

  11

  15

  28

  27

  Technology College

  43

  46

  42

  51

  57

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of schools seeking specialist status which have been unable to raise sufficient funds for this purpose. [7277]

  Mr. Timms
  Our network of 685 specialist schools shows that applicant schools across the country, including those from rural and inner city areas, have raised the sponsorship required, but we are aware some schools find this more difficult than others. It would not be practicable to make an estimate of the number of schools that have been unable to raise the funds but we have taken steps to ensure all schools have reasonable opportunity to do so. In 1999, the sponsorship requirement was halved to £50,000 and my Department grant-aids the Technology Colleges and Youth Sport Trusts, to provide advice to schools about raising sponsorship and raise funds themselves to support applicant schools. In addition we will continue to keep the sponsorship criteria under review.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have applied for specialist status in each category in(a) the last academic year and (b) the current academic year. [7278]
  992W
  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Information on children educated in a local education authority area other than the one where they normally reside is only collected for those pupils with special educational needs.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of schools with sixth forms which have received no funding from their local education authority for the new sixth form curriculum in each of the last two years. [7275]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No such estimate is available. Decisions on distribution were a matter for each local authority in the light of local priorities.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have been awarded specialist status in each of the last five years in each category of specialists. [7276]

  Mr. Timms
  The total number of schools which have been granted Specialist Schools status in each of the last five years, in the four specialist areas, is given in the table.

  Mr. Timms
  The total
  Total number of schools which applied for Specialist School designation for September 2000 and September 2001, in each of the four specialist areas, is given in the table.

  Status

  September 2000

  September 2001

  Arts College

  72

  115

  Sports College

  41

  55

  Language College

  45

  55

  Technology College

  119

  144

  Total

  277

  369

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will state the ratio of pupils to teaching assistants in(a) Key Stage One and (b) Key Stage Two in each of the last five years. [7486]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of teaching assistants by Key Stage is not collected centrally. However, the average number of children per adult in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 classes with one teacher is shown in the table.
  993W

  Average number of children per adult1

  Year

  Key Stage 1

  Key Stage 2

  2001

  15.5

  19.8

  2000

  17.2

  21.7

  1999

  17.6

  22.5

  1998

  17.9

  22.9

  1997

  18.4

  23.1

  1The number of children in classes divided by the total number of adults present at the time of the census

  The latest pupil:teacher ratio and class size data were published in a Statistical Volume 'Schools in England January 2001' on 28 September, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Skills statistical website, www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Education (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions her Department has had with the Northern Ireland Education Minister relating to(a) selective education and (b) school league tables. [7487]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department has not had any discussions with the Northern Ireland Education Minister in relation to(a) selective education and (b) school league tables.

  General Teaching Council Registration
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the benefits of General Teaching Council registration which will be available to teachers who pay a registration fee but which will be withheld from those who do not. [7488]

  Mr. Timms
  The General Teaching Council (GTC) is the professional body for qualified teachers. Registration will be a requirement if a teacher wishes to be employed in a maintained school or non-maintained special school; those who are not registered will be unable to teach in these categories of school. The GTC is responsible for regulating the conduct of teachers, an important element in raising the profession's self esteem and standing with the general public and promoting the profile of teaching. The GTC also provides advice on a range of professional issues to Government and others. In framing advice, we expect it to consult its members, thus providing an opportunity for registered teachers to influence education policy development. The GTC's advice on teachers' professional development and workload has already proved valuable.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of teachers in maintained schools have paid the General Teaching Council registration fee. [7489]

  Mr. Timms
  The General Teaching Council (GTC) registration fee is not now to be payable until April 2002. The GTC is currently collecting the details from teachers of how they wish to pay the fee next year.

  Grammar School Ballots
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received calling for the threshold for triggering a grammar school ballot to be lowered. [7492]
  994W
  Mr. Timms
  We have not had any recent representations calling for the threshold for triggering a grammar school ballot to be lowered.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many petitions for grammar school ballots have been initiated in each of the last six school terms. [7493]

  Mr. Timms
  During the specified period, the Electoral Reform Services were requested to set petition thresholds as follows: seven in the autumn term 1999, two in the spring term 2000, and five in the autumn term 2000.

  School Funding
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will bring forward proposals for a new system of financing schools in 2002–03. [7538]

  Mr. Timms
  As part of the review of local government funding we have set up two working groups, with local government and schools partners, to develop proposals for a new LEA and school funding system. The work we have done with these groups has shown that we need more time to get the formula right. We have therefore decided to implement reform in 2003–04 rather than 2002–03, allowing us to see the impact of all the changes we will be making to local authority finance, not just those which affect education.

  Head Teachers (Threshold Application Training)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of head teachers in need of training to assess threshold applications. [7713]

  Mr. Timms
  Last year, all head teachers in England were given the opportunity to attend training courses, and almost 24,000 heads took up this training. This year we have made available training courses for an estimated 1,500 new and acting head teachers, LEA head teacher equivalents, for other members of the leadership group (where large numbers of threshold applications are expected), and for those existing heads who requested further training.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many training seminars have been held in the last year funded by her Department to train head teachers who are new in their posts to assess threshold applications; and how many head teachers attended each one. [7714]

  Mr. Timms
  Training is ongoing. 60 training events are being held at 33 venues across England. 1,023 heads, heads of service, and other members of the leadership group have so far booked places. Numbers at each event are determined according to local need. Of those who have attended events so far, 98 per cent. have expressed satisfaction with the training received.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what costs were incurred by her Department in connection with training courses for head teachers to improve their ability to assess threshold applications. [7715]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is commercial and in confidence.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases have been presented by the MoD police to the Crown Prosecution Service in connection with alleged breaches of byelaws at land(a) on and (b) close to RAF Menwith Hill in each year from 1980 to date; how many have been authorised for prosecution; and of those, in how many cases the prosecution was successful. [6262]

  The Solicitor-General
  Ministry of Defence records show that the number of files submitted by the MOD police to the CPS in connection with alleged breaches of byelaws on RAF Menwith Hill during the period 1996–2001 was as follows:

  Total

  1996

  17

  1997

  49

  1998

  30

  1999

  32

  2000

  5

  20011

  7

  1To date

  The Crown Prosecution Service did not exist before 1986 and figures cannot be provided for periods before 1996, as earlier records have been disposed of in accordance with Ministry of Defence police policy.

  Crown Prosecution Service case records are held by category of offence rather than by specific offence and it is not possible from the records to show separately in how many of these cases a prosecution proceeded or the result of the case. This information could be recovered only by examining individual cases files which are in storage, and the cost of such an exercise would be prohibitive.

  Departmental Properties
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by the Law Officers' Department, broken down by those leased by the Department itself, its next steps agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7818]

  The Solicitor-General
  Neither the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department nor the Serious Fraud Office has newly let premises in the last five years.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has, since 1996, acquired the use of additional premises on leasehold in 12 locations: Birmingham, Burnley, Carlisle, Derby, Harrogate, Holborn (London), Leamington Spa, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newport (Gwent), Northallerton, Rochdale and Shrewsbury. The total annual rent of these 12 locations is £1,095,434.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has from February 2000 newly leased property in Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9HP. The current rent is £233,300 per annum.
  996W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Solicitor-General what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by her Department in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6588]

  The Solicitor-General
  Neither the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department nor the Serious Fraud Office has any major building or refurbishment plans in the current or the next financial year costing more than £1 million.

  The Crown Prosecution Service, is in the financial year 2001–02, refurbishing its offices at Workington, Carmarthen, Manchester, Portsmouth, Grimsby, Canterbury, Preston, Guildford and Leamington Spa. The total amount allocated to this project is £708,000. In addition, minor building work is being undertaken in 20 other locations at a total cost of £228,500. The projects in Portsmouth and Carmarthen are being carried out over two financial years. A total of £1.1 million has been identified as the total requirement to complete the second stage of each project during the financial year 2002–03.

  Departmental Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the top 10 companies to which her Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6413]

  The Solicitor-General
  The properties occupied by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor's Department are maintained by DTZ Debenham Tie Leung.

  The following 10 companies have carried out construction and refurbishment works for the Crown Prosecution Service: Deedscan Limited; Farebother Engineering Services; G.H. Chambers and Sons; G.W. Interiors; Harold Palfreyman Limited; John Davies Interiors Limited; Rickland Limited; Sandell; Sykes and Son; and Thorndyke Limited.

  The following companies have carried out construction and refurbishment works in the last 12 months for the Serious Fraud Office: P. J. Bond Construction Limited; Specialist Computer Centres; Wymer Electricals Limited; and Mitie Maintenance Limited.

  Bilking
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will estimate the cost of the legal services in prosecution of bilking at petrol stations in each of the last five years for(a) England and (b) Luton. [6386]

  The Solicitor-General
  Crown Prosecution Service records are held in aggregate form and provide no information on the cost of proceedings in respect of particular offences. An estimate of expenditure on prosecutions for bilking, the offence of making off without payment, could be arrived at only by an examination of individual case files, and this would involve a disproportionate cost.

  Christian Sweeting
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the handling by the criminal justice system of Mr. Christian Sweeting who was arrested on 16 April. [5506]
  997W
  The Solicitor-General
  The conduct of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of Mr. Sweeting is as follows. On 16 April 2001, at 0220 hours, Mr. Sweeting was arrested after being found in possession of an air rifle in a public place. The police charged him with an offence, contrary to section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968, of possession of a firearm with intent to cause another to believe that unlawful violence would be used.

  Mr. Sweeting appeared before Torbay magistrates court later that morning. The police provided the Crown Prosecution Service with a file relating to the arrest of Mr. Sweeting. The Crown Prosecutor, in accordance with his duties under the code for Crown Prosecutors, determined that there was not a realistic prospect of a conviction in respect of the offence charged, and the charge was accordingly replaced with one under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, using threatening behaviour with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

  Mr. Sweeting's case was adjourned until 15 May 2001, and the Crown Prosecutor requested further information from the police. Upon receipt of that information, the file was reviewed again, and the Crown Prosecutor decided that there was no realistic prospect of convicting Mr. Sweeting of the offence contrary to section 4A of the Public Order Act. After discussion with the police, it was decided that the case should, therefore, be discontinued, and formal discontinuance was effected by a letter of 14 May 2001.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7233]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows:Northern Ireland Civil Servants

  Senior Civil Servants—retire at 601

  Grade A and analogous—retire at 601

  Grade B1 and analogous—retire at 601

  Grade B2 and analogous—retire at 601

  Grade C and analogous—retire at 601

  Grade D1 and analogous—retire at 65

  Grade D2, temporary and analogous—retire at 65

  Northern Ireland Office Home Civil Servants

  Minimum retirement age 60 for all grades

  Maximum retirement age 70 (though exception can be made).

  1The Department may, in exceptional cases, retain an officer, who would otherwise be required to retire at 60, where it is satisfied that it is in the overriding interest of the service to do so.

  With effect from 1 April 1996 new recruits at D1, D2 and analogous must retire at 60.

  Terrorist Activities
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with Northern Ireland political parties regarding the 998W
  implications of the war on terrorism on terrorist activities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [7896]

  Jane Kennedy
  Security in Northern Ireland is not a devolved matter, therefore no discussions have taken place between the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland political parties on the implications, if any, the international war on terrorism will have for terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment he has made on the impact on religious intolerance in Northern Ireland of the separation of children of different faiths into faith schools; [7125]

  (2) what percentage of the total number of children in Northern Ireland attend faith schools. [7126]

  Dr. John Reid
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  HM Inspector of Explosives
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons HM Inspector of Explosives did not include in his annual report statistics on prosecutions and convictions for offences committed under the Explosives Acts in 2000; and if he will publish such information in a consistent form for each year since 1993. [7113]

  Jane Kennedy
  I regret that information concerning prosecutions and convictions is not available. The processing of court statistics on the court proceedings database was suspended in April 1998. Court data are, therefore, not available for 1998, 1999 and 2000. I understand that work to capture missing data is at an advanced stage, but it will be some time before this information becomes available.

  Departmental Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the top 10 companies to which his Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6415]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office has contracted out construction and refurbishment work to only one company in the last 12 months.

  The company which carried out the work is Portview Construction Ltd.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long it takes foot and mouth blood samples to be processed at the Stormont Laboratory. [2737]

  Dr. John Reid
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Departmental Buildings
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by his Department in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6590]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office has no plans for any building work in this or the next financial year.

  The following refurbishment work has been scheduled:
  2001–02 financial year

  1. Refurbishment of 1,000m2 of existing office accommodation at an approximate cost of £350K.

  2. Refurbishment of 1,600m2 of new office accommodation at an approximate cost of £900K.

  3. Refurbishment of 465m2 of new office accommodation at an approximate cost of £275K.

  Session 1997–98

  Draft Bill

  Published

  Proposals on pension splitting on divorce (subsequently part of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill)

  June 1998

  Considered by the Social Security Committee

  Draft Limited Liability Partnership Bill

  September 1998

  Considered by the Trade and Industry Committee

  Session 1998–99

  Draft Bill

  Published

  Draft Financial Services and Markets Bill

  January 1999

  Considered by a joint committee especially established for the purpose

  Draft Food Standards Bill

  January 1999

  Considered by an ad hoc select committee

  Draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill

  March 1999

  Considered by a joint committee especially established for the purpose

  Draft Freedom of Information Bill

  May 1999

  Considered by the Select Committee on Public Administration, and an ad hoc Lords committee

  Draft Electronic Communications Bill

  July 1999

  Trade and Industry Committee

  Session 1999–2000

  Draft Bill

  Published

  Draft Regulatory Reform Bill

  April 2000

  Commons Deregulation Committee; Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee (both were also informally consulted on earlier drafts of the Bill)

  Water Bill

  November 2000

  Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

  Session 2000–01

  Draft Bill

  Published

  Export Control and Non and Proliferation Bill

  March 2001

  Quadripartite Committee (Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade Industry); Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council if he will introduce proposals to enable Parliament to subject all bills to pre-legislative scrutiny. [7589]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We have published more bills in draft since 1997, allowing greater scrutiny. This has clearly been beneficial and has wide support in the House. The Modernisation Committee will look at the legislative process as a whole. I see the attraction of routine pre-legislative scrutiny, but as recent events show it may be sometimes necessary to introduce emergency legislation without such scrutiny.
  1000W

  4. Refurbishment of 420m2 of office accommodation at an approximate cost of £250K.

  5. Refurbishment of 1,600m2 of new office accommodation at an approximate cost of £700K.

  2002–03 financial year

  1. Some of the works listed may not be completed until this financial year.

  2. There are no new refurbishment projects scheduled to start in this financial year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills which has taken place since May 1997. [7588]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Bills have been scrutinised in a number of ways, and by a variety of types of committee. Those draft Bills subject to parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny are listed:

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions he has had on putting future pre-legislative scrutiny on the internet in order to facilitate public interaction in the pre-legislative process; and if he will make a statement. [7590]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I support measures to make Parliament more accessible to the public and I am keen to facilitate interaction between Parliament and the public. We have made efforts to publish bills in draft so that they can be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which in itself allows greater public involvement in the legislative
  1001W

  process. New technology has the potential to assist in this and I welcome the fact that both Parliament and Government routinely publish material on the internet.

  Summer Recess
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he plans to bring forward to improve scrutiny of the Executive during the annual summer recess. [6020]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  All select committees have the power to meet while the House is adjourned. The Government ensured that the House had the opportunity to establish departmental select committees by the time Parliament rose before the summer in order to ensure that the business of scrutinising government could get under way as swiftly as possible. If the Government had not given priority to this objective, the committees would not have been able to start their work until October.

  In addition, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is undertaking an inquiry into how the operation and activity of select committees might be made more effective. I look forward to contributions from all Members during the committee's deliberations, and I note the hon. Gentleman's concern.

  Select Committees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council how many representations he has had from hon. Members on the future of Select Committees in the last six months. [7304]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have received some twenty-three queries from hon. Members, and an additional five queries made by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council when he intends to bring forward proposals to change the method of election to select committees. [7305]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is considering this matter in its current inquiry.

  Ministerial Consultation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions he has had with the shadow Leader of the House since his appointment; and if he will make a statement. [7306]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Routine exchanges continue with the Shadow Leader of the House as they have with his predecessor.

WALES

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will place in the Library for each year

  Date

  Destination and purpose

  Participants

  7–8 December 1999

  Brussels—Raising awareness of the role of Wales in the European Community

  Secretary of State 1 Senior Civil Service 2 Grade 7 1 Special Adviser

  1002W
  since 1995 the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement; [7023]

  (2) if he will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the average response time for providing a substantive answer to (a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords. [7022]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The effective handling of correspondence and parliamentary questions is an issue to which I attach great importance. While information is not available in the detail requested, general information on the volumes of correspondence received across Government, and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures covering Wales Office performance in 1999 and 2000 were published in the Official Report on 6 April 2001, columns 324–28W. Available information for earlier years can be found in annual departmental reports of the Welsh Office.

  Information about the time taken to process Welsh Office parliamentary questions is not available. However, I have placed in the Library the performance of the Wales Office since its establishment on 1 July 1999.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to aid to tourism in Wales after the effects of foot and mouth. [7735]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including measures to alleviate the impact of this year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  The Government, in partnership with the Assembly, British Tourist Authority and Wales Tourist Board, are taking every opportunity to promote tourism in the UK. The British Travel Authority has launched a £14 million advertising campaign, aimed at persuading tourists frightened by foot and mouth disease to come to Britain.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in his Department in each year since May 1997, indicating(a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if he will make a statement. [6895]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Records of overseas visits are available only for the period since the Wales Office was established on 1 July 1999. Details are as follows:
  1003W

  Date

  Destination and purpose

  Participants

  30 March to 2 April 2000

  Dublin—Meeting with Taioseach and other Ministers

  Secretary of State 1 Senior Civil Service 1 Grade 7 1 Special Adviser

  19–20 September 2000

  Brussels—Meetings with EU Commissioner, members of Committee for the Regions and UK Permanent Representative. Also attended official opening of the National Assembly Brussels office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Slate 1 HEO(D) 1 Special Adviser

  19–21 October 2000

  Bruges—Belgo/British Bilateral Conference

  Secretary of State 1 Senior Civil Service 2 Grade 7 1 Special Adviser

  29 October to 1 November 2000

  Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia—Polycentric Europe Conference on regional government in Europe

  Secretary of State 2 Senior Civil Service 1 Grade 7 1 Special Adviser

  26–28 February 2001

  Brussels—Bilateral visit

  Secretary of State 1 Senior Civil Service 1 Grade 7 1 Special Adviser

  It is not practicable separately to identify the costs of these visits.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by

  £ million

  Project title

  Period of project 2001–02

  Period of project 2002–03

  Cost of project

  Ripley and Kirkland buildings; part of project to refurbish 22 Whitehall, London SW1

  17.5

  5.1

  22.6

  Government Offices (GO) East; relocation

  0.5

  0.8

  1.3

  National Crises Management Centre

  0.2

  1.2

  1.4

  67 Tufton Street, London SW1

  —

  1.4

  1.4

  Individual projects with a total value of under £1 million are excluded from the table. Figures exclude VAT, fees and the provision of general IT/office equipment.

  Devolved Administrations
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (1) Scottish parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select Committees. [7054]

  Mrs. Roche
  General advice on attendance of UK Ministers and officials at Committees of the Devolved legislatures has been published under the Cabinet Office's series of Devolution Guidance Notes (available at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/constitution/devolution/ guidance/dgn12.htm.
  1004W
  his Department in (i) the current year and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6599]

  Mr. Leslie
  The refurbishment programme, either currently under way or agreed to, for my Department for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are as listed. The table excludes projects that are either still being planned or are awaiting financial approval to proceed.

  The guidance applies equally to invitations from Committees of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly.

  The Government's aim is to respond promptly and courteously to such requests for information as they are received. The precise nature of requests could vary widely. The nature of the information provided in response will be judged subject to criteria as set out in the Devolution Guidance Note.

  Requests are also assessed on a case-by-case basis under the terms of any relevant statutory provisions and under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (available at www.cfoi.org.uk/coptext.html), which also covers information requested by House of Commons Select Committees.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what date he plans to issue a White Paper on Elected Regional Government. [7164]
  1005W
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W.

  Duchy of Lancaster Tenants
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is towards farm improvement schemes proposed by Duchy of Lancaster tenants with farm business tenancies. [7875]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Duchy policy is to look at each proposal on its own merits and if considered reasonable and viable for both the tenant and the Duchy the necessary consent would be granted. In assessing a proposal, due regard is given to the scale and nature of the improvements as well as the length of the tenancy, whether a farm business tenancy or Agricultural Holding Act tenancy.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures have been taken to assist Duchy of Lancaster tenants whose businesses have been affected by the economic impact of foot and mouth disease. [7874]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  There have been no cases of foot and mouth on any of the Duchy Estates although one farm in Whitewell was culled owing to a 'dangerous contact'. Form D Notices restricting animal movements have affected a number of Duchy tenants. The Duchy has maintained a close watch on tenants who are considered to be vulnerable throughout the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Duchy officials are always available to talk and discuss a tenant's concerns on a confidential basis.

  The Duchy of Lancaster maintains a policy of sympathetic treatment of any tenant who is in genuine difficulty owing to external circumstances beyond their control and adversely affecting their business. Each individual case is looked at on its own merits and circumstances. Measures that have been taken include rental reduction, rebates and deferrals. The Duchy is also assisting some tenants financially who have chosen to take early retirement rather than continue within the agricultural industry.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was, for each year since 1995, (1) the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords; [7052]

  (2) the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement. [7053]
  1006W
  Mr. Leslie
  The prompt and efficient handling of correspondence and parliamentary questions is an issue to which I, arid ministerial colleagues, attach great importance.

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published regularly. The most recent figures, for 2000, were published by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, Marjorie Mowlam, in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28W and in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W. On parliamentary questions, the information requested is not held in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  London Weighting
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total annual value of London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6782]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 1996, Departments and agencies have had responsibility for setting the level of pay for their staff. The Cabinet Office the Central Office of Information, the Government Car and Despatch Agency, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the Government Offices all operate their own pay systems.

  The Cabinet Office consolidated London weighting into basic pay in 1997. At that time its value was £1,776.

  The Central Office of Information consolidated London weighting into basic pay in 1999. At that time its value was £1,912.

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency pays non-industrial staff working in London an allowance of £1,776 p.a. Industrial staff working in London had the £1,776 allowance consolidated into basic pay in 2001.

  The Equal Opportunities Commission pays each person working in London an allowance of £1,914 p.a.

  Staff working in the Government Office for London had London weighting consolidated into basic pay in 1997. At that time its value was £1,776 p.a.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in his Department for official overseas visits; what the(a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if he will make a statement; [6908]

  (2) if he will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in his Department in each year since May 1997, indicating (a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (A) civil servants and (B) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if he will make a statement. [6907]
  1007W
  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at column 824W.

  Departmental Staff
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what proportion of each Civil Service grade in

  Distribution of staff by grade at 1 April 2000

  Cabinet Office

  Civil service College

  Parliamentary Counsel

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Security Facilities Division1

  Total1

  All grades

  Number

  1,316

  242

  47

  228

  149

  1,982

  Percentage

  66

  12

  2

  12

  8

  100

  SCS level

  Number

  110

  3

  35

  1

  —

  149

  Percentage

  6

  0

  2

  0

  —

  8

  Level 6/7

  Number

  209

  85

  2

  3

  —

  298

  Percentage

  11

  4

  0

  0

  —

  15

  SEO/HEO level

  Number

  287

  16

  1

  7

  —

  311

  Percentage

  14

  1

  0

  0

  —

  16

  EO level

  Number

  293

  42

  5

  9

  —

  348

  Percentage

  15

  2

  0

  0

  —

  18

  AO/AA level

  Number

  418

  96

  5

  11

  —

  530

  Percentage

  21

  5

  0

  1

  —

  27

  Industrial/Other grades

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  197

  80

  277

  Percentage

  —

  —

  —

  10

  4

  14

  1 Security Facilities Division figures and total include 69 non-industrial staff for whom statistics by grade are not available.

  Distribution of staff by region at 1 April 2000

  Cabinet Office

  Civil service College

  Parliamentary Counsel

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Security Facilities Division1

  Total1

  All Regions

  Number

  1,316

  242

  47

  228

  149

  1,982

  Percentage

  66

  12

  2

  12

  8

  100

  London

  Number

  1,253

  11

  47

  212

  —

  1,523

  Percentage

  63

  1

  2

  11

  —

  77

  South-east

  Number

  47

  228

  —

  —

  —

  275

  Percentage

  2

  12

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Eastern

  Number

  16

  3

  —

  —

  —

  19

  Percentage

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Percentage

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Percentage

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Wales

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  12

  Percentage

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1Total includes 149 Security Facilities Division staff for whom statistics by region are not available

  Since 1996, Departments and agencies have had responsibility for setting the level of pay for their staff. The current constituent bodies of the Cabinet Office, including the Central Office a Information, the Government Car and Despatch Agency, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the Government Offices all operate their own pay systems.
  1008W
  his Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement. [6784]

  Mr. Leslie
  The total numbers and proportions of staff respectively in each Civil Service grade and region in the Cabinet Office and its agencies at 1 April 2000 (the most recent statistics available) were as set out in the tables.

  Up-to-date information is available from payroll records, taking account of negotiated pay increases for 2000. This information also reflects the machinery of government changes that took place after the June 2001 general election, which included the transfer to the Cabinet Office of responsibility for the Government Offices for the Regions. Current average salaries, by grade, for the Cabinet Office constituent bodies are:
  1009W

  Cabinet Office

  Central Office of Information

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Government Offices for the Regions1

  SCS level

  67,330

  83,620

  62,000

  53,748

  —

  Level 6/7

  38,263

  39,065

  48,224

  36,281

  39,282

  SEO/HEO level

  25,030

  28,198

  29,000

  22,583

  24,213

  EO level

  19,035

  19,533

  24,826

  17,078

  17,145

  AO/AA level

  14,287

  13,611

  16,512

  12,323

  12,712

  Industrial/Other grades

  28,402

  —

  19,459

  —

  —

  1Security Facilities Division figures and total include 69 non-industrial staff for whom statistics by grade are not available.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the number of staff employed by his Department by region and nation of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6780]

  Mr. Leslie
  The total number of staff employed in the Cabinet Office and its agencies in each region and nation

  Regional distribution of staff as at 1 April 2000

  All staff (full-time equivalent)

  Government Office region

  London

  South East

  Total London and South East

  South West

  West Midlands

  North West

  North East

  Merseyside

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  3,030

  770

  3,800

  1,210

  440

  880

  110

  0

  Cabinet Office

  1,520

  270

  1,800

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1,300

  520

  1,820

  330

  530

  620

  320

  200

  Customs and Excise

  5,510

  3,530

  9,040

  940

  1,040

  1,490

  520

  1,040

  Culture, Media and Sport

  620

  0

  620

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ministry of Defence

  8,640

  22,620

  31,260

  22,770

  8,010

  1,320

  490

  840

  Education and Employment

  6,850

  2,340

  9,190

  2,360

  2,830

  3,480

  2,500

  960

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  4,350

  870

  5,220

  1,760

  790

  730

  370

  80

  Health and Safety Executive/Commission

  660

  140

  810

  70

  160

  150

  70

  1,290

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  4,600

  40

  4,640

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Health

  2,480

  290

  2,780

  230

  230

  690

  130

  0

  HM Land Registry

  780

  510

  1,300

  1,500

  630

  470

  660

  500

  Home Office

  6,990

  1,180

  8,170

  250

  740

  400

  80

  960

  HM Prison Service

  4,720

  6,930

  11,650

  3,050

  3,830

  4,270

  3,040

  780

  Inland Revenue

  8,370

  6,370

  14,750

  4,000

  4,080

  7,920

  7,640

  3,840

  International Development

  720

  0

  720

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Intervention Board

  0

  950

  950

  0

  0

  0

  280

  0

  Lord Chancellor's

  5,490

  1,070

  6,560

  400

  710

  750

  130

  320

  Office for National Statistics

  730

  640

  1,380

  0

  0

  100

  0

  540

  Ordnance Survey

  20

  1,420

  1,450

  50

  40

  40

  20

  10

  Registers of Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Executive

  10

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Social Security

  9,100

  5,780

  14,890

  5,060

  6,840

  15,660

  9,780

  3,810

  Trade and Industry

  4,750

  250

  4,990

  240

  410

  290

  220

  50

  Treasury

  830

  0

  830

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  National Assembly for Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Mint

  20

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other Departments

  4,080

  120

  4,200

  5,040

  750

  250

  430

  220

  All permanent staff

  86,190

  56,630

  142,820

  49,250

  32,080

  39,504

  26,780

  15,440

  All casual staff

  1,790

  1,090

  2,990

  610

  615

  815

  800

  330

  All staff (full-time equivalent)

  Government office region

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  Eastern

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Unreported and Elsewhere

  All areas

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,540

  400

  860

  200

  110

  0

  30

  9,590

  Cabinet Office

  0

  0

  20

  10

  0

  0

  150

  1,980

  Crown Prosecution Service

  600

  380

  300

  350

  0

  0

  0

  5,450

  Customs and Excise

  910

  850

  3,730

  490

  1,270

  530

  50

  21,910

  Culture, Media and Sport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  620

  Ministry of Defence

  2,990

  2,630

  6,400

  4,980

  9,400

  3,230

  6,040

  100,330

  Education and Employment

  5,630

  1,920

  1,940

  1,890

  3,360

  0

  0

  36,060

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  740

  550

  840

  3,690

  390

  0

  1,930

  17,070

  Health and Safety Executive/

  1010W
  of the UK at 1 April 2000 (the most recent statistics available) was 1,980. The breakdown by geographical area is as shown in the table. This shows analogous distributions for the whole of the Civil Service at that date and is drawn from the publication "Civil Service Statistics 2000", issued on 31 August 2001.
  1011W

  All staff (full-time equivalent)

  Government office region

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  Eastern

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Unreported and Elsewhere

  All areas

  Commission

  450

  270

  180

  110

  280

  0

  0

  3,820

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  0

  0

  820

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,470

  Health

  1,040

  20

  20

  0

  0

  0

  10

  5,160

  HM Land Registry

  430

  850

  820

  590

  0

  0

  0

  7,750

  Home Office

  400

  40

  610

  460

  240

  130

  50

  12,550

  HM Prison Service

  4,550

  3,500

  3,750

  750

  0

  0

  1,370

  40,560

  Inland Revenue

  5,240

  4,010

  3,510

  3,870

  6,090

  1,400

  10

  66,330

  International Development

  0

  0

  0

  0

  430

  0

  50

  1,210

  Intervention Board

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,230

  Lord Chancellors

  520

  410

  570

  270

  0

  0

  0

  10,640

  Office for National Statistics

  0

  0

  0

  850

  0

  0

  0

  2,870

  Ordnance Survey

  40

  40

  50

  30

  50

  0

  0

  1,820

  Registers of Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,280

  0

  0

  1,280

  Scottish Executive

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10,340

  0

  500

  10,850

  Social Security

  7,590

  3,500

  3,350

  3,880

  9,160

  10

  10

  83,530

  Trade and Industry

  310

  190

  200

  1,690

  230

  10

  10

  8,840

  Treasury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  830

  National Assembly for Wales

  0

  0

  0

  2,570

  0

  0

  0

  2,570

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  0

  1,020

  0

  0

  0

  1,030

  Other Departments

  100

  100

  270

  380

  1,750

  110

  480

  14,080

  All permanent staff

  33,060

  19,650

  28,220

  28,080

  44,390

  5,400

  10,740

  475,410

  All casual staff

  680

  340

  550

  950

  1,090

  40

  1,600

  11,300

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7226]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the normal retirement age and on compulsory early retirement or severance for my Department and for the executive agencies and public sector bodies for which it is responsible is as follows:

  The normal age of retirement for staff in all grades below the Senior Civil Service is 60 years. This is also the minimum age at which there can be retirement with full superannuation benefits. Retention beyond age 60 is possible subject to departmental needs is and the continued health and efficiency of the individual member of staff.

  Staff in the most junior grades who satisfy these criteria may continue in service until they reach the age of 65 years. Others who have not completed 20 years' reckonable service at age 60 may continue in post until they reach the age of 65 or complete 20 years' service, whichever occurs first.

  Service beyond these limits to a maximum of 70 years is possible at management discretion. The Cabinet Office does not retain permanent employees beyond age 70 although it may be willing to consider a case in exceptional circumstances to meet an essential departmental need.

  The Senior Civil Service has a common compulsory retirement age of 60 years in all departments. Retention beyond this age may be allowed if in the public interest and subject to departmental needs and the continued health and efficiency of an individual.

  Government Office regional staff continue as members of their parent Departments and as such remain subject to their retirement policies in respect of age, compulsory early retirement or severance.
  1012W
  Retirement policies in the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Government Car and Despatch Agency and the Central Office of Information closely follow the Cabinet Office model, with analogous discretions allowing for extensions of service.

  As a pre-redundancy measure volunteers may be offered retirement on compulsory terms to avoid compulsory redundancy procedures. Staff may also be retired on compulsory early retirement or severance terms on grounds of structure, and on compulsory early retirement terms on grounds of limited efficiency. Early retirement applies to staff aged 50 or over; early severance applies to staff aged under 50.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates (Essex)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people applied to be magistrates in the north Essex area in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [6331]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures are not available for the north Essex area on its own. However, for Essex as a whole the figures are: 1998–99—160 applicants; 1999–2000—225 applicants; 2000–01—154 applicants.

  Departmental Properties
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the total running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6795]
  1013W
  Mr. Wills
  Buildings used, owned or rented by the Department fall into two categories: those managed by the Court Service and those managed centrally by the Department. The Court Service manages the estate of all of the Crown Courts, county courts, the Supreme Court estate and probate estate, the Tribunal buildings and also regional administration buildings. Magistrates' courthouses are owned or leased by the local paying authority on behalf of Magistrates Courts Committees.

  The running costs and average costs per square metre of Court Service buildings by nation are contained in Table 1 and the running costs and average costs per square metre by region are contained in Table 2.

  Properties managed centrally by the Department include central administration buildings and associated offices. The running costs and average costs per square metre of these buildings by nation are contained in Table 3 and the running costs and average costs per square metre by region are contained in Table 4.

  The estimate of the average cost per square metre for properties used by the Lord Chancellor's Department is contained in Table 5.

  Table 1: Running cost of Court Service buildings by nation

  £

  Nation

  Cash Expenditure

  Cost per sq. metre

  England

  198,795,765.55

  267.59

  Wales

  7,817,644.14

  171.77

  Scotland

  108,103.36

  222.49

  Northern Ireland

  0.00

  0.00

  Table 2: Running cost of Court Service buildings by region

  £

  Cash Expenditure

  Cost per sq. metre

  English region

  East Midlands

  8,734,161.88

  257.14

  Eastern

  13,749,700.07

  249.58

  Greater London

  76,764,257.36

  331.10

  North East

  6,817,304.27

  195.10

  North West

  24,874,647.12

  224.66

  South East

  22,638,385.67

  249.06

  South West

  14,255.109.91

  256.66

  West Midlands

  15,516,402.06

  251.32

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15,445,887.21

  226.55

  Devolved nations

  Wales

  7,817,644.14

  171.77

  Scotland

  108,103.36

  222.49

  Northern Ireland

  0.00

  0.00

  1014W

  Table 3: Running costs for LCD by nation

  £

  Nation

  Cash Expenditure

  Cost per sq. metre

  England

  16,834,052.00

  372.81

  Wales

  0.00

  0.00

  Scotland

  0.00

  0.00

  Northern Ireland

  0.00

  0.00

  Table 4: Running costs for LCD by region

  £

  Cash Expenditure

  Cost per sq. metre

  English region

  East Midlands

  0.00

  0.00

  Eastern

  0.00

  0.00

  Greater London

  16,550,947.51

  380.70

  North East

  64,060.00

  163.59

  North West

  114,958.78

  291.11

  South East

  0.00

  0.00

  South West

  104,085.28

  131.66

  West Midlands

  0.00

  0.00

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.00

  0.00

  Table 5: Average running cost of the Lord Chancellor's Department per square metre

  £ per sq. metre

  Whole estate

  240.00

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by her Department, broken down by those leased by the Department itself, its next steps agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7819]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has leased 34 additional locations over the past five years for various parts of the organisation and for varying lease terms. Five of the locations are occupied by the Department or its associated offices (the Legal Services Ombudsman's Office); 24 for its executive agencies (The Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office) and five for its NDPBs (CAFCASS and the Public Defender Service Offices). The creation of CAFCASS and the Public Defender Service offices prompted the acquisition of new properties; expansion of the organisation and/or rationalisation of the departmental estate drove the remaining acquisitions. Full details of the acquisitions are set out in the schedule.
  1015W

  Lord Chancellor's Department property acquisitions 1997–2001

  Property

  Location

  Occupier

  Demise

  Annual rent (£)

  Lease commenced

  Department and associated offices

  Southside

  London

  LCD

  3rd Floor (front)

  454,850

  July 1999

  Southside

  London

  LCD

  3rd Floor (rear)

  302,400

  April 2000

  30 Millbank

  London

  LCD

  5th Floor

  195,160

  February 2001

  Tower House

  Bristol

  LCD

  Part 13th Floor

  22,889

  May 2001

  Sunlight House

  Manchester

  LCD1

  Suite 303

  101,007

  August 2001

  Executive agencies

  Lincoln Group Manager's Office

  Lincoln

  Court Service

  6,250

  February 1997

  Taylor House

  London

  Court Service2

  775,000

  July 1997

  Oldham County Court

  Oldham

  Court Service

  198,144

  September 1997

  London

  Court Service (OSSCSC)

  145,732.50

  November 1998

  Bangor Probate Registry

  Bangor

  Court Service

  3,750

  January 1998

  Sheffield Group Manager's Office

  Sheffield

  Court Service

  46,500

  January 1999

  First Avenue House

  London

  Court Service3

  2,332,000

  April 1999

  Nottingham Group Manager's Office

  Nottingham

  Court Service

  30,160

  June 1999

  Exeter Group Manager's Office

  Exeter

  Court Service

  239,750

  November 1999

  Cambridge County Court

  Cambridge

  Court Service

  171,000

  November 1999

  Uxbridge County Court

  Uxbridge

  Court Service

  162,000

  December 1999

  Newcastle Group Manager's Office

  Newcastle

  Court Service

  37,940

  January 2000

  Brighton Family Centre

  Brighton

  Court Service

  176,000

  March 2000

  Farringdon

  Court Service (IAA)

  190,320

  March 2000

  Hounslow

  Court Service (IAA)

  100,035

  March 2000

  Ashford County Court

  Ashford

  Court Service

  25,875

  June 2000

  Bromley

  Court Service (IAA)

  3,000

  July 2000

  Hounslow

  Court Service (IAA)

  125,440

  August 2000

  Glasgow

  Court Service (IAA)

  206,624

  September 2000

  Haverfordwest County Court

  Haverfordwest

  Court Service

  32,095

  October 20004

  Manchester Combined Tribunals

  Manchester

  Court Service

  56,550.50

  March 2001

  Shrewsbury County Court

  Shrewsbury

  Court Service

  47,000

  June 2001

  Breams Buildings

  London

  Court Service (IAA)

  1,961,224

  July 2001

  Archway Tower5

  London

  Public Guardianship Office

  884,000

  April 2001

  Non-departmental public bodies

  Palace Street

  London

  CAFCASS

  6th Floor

  57,720

  April 20016

  John Street North

  Liverpool

  Public Defenders Service (PDS)

  730,000

  January 2001

  Albert Road

  Middlesbrough

  PDS

  836,425

  February 2001

  Orchard Street

  Swansea

  PDS

  923,500

  March 2001

  Priory House

  Birmingham

  PDS

  12,000

  April 2001

  1 Office of Legal Services Ombudsman

  2 Immigration Appellate Authority—IAA

  3 Principle Registry of the Family Division

  4 Minor occupier in other Government building

  5 This lease was new to the Department but not new to Government

  6 For six months as a sublease from MAFF

  7 Rent free for six months

  8 Rent free for nine months

  9 Rent free for two years

  London Weighting
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will estimate the total value of London weightings and London living allowances for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [6794]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  London weighting was consolidated into basic pay on 30 September 1994, at which time it was valued at:

  Inner London: £1,776

  Intermediate London: £1,015

  Outer London: £736.

  1016W
  A comparison between the national rate and the three London areas, based on pay range minima as at 1 August 2001, shows that on average staff in London receive more than staff in the regions as follows:

  Inner London: £2,636

  Intermediate London: £1,786

  Outer London: £1,473.

  As at 1 August 2001, the numbers of staff in the Department located in those London areas are as follows:

  Inner London: 3,829

  Intermediate London: 551.

  Staff Costs
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will estimate total staff costs for her Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6793]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total staff costs for the Department are as follows (baselines for 2001):

  LCD Headquarters and Associated Offices: £34,504,837

  The Court Service: £189,310,000

  The Public Guardianship Office: £9,155,000

  Total: £232,969,837.

  Table 1: Number and percentage of staff by grade level and region (as at 1 August 2001) Lord Chancellor's Department

  Region

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO and below

  Number of staff by grade and region

  London

  Headquarters staff in LCD, the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office

  2,950

  70

  286

  791

  701

  1,102

  Court Service Circuits

  South Eastern (London)1

  625

  2

  9

  58

  198

  358

  Supreme Court Group2

  1,821

  4

  55

  186

  493

  1,083

  South Eastern (Provincial)

  1,546

  0

  7

  136

  242

  1,161

  Midland and Oxford

  1,331

  1

  6

  125

  190

  1,009

  Northern

  1,154

  1

  10

  106

  202

  835

  North Eastern

  1,225

  1

  10

  107

  199

  908

  Western

  888

  1

  5

  74

  154

  654

  Wales and Chester

  581

  1

  5

  72

  83

  420

  Total

  12,121

  81

  593

  1,655

  2,462

  7,530

  Percentage of staff by grade level and region

  London

  Headquarters staff1 in LCD, the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office

  24

  86

  73

  48

  28

  15

  Court Service Circuits

  South Eastern (London)1

  5

  2

  2

  4

  8

  5

  Supreme Court Group1

  15

  5

  14

  11

  20

  14

  South Eastern (Provisional)

  13

  0

  2

  8

  10

  15

  Midland and Oxford

  11

  1

  2

  8

  8

  13

  Northern

  10

  1

  3

  6

  8

  11

  North Eastern

  10

  1

  3

  6

  8

  12

  Western

  7

  1

  1

  4

  6

  9

  Wales and Chester

  5

  1

  1

  4

  3

  6

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Staff mainly based in London

  The average salaries are as follows (as at 1 August 2001, following the 2001 pay review).

  £

  LCD HQ and associated offices

  Public Guardianship Office

  Pay band

  Average salary

  Pay range

  Average salary

  A

  14,367

  1

  14,708

  B

  16,513

  2

  15,562

  C

  19,819

  3

  19,316

  D

  25,143

  4

  23,921

  E

  30,791

  5

  26,695

  F

  40,285

  6

  31,360

  G

  52,884

  7

  40,974

  —

  —

  8

  53,980

  Civil Service
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what proportion of each Civil Service grade in his Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the
  average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement. [6796]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number and proportion of staff in the Department is given in table 1.

  Court Service HQ

  Pay span

  National

  Outer London

  Intermed London

  Inner London

  1

  11,939

  13,712

  13,872

  13,805

  2

  11,894

  12,600

  13,255

  13,807

  3

  13,876

  15,012

  15,518

  15,672

  4

  17,683

  18,300

  19,425

  19,727

  5

  20,096

  21,058

  23,214

  23,350

  6

  23,549

  24,425

  24,700

  25,628

  7

  28,898

  29,548

  30,429

  31,588

  8

  36,654

  —

  38,981

  40,629

  9

  42,805

  —

  43,522

  49,639

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6797]

  Mr. Wills
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contested Cases
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what the average delay was in hearing contested cases in(a) magistrates' courts and (b) Crown courts in each of the last three years; [7851]

  (2) what the average number of weeks was from committal to start of trial for defendants pleading not guilty from 1998 to date. [7847]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the right hon. Member to the table which provides the information requested.

  Average waiting time in magistrates' courts between:

  charge and first listing Days

  first listing and completion Days

  Average waiting time in the Crown Court between committal and start of trial Weeks

  1998

  138

  145

  18.4

  1999

  38

  45

  18.6

  2000

  38

  46

  19.6

  2001

  237

  243

  319.4

  1In 1998, magistrates courts contested trial determined by an initial Not Guilty plea or no plea, 1999 and latex years by the fact of a trial occurring.

  2 Survey conducted in March.

  3 January to June 2001.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of(a) wholly contested and (b) partly contested cases are acquitted in (i) magistrates courts and (ii) Crown courts. [7850]

  Mr. Wills
  In the calendar year 2000, 31 per cent. and 41.4 per cent. of wholly contested cases were acquitted in the magistrates courts and Crown court respectively. For the same period, the percentages of partly contested cases were 13 per cent. and 21.1 per cent. respectively. The table gives a breakdown of the figures for 1998, 1999 and 2000.

  Table showing the percentage of (a) wholly and (b) partly contested cases which were acquitted in (i) magistrates courts and (ii) Crown courts

  Magistrates courts

  Crown courts

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Wholly contested cases

  Contests

  62,858

  57,639

  52,077

  18,874

  19,116

  18,099

  Acquittals

  17,294

  16,263

  16,122

  8,350

  8,463

  8,214

  Percentage

  27.5

  28.2

  31.0

  44.2

  44.3

  45.4

  (b) Partly contested cases

  Contests

  4,298

  4,262

  3,882

  1,641

  1,338

  1,378

  Acquittals

  396

  530

  506

  411

  344

  304

  Percentage

  9.2

  12.4

  13.0

  25.0

  25.7

  22.1

  (c) Total contests

  Contests

  67,156

  61,901

  55,959

  20,515

  20,454

  19,477

  1020W

  Table showing the percentage of (a) wholly and (b) partly contested cases which were acquitted in (i) magistrates courts and (ii) Crown courts

  Magistrates courts

  Crown courts

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Acquittals

  17,690

  16,793

  16,628

  8,761

  8,807

  8,518

  Percentage

  26.3

  27.1

  29.7

  42.7

  43.1

  43.7

  Source:

  CPS Caseload Statistics

  Either-way Cases
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many either-way cases heard in magistrates courts were contested in each year since 1999. [7849]

  Mr. Wills
  There were 23,022 either-way cases contested in the magistrates courts in 1999; 21,808 in 2000; and 10,471 between January and June 2001. The figures are for prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service only—Figures for other prosecutors in the magistrates courts are not available.

  Source:

  CPS Caseload Statistics

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many either-way defendants were elected for trial in the Crown court in each year since 1999. [7848]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures specifically relating to either-way defendants are not collected. However, the table shows the number of Class 4 offence cases committed for trial to the Crown court in each year since 1999. These figures cover all triable either-way offences but do include an element of Class 4 indictable-only offences as well.

  Class 4 cases committed by magistrates courts to the Crown court

  Receipts

  1999

  61,155

  2000

  58,300

  20011

  32,752

  January to June

  Note:

  These figures include both triable either-way and indictable-only offences

  Departmental Expenditure
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6914]

  Mr. Wills
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contract Staff
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6913]

  Mr. Wills
  The numbers of special advisers and press officers employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1992 are as follows:

  1992–97: no special advisers

  1998–2001: one special adviser

  1992–99: four full-time press officers

  2000–01: six full-time press officers.

  Press officers include the head of the information directorate. No press officers have been employed on a part-time or contract basis.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by his Department in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6589]

  Mr. Wills
  There are no new build or refurbishment projects for the HQ estate in the current year (excluding general fit out and maintenance work). There is however, one project due to start in the next financial year, this will be to refurbish Clive House in London. The contract is due to be let in May 2002, with works to be undertaken between November 2002 and November 2003. The budget for this refurbishment is £24 million, including works, fees and VAT, although this is being funded by the landlord under a private developer scheme.

  Within the Court Service and associated offices, building and refurbishment schemes planned for the current financial year are in table 1.

  The programme for 2002–03 has yet to be determined but schemes that will be carried forward from this financial year are listed.

  Financial support is also provided to local authorities who have procured Private Finance Initiative contracts for the delivery of new and refurbished magistrates courthouses. During the current year, six new courthouses (arising from two contracts signed in 1999–2000) have already, or will be, opened at Beverley (new build); Kidderminster (refurbishment); Worcester (new build). During 2002–03 the extensive refurbishment of Redditch Magistrates Court will be completed. The total capital investment by the private sector in these facilities is £48 million.

  The Department also provides funding to local authorities in the form of capital grant to undertake maintenance and necessary refurbishment works within magistrates courts. This funding is allocated to local authorities, so the Department does not undertake the works, nor are they directly benefited. The funds allocated in the current year for refurbishments in magistrates courts in England and Wales are in table 2.
  1022W
  The capital allocations for 2002–03 have yet to be determined, however there is a further £427,000 allocated to support the schemes approved in 2001–02.

  Table 1

  £

  Building schemes

  Probate Records Office PFI scheme

  6,770

  Sheffield Combined Court Centre PFI scheme

  73,200

  East Anglia PFI scheme

  377,839

  Bristol Combined Court Centre

  231,000

  Exeter Combined Court Centre PFI scheme

  369,000

  Manchester Civil Justice Centre

  100,000

  London County Court rationalisation

  100,000

  Blackpool County Court

  50,000

  Chester County Court

  165,000

  Field House (Immigration Appellate Authority)

  1,500,000

  Brighton County Court

  470,000

  Refurbishment schemes

  Nottingham Crown and County Court

  500,000

  Worcester Crown Court (external Security Works)

  100,000

  Manchester Crown Square

  500,000

  Liverpool Combined Court Centre

  500,000

  Royal Courts of Justice

  750,000

  Snaresbrook Crown Court renovation

  1,500,000

  Portsmouth Combined Court

  700,000

  Warrington Combined Court

  400,000

  Birmingham County Court (add. Courtrooms)

  250,000

  Leeds Combined Court Centre (new entrance)

  191,075

  Leeds Combined Court Centre (add. Courtrooms)

  300,045

  Basildon Combined Court (roof repair)

  250,000

  Kingston Crown Court (main concourse alterations)

  40,000

  Preston Combined Court Centre

  140,000

  York Probate Sub Registry

  120,000

  Ipswich District Probate Registry

  250,000

  Leicester Probate (relocation)

  80,000

  Building schemes to be carried forward from this financial year

  Sheffield Combined Court Centre PFI scheme

  East Anglia PFI scheme

  Bristol Combined Court Centre

  Exeter Combined Court Centre PFI scheme

  Manchester Civil Justice Centre

  London County Court rationalisation

  Blackpool County Court

  Refurbishment schemes to be carried forward from this financial year

  Manchester Crown Square

  Liverpool Combined Court Centre

  Snaresbrook Crown Court renovation

  Basildon Combined Court (roof repair)

  Table 2

  £

  Wolverhampton (refurbish custody area)

  241,500

  Bridgend (improvements to custody area)

  83,200

  Port Talbot (refurb. office and public access)

  5,380

  Brecon (improvements to custody area)

  41,400

  Llaneli (improvements to custody area)

  141,600

  Rochdale (improvements to secure area)

  57,550

  Pentonville (convert wailing rooms)

  57,500

  Cwmbran (construction of a new custody area)

  345,000

  Cwmbran (upgrade building)

  550,000

  Birkenhead (improvements to custody area)

  143,800

  St. Helens (refurbish holding area)

  32,200

  Liverpool (refurbish former warrant section)

  286,649

  Tamworth (general refurbishment)

  113,250

  1023W

  Table 2

  £

  Mold (general refurbishment)

  104,495

  Bangor (general refurbishment)

  83,938

  Caernarfon (general refurbishment)

  107,237

  Llangefni (general refurbishment)

  218,839

  Scunthorpe (refurbishment of 1st floor)

  386,490

  Hexham (general refurbishment)

  187,000

  Sunderland (refurbish of public area and counter)

  37,090

  Spalding (roofing and refurbishment)

  242,347

  Peterborough (refurbish custody area)

  37,413

  Trowbridge (refurbishment of custody area)

  44,700

  Departmental Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the top 10 companies to which the Lord Chancellor's Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6412]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been no contracts let for new construction or refurbishment within the HQ estate in the past 12 months. However, the 10 top companies used by the Court Service and associated offices are as follows:

  1. William Sapcote and Sons Ltd.

  2. David McLean Contractors Ltd.

  3. Parkeray Ltd.

  4. Walter Llewellyn and Sons Ltd.

  5. Mowlem South Wales

  6. Turner and Townsend Project Management Ltd.

  7. Bailey Maintenance Services

  8. Joinery, Construction Maintenance Ltd.

  9. Interface Contracts Ltd.

  10. EC Harris.

  Disputes Resolution
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how her Department will report to Parliament on progress with the Government's commitment to use alternative dispute resolutions where possible in resolving their own disputes. [7709]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to make an announcement at the beginning of the next financial year, and has asked Departments to collect the following information: the number of disputes that have been notified during the 12 month period from April 2001 to March 2002; the number of those disputes where alternative dispute resolution (ADR) was used or attempted; the number of disputes where litigation was started; and the number of disputes where an offer of ADR was rejected.

  Access to Justice Act
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been achieved under the provisions of the Access to Justice Act 1999 in persuading suppliers of legal services to try mediation in appropriate cases in place of litigation. [7708]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission continues to support mediation a rid other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for both family and non-family disputes. The number of mediations has 1024W
  been increasing steadily, and there were 9,076 family mediations in the period April 2000 to March 2001. The Funding Code's decision-making guidance encourages the use of ADR, especially where it avoids lengthy, contested proceedings in court.

  The Legal Services Commission has worked with Mediation UK and other bodies to develop a quality standard for both family and community mediation services. The Mediation Quality Mark standard has been published for consultation. The closing date for responses is 2 November 2001.

  There is also a leaflet on ADR in the recently issued series of Community Legal Service information leaflets.

  Act of Settlement
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 with Articles 9 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998. [6484]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government do not consider that the Act of Settlement 1701 contravenes Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act does not, for example, interfere with a person's right to practise the religion of his or her choice. The Court of Human Rights has consistently held that it considers only the facts of a particular case and does not give judgment on hypothetical situations.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress he is making in reviewing the use and cost of judges' lodgings; and if he will make a statement. [6440]

  Mr. Wills
  The review will be taken forward in the context of relevant recommendations of Lord Justice Auld's report, which was published on 8 October, and in the light of the results of public consultation on its recommendations. In the meantime, the Lord Chancellor has decided to implement some administrative improvements in the lodgings network, including the use of more cost-effective transport, and to close the lodgings at Mold on the Wales and Chester Circuit. These decisions will save over £300,000 per year once implemented.

  Lay Magistracy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on recruitment, retention and training and service obligations for the lay magistracy. [7143]

  Mr. Wills
  In general there are no particular problems recruiting or retaining enough magistrates. Over 5,000 applied to be Justices last year. However, it is harder to recruit or retain people in some areas than in others and it is necessary to encourage people from all walks of life to apply. That is why my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor's officials are considering how to develop a national strategy that will encourage more people to apply from as wide a cross section of the community as possible. Advisory Committees try to be flexible to accommodate magistrates having difficulties and considering resigning, and the Lord Chancellor
  1025W
  expects courts to try to accommodate Justices who may be seeking to combine public service with family or work commitments. The minimum requirement is for 26 half-day sittings, that being the minimum number of sittings to ensure magistrates keep their knowledge and skills current.

  Training is of course necessary to equip magistrates to discharge their responsibilities effectively. The amount of training required differs from person to person and depends on identified needs but there is a core syllabus delivered to all magistrates locally.

  City Status Competition
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the timetable for the competition to determine city status to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and when an announcement is expected on the names of the successful towns. [7167]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 787W.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what financial and other assistance is available to people who would normally be summoned to appear before Salisbury magistrates but are instructed to travel to Chippenham court following the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [7373]

  Mr. Wills
  There is no assistance available which relates to the particular venue. Defence and private prosecution witnesses may be paid certain expenses of attendance, at the discretion of the court. Other prosecution witnesses, including the victim, are paid their reasonable expenses by the prosecuting authority. An acquitted defendant may be granted a defendant's costs order to cover any out of pocket expenses.

  The location of courthouses is a matter for the individual Magistrates Courts Committee. The committee will take account, among other things, of the requirements of the Human Rights Act, although nothing in that Act requires cases to be heard in a particular type of location. Other relevant legislation, for instance, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, may require the Magistrates Courts Committee to consider questions of accessibility and the best way of providing a high standard of facilities to the population of the committee area as a whole.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of her Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7241]
  1026W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the normal retirement age for the Lord Chancellor's Department and its executive agencies is as follows:HEO equivalent and above (including Senior Civil Service): 60
  EO equivalent: 62
  AO equivalent and below: 65.

  However, staff can stay on above the normal retirement ages at management discretion, subject to business needs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if she will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) House of Commons and (ii) House of Lords; [7013]

  (2) if she will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by her Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if she will make a statement. [7014]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The effective handling of correspondence and PQs is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance.

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28w and on 19 July 2001, Official Report columns 454–56W.

  The time limits for answering written parliamentary questions vary considerably. The calculation of an average response time would not, therefore, provide a reliable indication of the timeliness of answers. The table shows the percentage of written parliamentary questions tabled to this Department, in both Houses, which were answered within the time limits set since the 1996–96 session.

  Percentage

  Session

  PQs answered within target

  1995–96

  98

  1996–97

  95

  1997–98

  97

  1999– 99

  96

  1999–2001

  98

  2000–01

  97

  2001–02

  97

  The total number of parliamentary questions, in both Houses, tabled to this Department since the Parliamentary session 1995–96 are set out in the table.

  Session

  Number of PQs

  1995–96

  701

  1996–97

  350

  1997–98

  1,357

  1027W

  Session

  Number of PQs

  1998–99

  925

  1999–2000

  837

  2000–01

  402

  2001–02 (to date)

  154

  Criminal Courts Review
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the report of Lord Justice Auld relating to the court and criminal justice system. [7534]

  Mr. Wills
  Sir Robin Auld's report on the Criminal Courts Review was published on 8 October. The Government are grateful to Sir Robin for his very substantial and important review of the criminal courts at every level. The Government will seek views from the public and from those working in the criminal justice system so as to gain a broad consensus for effective reform. The period for comment ends on 31 January 2002. In the light of those comments, the Government hope to make early decisions on whether to adopt the Recommendations, and to announce them in a White Paper. The full report of the review has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is on the Criminal Courts Review website: http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk. and the CJS website at www.criminal-justice-systttm.gov.uk.

HEALTH

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the likely annual additional cost of prescribing beta interferon to the same percentage
  of MS patients as the EU average. [7215]

  Ms Blears
  We do not hold sufficiently robust information on the public funding of beta interferon treatment in other European Union countries to make such an estimate.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make his decision on the provision of beta interferon to MS patients. [7245]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Appraisal Committee further considered the evidence on the use of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate for Multiple Sclerosis sufferers on 25 September 2001. NICE has subsequently issued a provisional appraisal determination (PAD) to interested parties for comment.

  The institute has stated that, to allow sufficient time to take proper account of the extensive comments received on the PAD, it now intends to issue the final appraisal determination to consultees towards the end of October this year.

  Rural Minds and Diverse Minds Programmes
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the funding of the rural minds and diverse minds programmes. [7244]
  1028W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department, through the section 64 General Scheme under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, has funded both rural minds and diverse minds for the three years up to end of March 2000. The total amount was £225,960. There have been no further applications to fund these projects.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7234]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the normal retirement age and on compulsory early retirement or severance for the Department and for the executive agencies and public sector bodies for which it is responsible is as follows:

  Regardless of grade or job title the normal age of retirement for all staff is age 60. Some staff who transferred into the Department from the national health service retained the right to retire on NHS terms at age of 65.

  Hospital Waiting Times (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures for the last three months on the total number of people waiting for in-patient treatment in the Mid Essex hospital trust area; and what the most recent figures are for the last two available quarters for out-patient treatment in Mid Essex. [7166]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Total number of patients waiting for hospital in-patient treatment at Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust in:

  Month

  Number

  June 2001

  8,850

  July 2001

  8,898

  August 2001

  8,917

  Source:

  KH07 quarterly return/monthly waiting times collection

  Total number of patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an out-patient appointment at Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust in

  Number

  Quarter 4 2000–01 (March 2001)

  2,125

  Quarter 12001–02 (June 2001)

  2,146

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

  Patient Security (Medical Devices)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken in(a) Middlesex and (b) the rest of England to tighten up procedures and security to prevent accidents or sabotage from objects being placed in tubes used in the conduct of operations and to protect patients. [7161]

  Mr. Hutton
  The incident at Broomfield hospital, and others of a similar nature in other hospitals, are being investigated by the Essex police force. Once the findings
  1029W
  of those investigations are available, procedures will be reviewed and, if appropriate, additional measures will be implemented.

  In the meantime the following actions have been taken:

  On 17 August 2001 advice was sent to chief executives of all national health service trusts (England) and chief executives of health authorities (England) reminding them of:
  the Medical Devices Agency Hazard Notice MD HN 2001(02) on the risk of blockages on anaesthetic breathing system components;
  to follow already established pre-employment personnel checks in existing guidance documents HSG(94)51 and strengthened and expanded in HSG(97)064;
  to review security arrangements, particularly operating theatres and intensive care units, with reference to the guidance in the NHS Security Manual.

  A further Hazard Notice HN 2001 (03) re-emphasising the above has been issued by the MDA in September.

  Spinal Injuries
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people attended out-patient clinics at spinal injuries units in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [6752]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally. We do, however, have some data on the incidence of spinal injury consultations for the national health service as a whole, as shown in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs)1 by main diagnosis NHS hospitals England 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Spinal cord injuries1

  1995–96

  11,578

  1996–97

  11,490

  1997–98

  11,433

  1998–99

  10,900

  1999–2000

  11,071

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider.

  Notes:

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 which are ungrossed.

  The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within a year.

  The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Whittington Hospital
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the costs have been of preparing PFI bids for the Whittington hospital redevelopment. [6947]

  Mr. Hutton
  The costs of preparing the private finance initiative bids for the Whittington hospital redevelopment, have so far been £545,000 of which £252,000 were in-house costs.

  Eating Disorders
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued in respect of the treatment of eating disorders. [7798]
  1030W
  Jacqui Smith
  We embarked on a radical programme of modernisation to improve access to effective treatment and care, reduce unfair variation, raise standards, and provide quicker and more convenient services. The mental health National Service Framework published in 1998 draws attention to the needs of people with eating disorders in Standards two and three.

  The NSF implementation plan demands that health authorities have protocols for referral in place for those needing psychological therapies, and in February the Department published an evidence-based guideline to assist them. It includes coverage of eating disorders www.doh.gov.uk/mentalhealth/treatmentguideline.

  We have commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to develop a guideline on eating disorders. It will cover primary and secondary care and children as well as adults. Information about this work is available on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average response time has been for him to respond to letters from hon. Members in the last two months. [6729]

  Ms Blears
  During the period of 23 May to 23 July 2001 the Department replied to 1,679 letters in an average of 15.01 days per case.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 25 July about the proposed closure of Staunton Harold hall. [7354]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 8 October 2001.

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) qualified and (b) unqualified nursing staff were working in the NHS in each year between 1990 and 2000 who were aged (i) under 25, (ii) 25 to 29, (iii) 30 to 34, (iv) 35 to 39, (v) 40 to 44, (vi) 45 to 49, (vii) 50 to 54,
  (viii) 55 to 59, (ix) 60 to 64, (x) 65 years plus and (xi) unknown. [7975]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data showing the number of qualified and unqualified nursing staff working in the national health service in each year between 1990 and 2000, by age-band, are shown in the table.

  Age breakdowns for practice nurses are not available.
  1031W

  NHS hospital and community heath service (HCHS): nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by age band in England as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  All ages

  Up to 25

  25 to 29

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 to 64

  65 and over

  Unknown

  Qualified

  1990

  285,360

  22,360

  54,790

  46,820

  37,490

  38,730

  30,640

  25,540

  15,270

  4,310

  200

  9,220

  1991

  293,770

  20,610

  55,420

  49,160

  38,910

  38,360

  32,080

  24,670

  15,290

  4,420

  250

  14,590

  1992

  297,350

  17,910

  54,590

  52,320

  40,930

  37,680

  34,660

  24,870

  15,550

  4,620

  250

  13,970

  1993

  293,380

  14,830

  49,670

  52,920

  41,340

  35,980

  34,580

  24,070

  14,810

  4,370

  190

  20,620

  1994

  289,280

  14,570

  46,050

  54,150

  43,500

  35,740

  34,420

  23,850

  14,290

  4,110

  190

  18,420

  1995

  298,650

  15,660

  42,650

  55,600

  46,240

  36,830

  35,520

  24,720

  14,380

  4,230

  310

  22,510

  1996

  301,250

  15,130

  40,480

  56,100

  48,440

  38,050

  35,050

  25,640

  13,720

  4,000

  130

  24,520

  1997

  300,470

  13,630

  36,910

  53,230

  50,100

  39,600

  33,830

  27,450

  13,830

  4,420

  170

  27,300

  1998

  304,560

  12,220

  35,420

  51,630

  53,410

  42,540

  34,580

  29,090

  14,140

  4,070

  180

  27,280

  1999

  310,140

  11,340

  34,110

  48,540

  55,520

  46,340

  35,820

  30,560

  15,310

  4,330

  240

  28,040

  2000

  316,750

  11,020

  34,150

  45,770

  57,500

  50,010

  37,720

  32,190

  16,290

  4,530

  190

  27,380

  Unqualified

  1990

  119,350

  15,020

  11,750

  10,860

  11,860

  17,190

  17,820

  15,960

  11,180

  4,200

  110

  3,410

  1991

  131,720

  16,740

  12,820

  12,060

  12,540

  16,960

  18,450

  15,860

  11,420

  4,600

  180

  10,100

  1992

  126,610

  13,160

  12,560

  12,520

  12,360

  15,650

  19,280

  16,140

  11,820

  4,780

  210

  8,150

  1993

  130,430

  11,690

  12,450

  12,810

  12,650

  14,950

  19,100

  16,240

  11,880

  4,870

  210

  13,600

  1994

  130,690

  11,470

  12,790

  13,600

  13,400

  14,760

  18,830

  16,520

  12,060

  4,850

  190

  12,230

  1995

  113,190

  8,500

  9,770

  11,440

  11,450

  11,680

  15.180

  13,820

  10,010

  4,140

  220

  16,990

  1996

  114,500

  7,610

  9,360

  11,370

  11,680

  11,620

  14,490

  13,940

  10,010

  4,110

  110

  20,180

  1997

  117,110

  7,310

  9,120

  11.260

  12,210

  11,830

  13,400

  14,620

  10,010

  4,360

  140

  22,860

  1998

  117,190

  6,840

  8,730

  11.190

  12,670

  11,980

  12,930

  14,840

  10,420

  4,400

  140

  23,060

  1999

  120,960

  6,700

  8,750

  11,160

  13,260

  12,950

  13,010

  15,050

  10,890

  4,600

  170

  24,430

  2000

  124,060

  6,580

  8,930

  10,980

  13,860

  13,740

  13,130

  15,030

  11,510

  4,780

  170

  25,340

  Notes:

  A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Unqualified figures include 'other' nurses.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Owing to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Parkside NHS Trust
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what investigation his Department has made into the risk of violence to health visitors in Parkside NHS trust as a result of implementing trust policy with regard to the use of the health visitor assessment tool; [6966]

  (2) what plans he has to review the management capability at Parkside NHS trust following the report produced by Professor Sarah Cowley of Kings College, London into staff relations and managerial practice at the trust; [6972]

  (3) what assessment he has made of Parkside NHS trust's use of a master patient index number on health visitor assessment tool records in respect of (a) client confidentiality and (b) compliance with the Data Protection Acts; [6769]

  (4) what consultation there has been with health visitors' clients about how personal information was stored by Parkside NHS trust; and how the trust ensured that it complied with the Data Protection Acts; [6971]

  (5) what advice was given to Parkside NHS trust on the impact of the Data Protection Acts on the collection of health visitors' clients' information in respect of client confidentiality; and what action was taken as a result of this advice; [7006]

  1032W

  (6) what consultation Parkside NHS trust has undertaken with health visitors' clients following the report produced by Professor Sarah Cowley of King's College, London into the use of a health visitor assessment tool; [6973]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the supplementary report produced for the management of Parkside NHS trust by Professor Cowley about Parkside managerial practice; and what action he intends to take as a result; [6976]

  (8) what response he has made to the report produced by Professor Sarah Cowley of King's College, London evaluating the Parkside NHS trust health visitor assessment tool; [6975]

  (9) what assessment he has made of Parkside NHS trust's compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Acts in its recording of patients' information; [6768]

  (10) if patient's confidentiality was broken by the use of the Parkside NHS trust health visitor assessment tool; [6965]

  (11) what consultation Parkside NHS trust has undertaken with (a) health visitors and (b) health visitors' clients since the report produced by Professor Sarah Cowley of King's College, London into the use of a health visitor assessment tool. [6974]

  1033W
  Ms Blears
  A health needs assessment tool (HNAT) was developed by Parkside Health national health service trust for use by health visitors to assist in the prioritisation of workload. An initial stage of development included focus groups that included both health visitors and their clients, prior to its piloting with 452 clients.

  The HNAT does not require the recording of a client's name and address; instead it uses a master patient index number to link information gathered using this tool with the client's case notes, with which it is retained. No information from the HNAT is entered on Parkside Health NHS trust's electronic Community Information System. For a five-month period, a paper-based report which included master patient index numbers was compiled for monitoring purposes. In April 2000 this practice was identified locally as a potential breach of patient confidentiality and was discontinued immediately, and all documentation destroyed. All NHS trusts have been issued guidance relating to patient confidentiality and to the Data Protection Act 1998 and in upholding the Act are accountable to the Data Protection Registrar.

  Parkside Health NHS trust commissioned an independent evaluation of the HNAT from Professor Sarah Cowley of the Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College, London. Professor Cowley presented her findings to the trust and its staff on 15 March 2001. The trust established a working group of health visitors that informed the development of an action plan to address issues identified by Professor Cowley; the NHS London Regional Office is monitoring implementation of this action plan.

  As part of that action plan, Parkside NHS trust and its partner organisations are planning a conference for staff and clients that will explore the health visitor's role including needs assessment issues.

  Any specific evidence of poor management practice at an NHS trust not being resolved through local policies and procedures brought to the Department's attention would elicit prompt, appropriate action to remedy the situation. I have asked the NHS London Regional Office to follow up with Parkside Health NHS trust whether there are any identifiable issues within what I understand to be one of Professor Cowley's working papers rather than a formal report and to advise me whether such action is necessary.

  Following Professor Cowley's report, Parkside NHS trust wrote to all health visitor staff on 26 April 2001 indicating that HNAT was still in a developmental stage and that they may choose to use it as part of their assessment and prioritisation of client needs but are under no compulsion to do so.

  The trust has a policy on violence in the workplace that specifically addresses safety on home visits; this has recently been updated. There have been no reports made to the trust of violence connected with use of the HNAT; any such report would be taken seriously and investigated as required under trust policies.

  Social Services Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in rank order for each local authority 1034W
  (a) the total standard spending assessment for social services and (b) the standard spending assessment for social services per head of population [7148]

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

  PEI Pilot Projects
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what timescale he intends to take forward the three PFI pilot projects which include the contracting-out of the management of ancillary services. [7157]

  Mr. Hutton
  The aim is to complete the evaluation of the three private finance initiative pilot projects before the end of the year.

  Fibromyalgia
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received on fibromyalgia; and what provision exists for the diagnosis and treatment of this disease; [7259]

  (2) what plans his Department has to promote awareness and treatment of fibromyalgia. [7264]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has recently received representations from local branches of the Fibromyalgia Support Group requesting more research into the condition, and raised public awareness.

  The national health service provides a wide range of services to which people with fibromyalgia have access, and patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. Health authorities and primary care trusts plan and arrange the services available to people in their care, as they are closest to the people they serve and so best placed to respond sensitively to their needs.

  The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fibromyalgia was launched in March, chaired by the noble Lady the Countess of Mar. This should help increase public awareness of the condition.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6897]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the tables:

  Table 1: Special advisers1

  (i)Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  1992–93

  1

  1

  1993–94

  1

  0

  1994–95

  1

  0

  1995–96

  1

  0

  1996–97

  2

  0

  1997–98

  2

  0

  1998–99

  2

  0

  1999–2000

  2

  0

  2000–01

  2

  0

  1 All special advisers are employed by the Department on a contractual basis

  1035W

  Table 2: Press officers1

  (i) Full time

  (ii) Part-time

  1992–93

  14

  0

  1993–94

  14

  0

  1994–95

  14

  0

  1995–96

  17

  0

  1996–97

  17

  0

  1997–98

  15

  0

  1998–99

  15

  0

  1999–2000

  14

  2

  2000–01

  14

  0

  1 There were no Press Officers employed by the Department on a contractual basis

  London Weighting
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total value of London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6866]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Allowance name

  Total (£)1

  London weighting

  1,396,852

  Other London living allowances

  145,245

  Grand total

  1,542,097

  1The annual estimated value of these allowances

  Note:

  August 2001 payroll data

  Antipsychotic Medication
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned in the last four years into prescribing of(a) traditional and (b) atypical antipsychotic medication to older people (i) in general, (ii) in care homes and (iii) in hospitals. [7393]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department, through the health technology assessment (HTA) programme, has funded research to the value of over £1.4 million on antipsychotic medication in general. This includes a multi-centre randomised controlled trial on the cost utility of antipsychotics in severe schizophrenia, a systematic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of "atypical" antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia and systematic reviews of (i) comparative studies of depot neuroleptic agents and (ii) studies of oral versus depot neuroleptic agents for patients with schizophrenia.

  The HTA programme has also undertaken a review for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on the clinical effectiveness and cost- effectiveness of the newer (atypical) antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia. This includes some reference to older people. NICE has started its appraisal and the appraisal committee will produce the provisional appraisal determination this month and final guidance is expected in March 2002.

  Through such measures as the National Service Framework for Older People and the Care Standards Act 2000, the Department has set out clear requirements for the proper management of medicines for older people.
  1036W
  This includes specific reference to existing guidance on the appropriate prescribing of antipsychotic drugs and other medication for mental health problems.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(a) how many appeals were lodged against decisions under continuing care criteria, (b) how many appeals resulted in the NHS assuming funding responsibility in full and (c) what the mean and median number of weeks was an appellant waited from the date the appeal was lodged to the appeal decision for each (i) NHS region and (ii) health authority, in (A) 1998–99, (B) 1999–2000 and (C) 2000–01. [7411]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Delayed Discharge (Elderly Patients)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged 75 years and over(a) experienced delayed discharge, (b) experienced delayed discharge due to awaiting residential placement and (c) required emergency readmission within 28 days of hospital discharge in Q3 and Q4 2000–01 and Q1 2001–02 in each (i) NHS region and (ii) health authority. [7392]

  Jacqui Smith
  Copies of the information requested have been placed in the Library. This does not include information requested on Quarter 1 2001–02 figures for each national health service region and health authority for the total number of elderly people aged 75 and over who experienced delayed discharge due to awaiting residential placement. From April this year figures on reasons for delay were only collected on the basis of patients of all ages.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) NHS regions and (b) health authorities, the number of elderly people aged 75 years and over for each quarter from Q1 1999–2000 to Q1 2001–02 experiencing delayed discharge because they were awaiting a domiciliary care package. [7387]

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

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements he has made to deal with appeals against assessment decisions under his Department's free nursing care guidance; how nursing home residents will be informed of their appeal rights; and if residents will have access to advocacy services in such cases; [7389]

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to inform (a) nursing home managers and owners and (b) self-funding and part-funding nursing home residents of free nursing care schemes; and when such information was sent. [7390]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance on free nursing care in nursing homes was issued to the national health service and councils with social service responsibilities on 25 September. On the same day, organisations representing care homes were advised that the guidance had been issued. A Department of Health leaflet, "NHS
  1037W
  Funded Nursing Care in Nursing Homes—What it means for you", has been issued to health authorities and councils to pass on copies to nursing home residents, their families and carers, nursing homes and general practitioner practices. A copy is also available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/ freenursingcare. Information abut the free nursing care scheme, including some frequently asked questions, was placed on the website when draft guidance was issued for consultation in July.

  Both documents refer to the opportunities for individuals to have determinations reviewed and, if necessary, that decision reviewed by a local continuing care panel on appeal. Residents will have equal access to local advocacy services and, in respect of health services, from April 2002, to the patient advocacy and liaison service. These issues can be raised by and with the national health service nurse at the time that the registered nursing sare contribution is carried out.

  Care Homes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many licensed residential homes and nursing homes in England and Wales are operated(a) privately, (b) by local authorities and (c) by voluntary organisations. [7608]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of registered private, local authority staffed and voluntary residential and nursing care homes in England. Information on the number of homes in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Number of registered private, local authority staffed and voluntary residential and nursing care homes in England in 2000 (as at 31 March)

  Homes registered for the provision of:

  (a) Operated privately

  (b) Operated by local authority

  (1) Operated by voluntary organisations

  Total4

  Residential care

  16,530

  2,030

  3,950

  22,500

  Nursing homes2

  3,550

  5—

  5—

  3,550

  Dual registered3

  2,330

  5—

  5—

  2,330

  1 Includes small homes (less than four places)

  2 General and mental nursing homes, and private hospitals and clinics. Excludes dual registered homes.

  3 Homes providing residential and nursing care.

  4 Rounded numbers.

  5 Not applicable.

  Note:

  Figures may not add to totals because of rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those local authorities which operate residential care homes in England and Wales. [7607]

  Jacqui Smith
  All local social services authorities in England, with the exception of the City of London, operate residential care homes. Further details on numbers of homes operated by each authority are given in the statistical bulletin entitled 'Community Care Statistics 2000, Residential Personal Social Services for Adults, England', copies of which are available in the Library and on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/ sb0028.htm. Information on the number of homes in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Health Authorities (Deficits)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the deficit for the 2001–02 year was as at 30 September for each health authority in England and Wales; and what deficits have been carried over from 2000–01 in each case. [7623]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the financial position of health authorities in England at 30 September will be included in returns received in late November. However, all health authorities plan to achieve financial balance in 2001–02.

  Health authorities now produce their accounts on a resource basis rather than income and expenditure. The provisional annual summarised accounts for 2000–01 show only one health authority, Bexley and Greenwich, failed to achieve financial balance. The health authority merged on 1 April 2001.

  Matters for Wales are the responsibility of the devolved Administration.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients fail to keep out-patient appointments in each of the five years. [7617]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2000–01, 11.4 per cent. of patients failed to keep their first out-patient appointments in England. We are tackling this by introducing booking systems throughout the national health service. By the end of 2005 all out-patient appointments and elective hospital admissions will be pre-booked, with patients agreeing the date (and time) for out-patient appointments in advance. Booking systems have been proved to reduce missed appointments significantly.

  Private Health Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have contracts with private health care providers; and how much has been spent on such contracts in each of the last four years. [7624]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department collects information on expenditure of national health service trusts on the purchase of health care from all non-NHS bodies. These figures are not broken down further into trust expenditure on private health care.

  Table 1 sets out the expenditure of NHS trusts on purchase of health care from all non-NHS bodies from 1996–97 to 1999–2000, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Expenditure on purchase of health care from non-NHS bodies1 in England 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  88,662,366

  1997–98

  122,436,050

  1998–99

  121,953,905

  1999–2000

  134,783,788

  1 "Non-NHS bodies" includes:

  non-NHS statutory/state sector, including any expenditure on health care with local authorities and at Ministry of Defence hospitals

  1039W
  voluntary (not for profit) sector, including any expenditure on health care with non-profit making voluntary organisations and registered charities. This excludes payments made under joint finance in accordance with section 28A of the NHS Act 1997 and section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 commercial (for profit) sector, including any expenditure on health care with commercial organisations. Commercial organisations include companies where profits are distributable to shareholders and also organisations owned by the proprietor operating as a sole trader.
  Table 2 sets out the number of NHS trusts reporting purchase of health care from non-NHS bodies from 1996–97 to 1999–2000.

  Year

  1996–97

  214 NHS trusts from a total of 402 NHS trusts

  1997–98

  207 NHS trusts from a total of 425 NHS trusts

  NHS trust

  Chief executive in post more than 18 months

  Name

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Yes

  Elizabeth Heyer

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  Yes

  Stuart Welling

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  Yes

  Anne-Marie Dean

  East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  Yes1

  Maggie Donovan

  Medway NHS Trust

  Yes

  Jan Filochowski

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  Yes

  Hugh Ross

  University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire (formerly Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust)

  Yes

  David Loughton

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust

  No

  —

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  No

  —

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  No

  —

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHST

  No

  —

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust

  No

  —

  1Appointed 1 April 2000

  NHS Budgets
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on inflationary pressures on NHS budgets. [7598]

  Mr. Hutton
  The level of healthcare cost inflation for the financial year 1999–2000 was 4.5 per cent. The figures are taken from the national health service hospital and community health service (HCHS) pay and price inflation index. The latest year for which data are available is 1999–2000. Assumptions for future years are based on our inflation target and possible recommendations from the pay review bodies.
  In comparison, NHS expenditure in England increased by 8.9 per cent. (6.3 per cent. in real terms) in 1999—–2000.

  Medical Negligence
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid out in medical negligence claims in each of the last four years, together with the cost of accompanying legal fees. [7604]

  Ms Blears
  Figures on the amounts included in the National Audit summarised accounts for clinical negligence expenditure for the latest available years are as follows.
  1040W

  Year

  1998–99

  205 NHS trusts from a total of 402 NHS trusts

  1999–2000

  192 NHS trusts from a total of 377 NHS trusts

  Hospital Trusts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospital trusts which have gained zero stars in the new rating system where the trust chief executive has been in place for more than 18 months; and if he will name those chief executives. [7596]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service trusts that gained no stars in the NHS performance ratings for acute trusts in 2000–01 are given in the table, along with the names of the chief executives who have been in post for more than 18 months.

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  221

  1999–2000

  373

  Source

  National Health Service summarised accounts for health authorities, NHS trusts and NHS Litigation Authority.

  Changes to accounting policies mean that these amounts are not directly comparable.

  The summarised accounts do not show, and it is therefore not possible to break down, separately what proportion of theses figures are for compensation payments and legal costs.

  Hospital Food
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding recent changes to NHS food menus; and how much has been paid to outside consultants to advise on menus since 1997. [7603]

  Ms Blears
  The better hospital food programme, announced in the NHS Plan, is designed to improve the quality and availability of food in hospitals. It is a long-term programme, the first stage of which requires hospitals, by 31 December 2001: to ensure that their meal
  1041W
  services meet or exceed required standards and meet nutritional requirements; to provide a 24-hour catering service so that patients can obtain food when they need it; to adopt the national design for menus; and to provide on their menus dishes designed for the national health service by the team of leading chefs.

  £401,334 has been paid to outside organisations in connection with the better hospital food programme. This has covered design costs for the new menu and implementation support pack, the establishment and full nutritional analysis of the NHS dish selector, recipe development and testing work and the development and management of the website. This equates to slightly more than £1,000 per NHS trust, and is a fraction of the NHS budget for catering. Additionally, central arrangement of much of this work will save the costs of duplicating work across the NHS.

  Details of any payments made to outside consultants by individual hospitals are not available centrally.

  Cancer Treatment (Waiting Times)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time between general practitioner referral and clinical treatment was for(a) breast cancer cases, (b) lung cancer cases and (c) lower gastrointestinal cancer cases in each of the health authorities in England in the last 12 months. [7591]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not collected. Collection of data on waiting times from general practitioner referral to treatment for breast cancer will be rolled out in 2002, as stated in the NHS Cancer Plan. By 2005 full implementation of monitoring will be in place for lung cancer and lower gastrointestinal cancer.

  We are determined to reduce waiting times for cancer treatment. By December 2002 there will be a maximum waiting time of two months from urgent GP referral to treatment for breast cancer. This maximum waiting time target will be rolled out to all cancers by December 2005.

  Overseas Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates issuing guidelines to health authorities and doctors enabling them to sign contracts with providers of medical care in other European Union countries; and what types of establishments in the EU will be considered. [7602]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 12 July the European Court of Justice ruled on joined cases C-157/99 Geraets-Smits and Peerbooms and case C-368/98 Vanbraekel that some hospital services may fall within European Community single market rules if they are provided for remuneration.

  Following this ruling, the Government have announced that National Health Service commissioners will be able to commission care for NHS patients from providers in other member states of the European Union, as part of their wider efforts to reduce waiting times.

  The decision to treat NHS patients in mainland Europe will be made locally as part of normal NHS commissioning arrangements. The Department is working closely with NHS managers and clinicians in Portsmouth, East Kent, West Sussex and East Surrey to test systems for offering patients treatment in other European
  1042W
  countries. Lessons learned from these areas on the legal, clinical and quality issues involved in sending NHS patients abroad for treatment will inform guidance, which will be sent out to the service later this year.

  "Removing Barriers"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department ensured that the report, "Removing Barriers", published by the Local Government Association, was taken into account during the 1997–98 comprehensive spending review; and which of its recommendations have been implemented. [8050]

  Jacqui Smith
  In reaching our view of what to include in the comprehensive spending review 1998 we consulted widely and took into account the views of the Local Government Association (LGA) and other stakeholders.

  The LGA report "Removing Barriers", which was published in 1997, highlighted the need for an active dialogue between the Department and the Department of Social Security (Department for Work and Pensions) on the interaction of the benefit system, and the local management of statutory welfare duties.

  Departmental Ministers and officials regularly meet their opposite numbers in DWP, and with LGA representatives to discuss issues of mutual interest.

  In the 1998 CSR we secured increased resources for social services averaging 3.1 per cent. a year in real terms for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to build hospitals devoted to intermediate care. [8023]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan set the target of an extra 5,000 intermediate care beds by 2003–04. These will be provided in a range of settings—in existing acute and community hospitals, in redesigned nursing homes or in purpose built facilities. The precise arrangements will be a matter for local decision. As part of our funding for intermediate care over the next two years, around £65 million will be for capital investment to support this development.

  General Practitioners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners(a) left and (b) were recruited into the NHS in each of the last four years. [7599]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1043W

  General practitioners. Analysis of work force—joiners and leavers 1996–97 to 1999–2000—England

  Number

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  UPEs1,2

  26,855

  27,099

  27,392

  27,591

  27,704

  Joiners

  1,302

  1,333

  1,229

  1,203

  New joiners of which to:

  1,029

  1,069

  967

  958

  GMS

  1,029

  1,047

  920

  886

  PMS

  —

  22

  47

  72

  Re-joiners of which to:

  273

  264

  262

  245

  GMS

  273

  256

  249

  219

  PMS

  —

  8

  13

  26

  UPEs transferring directly from:

  GMS to PMS

  —

  331

  501

  394

  PMS to GMS

  —

  0

  24

  73

  Leavers of which from:

  1,058

  1,040

  1,030

  1,090

  GMS

  1,058

  1,040

  1,013

  1,058

  PMS

  —

  —

  17

  32

  Change in UPEs

  244

  293

  199

  113

  1 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs

  2 Numbers of UPEs at 1 October each year from 1996 to 1999 and 30 September from 2000. Other rows relate to changes between successive October/September Censuses

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Statistics for General Medical Practitioners in England 1999–2000"

  Waiting Lists
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients in each health authority in England have been waiting for treatment for more than 12 months. [7625]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows, for each health authority in England, the percentage of patients who were waiting 12 months or more for admission to hospital on 31 August 2001.

  As part of the NHS plan, the national health service is working towards reducing the current maximum in-patient wait of 18 months to 14 months by March 2002, 12 months by March 2003, nine months by March 2004 and then ultimately six months by the end of 2005.

  Health authority

  Percentage waiting more than 12 months

  Hillingdon

  5.8

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1.8

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8.3

  Bedfordshire

  7.0

  Berkshire

  3.7

  Buckinghamshire

  5.6

  Croydon

  9.6

  East Kent

  6.9

  West Kent

  5.3

  Kingston and Richmond

  6.1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  8.5

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5.4

  East Surrey

  8.7

  West Surrey

  10.9

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  6.4

  West Sussex

  9.3

  Barking and Havering

  6.1

  Brent and Harrow

  6.0

  1044W

  Health authority

  Percentage waiting more than 12 months

  Camden and Islington

  4.4

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  5.2

  East London and City

  4.7

  North Essex

  6.1

  South Essex

  3.9

  South Lancashire

  2.4

  Liverpool

  4.0

  Manchester

  6.3

  Morecambe Bay

  2.6

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3.4

  Salford and Trafford

  6.4

  Sefton

  3.3

  Stockport

  3.8

  West Pennine

  2.4

  Northamptonshire

  4.8

  Oxfordshire

  4.6

  Suffolk

  4.6

  Barnsley

  0.4

  North Derbyshire

  0.7

  South Derbyshire

  2.6

  Doncaster

  0.3

  Leicestershire

  2.6

  Lincolnshire

  4.3

  North Nottinghamshire

  1.0

  Nottingham

  2.3

  Rotherham

  0.4

  Sheffield

  1.2

  Bury and Rochdale

  3.2

  North Cheshire

  7.9

  South Cheshire

  4.7

  East Lancashire

  1.6

  North West Lancashire

  1.5

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4.9

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  6.4

  Somerset

  3.4

  South and West Devon

  6.6

  Wiltshire

  5.9

  1045W

  Health authority

  Percentage waiting more than 12 months

  Avon

  6.5

  Birmingham

  2.0

  Wigan and Bolton

  3.7

  Wirral

  2.8

  Bradford

  0.8

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.9

  East Riding and Hull

  3.5

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.5

  Leeds

  3.0

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1.1

  North Cumbria

  1.8

  South Humber

  0.8

  Northumberland

  0.9

  Sunderland

  0.5

  Tees

  0.4

  Wakefield

  2.3

  North Yorkshire

  1.2

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.8

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5.1

  Dorset

  0.1

  North and East Devon

  5.5

  Gloucestershire

  1.6

  Coventry

  2.7

  Dudley

  2.2

  Herefordshire

  3.7

  Sandwell

  0.8

  Shropshire

  3.5

  Solihull

  1.2

  North Staffordshire

  2.9

  South Staffordshire

  5.2

  Walsall

  0.8

  Warwickshire

  1.1

  Wolverhampton

  1.4

  Worcestershire

  5.0

  Cambridgeshire

  4.2

  Norfolk

  5.3

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6.3

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  6.9

  Hertfordshire

  6.1

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  5.8

  England total

  4.4

  Epoetin
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department has collated on the availability of Epoetin to treat anaemia in renal disease in England; and if he will make a statement; [6493]

  (2) what methods his Department uses to monitor access to Epoetin by patients who require treatment for anaemia in renal disease in England; [6494]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the role of Epoetin in treating anaemia in renal disease; [6492]

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the importance of treating anaemia in renal diseases; and if he will make a statement. [6491]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is much published information to show that the successful treatment of anaemia in renal disease can improve patients' well-being and their quality of life. The majority of renal patients require epoetin to attain recommended haemoglobin levels. Data on the availability of epoetin are collected in surveys commissioned by the Department of Health. The last survey was conducted in 1998 and the results were published last year in the 3rd annual report from the United
  1046W
  Kingdom Renal Registry (copies available in the Library). This showed that 74 per cent. of all dialysis patients were being prescribed epoetin.

  Diabetes
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the diabetes National Service Framework. [8067]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will be publishing a standards document this autumn, which will set out national standards to improve the quality of care for people with diabetes. The standards document will include the aims of the National Service Framework, the underpinning evidence and proposed service models. It will indicate the broad direction of travel over what will be a ten year programme, starting in April 2003.

  We will publish the delivery strategy (including milestones) for the Diabetes NSF next summer.

  We shall also be setting up an Implementation Group this autumn, which will work with the national health service and other interested parties to develop a delivery strategy for the Diabetes NSF that takes account of the changing roles and responsibilities of NHS organisations emerging from "Shifting the Balance of Power". The agreed delivery strategy, including milestones, service models, performance indicators and underpinning programmes, will be published next summer.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  High Hedges
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will introduce legislation to regulate the size of high hedges. [4928]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]I have been asked to reply.

  The Government will introduce legislation giving local authorities powers to deal with complaints about high hedges in residential areas as soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers the Government have to stop monopolistic practices by supermarkets in respect of farmers. [6244]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Competition Act 1998 and the Fair Trading Act 1973 provide power to investigate and take action against abuse of dominate position or monopolistic behaviour.

  Complaints under the Acts are a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the division of responsibility for climate change between Ministers in her Department and the Deputy Prime Minister. [198]
  1047W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]As Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I will represent the UK at meetings and negotiations on international climate change issues, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, as I did in Bonn. The Deputy Prime Minister will continue to play a role in international climate change discussions and negotiations on behalf of the Prime Minister.

  BSE, Japan
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will publish the European Commission report into BSE risks in Japan. [200]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 19 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely cost to the taxpayer of replacing the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. [203]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 19 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government made of the impact of separating responsibility for rural affairs and land use planning into different Government Departments. [279]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The Government's assessment is that bringing together responsibility for the environment, food and farming and rural affairs in a single Department will make a major contribution to the promotion of sustainable development in rural areas. DEFRA's remit includes the promotion of sustainable development across Government. The planning system remains a key instrument in delivering the Government's sustainable development objectives, and we are putting in place mechanisms to ensure continued close working with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department have to visit international conferences relating to climate change in the next 12 months. [804]
  1048W
  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will attend the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in November this year, and the G8 Environment Ministers Conference, at which climate change will be discussed, in April 2002.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role she intends to take in negotiations at the international climate change talks in Bonn in July; and if she will make a statement. [4010]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]I was the head of the UK delegation during the recent climate change talks in Bonn. I played a full role in the negotiations, including in the all-night discussions which led to political agreement on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) assessment and (b) monitoring her Department plans of the impact of the climate change levy her Department has made on (i) greenhouse gas emissions and (ii) businesses; and if she will make a statement. [3994]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]The climate change levy, including climate change agreements, is expected to deliver reductions of 5MtC per annum by 2010. The levy is, overall, revenue neutral in that the receipts are being recycled to business through a 0.3 percentage point reduction in national insurance contributions and a programme of assistance to business to improve energy efficiency. The levy was introduced on 1 April 2001 and it is therefore too early to monitor impact. The operation of the levy will be kept under review.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contribution to the reduction in greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide under the climate change strategy is expected from(a) agriculture, (b) transport (excluding aviation), (c) aviation, (d) industry, (e) business, (f) households, and (g) other activities; and if she will make a statement. [3993]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]The UK's climate change programme that was published in November 2000 sets out full details of all the policies and measures that are reducing the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. The UK's baseline projections, that include the effect of some policies that have been introduced since Kyoto in 1997, estimate that the UK's emissions could be about 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. We estimate that the additional policies outlined in the programme could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 23 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  The table provides details of the savings from additional policies that we estimate could be delivered from each sector.
  1049W

  Sector/Policy

  MtC1

  Agriculture—afforestation

  0.6

  Transport—EU-level voluntary agreements on CO2, from cars; 10-Year-Plan; action in Scotland and Wales.

  5.7

  Business—climate change agreements; energy efficiency measures under the levy package; emissions trading.

  5.0

  Business and households—reform of Building Regulations.

  1.3

  Households—improvements to domestic energy efficiency, including the Energy Efficiency Commitment.

  2.6 to 3.7

  Households—action to replace community heating systems; New HEES; appliance standards and labeling.

  1.4

  Other activities—public sector targets; action by the Scottish Executive.

  0.6

  1Million tonnes of carbon equivalent.

  The UK's baseline projections include the effect of the fuel duty escalator to 1999 (1–2.5 MtC), the price effect of the climate change levy (2 MtC) and delivery of the 10 per cent. renewables target (2.5 MtC). It has not been possible to identify separate carbon savings from aviation, although action is being taken to tackle the rising emissions from this sector. Reduced emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from the agriculture sector, and of nitrous oxide and the fluorinated gases from the industrial sector, have also already been included in baseline projections.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has made towards meeting the objectives of the Government's climate change strategy; and if she will make a statement. [3992]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]The Government have continued to take action to tackle climate change. In 1999, the last year for which figures are available, the UK's greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced to 14.4 per cent. below 1990 levels.

  The Government have also made good progress towards implementing the policies and measures that were set out in the climate change programme. For example, the climate change levy package has been introduced, the Carbon Trust and the Climate Change Projects Office have been set up; substantial funds have been made available to support renewable energy projects; and a draft framework for a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme was published in May, with trading due to begin in April 2002. The Government are also offering an incentive of £215 million over five years to companies joining the scheme.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recent Royal Society report, "The Role of Land Carbon Sinks in Mitigating Global Climate Change". [4039]
  1050W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Royal Society's report is a valuable contribution to the debate on how to respond to the threat of climate change. In particular we share the Society's view that, because of the finite size, uncertainty and potential reversibility, sink enhancement should not divert resources from technologies which reduce emissions. We also agree with the Society that steps should be taken to manage forests and crops in a way that protects and enhances their role as a carbon sink in a manner compatible with other goals of sustainable development, and accept the need to increase accuracy of monitoring and verification of land sinks. The Society's conclusions are consistent with the policy that the UK pursues in the international climate negotiations, and with UK policies for sustainable agriculture and forestry. We congratulate the Society on timely publication of the report shortly before the successful resumption of the climate change negotiations in July.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's plans in respect of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change document on climate change published on 12 July. [4655]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents published on 12 July were approved earlier in the year and the summaries from each of the three volumes have been available on the IPCC website (http://www.ipcc.ch) since then. The 12 July launch was of the final printed version by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the IPCC. The Government have taken a close interest in the preparation and approval of these reports and have drawn on earlier drafts in preparing the United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme published last November. The Government strongly support the IPCC and regard these reports as providing an authoritative view on the scientific and technical aspects of climate change. The Government with the EU have pressed for consideration of the implications of the IPCC reports at the 7th Meeting of the Parties to the United Nations FrameworK Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held in Marrakesh in October/November.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with members of the(a) US and (b) Japanese Administrations on the Kyoto targets; and if she will make a statement. [4009]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]I discussed the Kyoto Protocol with Paula Dobriansky, Under-Secretary for Global Affairs at the US State Department, and Yoriko Kawaguchi, the Japanese Environment Minister, during the recent climate change talks in Bonn. I also met Mrs. Kawaguchi in London on 16 July. I emphasised the importance of pressing ahead with the Kyoto Protocol, while keeping the door open to the US.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received from(a) the Department of Trade and Industry, (b) the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and (c) the

  1051W
  Cabinet Office regarding (i) ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and (ii) the UK Climate Change Strategy; and if she will make a statement. [4067]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The Government have declared their intention to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and will aim to do so at the same time as other member states of the European Community by 2002 at the latest.

  Climate change is a major, cross-cutting policy issue. The UK climate change programme was developed in close consultation with all relevant Government Departments, many of which are responsible for developing and implementing policies in the programme.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department will adopt all the targets set by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in their public service agreement. [1715]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has taken over responsibility for all of the public service agreement targets published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have also assumed responsibility for the public service agreement targets relating to areas of work transferred from the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Recycling
  Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she takes to ensure that the building of incinerators does not undermine the viability of local recycling schemes. [1810]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have made it clear in "Waste Strategy 2000" that incinerators must not crowd out recycling. Local authorities must also deliver the statutory targets set by the Government which will, on average, double the recycling and composting of household waste within three years and nearly treble it within five years.

  We have also set guidelines on Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects to require proposals including incinerators to demonstrate that all opportunities for recycling have been considered first and that there is no barrier to the future development of recycling. We have also established a £40 million Waste and Resources Action Programme to overcome market barriers and hence improve the long-term viability of recycling of waste.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will list, in order of rank, recycling rates achieved by each OECD country. [3140]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]The table lists estimated municipal waste recycling (including composting) rates for OECD countries. The rates are based on figures published in the "OECD Environmental Data, Compendium 1999". The OECD publication does not include recycling rates and the figures given have been estimated from the information available. Comparisons between countries should be made with caution. There are doubts about comparability for a number of countries because of missing data, differences 1052W
  in the year, coverage and definitions (e.g. of recycling, municipal waste). Such differences, where they are known, are set out in the notes to the table.

  Municipal waste—OECD countries, latest year available

  Country

  Year

  Recycling (including composting) rate percentage

  Austria1

  1996–97

  45

  Belgium2

  1996

  43

  Holland

  1996

  41

  Switzerland*

  1996

  40

  Finland*3

  1994

  37

  Denmark4

  1997

  29

  Canada*5

  1996

  29

  Germany

  1993

  29

  USA

  1996

  27

  Korea

  1996

  26

  Norway6

  1997

  25

  Sweden

  1994

  19

  Spain

  1996

  16

  Slovak Republic

  1997

  13

  UK7

  1999–2000

  11

  France*8

  1995

  10

  Iceland

  1997

  10

  Greece

  1997

  8

  Ireland

  1995

  8

  Portugal

  1997

  5

  Japan*

  1993

  4

  Poland

  1997

  2

  Russian Federation

  1992

  1

  Hungary

  1996

  0

  Mexico

  1997

  n/a

  Turkey

  1995

  n/a

  Czech Republic

  1994

  n/a

  New Zealand

  1995

  n/a

  Italy

  1997

  n/a

  Luxembourg9

  1996

  n/a

  1 Household waste only

  2 Flanders only—includes 33OK of construction waste

  3 May include waste from demolition sites, sewerage and water treatment

  4 Household only

  5 Includes construction/demolition waste and sewage sludge

  6 Includes construction/demolition waste

  7 Based on England and Wales data from Municipal Waste Survey

  8 Household (excluding bulky waste) only

  9 Total waste generated excludes separate collection

  Notes:

  Recycling rate is based on composting and recycling tonnage divided by the total waste generated. For those countries marked * the total waste generated is less than the total of all disposals because residues of some treatments e.g. (composting) are landfilled. The relevant recycling rate may therefore include some material which is subsequently landfilled.

  Source:

  OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1999, Table 7.2C
  1053W
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what initiatives the Government plans to encourage local authorities to raise waste recycling targets; [6212]

  (2) what financial assistance will be given to Essex County Council to help fund waste recycling initiatives. [6211]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have put in place statutory performance standards on recycling that all local authorities must achieve by 2003–04 and 2005–06. We have also said that we would look again at longer-term targets in the light of what local authorities are able to achieve and in the light of any technological developments.

  The Spending Review 2000 announced the framework for the Government's support to local authorities for the next three years up to 2003–04. This included an annual increase in the revenue support to local authorities for Environmental Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS), which includes waste management efforts. By 2003–04 this support will have risen by £1.1 billion over the 2000–01 provision. Consistent with the general local authority financial framework, it is for Essex County Council to decide the proportion of their budget that should be directed to waste management work.

  In addition to general support to local authority revenue expenditure, the spending review provided £140 million of Government grant for waste management work and £220 million for Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) resources, for waste projects. We will shortly consult on how the £140 million grant should be distributed. At this stage it is not possible to identify what funding Essex County Council might receive from this source.

  Local Public Service Agreements also provide opportunities for authorities to commit themselves to exceeding the statutory recycling targets and to be rewarded with additional resources for doing so.

  We have also established the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to promote sustainable waste management by working to create stable markets for recycled materials and products and remove barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. A stable and efficient market for recycled materials will help local authorities in their efforts to meet their statutory performance targets.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initiatives the Government have to make the public more aware of the importance of waste recycling. [6215]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA's "Are You Doing Your Bit?" campaign promotes messages to encourage people to reduce waste (including through recycling), use energy efficiently, and conserve water. The campaign aims to inform people about the impact of their individual and collective actions and to motivate individuals to make small changes in their everyday actions to protect the environment.

  The Department also supports the activities of the National Waste Awareness Initiative. This programme, targeted predominantly at the general public, aims to encourage more responsible attitudes towards waste and
  1054W
  ways of dealing with it that are more sustainable eg to reduce it at source, re-use it, recycle it, or dispose of it safely if no other alternative exists.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on her target for recycling household waste; [7764]

  (2) what plans she has to set higher targets for recycling. [7771]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Local Government Act 1999, the Government have set statutory performance standards for each English local authority for the composting and recycling of household waste. Overall, these standards require a doubling of recycling in 2003–04 and a tripling by 2005–06 compared to the 1998–99 baseline.

  We will increase further the targets for household waste recycling and composting once these initial targets have been achieved.

  Livestock Diseases
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will investigate reports of outbreaks of blisters in the mouths of sheep and cattle unrelated to foot and mouth disease; if she will issue guidance to vets on this subject; and if she will assess to what extent such blisters may be mistaken for foot and mouth disease. [1979]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Blisters or vesicles are normally caused by the foot and mouth disease virus. It is the presence of ulcers and other mouth lesions that may cause difficulties in diagnosis. This is because lesions caused by the foot and mouth disease virus heal quickly in sheep and may not be present to aid a diagnosis whereas lesions due to other causes take longer to heal. To aid the diagnosis of foot and mouth disease, descriptions of some of the more common mouth lesions found in sheep, not caused by the foot and mouth disease virus, have been published in recent months in the veterinary literature.

  Because of the need to cull animals believed to have foot and mouth disease within 24 hours to prevent the spread of disease, cases of foot and mouth disease must be confirmed on clinical grounds, without the benefit of laboratory results. A veterinary officer may order the slaughter of susceptible livestock on suspicion of disease in circumstances where the symptoms are suggestive of foot and mouth disease but not sufficiently consistent to confirm disease on clinical grounds.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications of D notice restrictions for the movement of farm animals in Worcestershire; when she expects all such restrictions to be removed; and if she will make a statement. [2005]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 13 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1055W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to restrict the long-distance movement of farm animals. [5417]

  Mr. Morley
  Long-distance movement of farm animals in Great Britain has been restricted since the foot and mouth outbreak began in February.

  From 17 September livestock have been able to move for commercial reasons as well as for welfare reasons, subject to appropriate disease control restrictions and strict biosecurity controls. Journeys are not subject to a distance limit, but the journey must take no longer than nine hours. Full details of the conditions to be applied are available on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the livestock movement restrictions; what is the timetable of such a review; and if she will monitor the applicability of the full range of movement restrictions to the Isle of Wight. [6383]

  Mr. Morley
  The livestock movement restrictions arising from the foot and mouth disease outbreaks are kept under continuous review in the light of progress with eradicating the disease. Farm-to-farm movements are restarting in phases between 17 September and 1 October. We will then review the extent to which additional movements could be permitted over the winter and spring period.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the differences between livestock movement restrictions in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. [6374]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for animal health matters is devolved to the Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but there is close co-operation between the Rural Affairs Departments across the UK.

  As the foot and mouth disease situation various across the constituent parts of the UK, different measures are needed to control it in different areas, although a common autumn movement regime currently operates in England and Wales.

  Contracts
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contractors have had their contracts terminated because of(a) incompetence, (b) financial irregularities and (c) disagreements with her Department's officials. [2765]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 13 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Helicopters
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates her Department hired or used helicopters in the last six months; and what the purpose was of each use. [2751]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 3 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Classical Swine Fever
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions the Government have taken to ensure that the United Kingdom is not subject to a further outbreak of classical swine fever. [2544]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Imported Wheat
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks are made on the quality of imported wheat; and if she will make a statement. [2947]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Moles
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment her Department has made of the methods used by other EU countries to control moles;[3071]

  (2) if her Department will assess the advantages of introducing a ban on the use of strychnine in agriculture to kill moles. [3070]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Incineration
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will list the locations of incinerators in England and Wales(a) which are operational, (b) where permission has been given but they are not yet operational and (c) where a planning application has been submitted but has not yet been determined. [3142]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]The Environment Agency reports that there are 11 municipal waste incinerators currently operational in England and Wales, marked in the table as "O". The table includes details of facilities which are under construction or approved but not yet constructed. Details of facilities where a planning application has been submitted but not yet determined are not held centrally. However, the table includes those planned sites that we are aware of.

  There are many other incinerators, generally much smaller than municipal waste incinerators, for the incineration of sewage sludge, hazardous waste, clinical waste, production waste from factories etc. Generally, the larger plant are regulated by the Environment Agency and details of their locations are available on the Environment Agency's public register except where incinerators are part of another process regulated by the Agency, where they may not be shown separately on the register. Smaller

  1057W
  non-hazardous incineration plant are regulated by local authorities; the Department holds general information but detailed information is held separately by each local authority on a public register.

  Plant name

  District

  Status

  Nottingham

  Nottingham

  O

  Edmonton

  London Borough of Enfield

  O

  SELCHP

  London Borough of Lewisham

  O

  Belvedere

  London Borough of Bexley

  P

  Edmonton B

  London Borough of Enfield

  P

  Cleveland

  Stockton on Tees

  O

  Bolton

  Bolton

  O

  Chineham, North Baskingstoke

  Baskingstoke and Deane

  A

  Allington

  Maidstone

  A

  Capel, Surrey

  Mole Valley

  P

  Guildford

  Guildford

  P

  Colnbrook, Slough

  Slough

  A

  Marchwood

  New Forest

  A

  Redhill

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  P

  Ridham Dock

  Swale District Council

  P

  South Portsmouth

  Portsmouth

  P

  Coventry

  Coventry

  O

  Dudley

  Dudley

  O

  Stoke on Trent

  Stoke on Trent

  O

  Tyseley

  Birmingham

  O

  Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton

  O

  Worcester

  Worcester District Council

  P

  Goole

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  P

  Grimsby

  North East Lincolnshire

  P

  Hull

  City of Hull

  P

  Kirklees

  Kirklees

  U/C

  Sheffield

  Sheffield

  O

  Wrexham

  Wrexham

  P

  Crymlyn Burrows

  Neath Port Talbot

  U/C

  O Operational

  U/C Under construction

  A Approved but not yet constructed

  P Planned

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to(a) conduct and (b) commission research into the environmental and health impact of waste incineration; and if she will make a statement. [3899]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]There is already a large body of research on incineration, but we are looking at what more needs to be done and the current Environmental Protection research programme contains a prospective project on possible "Health Effects of Incinerators".

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of dioxins is considered potentially lethal; what dioxins are produced in incineration of waste; and if she will make a statement on the methods of disposal of them. [4866]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 July 2001]There is no evidence on which to base a level at which dioxins are potentially lethal to humans. Studies on humans who have been exposed to high levels of dioxins as a result of accidents or occupational exposure have reported a range of effects such as chloracne, an increased risk of cancer, changes in biochemical parameters such as enzyme levels and increases in mortality from cardiovascular disease, although there remains uncertainty about the direct causal link with dioxins. It is not known exactly what level of dioxins the people in these studies were exposed to but body burdens were at least one order of magnitude higher than in the general population. The Committee on 1058W
  Toxicity (COT) is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the toxicity of dioxins and will report their findings later this year.

  A mixture of dioxins is produced in incineration of waste—they are formed on particles as the gases leaving the incinerator cool down. The gas treatment system reduces the particles and dioxins levels to the limits prescribed in the Waste Incineration Directive (total concentration of dioxins and furans 0.1ng toxic equivalents/m3 averaged over 6–8 hours). Disposal of material contaminated with dioxins—such as fly ash—is normally to special landfill where they are contained, do not leach, and will pose no risk to health or the environment.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's policy is on large-scale waste incineration. [7886]

  Mr. Meacher
  Incineration of waste should only be considered where recycling is not feasible or is not the best practicable environmental option.

  Our policy is that where waste incineration facilities are proposed, they should be small enough that they do not act as a disincentive to increases in recycling, and should include Combined Heat and Power—where heat is used to produce electricity and provide heating to homes or businesses—wherever possible.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate those living in the vicinity of proposed municipal incinerators; and if she will make a statement. [7756]

  Mr. Meacher
  Municipal incinerator plants will only be built once the full planning process has been completed. The local planning authority is responsible for the determination of any relevant planning permission, including the imposition of any appropriate conditions. We have no plans to compensate residents living in the vicinity of proposed municipal incinerators.

  The Environment Agency will regulate the environmental performance of such plants. Its permits contain legally binding conditions concerning operational requirements. The Environment Agency will regularly inspect the incinerators and require the reporting of emissions and performance.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consideration she has given to a moratorium on new municipal incinerators; and if she will make a statement. [7755]

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a moratorium on new municipal incinerators; and if she will make a statement. [6214]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 47W.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last travelled on the London Underground in the course of her official duties. [3683]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have not had cause to travel on the London Underground in the course of my official duties at DEFRA.

  Motorcyclists
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to curb the use of roads in areas of outstanding natural beauty as race tracks by organised gangs of motorcyclists. [3418]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are laws already in place to deal with dangerous driving, including by motorcyclists. There are no special arrangements for either Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Parks. In each case it is for the local police to enforce the law. That has been happening in recent problem areas such as the Peak District and the Yorkshire Dales, through the reduction and enforcement of speed limits and the deployment of helicopters and speed traps, which are having a positive effect.

  Disinfection
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent changes have been made to the disinfection regime. [3431]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 4 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Wind Farms (Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effects of the proposed wind farm developments off the shore of Cleveleys, Lancashire on the fishing industry in Fleetwood, and if she will make a statement. [3810]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Cattle Grazing
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effects of the controls on movement of cattle on the ecological management of wetlands used for cattle grazing; and what representations she has received from(a) English Nature, (b) the National Trust and (c) the RSPB on this matter. [3944]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 4 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  BNFL
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has received on progress made in the BNFL 1060W
  stakeholder dialogue; and what assessment she has made of the benefit to departmental policy development of the outputs of the dialogue. [3953]

  Mr. Meacher
  My officials have reported to me on the progress of the dialogue, which is organised by the Environment Council, and its reports are publicly available on the Environment Council website. The dialogue is between an individual company and its stakeholders and is intended to contribute to its own policy development and not that of my Department. But the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will soon publish a consultation paper on the long-term management of radioactive waste, which will start a process of national debate and decision making. We are therefore learning from this dialogue, in terms of how to work with stakeholders—including the importance of openness and trust—and in relation to any conclusions that are reached on the safe management of radioactive materials and wastes. We have asked the Council about the possibility of quoting sections of the Waste Working Group's report in our consultation paper.

  Nuclear Waste
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she attended initial discussions regarding her Department's planned consultation paper on nuclear waste; and if she will make a statement. [4012]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]The Secretary of State and I have had several discussions since June on nuclear issues including radioactive waste. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations will soon publish a consultation paper setting out detailed proposals. This will begin the process leading to the implementation of a radioactive waste management policy capable of inspiring broad support across the UK.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets her Department has set for reductions of(a) carbon dioxide and (b) greenhouse gas emissions for (i) 2010 and (ii) 2040; and if she will make a statement. [4011]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]The UK's target under the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–12. The UK Government have an additional domestic goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. The Government have not yet set any targets for later years.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what part the UK Government intend to play to meet the royal commission report on Environmental Pollution recommendations of a global 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide by 2050. [6228]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommends that the Government should now adopt a strategy that puts the UK on a path to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 per cent. from current levels by about 2050. The UK Climate Change Programme recognises that emissions reductions of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. globally may
  1061W
  be needed to avoid dangerous climate change, and that developed countries may eventually have to make even greater emissions reductions. Emissions reductions of this magnitude can only be achieved by international action involving a series of commitments of which the Kyoto agreement is but the first step. The Government have provided a clear signal of the UK's intentions by setting a domestic goal of reducing CO, emissions by 20 per cent. below the 1990 by 2010. This goal goes well beyond the UK's obligation under the Kyoto Protocol and signals the UK's commitment to the long term process. The measures that could achieve the 20 per cent. CO2 reduction are set out in the UK's Climate Change Programme published in November 2000. The Government are currently conducting a wider review of energy policy which

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Carbon dioxide (CO2)

  164.4

  165.5

  161.4

  157.2

  156 1

  153.7

  159.0

  152.2

  152.8

  149.4

  Methane (CH4)

  21.0

  20.7

  20.2

  19.4

  17.6

  17.5

  17.1

  16.6

  15.8

  15.1

  Nitrous oxide (N2O)

  18.3

  17.7

  15.8

  14.9

  16.1

  15.4

  15.9

  16.4

  15.9

  11.7

  Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

  3.10

  3.23

  3.37

  3.52

  3.77

  4.15

  4.44

  5.03

  5.50

  1.69

  Perflurocarbons (PFCs)

  0.62

  0.49

  0.26

  0.22

  0.27

  0.30

  0.25

  0.18

  0.18

  0.18

  Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

  0.20

  0.21

  0.23

  0.24

  0.29

  0.31

  0.35

  0.34

  0.35

  0.36

  Basket total

  208

  208

  201

  195

  194

  191

  197

  191

  191

  178

  Percentage change from 1990 baseline1

  —

  -0.3

  -3.4

  -6.3

  -6.9

  -8.2

  -5.5

  -8.5

  -8.6

  -14.4

  1 The 1990 baseline is the sum of 1990 totals for CO2, CH4 and N2O and 1995 totals for HFCs, PFCs and SF6 (208.4 million tonnes carbon equivalent).

  Sewer Flooding
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the incidence of sewage flooding in Lancashire in the last five years. [4328]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information on the incidence of sewage flooding in Lancashire is not collected centrally. The Director General of Water Services publishes information on the incidence of sewage flooding for United Utilities each year in "Levels of service for the water industry in England and Wales". The most recent report for 2000–01 was published at the end of July and is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers she has to require (1) North West Water to stop flooding in people's homes through faults in sewage systems; [6064]

  (2) water companies to compensate people whose homes are damaged as a consequence of sewage flooding. [6065]

  Mr. Meacher
  Sewerage undertakers have a duty under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to effectually drain their area, and this duty is enforceable by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Water Services. However, there can be practical or financial constraints. The duty in the 1991 Act is not, therefore, considered to be an absolute requirement on undertakers to prevent sewer flooding in all circumstances. Each undertaker is expected to set priorities for work which may be necessary. Ofwat and my officials are currently examining the causes of sewer flooding and possible remedies. Ofwat will publish a paper on the issue early in 2002.
  1062W
  encompasses technologies for emissions reduction in the longer term. The energy review is due to be completed at the end of 2001 and will contribute to the Government's response possibly early in 2002 to the specific recommendations in the report from the Royal Commission.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for the UK the changes in the levels of production of greenhouse gases in each year since 1990. [7759]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table lists the changes in the levels of emissions of UK greenhouse gases each year from 1990 to 1999, the most recent year available. The gases are weighted by global warming potential and emissions are in million tonnes carbon equivalent.

  Householders are entitled to compensation equivalent to a year's sewerage charges up to a maximum of £1,000 under the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations every time there is internal sewage flooding.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the powers of Ofwat to compel water companies to carry out their statutory duties with regard to preventing the incursion of sewage into customers' homes; and if she will make a statement. [7096]

  Mr. Meacher
  Sewerage undertakers have a duty under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to drain effectually their area and this duty is enforceable by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Water Services. However there can be practical or financial constraints. The duty in the 1991 Act is not, therefore, considered to be an absolute requirement on undertakers to prevent sewer flooding in all circumstances. Ofwat and the Department are currently examining the causes of sewer flooding and possible remedies. Ofwat will publish a paper on the issue early in 2002.

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions have been recorded in respect of offences concerning cruelty to animals in each of the last five years. [4170]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 16 July 2001]
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1063W
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals were killed under licences issued by her Department, broken down by species, in each of the last three years. [5901]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]No such licences have been issued in the last three years to kill any wild animals (as defined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many batches of seed have been(a) recalled and (b) stopped from growing this year because of the presence of unauthorised GMOs. [3753]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]During 2001, no seed sold to farmers has been recalled or stopped from growing due to the presence of unauthorised GMOs. There have been seven occasions when small-scale variety trails have been halted in England. In three cases the trials were not sown and in four cases the trial plots were destroyed because of suspected GMO presence. In five out of the seven cases the suspected GMO presence proved to be negative.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research is being carried out on soil ecology at the farm scale evaluations of GM crops. [4470]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Farm Scale Evaluations are an ecological experiment specifically designed to study the effects of the weed control regimes associated with four genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) crops on farmland food-webs and in particular the food resources available for farmland birds. The experiment is based on the ecology (that is, interaction of living organisms with each other and their environment) of the soil weed-seed bank and a number of selected invertebrate indicator species that feed on farmland weeds or animals living on the weeds. The study includes a direct investigation of the effects of the herbicide management systems associated with the GMHT crops on soil-dwelling invertebrates such as spiders, beetles and Collembola, and indirect investigation of the effects on the activity of some species of earthworms.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on a threshold for the presence of authorised GM varieties. [4467]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU Commission has issued a revised working document on adventitious presence of GM seed in seed of conventional varieties, taking into account the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants. This proposes the introduction of the following thresholds for the adventitious presence of authorised GMs:

  (a) 0.3 per cent. for seed of a cross-pollinating species other than maize (for which the probability of volunteers is very low) and beet and certain vegetable plants (cross-pollinated crops propagated from seed but cultivated vegetatively);

  (b) 0.5 per cent. for seed of maize, beet and certain vegetable plants (see (a)), for seed of a self-pollinating species other than soya and field pea (see (c)), for seed of vegetatively propagated species (in practice only potato);

  1064W

  (c) 0.7 per cent. for soya and field pea (for which the probability of volunteers is very low).

  Genetically modified seeds having not received an authorisation under Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC now replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC should not be present in a seed lot. Directive 2001/18/EC does not foresee the establishment of thresholds for presence of unauthorised genetically modified organisms.

  However, it is the intention to amend Directive 2001/18/EEC to provide for the possibility of establishing thresholds for technically unavoidable or adventitious presence of minute amounts of genetically modified organisms as or in products not authorised in accordance with Community legislation provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. The annexes of the seed Directive will have to be changed accordingly once the amendment of Directive 2001/18/EC enters into force.

  The Government are consulting the main stakeholder organisations on the EU Commission's revised working document. When these consultations are concluded, the Government will form a view on its policy on thresholds.

  Meanwhile, I am placing a copy of the Commission's working document (dated 25 May 2001) in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the parish and community consultations to be held ahead of the autumn-sown farm scale trials of GM crops; [5659]

  (2) if she will list the consultation meetings, together with their dates, held in relation to the winter oilseed rape farm trials of GM crops; [5658]

  (3) in what ways the Government intends to respond to concerns raised by parishioners and local farmers near to the proposed autumn-sown farm trials of GM crops. [5660]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department wrote on 23 July to all relevant parish, district and county councils in England with copies of the consents for the GM crops involved, information about the Farm Scale Evaluations and details of the proposed locations of the 26 trials. I wrote to all English constituency MPs with the locations and background information on the evaluations. We have offered that DEFRA officials will be available, whenever possible, to attend public meetings to discuss the evaluations if called by a parish council.

  We have received three recent invitations for officials to attend public meetings in Hemswell Cliff in Lincolnshire, Driffield in East Yorkshire and Long Marston in Warwickshire. The first of these meetings was held on 6 September. The other two meetings are to be held in October.

  We have received seven representations from local parish members specifically about the autumn sites but none from local farmers. We have responded to the specific concerns raised, which were mostly about the use of the herbicide Glufosinate Ammonium by providing further information to the correspondents.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contracts her Department has with the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in respect of GM(a) crops and (b) foods [5661]
  1065W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has contracts with NIAB for the provision of technical services undertaking statutory testing for Plant Breeders Rights, National Listing and Seed Certification and for a desk study to review methods for sampling seed lots to determine the presence of GM material.

  NIAB is one of the partners in a research consortium undertaking the Bright project (Botanical and Rotational Implications of GM Herbicide Tolerance). DEFRA provides half the funding for this project.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the public inquiry will be reconvened into the proposed inclusion of Chardon LL genetically modified fodder maize on to the National Seed List. [5662]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Hearing into the proposed addition of Chardon LL to the United Kingdom National List was adjourned in November 2000 when we learned that French testing system used to produce the Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability report did not appear to be fully compliant with the requirements of Directive 72/180/EEC.

  Despite a number of letters, we have yet to receive a substantive response from the Commission to our inquiries on the status of the French testing system. However, I understand that the French Authorities have re-sown Chardon LL in official tests this year and that a new test report will be submitted to my officials this autumn.

  In addition, the Commission has indicated that it proposes to update the provisions of the 1972 Directive to reflect best current scientific practice.

  If we receive appropriate assurances from the Commission before the end of the year, we would hope to reconvene the Hearing early in 2002.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contacts her Department has had with the European Commission since October 2000, in respect of proposed listing of the GM fodder maize, Chardon LL; and if she will place copies of the correspondence in the Library. [5663]

  Mr. Meacher
  Officials wrote to the European Commission on 22 November 2000 when it became clear that there were doubts about the French testing system for maize. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hayman wrote to Commissioner Byrne on 20 December 2000 and received a holding response on 23 February. No substantive response has been received to date. Copies of the correspondence have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in establishing a compensation scheme for those affected adversely by the growing of GM crops. [5551]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]Liability for any loss that might arise as a result of the use of GM crops is an important issue, which is being addressed at both European and UK levels. The European Commission issued a working paper in late July with proposals for an environmental liability regime to cover a range of activities, including for GMOs. We are considering these proposals, which cover damage to biodiversity and 1066W
  damage that creates serious harm to human health. Given the support expressed at last December's Environment Council by member states to the principle of a directive in this area and to the idea of including GMOs, it is likely that GMOs, and the therefore the cultivation of GM crops, will be covered by any new directive.

  I am also considering the issue of any domestic liability provisions for GM crops that might be needed in the light of the Commission's wider proposals. I am not in a position to provide any further detail at present.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many acres of land are set aside for faun scale evaluations of GM crops in(a) Pembrokeshire, (b) Wales and (c) the United Kingdom. [5552]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]The information is as follows:

  (a) There have been no Farm Scale Evaluations of GM crops in Pembrokeshire during the course of the research programme so far.

  (b) There was one Farm Scale Evaluation site in Wales in 2000 and another in 2001. Both of these were at Sealand, Flintshire and the GM crops covered an area of 8.5 acres (3.5 ha) in total.

  (c) The number of Farm Scale Evaluation sites in the United Kingdom and the area of GM crops involved (including (b)), are as shown for 2000 and 2001 together with those expected for 2002.

  Number of sites

  Area(acres)

  Area(hectares)

  2000 and 2001

  175

  2,433

  985

  Estimated for 2002

  103

  1,354

  548

  Estimated total

  278

  3,787

  1,533

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers she has to intervene when disposal guidelines are not adhered to in relation to land used in farm scale evaluations of GM crops. [5549]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]The powers to intervene on disposal arrangements for the GM crops in the farm scale evaluations depend on the approval status of the GM crop concerned.

  The GM rape and beet in the evaluations are being grown in England under research (Part B) consents issued by this Department. The consents specify the disposal arrangements. The GM Inspectorate act on behalf of the Secretary of State to monitor compliance with these conditions. They have powers to require applicants to comply and to take remedial action to safeguard human health and the environment if necessary. There are also powers to prosecute where it seems an offence has occurred.

  The GM maize in the evaluations has a Europe-wide approval for cultivation under Directive 90/220; this does not impose any conditions on the growing or disposal of the crop. Under the farm-scale evaluations agreement, SCIMAC, the industry body, has responsibility for the disposal of the GM crops in the evaluations and to ensure

  1067W
  they are not used as fodder for are animals. At harvest the maize plants are removed from the site and then either taken to landfill or chopped up and incorporated into the soil away from the trial site.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if the Government have implemented the recommendation from the Working Group on the Application of Genetics in Fisheries and Mariculture at its meeting in Cork in 1998 concerning risk assessment protocols that distinguish between the impacts of polyploid and transgenic organisms; and if he will place a copy of that document in the Library; [6638]

  (2) if she will list the names and positions of British members of the Working Group on the Application of Genetics in Fisheries and Mariculture of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas. [6637]

  Mr. Meacher
  The recommendation referred to is met through implementation of European Union Directive 90/220. This stipulates that genetically modified organisms, including transgenic fish, cannot be released unless a detailed risk assessment confirms there will be no unacceptable effects on human health or the environment.

  The report of the relevant Working Group has been made available in the Libraries of the House. The current UK members of this group are:
  Dr. D. Stone, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
  Dr. A. Moore, CEFAS
  Dr. E. Verspoor, Scottish Executive, Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Fisheries Research Service
  Professor G. Carvalho, University of Hull
  Professor A. Ferguson, Queens University, Belfast.

  A genetically modified or transgenic fish may also be a polyploid organism, but not necessarily so. Further background on the risk assessment of GM fish is given in the booklet entitled "Guidance for Experimental Releases of Genetically Modified Fish" (DETR/ACRE Guidance Note 8, February 1997). This is also available in the Libraries of the House.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the timetable for implementing EU Directive 2001/18 into UK law. [4473]

  Mr. Meacher
  Member states are required to transpose Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment into national law by 17 October 2002. The Department has launched a consultation with stakeholders on the issues and principles raised by the new Directive. We will then hold a further round of consultations on implementing legislation in the first half of 2002 with a view to ensuring transposition by the required date.

  The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland will be conducting separate consultations for their areas on the implementation issues for which they have devolved powers.

  Waste Disposal
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will pilot schemes for pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion as techniques of waste disposal; and if she will make a statement. [4148]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]A number of facilities are already being developed to demonstrate the full capabilities of these processes with respect to a range of wastes. I am keen that these possibilities should be pursued. That is why energy produced from the biodegradable fraction of waste by these new technologies is supported in the Renewables Obligation.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will introduce statutory separation at source of household waste in England and Wales; and if she will make a statement. [4153]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The Government have set challenging statutory recycling targets for local authorities. It is likely that in order to meet these targets many more local authorities will decide to introduce kerbside separation of household waste. In light of that, we will decide later whether or not to make separation at source mandatory.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will accept the recommendation of the Fifth report of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the Government's waste strategy 2000; and if she will make a statement. [4150]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) leads on renewable energy issues. In its Preliminary Consultation on the Renewables Obligation, it proposed that although it will make only a small contribution, energy from the biodegradable fraction of waste, including waste incineration, should count towards the renewable energy target. However, this would not receive support under the Renewables Obligation. In view of the Select Committee's comments, DEFRA is currently reconsidering this and other issues with DTI. DTI will shortly publish the Statutory Consultation document detailing the revised proposals.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the advantages and disadvantages of restricting incineration to those facilities of less than 100,000 tonnes/year capacity; and if she will make a statement. [4151]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]We have made it clear in "Waste Strategy 2000" that incinerators, where they are built, should be appropriately sized so that they do not crowd out recycling. There has been no assessment of the advantages or disadvantages of restricting the size of incinerators.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government plans to introduce to facilitate the tracking of dioxins in ash mixtures. [5850]
  1069W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]In August 2001 the Environment Agency imposed conditions on municipal waste incinerators that required the operators to sample and analyse the ash streams arising from their processes for dioxins. These data will be placed on the relevant public registers. In addition, the Agency is presently trialling a process to track the initial destination of ash generated by municipal waste incinerators. Should the trial be successful, the Agency plans to implement the system throughout England and Wales.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria the Environment Agency applies in deciding to apply the legally binding sanctions available to them to locate the final destinations of construction materials containing dioxins from toxic fly ash. [5853]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]Fly ash containing air pollution control residues is generally classified by the Environment Agency as a "special waste". This means that its consignment from an incinerator, and any subsequent transfers as a waste, are subject to the requirements of the Special Waste Regulations 1996 and the duty of care imposed by section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Under the Special Waste Regulations, each consignment of special waste must be pre-notified to the Environment Agency and must be accompanied by a consignment note which describes its hazardous properties.

  The Environment Agency does not have a legal duty to enforce the duty of care under section 34 of the 1990 Act but has a right of access to the records held by those subject to it. The guidance in DOE Circular 19/91 (paragraph 35) envisages that the Agency will pursue breaches of section 34 and seek access to these records where it suspects (a) that waste has not been transferred to an "authorised person" or (b) an actual or potential breach of section 33 of the 1990 Act.

  However, there are circumstances in which waste may cease to be a waste (eg it is used in the manufacture of building products) and at this point the Environment Agency's responsibilities for the enforcement of waste management controls also cease.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what procedures are in place to ensure that the Environment Agency can distinguish between leachates from the Hilts Quarry site, Crich and the Roe's Lane landfill site in conducting investigations into applications by Rolls-Royce; [5805]

  London Municipal Waste, Unitary and Waste Disposal Authorities by disposal method 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Name

  Type1.4

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Recycled

  London Borough of Bexley

  UA

  12

  19

  23

  19

  1070W

  (2) on what evidence the Environment Agency determined the high reading of Cobalt 60 in samples of surface water in Crich, Derbyshire, in the third quarter of 1999 was a false reading; [5809]

  (3) what action will be taken to ensure the safety of the existing site in the event of a decision by the Environment Agency to end the disposal of Rolls-Royce waste at Hilts Quarry, Crich; [5803]

  (4) what studies are being (a) undertaken and (b) commissioned by the Environment Agency in making a determination of the applications submitted by Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd. in so far as they relate to disposal of waste at Hilts Quarry, Crich; [5806]

  (5) what information is available to the Environment Agency on the nature of the materials (a) stored at Hilts Quarry, Crich, after disposal since the 1960s from Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd., Derby and (b) deposited at Hilts Quarry in weekly disposals from RRMPOL; [5804]

  (6) what procedures have been put in place to ensure that sample results from Crich, Derbyshire, given to Rolls-Royce are made available to the Environment Agency and that abnormal results are investigated; [5807]

  (7) what criteria the Environment Agency is applying in determining whether the disposal of Rolls-Royce waste at Hilts Quarry, Crich, Derbyshire, should continue. [5808]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 14 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is, for each of the past five years, for each London borough, of the proportion of(a) household and (b) industrial waste that is (i) recycled, (ii) disposed of by incineration and (iii) disposed of by landfill. [6753]

  Mr. Meacher
  The tables set out the available information for the percentage of municipal waste recycled, incinerated and landfilled for each of the four years1996–97,1997–98,1998–99 and 1999–2000 taken from the Department's Municipal Waste Management survey. The data are available for municipal waste but not for household waste separately. Household waste accounts for around 80 per cent. of municipal waste for London as a whole with the remainder coming from commercial and other sources. The available breakdown is by waste disposal areas. Data for 1995–96 are not available at local authority level.

  The only readily available information on the management of other industrial and commercial waste in London is for 1998–99 and is given as follows. This was collected by the Environment Agency's National Waste Production survey; further details are published in "Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000: London".
  1071W

  London Municipal Waste, Unitary and Waste Disposal Authorities by disposal method 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Name

  Type1.4

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Corporation of London

  UA

  2—

  0

  0

  1

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  UA

  3—

  2

  3

  3

  Westminster City Council

  UA

  4

  2

  5

  4

  London Borough of Greenwich

  UA

  2

  3

  5

  6

  London Borough of Lewisham

  UA

  3

  3

  4

  3

  London Borough of Southwark

  UA

  2

  3

  3

  4

  London Borough of Bromley

  UA

  7

  9

  7

  11

  London Borough of Croydon

  UA

  9

  9

  9

  9

  London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

  UA

  8

  10

  12

  16

  London Borough of Merton

  UA

  7

  5

  11

  12

  London Borough of Sutton

  UA

  13

  13

  15

  20

  East London Waste Authority

  WDA

  53

  53

  3

  52

  North London Waste Authority

  WDA

  54

  56

  6

  7

  West London Waste Authority

  WDA

  3—

  7

  8

  57

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  WDA

  5

  5

  6

  9

  Total

  5

  6

  7

  8

  Disposed of by incineration

  London Borough of Bexley

  UA

  27

  51

  46

  47

  Corporation of London

  UA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  UA

  3—

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster City Council

  UA

  58

  60

  50

  54

  London Borough of Greenwich

  UA

  84

  78

  75

  54

  London Borough of Lewisham

  UA

  95

  95

  93

  91

  London Borough of Southwark

  UA

  5

  1

  1

  5

  London Borough of Bromley

  UA

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  London Borough of Croydon

  UA

  2

  1

  2

  2

  London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

  UA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London Borough of Merton

  UA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London Borough of Sutton

  UA

  11

  11

  0

  0

  East London Waste Authority

  WDA

  513

  512

  9

  59

  North London Waste Authority

  WDA

  551

  541

  41

  49

  West London Waste Authority

  WDA

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  WDA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  22

  20

  19

  18

  Disposed of by landfill

  London Borough of Bexley

  UA

  62

  30

  31

  34

  Corporation of London

  UA

  100

  100

  100

  99

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  UA

  3—

  98

  97

  97

  Westminster City Council

  UA

  38

  39

  44

  42

  London Borough of Greenwich

  UA

  14

  19

  20

  39

  London Borough of Lewisham

  UA

  3

  2

  3

  5

  London Borough of Southwark

  UA

  93

  97

  96

  93

  London Borough of Bromley

  UA

  92

  91

  92

  89

  London Borough of Croydon

  UA

  89

  90

  90

  89

  London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

  UA

  92

  90

  88

  84

  London Borough of Merton

  UA

  93

  95

  89

  88

  London Borough of Sutton

  UA

  76

  76

  85

  80

  East London Waste Authority

  WDA

  584

  584

  88

  589

  North London Waste Authority

  WDA

  545

  553

  53

  45

  West London Waste Authority

  WDA

  3—

  93

  92

  93

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  WDA

  95

  95

  94

  591

  Total

  73

  74

  74

  74

  1 Unitary Authority

  2 Negligible amount

  3 Not available

  4 Waste Disposal Authority

  5 Includes an estimation for missing data

  1072W 1073W

  London Industrial and Commercial Waste by disposal method— 1998–99

  Percentage

  Disposal method

  Recycled

  Incineration

  Landfill

  Other disposal/recovery

  Industrial

  40

  4

  41

  15

  Commercial

  32

  1

  57

  10

  Total

  35

  2

  51

  12

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions in each of the last five years(a) the Environment Agency and (b) local authorities have exercised their powers under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to remove illegal waste tyre dumps. [4477]

  Mr. Meacher
  Environment Agency data are available only for 1999 and 2000 and do not separately identify fly-tipping incidents involving waste tyres. The total number of notices which the Agency served under section 59(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in each of these years is estimated to be 158 (1999) and 117 (2000). Information on the use by local authorities of their powers under section 59 of the 1990 Act is not held centrally.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government intend to take to reduce fly-tipping of tyres. [4476]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have put in place strict controls to ensure that all waste, including waste tyres, is disposed of safely and the penalties for contravention of these controls are severe. The action being taken by the Government on fly-tipping, and other forms of illegal waste disposal, was set out most recently in the Government's response to the Environment. Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Report on the Environment Agency (Cm 4832—paragraphs 55–60). The Environment Agency is also developing a long-term programme to encourage the proper disposal of waste tyres.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) PFI and (b) PPP contracts have been agreed by her Department over the last five years; how many have been satisfactorily completed; and in how many has compensation been (i) paid and (ii) claimed for performance failure. [4602]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many PFI transactions have been overseen by her Department in each of the last 10 years; what her estimate is of the cost savings made in each of these transactions in comparison with the public sector alternative; what are the outstanding payments to be made in relation to these transactions for each of the next 15 years; and if she will make a statement. [5734]
  1074W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]The Department has signed contracts for four PFI projects in the last 10 years. Each contract is still on-going.

  The estimated total cost savings are:

  Contract

  Saving £000s

  Broadland Flood Alleviation Scheme

  5,400–20,000

  Pevensey Bay Sea Defences

  1,900

  Brooklands Avenue Cambridge

  2,700

  Countryside Agency's SPIRIT (IT Services)

  1,300

  In addition to the above projects, the Department oversaw in the last 10 years eight waste management PFI projects where Local Authorities were the main contractors. Information on these projects is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of individual payouts to contractors under PFI contracts are usually regarded as commercially confidential. Aggregate figures of estimated payments under all PFI contracts for the years 2001–02 to 2025–26 were published in Table C18 of the Budget 2001 "Red Book".

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the economic penalties imposed on private sector firms in each of the last five years for failures to deliver in relation to key performance indicators in projects involving the private finance initiative; and if she will make a statement. [57351

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]In each of the last five years the Department has not imposed any economic penalties on private sector firms for failures to deliver in relation to key performance indicators in projects involving the private finance initiative, as there have been no such failures.

  Fruit Labelling
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a more transparent system of labelling for top fruit. [4546]

  Mr. Morley
  EU marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables already lay down labelling requirements for top fruit throughout the marketing chain in respect of country of origin, class and variety. Amendments to these standards are considered from time to time as necessary.

  Horticulture
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to exempt horticulturists from pesticide taxes. [4542]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no present plans to introduce a pesticides tax. In the 2001 Budget, the Government welcomed the latest set of voluntary proposals for reducing the environs dental impact of pesticides use and invited the industry to implement the voluntary package nationwide. Progress will be reviewed in the run up to
  1075W
  Budget 2002 to assess whether a voluntary approach is delivering significant environmental benefits, over and above those that would result from a pesticides tax.

  Cleanaway Site, South Ockendon
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the accepted background level of dioxins in the environment is; what the deemed safe level is; what levels the Environment Agency has found at the Cleanaway site in South Ockendon; and if she will make a statement. [4852]

  Mr. Meacher
  The levels of dioxins in the urban environment are, roughly:

  Air: 100 femtograms per cubic metre

  Soil: 30 nanograms per kilogram

  Water: dioxins do not dissolve well in water so very low

  River sediments: 20 nanograms per kilogram.

  Most human exposure to dioxins is through food and currently average adult dietary intake is estimated to be 0.9 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. This is within the WHO-recommended tolerable daily intake range (of 1 to 4 picograms per kilogram of body weight) and below the EC Scientific Committee on Food recommended tolerable weekly intake level (14 picograms per kilogram of body weight).

  The Environment Agency has not carried out any analysis of dioxins at the Cleanaway site in South Ockendon.

  Notes:

  Nanogram—one thousand millionth of a gram (1 x 10-9g)

  Picogram—one million millionth of a grain (1 x 10-12g)

  Femtogram—one thousand million millionth of a gram (1 x 10-15g)

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what information the Environment Agency has collated as to how much fly ash deposited in the past 20 years in the Cleanaway site at South Ockendon, and the extent to which this dumping regime involved the ash being(a) damped down on site and (b) drenched prior to its arrival; [4863]

  (2) how much fly ash in the past 20 years was (a) used for creating on-site roads of tracks at the Cleanaway site in South Ockendon and (b) used as cover for each day's dumping at this site. [4864]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste disposal sites operate under the terms of waste management licences and are subject to the controls set out in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The licence for each site sets out the types and quantities of waste which can be accepted for disposal at that site. The licence for the South Ockendon site is available for inspection on the public register which the Environment Agency is required to keep under section 64 of the 1990 Act.

  The Agency has not separately collated information on the amount of fly ash deposited or used for on-site roads or cover at the South Ockendon site. I understand that consignments of mixed fly ash and bottom ash were consigned from the Edmonton municipal waste incinerator to the South Ockendon site under the terms of the site's licence; and were classified and recorded by the
  1076W
  licence holder as industrial waste. The Agency states that the deposit of this mixed ash at the site ceased in December 1997.

  The Environment Agency also states that the mixed ash from the Edmonton incinerator was drenched in water as it was produced. It is a condition of the licence for the South Ockendon site that
  "Site roads shall, in dry weather, be sprayed with water to suppress dust."

  The Environment Agency is carrying out a thorough investigation into the destinations of ash from municipal waste incinerators, the environmental implications of its use and what steps may be needed in the light of these findings. A report will be published by the Agency on completion of its investigation.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the performance of the Eaga partnership in delivering under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [4767]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 July 2001]The Department maintains a close watch on the performance of both scheme managers—Eaga Partnership Limited and Eastern HEES Limited. This includes both regular management reports, and the use of an external contractor—White Young and Green—to audit the systems operated by the two scheme managers to ensure their effectiveness.

  The introduction of the radically improved Home Energy Efficiency Scheme in June 2000 represented a difficult challenge for both scheme managers. The national shortage of gas heating engineers has led to severe delays in some areas in the installation and repair of central heating systems. This problem is being tackled through the recruitment of additional installers and the training of 800 new engineers to work under the scheme. These measures have led to major improvements in the speed of work with over 2,800 boiler installations completed in June 2001, compared to 590 in January.

  The Department continues to maintain a close watch on the performance of both scheme managers to ensure that they provide a quality service to households applying to the scheme.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if energy efficiency targets set by the Government as part of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme are being met; and if she will make a statement. [7846]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) provides households with packages of heating and insulation measures, tailored to the condition of the property and the householders' circumstances.

  The individual packages of measures were developed in conjunction with the Building Research Establishment and are designed to ensure that householders are no longer at risk from fuel poverty.
  1077W
  Energy efficiency in homes is commonly measured using the standard assessment procedure (SAP). This is a fuel cost based rating system that is expressed on a scale of one (poor) to 100 (excellent).

  While there are no specific energy efficiency targets set within HEES, on average, homes are left with an average energy efficiency rating of SAP 59. The average improvement from the work is SAP 19.

  Live Cattle Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost has been to UK public funds of subsidising the export of live cattle from the EU to the middle east and North Africa in the last five years. [5281]

  Mr. Morley
  During the 1999–2000 EU budget year, the EU spent approximately 110 million euros on export refunds for live cattle to all destinations. We do not have data for specific destinations. The UK Exchequer does not contribute directly to the cost of any agricultural expenditure from the EU budget, but contributes to the budget as a whole. The UK position is to argue for a reformed CAP and an end to such export subsidies.

  Departmental Events
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) national and (b) international awareness events her Department has participated in since June 1997 in the form of (i) sponsorship, (ii) departmental attendance, (iii) similar departmental activities and (iv) a message of support. [5044]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was not formed until 8 June 2001. Consequently, historical information for the years mentioned in the question is not available.

  DEFRA Website
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of converting the MAFF website into the new DEFRA website. [5254]

  Mr. Morley
  The redesign of the MAFF website into the new DEFRA website was undertaken using internal resources. It is not possible to be precise about the extent of those indirect costs but they are estimated to be less than £10,000.

  Farming
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers in(a) England and (b) Cumbria do no other farming activity except letting out their grass. [5258]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not available.

  The annual June census asks farmers only to account for land that they actively farm themselves.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to assist farmers whose only business is letting out their grass. [5257]
  1078W
  Mr. Morley
  My officials are in touch with the Arthur Rank Foundation and with industry bodies about the work of the ARF's National Fodder Bureau and Government match funding for this charitable work. These discussions have included consideration of the prices and availability of fodder and grazing across the country.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to represent non-farming and conservation interests on her Department's Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. [6002]

  Mr. Morley
  Appointments to the independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, announced on 9 August, have been made by the Prime Minister. Members have been appointed in a personal capacity, not as representatives of particular groups, and reflect a wide range of interests, knowledge and expertise extending beyond farming and conservation.

  Full details of membership are on the Commission's website www.cabinet office.gov.uk/farming.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to reduce the level of bureaucracy for farmers. [6246]

  Mr. Morley
  We are very conscious of the need to reduce bureaucracy. While some regulation is unavoidable if the Government are to safeguard public and animal health, environmental matters or public funds, the aim is to keep regulation to a minimum. A major programme of work to streamline processes has been under way for the last 18 months since my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asked the industry to identify particular problem areas. In Europe, too, we continue to seek greater simplification of regulations affecting farmers.

  Money has been saved in direct costs to industry as well as time saved in paperwork—for example, by implementing a simplified procedure for granting "own-use" approvals for imports of pesticides with a reduced fee, by streamlining intervention procedures and by better co-ordinated cattle inspections. We continue to implement the remaining recommendations from the Red Tape Reviews and the Better Regulation Task Force report on Environmental Regulation and Farmers.

  In addition, in common with other regulatory departments, we are preparing a Departmental Regulatory Reform Action Plan.

  Absence
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days on average were lost per employee in his Department because of sickness; and how many officials retired early from his Department, in each of the past 10 years. [R][5051]

  Mr. Morley
  This reply essentially reflects the position in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Details are not readily available for the ex-DETR and Home Office groups who now form part of DEFRA.
  1079W
  The Department does not maintain aggregated data on sickness absence but relies instead on a comprehensive analysis of sickness absence in the Civil Service which is produced annually by Cabinet Office. Copies of such reports are placed in House Libraries.

  In 1998 the Cabinet Office published a report 'Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector' aimed at promoting wider awareness and use of the very best attendance management techniques in order to reduce sickness absence levels across the public sector. Following that report, the Department has designed a range of new sickness absence management procedures which it is currently in the process of rolling out across the Department.

  Responsibility for attendance matters within the Central Science Laboratory, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the Centre for Environmental Fisheries and Aquaculture Agency—all former MAFF agencies—has been delegated to the agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply direct. The Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate Agencies are covered by the departmental response.

  1,045 officials retired early from the former MAFF and its agencies in the 10 calendar years to 31 December 2000:

  1991:33

  1992:230

  1993:50

  1994:82

  1995:231

  1996:165

  1997:94

  1998:21

  1999:72

  2000:67

  Letter from Michael Roberts to David Maclean, dated 24 September 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning sickness absence.
  Comprehensive analysis of sickness absence data for the Civil Service is provided in the annual Cabinet Office reports, copies of which are to be found in House Libraries. However for illustratory purposes sickness absence within Central Science Laboratory for the last four years is as follows:

  1998 = 6.65 days per employee

  1999 = 7.96 days per employee

  2000 = 6.39 days per employee

  2001 to date = 5.68 days per employee.

  Letter from Steve Edwards to David Maclean, dated September 2001:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on how many days on average were lost to the VLA because of sickness and how many officials retired early in each of the past 10 years.
  The Agency does not maintain aggregated data on sickness absence but relies instead on a comprehensive analysis of sickness absence in the Civil Service which is produced annually by the Cabinet Office. Copies of such reports are placed in House Libraries.
  In 1998 the Cabinet Office published a report "Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector" aimed at promoting wider awareness and use of the very best attendance management techniques in order to reduce sickness absence levels across the public sector. Following that report the Agency reviewed
  1080W
  the sickness absence management procedures and issued new guidance to staff and managers. We continue to keep procedures under review and introduce new practices where necessary.
  Details of the Agency staff who retired early are contained in the figures given for the former MAFF and its Agencies in the response given by DEFRA.

  Letter from Peter Greig-Smith to David Maclean, dated September 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply to your question regarding how many days, on average, were lost due to sickness. I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).The number of days lost per employee in CEFAS averages out, over the past six year, as nine days. However I would refer the Honourable Member to the annual Cabinet Office reports which provide a comprehensive analysis of sickness absence in the Civil Service, copies of which are to be found in House Libraries.This Agency's response to the second part of the Parliamentary Question on early retirements is to be included in the single reply in respect of the core-department and its agencies.

  Viral Organisms
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what work has been undertaken by her Department on infection control of viral organisms in the last five years. [52501

  Mr. Morley
  An extensive research programme is in place to address the problem of infection by viral organisms in livestock.

  The rapid diagnosis and control of disease are fundamental aspects of the research programme together with epidemiological studies and work on pathogenicity and immunity. The programme of research covers a range of viral-induced diseases, including statutory and exotic diseases and those that are non-statutory or endemic within the UK.

  Several viral diseases are covered by this programme of research including foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever and African swine fever, influenza, rabies and Newcastle disease.

  Meat Imports
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the advantages of using sniffer dogs at points of entry to the UK to detect illegal meat imports. [5352]

  Mr. Morley
  We are looking at a number of ways to improve our ability to detect illegal imports of agricultural products. We have not yet reached any decision on the most efficient and cost-effective approach.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of landfill tax will be given to the local authorities which are responsible for waste management, in order to fund recycling initiatives in(a) the current year and (b) 2002–03.[5195]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]Landfill site operators can contribute a proportion of landfill tax revenue to a range of projects via the landfill tax credit scheme. Under the rules of the scheme, local authorities
  1081W
  cannot receive funding from this source. However, the hon. Member may be interested to note that up to 31 August 2001, 15 Environmental Bodies (EB's) based in the county of Essex had spent approximately £1.2 million on sustainable waste management related projects.

  The Government's policy, as set out in 'Waste Strategy 2000', is that the landfill tax credit scheme should be delivering an increase in recycling. The Treasury has subsequently issued indicative guidelines which said spend on sustainable waste management projects should increase to 65 per cent. of the credits available through the scheme, with at least a third of this being spent on recycling projects.

  In the 2001 Budget statement the Chancellor said that in the longer term the Government are attracted to replacing the scheme, in whole or in part, with a public expenditure programme. That remains the position, although we have made no decisions yet about abolishing or radically changing the existing scheme.

  Southern Water
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will instruct Ofwat to require Southern Water to review the main sewer system in the Little Stove and Nailbourne Valley; and if he will publish the results. [5189]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]Ofwat is an independent economic regulator of the water industry. The Secretary of State does issue periodic guidance to the Director General of Ofwat on regulatory issues, but his independent status means that we do not have the power to instruct or request specific actions from him.

  Each sewerage undertaker is required to maintain its network of sewers and set priorities for work where this is necessary. Although Ofwat sets price limits, which constrains the revenue available, it does not specify the particular programme of work the undertaker must carry out.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the installed capacity for CHP is; and what she expects this to be in(a) 2005 and (b) 2010. [5767]

  Name

  Department

  Right hon. Michael Meacher MP, Minister of State (Environment) (Chair)

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Right hon. Harriet Harman QC MP, Solicitor General

  Law Officers Department

  Right hon. Paul Boateng, Financial Secretary

  Treasury

  Peter Hain MP, Minister for Europe

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Right hon. Alun Michael, Minister of State (Rural Affairs)

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Brian Wilson QC MP, Minister for Industry and Energy

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Right hon. Baroness Blackstone, Minister for the Arts

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  George Foulkes MP, Minister of State

  Scotland Office

  Christopher Leslie MP, Parliamentary Secretary

  Cabinet Office

  Rosie Winterton MP, Parliamentary Secretary

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Angela Eagle MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Home Office

  Hilary Benn MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department for International Development

  Right hon. Baroness Hollis of Heigham, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Dr. Alan Whitehead MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Yvette Cooper MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of Health

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department for Education and Skills

  Dr. Lewis Moonie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Ministry of Defence

  1082W
  Mr. Meacher
  The DTI's recent UK Digest of Energy Statistics gives a figure of 4,632 MWe at the end of 2000 for Good Quality CHP capacity. At present, no projection of capacity for 2005 has been made. The Government have a target to more than double Good Quality CHP capacity to at least 10,000 MWe by 2010.

  Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further measures the Government plans to introduce to encourage the installation of CHP to ensure that the target of 10 GWe is reached by 2010. [5766]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is developing, in close collaboration with DTI and other Departments, a draft CHP Strategy, which will set out the measures needed to achieve the CHP target by 2010.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the current installed capacity is for CHP; and what she expects this to be in 2005 and 2010. [5185]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]The DTI's recent UK Digest of Energy Statistics gives a figure of 4,632 MWe at the end of 2000 for Good Quality CHP capacity. At present, no projection of capacity for 2005 has been made. The Government have a target to more than double Good Quality CHP capacity to at least 10.000 MWe by 2010.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further measures the Government will introduce to encourage the installation of CHP to ensure that the target of 10 Gwe is reached by 2010. [5187]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]The Department is developing, in close collaboration with DTI and other Departments, a draft CHP Strategy, which will set out the measures needed to achieve the CHP target by 2010.

  Green Ministers
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the Green Minister for each Government Department. [5770]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Green Ministers for each Government Department are as follows:
  1083W

  Name

  Department

  Desmond Browne MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Northern Ireland Office

  Don Touhig MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Wales Office

  Environmental Appraisals
  Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many environmental appraisals have been produced and held on DEFRA' s central database since it was established, broken down by Government Department. [5771]

  Mr. Meacher
  Departments are required to publish all free-standing environmental appraisals of policies unless there are overriding reasons for not doing so (for example, security or commercial sensitivities). The Second Annual Report of the Green Ministers Committee, published in November 2000, included a list of free-standing environmental appraisals (Table 4.2). Since publishing this report, the Inland Revenue has carried out one further appraisal, published in 2001: DEFRA has received notification of a further 18 appraisals carried out in DETR up to February 2001.

  Total figures by Department

  Department

  Number of published appraisals notified to DEFRA

  DETR

  45

  DTI

  4

  HMT

  2

  Joint HMT, C&E, DETR

  1

  IR

  2

  MOD

  1

  Power Plants (Fish)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what research the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has undertaken to evaluate the success of fish deterrent systems, with particular reference to bubble screens and acoustic devices in reducing entrapment; [5632]

  (2) What action the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has taken to enforce juvenile protection zones for bass in UK estuaries; [5628]

  (3) what estimate the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has made of the number of (a) juvenile and (b) protected fish killed each year by cooling water intakes at power stations; [5630]

  (4) how much money the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has spent over the last 10 years on research into fish deterrent systems to reduce the loss of fish in power plant cooling systems; [5633]

  (5) what research projects the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has undertaken into the loss of fish in power plant cooling systems; [5629]

  (6) what meetings she has held with (a) her French counterparts and (b) the US Environmental Protection Agency to discuss juvenile fish killed by cooling water intakes at power stations; [5627]

  1084W

  (7) what information the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has collected on the number of coastal or estuarine power stations that (a) reduce their pumping rates to avoid killing fish and (b) use fish deterrent systems or acoustic devices. [5631]

  Mr. Morley
  The development and testing of fish deterrent systems has been carried out by those interested in the operational side of power station cooling plants. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has not therefore been directly involved. Neither are we aware of the extent to which mitigation measures are applied around the country. This is a matter for the power station operators themselves.

  The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has worked with staff of the former CEGB and the Environment Agency in monitoring fish impingement in a number of coastal power stations since the early 1970s. In general, this monitoring has indicated that the mortality caused in marine fish by power stations is small by comparison with the widespread distribution of these species and the overriding impact of natural mortality and additional fishing mortality.

  In 1983, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science conducted an investigation to estimate the losses of commercial fish species (sprat, herring, cod, whiting, dab, sole and plaice) at Sizewell 'A' power station. These fish kills were calculated to the between 0.01 and 0.08 per cent. of commercial catches in the southern North Sea. A further study of the mortality of juvenile bass at Kingsnorth power station in the Medway Estuary in 1987–88 concluded that the mortality of first year bass during peak impingement in autumn and winter was around 15 per cent. of the population in the immediate vicinity of the power station. This is significantly less than the percentage of juveniles which die as a result of predation, disease and even starvation in their first winter. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has since withdrawn from such monitoring.

  To date, the Secretary of State has not held any meetings with her international counterparts about this particular problem.

  The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is not responsible for enforcement of the legislation relating to bass nursery areas. This is conducted by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate, Sea Fisheries Committees and the Environment Agency.

  IACS Forms
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy not to impose penalties on farmers where errors on integrated administration and control system forms lead to an underclaim. [5747]

  Mr. Morley
  Penalties are not normally applied to errors that lead to an underclaim. Where there are different rates of aid for different crop groups within a
  1085W
  claim there can be a large underclaim in one crop group and a smaller overclaim in another so in global area terms there is an underclaim. However, penalties would still be applied to the overclaim.

  Winter Feeding Assistance
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide financial assistance to farmers to help with feeding their animals over the winter. [5494]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials are in touch with the Arthur Rank Foundation and with industry bodies about the work of the ARF's National Fodder Bureau and Government match funding for this charitable work.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the average cost is to public funds, per journey, of ADAS monitoring transport from farm to slaughterhouse; and what the average cost is, per journey, for livestock transported from the Isle of Wight; [5090]

  (2) what the value is of her contracts with ADAS for monitoring the transport of livestock from farm to slaughterhouse; [5180]

  (3) what proportion of journeys of livestock from farm to slaughterhouse ADAS is required to monitor under contract from her Department. [5089]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]The Department does not have a contract with ADAS to monitor the transport of livestock from farm to slaughterhouse. Temporary arrangements were operated, under ADAS supervision, to allow livestock from the Devon Infected Area to move to a slaughterhouse outside that Infected Area.

  As part of a general contract to provide assistance for Foot and Mouth Disease issues, ADAS monitors the transport of livestock moving for welfare reasons under a Longer Distance Movement Licence.

  Slaughter and Disposal Scheme Applications
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications under(a) the over-30-months scheme and (b) the welfare scheme have been outstanding with her Department for (i) more than one week, (ii) two to four weeks, (iii) four to six weeks and (iv) more than six weeks. [5177]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: Both the Over-30-Months (Slaughter) Scheme (OTMS) and the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme are administered by the Intervention Board (IB).

  (a) No applications are required to be made to IB in respect of OTMS. Entry to the scheme is via a booking system operated by participating abattoirs. The latest survey of this list shows that approximately 50,000 head have been booked in and are awaiting slaughter. This represents around three weeks throughput at current levels.
  1086W
  (b) All applications under Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme (LW(D)S) received at the Intervention Board are scrutinised by a team of experts from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) within seven days of receipt. Each application is checked for eligibility and, if acceptable under the scheme, is prioritised for slaughter. An application for which no additional information is required will normally be slaughtered within about 14 days. In the most urgent of welfare cases slaughter can be arranged within 48 hours of application. Where there is insufficient information supporting the application or further clarification is required, the applicant is asked to provide this. In turn this may require applicants to seek information from other sources. The application will b approved or rejected once this information is available. The length of time it takes to reach that stage is dependent on the speed with which applicants reply to any request for further information.

  Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if interest will be paid on payments outstanding following the 21-day window for slaughter under the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme. [6056]

  Mr. Morley
  When the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme was opened in March, the Intervention Board said it would aim to make payments within 21 days of slaughter. There has been enormous demand for the scheme, with over 1.5 million animals having been slaughtered and over 15,000 claims amounting to £175 million paid. The number of applications far exceeded all forecasts at the time the scheme was introduced. In addition, the increasing complexity of the eligibility rules as movement restrictions were lifted and the large number of points in the disposal chain from which documentation had to be returned have contributed to delays in payments of claims. These delays are regrettable but in the circumstances unavoidable.

  I am pleased to say that the Intervention Board has now cleared its backlog of claims and is making payments on over 90 per cent. of claims which do not require any further investigation within 28 days of slaughter. Against the background of logistical difficulties and unanticipated volumes already referred to, payment of interest is not considered appropriate.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps she intends to take to speed up payments made under the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme. [6057]

  Mr. Morley
  Steps have already been taken by the Intervention Board to enhance payment performance. Currently over 90 per cent. of claims not subject to query or investigation are being paid within 28 days of slaughter.

  Fodder and Grazing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the price and availability of(a) fodder and (b) grazing for livestock (i) nationally and (ii) on the Isle of Wight. [5176]
  1087W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: My officials are in touch with the Arthur Rank Foundationand with industry bodies about the work of the ARF's National Fodder Bureau and Government match funding for this charitable work. These discussions have included consideration of the prices and availability of fodder and grazing across the country.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much farming land is in set-aside land in the UK. [5415]

  Mr. Morley
  The area of land set-aside in the UK under the Arable Area Payments Scheme in 2001 is provisionally assessed as 844,805 hectares.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 26 March on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Hall. [5936]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July]: I replied to the right hon. Member's letter on 21 August.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what target she has set for the length of time her Department takes to answer letters from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [7561]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set different targets for the length of time that the DEFRA may take to reply to correspondence from hon. Members and members of the public.

  The Department's target for responding to letters from hon. Members is 15 working days. This is also the Department's target for replying to correspondence from members of the public, except in the regional offices of the Rural Payments Agency and the Rural Development Service, where the target is 10 working days.

  MAFF Officials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials previously employed by MAFF were not transferred to her Department. [5698]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: All officials previously employed by MAFF were transferred to the new Department.

  Building Materials (Dioxins)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the report into the dioxin levels in building materials will be published; if she will place the report in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [5851]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: The Environment Agency currently expects to complete its investigation into the production and fates of solid residues from municipal waste incinerators in December.
  1088W
  The results will be published shortly afterwards, and a copy of the report will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Lambs
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken to address the impact on animal welfare of farmers being unable to sell this year's light lamb crop as a result of the continuation of the export ban. [6340]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have taken steps to avoid welfare problems being developed by lambs that have no market outlet—principally light lambs, nearly all of which go to the export trade. The livestock welfare disposal scheme has been extended to pre-empt a welfare situation developing among light lamb. £10 per lamb will be paid. It has to be clear to the farming industry that this is a one-off scheme—it will not be repeated next year—so decisions have to be based on that in terms of breeding plans for next year. Our priority is to ensure that we encourage as far as possible the sale of lambs into the food chain.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has held with the Rural Affairs Secretary at the National Assembly concerning the likely trend in lamb prices during the autumn. [6316]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers in this Department are in regular contact with their opposite numbers in the devolved Administrations on a wide range of topics, including the market prospects for lamb.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Government estimate, the buying up of lighter lambs will cost in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 (i) in total and (ii) per lamb. [6660]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Light Lamb Scheme introduced from September 2001, the Government are prepared to pay £10 for the buying up of light lambs for which there is currently no export market because of the foot and mouth export ban. This could cost up to £25 million in purchase costs but estimates of uptake are uncertain. The scheme will not operate in 2002. We expect farmers to seek to sell lambs into the food chain as their first priority.

  Farmland Birds
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to seek to increase the numbers of farmland birds. [6001]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to reverse the long-term decline in the number of farmland birds by 2020. A number of existing policy measures will help to achieve that target—not least the significant expansion of our agri-environment schemes under the England Rural Development Programme. However, we recognise that the reasons for the decline in farmland bird numbers are complex and we have commissioned research from the British Trust for
  1089W
  Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to help us identify more precisely what needs to be done to deliver the PSA target.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment the Government have made of the occurrence of fly tipping; and if she will make a statement. [6292]

  Mr. Meacher
  The action being taken by the Government on fly tipping, and other forms of unlawful waste disposal, was set out most recently in the Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Report on the Environment Agency (Cm 4832—paragraphs 55–60).

  Wetlands
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when a water Bill, including provision to protect wetland habitats, will be introduced; and if she will make a statement; [5465]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with the RSPB on the future of wetlands. [5467]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: We will introduce the Water Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Bill will contain provision to improve water resources management and stronger powers to deal with abstractions that are causing environmental damage.

  The Department is routinely in discussion with RSPB on a range of wetland related issues. In particular, RSPB is a member of the UK Ramsar Committee chaired by the Department which meets every six months to take an overview of the UK's implementation of the Convention on Wetlands.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of which breeds of birds depend on wetlands for survival in the United Kingdom. [5466]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: My statutory scientific advisers on wildlife conservation, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, conduct work on assessing bird populations of wetland areas throughout the UK. We know from surveys and research that many different species of bird depend on wetland habitats for their survival. To allow thorough assessment of these species throughout the year, several different national surveys are carried out regularly and are complemented by occasional special surveys.

  For example, the Wetland Bird Survey is a long-running survey of all waterbird species on UK wetlands (2,000 sites are surveyed in every month from September to March of each year). It is run in partnership with the British Trust for Ornithology, The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which breeds of birds are at risk from threats to wetland areas. [5468]
  1090W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: All species of bird that depend upon wetland habitats at any time of the year are at risk from threats to those habitats. Several wetland birds, such as the bittern, aquatic warbler and reed bunting, are regarded as priority species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and Species Action Plans have been agreed that outline the conservation actions needed. The Government have taken a variety of steps to conserve wetland habitats, including designation as Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas, and Sites (or Areas) of Special Scientific Interest. A variety of schemes provide positive management incentives.

  Departmental Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the top 10 companies to which her Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6423]

  Mr. Morley
  The top 10 companies to which the Department contracted out construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months as defined by the values of the contracts being undertaken for the Department are as follows:

  Kajima Cambridge Ltd. (PFI scheme)

  Kier Construction Ltd

  Chase Norton Ltd.

  Keller Engineering Ltd.

  Bryen Langley Ltd.

  Clean Room Construction Ltd.

  Barnes & Elliott Ltd.

  Thomas Armstrong Ltd.

  Walter Lilley Construction Ltd.

  Symons Construction Ltd.

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with EU partners on ensuring common standards for organic produce; and if she will make a statement. [5949]

  Mr. Morley
  I have had no such discussions, but my officials are in regular contact with our European partners in respect of the enforcement and development of the common standards for organic production laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 as amended.

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Wiggin
  TO ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to increase the price of milk. [6245]

  Mr. Morley
  None, the price of milk is entirely a matter for the commercial market.

  Reprotech
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many complaints to the Environment Agency have been made since 1997 in respect of the Reprotech site at Pebsham, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex; [6355]
  1091W

  (2) if she will place in the library the results of the Environment Agency emissions tests carried out at the Reprotech site, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex since 1997; [6354]

  (3) how many Environment Agency unannounced inspections of the Reprotech site at Pebsham, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex have been carried out since 1997. [6353]

  Mr. Meacher
  As of 19 September, 117 complaints had been made to the Environment Agency since the beginning of 1997 in respect of the Reprotech site at Pebsham, Bexhill on Sea. From 1997 to date the Environment Agency has carried out 46 inspections of the site, 18 of which have been unannounced. Throughout this period the company has been company from a regulatory point of view. Results of the company's emissions monitoring from 1997 to date will be placed in the House Library.

  Wildlife Crime
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will refer proposed changes to the bird registration system, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime for comments; [6540]

  Birds of prey

  Non-club members

  Recognised club members

  Zoo federation members

  Renewal of properly registered birds

  £9 per bird

  £7 per bird

  £7 per bird

  Registration of new birds

  £20 per monitored bird

  £14 per monitored bird

  £14 per monitored bird

  £9 per non-monitored bird

  £7 per non-monitored bird

  £7 per non-monitored bird

  Transfers (payable by recipient)

  £17 for every bird

  £17 for every bird

  £17 for every bird received from non Federation members1

  1 No charge if received from federation members

  Other Birds

  Renewal of properly registered birds £1 per bird up to a maximum of £25

  Registration of new birds: £6 per bird

  Transfers (payable by recipient): £6 for every bird.

  As to the future of the bird registration system, including its scope, we shall be consulting widely before reaching any decisions, and so I cannot give any commitments about the eventual outcome. The consultation process will certainly include the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime who represent an important section of the law enforcement community.

  Abandoned Vehicles (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vehicles have been abandoned and had to be disposed of in each of the last two years in the Stroud district; and what was the cost of disposal in each year. [6524]

  Mr. Meacher
  This is a matter for Stroud district council. The Department currently holds no central records of either the number of vehicles abandoned each year or local authorities' costs in disposing of them.1092W

  (2) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) of 17 July 2001, Official Report, column 170W, on wildlife crime birds of prey, if she will (a) give a commitment to the retention of the bird registration system for species currently listed and (b) consider adding globally endangered species threatened by trade to the system; [6544]

  (3) how many convictions for possession of birds listed on Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which have relied on DNA samples as evidence, have been successful; and for how many of these her Department provided registration details, maintained under section 7 of the Act, to the police; [6542]

  (4) what fees are charged to birdkeepers by her Department for registration of birds listed on Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and to what extent these fees cover the cost of running the registration scheme. [6543]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been a total of 15 convictions for possession of birds listed on Schedule 4 of the Act, which have relied on DNA evidence. DEFRA released information from the database, held under section 7 of the Act, in relation to each of these convictions.

  The fees charged to bird keepers are set out as follows. In 2000–01 the income generated covered 18.4 per cent. of the costs of running the registration service.

  Information on the number of abandoned vehicles removed by local authorities is being collected in the Department's 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey.

  Live Animal Exports
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the transport of live animals. [6621]

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve the conditions for animals which are exported alive; and if she will make a statement. [6648]

  Mr. Morley
  Our policy on the transport of live animals is rigorously to enforce the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 and to negotiate for the highest possible animal welfare standards on an EU-wide basis. We are currently pursuing this objective in EU Council Working Groups on both the EU Directive on the protection of animals during transport and the Regulation on the standards for vehicles used for the long distance transport of livestock. But where possible, we believe that meat, rather than live animals, should be transported over long distances.

  Officials (Practical Experience)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials in her Department(a) in London and (b) in Leeds have (i)working and practical experience of farming and (ii) working and practical experience of veterinary practice. [6625]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not recorded and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by her Department in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6583]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:

  £million

  The current year

  Building

  Great Orton Containment Wall

  4.2

  DEFRA Drayton TSE/BSE Buildings

  5.0

  DEFRA Old Rectory TSE/BSE Buildings

  2.1

  VLA Weybridge Redevelopment Work

  3.0

  Refurbishment

  Ergon House

  4.1

  Cromwell House

  1.2

  The next financial year

  Building

  VLA Weybridge Redevelopment Phase I

  24.5

  Cambridge, Redevelopment of Government Offices

  PFI scheme

  Refurbishment

  9 Millbank

  2.3

  Pheasants
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she intends to take to ensure that animal welfare standards applicable to agricultural practice apply equally to(a) pheasant rearing and (b) pheasant shooting when carried out as sporting activities. [7255]

  Mr. Morley
  The Protection of Animals Act 1911 applies to captive pheasants. There are no plans to extend the 1911 Act to birds that have been released for sporting activities.

  Metal Deposits
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment her Department has made of threats posed by the metal deposits to(a) humans and (b) livestock; [7159]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the recent study by the University of Wales of dangerous levels of mineral deposits from lead and copper mines in the rivers Swale and Ouse and in other areas of the Vale of York and in particular the grasslands bordering these rivers; and if she will make a statement; [7160]

  (3) what action her Department is taking over the discovery of toxic metal deposits on North Yorkshire farmland, deposited following the floods of 2000. [7158]

  1094W
  Mr. Meacher
  We understand that the results of a study by the University of Wales at Aberystwyth into metal levels in river sediments deposited on floodplains in Swaledale have not yet been published. However, from the information so far available it appears that the lead levels found are similar to those found in previous studies in this area, where elevated levels of lead are sometimes found as a result of n Aural geology and historical mining activities. This is well known in the area and has been the subject of advice to local farmers in the past which has proved effective. Farmers can minimise risks to livestock from these deposits by simple good husbandry practices, to minimise the ingestion of soil by animals as they feed. The Food Standards Agency's standing advice is that these measures should also be effective in minimising any risks to consumers of foods produced by animals in these areas. The Veterinary Laboratories Agency have recorded no increases in livestock health problems that could be linked to the recent flooding.

  A new European Commission Regulation ((EC) 466/2001), setting maximum limits for lead and cadmium in food and due to come into force on 5 April 2002, will introduce limits for cadmium in offal for the first time in the UK, and a lower limit for lead in offal than the current UK limit. The Food Standards Agency will be carrying out formal consultation on these proposals later this year. In parallel, it will be consulting Government and other stakeholders on whether any further guidance to farmers may be appropriate to help minimise any risks that offal from animals raised in areas where elevated levels of lead in soil occur could exceed these new limits.

  The Department will assess the full results of this study when they are available, seeking advice from the Food Standards Agency on food safety issues. A risk assessment will be completed, and all the appropriate public authorities will be involved in the consideration of the findings.

  Fisheries Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what volume of fish was(a) landed and (b) discarded in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the European Union in the last year for which figures are available. [7242]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of fish landings into the UK in 2000 are published in Section 3 of United Kingdom Sea Fisheries Statistics 1999 and 2000. This is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Only incomplete information on landings into other member states of the EU is currently available, as set out.

  Fish landings into national ports of other member states of the EU 1998–1999

  Tonnes product weight

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Belgium

  18,795

  18,608

  17,988

  Denmark

  1,721,906

  1,064,418

  1,144,089

  Germany

  107,528

  —

  —

  Greece

  100,549

  97,423

  90,380

  Spain

  1,106,113

  949,906

  —

  France

  293,347

  265,772

  276,256

  Eire

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  291,540

  263,169

  295,096

  Netherlands

  543,474

  523,249

  508,972

  1095W

  Fish landings into national ports of other 1998–2999

  Tonnes product weight

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Portugal

  208,464

  183,754

  —

  Finland

  71,882

  52,563

  67,690

  Sweden

  391,067

  326,756

  314,330

  Total

  4,854,665

  3,745,618

  2,714,801

  Source:

  Eurostat

  Comparable figures of the total quantities of fish discarded either by vessels from the UK or by those from other member states are not available. The majority of discards are undersized and unmarketable fish.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what impact the foot and mouth outbreak has had on(a) regular tuberculosis testing of cattle and (b) the culling of badgers for the study of TB. [7762]

  Mr. Morley
  Routine TB testing of cattle has been suspended since late February and there is now a backlog of TB tests to be completed.

  The effect of foot and mouth disease on the culling trial was considered by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB in its Third Report, and they concluded that:
  "it will be unavoidable that the recent food and mouth disease outbreak, which affects directly some of the trial areas, will have an impact on our work. The inevitable effect will be to extend the time needed to complete the work programme. It will also make some analyses more difficult. However, at this stage we consider the impact to be manageable and also we do have the flexibility to readjust some of the final trial areas."

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the guidance given by(a) DEFRA and (b) the Environment Agency to district councils and county councils to deal with a rise in sea level and flooding as a result of climate change. [7768]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have provided specific guidance in relation to predicted sea level rise to all flood and coastal defence authorities since 1989. In December 1999 the guidance was reviewed, and promulgated in Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance Volume 3–Economic Appraisal (FDPAG3, MAFF Publication PB 4650). In March 2000 guidance on potential changes in river flooding was provided in Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance Volume 4–Approaches to Risk (FCDPAG4, MAFF Publication PB 4907).

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent and division of Governmental responsibility for flood prevention; and if she will make a statement. [7773]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is a fully devolved matter. DEFRA has policy responsibility for flood defence in England; the devolved Administrations have responsibility in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  1096W
  Operating authorities are responsible for delivery of the flood defence service in England. The Environment Agency is the principal operating authority and exercises a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence. Following the creation of DEFRA, the Department now has policy responsibility for all of the functions of the Environment Agency in England.

  We are currently conducting a review of the funding arrangements in England and this may lead to consideration of the related institutional arrangements for delivering the service.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will announce the conclusions of her review of the effectiveness of the Flood Defence Committee arrangements. [8006]

  Mr. Morley
  The conclusions of the review of flood and coastal defence funding arrangements will be published later this autumn.

  Rural Businesses
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many rural businesses have closed since 3 May. [7752]

  Alun Michael
  There is no measure of the number of rural businesses which have "closed" in any given period but 54 businesses in which a bankruptcy or compulsory winding-up order was made between 12 April and 31 August have stated that foot and mouth disease was a cause of the insolvency.

  In September we commissioned survey work to shed light on the economic impact of foot and mouth disease in selected rural areas. Around 40 per cent. of businesses in areas with widespread outbreaks of foot and mouth disease report being adversely affected, compared with 15 per cent. in areas with few or no outbreaks. Among affected businesses, 44 per cent. describe the impact as severe or very severe, with 21 per cent. reporting the loss of over half normal sales revenue between March and August. While most affected businesses report that they remain profitable, 13 per cent. report that an expected profit has turned to loss due to foot and mouth disease. However, two-thirds expect to be back to "business as usual" by mid-2002. We will publish the final report when it is complete later.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much illegal meat was(a) imported into the UK and (b) confiscated from ports and airports in the last six months. [7750]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to determine how much illegally imported meat was brought into the UK in the last six months. In that period we have received 849 reports of seizures of illegally imported animal products. The amount seized is not recorded in every case but the total weight notified is approximately 20 tonnes.

  Departmental Staff Training
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what training is given to DEFRA staff who are in direct contact with the public. [7774]
  1097W
  Mr. Morley
  For staff who have direct contact with the public, a set of relevant courses are offered in DEFRA's core training programme or locally. Staff identify their development and training needs with their managers using the Department's competence framework and undertake the appropriate training. In addition, at group level key skills are identified and staff trained accordingly.

  Animal Disease Scientific Study
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the scientific study into animal disease to make its recommendations. [7765]

  Mr. Morley
  The Royal Society has announced that it expects to make recommendations by summer 2002.

  Diversification
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms have diversified in 2001 to date. [7961]

  Alun Michael
  It is impossible to give a simple figure in answer to this question as diversification comes in many forms, not all requiring official approval or financial support from the Government. The Government do provide support for farm diversification, including aid made available through the Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES), part of the England Rural Development Programme. 365 RES applications involving farm diversification activities had been received this year by 31 August.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role nuclear power will play in the UK's climate change strategy; and if she will make a statement. [7754]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 5 July 2001,Official Report, column 282W. The Government published the consultation document on radioactive waste policy mentioned in the previous answer on 12 September 2001, and this has been made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Sellafield
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list (1) the contracts for the supply of MOX fuel from Sellafield; [8034]

  (2) the customers who gave information to Arthur D. Little about their intentions to order mixed oxide fuel for Sellafield. [7988]

  Mr. Meacher
  No. This information was excluded from the version of the Arthur D. Little report which we published on 27 July, because we concluded that publication would cause unreasonable damage to British Nuclear Fuels' commercial operations or to the economic case for the Sellafield MOX plant itself. The only customers specifically identified in the report, E.on of Germany and OKG of Sweden, had already publicised their commercial arrangements with the company.

  Pennine Bridleway
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the Pennine Bridleway in Cumbria. [5566]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 9 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Country Sports
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate the Government have made of the financial value of country sports in the last financial year. [6243]

  Alun Michael
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 28 September 2001, and placed a copy in the Library.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the official scientific advice on the cause of the Settle/Clitheroe foot and mouth hotspot has been revised since a pattern of spread down the Ribble and Aire river valleys has been established. [268]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Settle/Clitheroe outbreak began in the middle of May. The Department's epidemiologists' initial assessment was that the outbreak was caused by infection established in sheep and/or cattle from the movement of people, vehicles etc. from an infected area. However, further epidemiological investigation of the cases making up this outbreak suggests that infection has been present in the sheep population in the northern part of this cluster for some time. Infection is now believed to have been spread to the area by sheep via untraced sheep from Hawes market, or untraced sheep from Longtown market or via an intermediary market, holding or dealer in which disease was not manifested clinically or in which clinical signs were not observed.

  This re-appraisal of the cause of the outbreak has not been influenced by the spread of disease down the Ribble and Aire river valleys. Following the initial introduction of infection, normal, seasonal sheep husbandry activities resulted in infection being transmitted to cattle making infection in the area obvious.

  Further spread is thought to have been caused by the movements of people, vehicles and licensed movements of animals.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she proposes to visit(a) the Great Orton site, (b) the Hespin Wood site, (c) Longtown, (d) Wigton, (e) Penrith, (f) Shap, (g) Appleby-in-Westmorland, (h) Kirkby Stephen and (i) Glenridding in Cumbria; and what steps she will take to meet people affected by the foot and mouth disease outbreak; [3439]

  (2) how many farms in Cumbria were infected by sheep from Gerwyn Abattoir the start of the foot and mouth outbreak; [3559]

  (3) what recent representations she has received from the RSPCA on foot and mouth disease; [3561]

  1099W

  (4) when she will publish the complete list of farmers in each county of the UK who had animals killed as a result of foot and mouth, broken down into categories of (a) infected premises, (b) direct contacts, (c) slaughter on suspicion, (d) contiguous cull and (e) voluntary cull, indicating the numbers of (i) cattle, (ii) sheep and (iii) pigs as appropriate; [3446]

  (5) how many farmers (a) appealed against their stock valuations within the 14-day period and (b) have notified her Department that they disagree with their valuation but are outside the 14-day period; [3447]

  (6) what is her estimate of the number of (a) cattle and (b) sheep disposed of in (i) the Great Orton site and (ii) the Hespin Wood site; [3434]

  (7) how many (a) cattle and (b sheep have been brought in from outside Cumbria for disposal at the Great Orton and Hespin Wood sites; [3435]

  (8) how many farmers are waiting for compensation for (a) animals slaughtered for reasons connected with foot and mouth disease and (b) work done on the Department's behalf; and what the date of the oldest outstanding claim is. [3432]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 4 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what participation United Kingdom officials had in the Office International des Epizooties meeting on foot and mouth disease, held in Paris from 18 to 21 June. [3950]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 4 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what advice her Department gives farmers on how to clean a field that has held infested livestock; [4431]

  (2) on what basis premises subject to contingency foot and mouth culling are decided. [4430]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 4 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much financial compensation has been paid to farmers as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak at the latest date for which figures are available. [4781]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 4 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what levels of dioxin releases were experienced from the burning of animal carcases during the foot and mouth crisis; and what measures were taken to ameliorate the effects of such releases. [4867]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 July 2001]: I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 4 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1100W
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many animals have been slaughtered in the categories(a) infected premises, (b) direct contacts, (c) contiguous cull, (d) slaughter on suspicion and (e) voluntary cull in each county in England, Wales and Scotland; [794]

  (2) what action he has taken to examine and improve enforcement of existing import controls at all points of entry as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; [2190]

  (3) how much compensation has been paid to farmers whose stock has been culled on the grounds of (a) infected premises, (b) contiguous premises, (c) direct contact and (d) the 3km cull policy; [2185]

  (4) if she will assess the consequential losses suffered by farmers unaffected by culls who farm in a restricted area; and if she will establish a recovery programme for such farmers; [2183]

  (5) what assessment the Government have made of the contamination of water tables as a result of mass livestock burial; [2196]

  (6) what assessment the Government have made of the discovery of blisters found in the mouths of livestock during the foot and mouth outbreak but unconnected to the disease; and what impact they have had on efforts to diagnose the virus; [2177]

  (7) what estimate he has made of the consequential losses suffered by farmers whose animals are over 30 months old and are unable to proceed with the over 30-month-scheme; and if he will make them eligible for compensation; [2188]

  (8) upon what basis the Government decided not to use vaccination in their efforts to eradicate foot and mouth disease; [2182]

  (9) what assessment the Government have made of their decision not to use vaccination as an option to eradicate foot and mouth disease; [2171]

  (10) in what circumstances farmers and others were asked to sign secrecy or confidentiality agreements with her Department in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic; [2758]

  (11) what consideration the Government have given to providing compensation to those farmers who have not had livestock subjected to a cull but whose businesses have been severely affected by movement restrictions; [2762]

  (12) how many foot and mouth suspected cases that resulted in slaughter on suspicion (a) in Cumbria and (b) nationally subsequently received negative results from blood tests; [2569]

  (13) what representations have been made to the Government by temporary veterinary staff about the efficacy of the (a) biosecurity measures taken by the agricultural industry, (b) disinfecting operation and
  (c) contiguous cull operation; [2550]

  (14) what strategy the Government plan to put in place to alleviate the effect on employment in farming communities arising from the foot and mouth outbreak; [2547]

  1101W

  (15) if the official figures for foot and mouth disease include calves and lambs slaughtered; [2735]

  (16) how many (a) firms of contractors and (b) individuals are engaged in the dismantling, disinfection and reassembly of milking parlours on farms in Cumbria; [2772]

  (17) if she will make a statement on her latest plans to save hefted sheep flocks in the Lake District; [2743]

  (18) how many animals have been slaughtered as a result of being classified as contiguous to premises which were confirmed as infected with foot and mouth and later received negative blood test results; [2567]

  (19) what percentage of suspect cases reported in Cumbria as foot and mouth were tested; and how many of those farms received a positive test reaction; [2763]

  (20) when she will (a) send every farm from which samples were taken for foot and mouth disease testing a copy of the results of the tests and (b) publish those results together with the names, addresses and holding numbers of the farms; [2750]

  (21) what arrangements her Department made on the ground to ensure the accuracy of numbers of sheep taken in the voluntary cull in Cumbria. [3248]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans she has to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease in(a) Vale of York, (b) North Yorkshire and
  (c) Yorkshire and the Humber region. [3469]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb inspection policy will be revised to reflect the difficulties encountered by farmers with 'D' notice restrictions in selling their stock in the aftermath of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [2583]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what proportion of livestock slaughtered from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease to 30 June(a) from holdings identified as infected and (b) from contiguous holdings, are estimated to have been infected with foot and mouth disease, in each county of England and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement; [3893]

  (2) how many livestock were slaughtered from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease to 30 June from (a) holdings identified as infected and (b) contiguous holdings, in (i) each county of England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland. [3892]
  1102W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the locations of the(a) burial sites, (b) rendering plants, (c) incinerators, (d) licensed landfills and (e) pyres that have been used to dispose of carcases from the foot and mouth outbreak, indicating the dates when each location was in use and the estimated number of carcases. [3854]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what records are maintained of visits to farms by her Department's vets carrying out precautionary inspections; [2760]

  (2) what the average rate of (a) false negatives and (b) false positives in foot and mouth samples is from (i) cattle, (ii) sheep and (iii) deer; [2757]

  (3) what the statutory basis is for setting a 14-day limit on farmers appealing against valuations of their stock; [3450]

  (4) which lists of farmers included in the (a) 3km cull, (b) direct contact, (c) slaughter on suspicion and (d) contiguous culls have been circulated to (i) individuals and (ii) organisations outside Government Departments. [3454]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 8 August, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on lifting the form D notices in(a) south Lancashire and (b) Lancashire; [2148]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the continuation of form D notices in south Lancashire; [2147]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the lifting of D restrictions in the Chorley constituency. [2689]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk of the new foot and mouth outbreak in Brecon in spreading to Herefordshire and Worcestershire; and if she will make a statement. [2003]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to raise the level of insurance cover against future foot and mouth and other animal disease epidemics in the livestock farming industry. [2351]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 6 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1103W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what measures she will take to ensure that local roads are closed when culling is taking place; [4046]

  (2) what representations she has received that those involved in the culls are not observing the strict biosecurity measures; [4045]

  (3) what representations she has received on actions by her officials on an infected site covered by her Department's biosecurity provisions; [4048]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the impact on Thirsk Auction Mart of its closure as a collection centre; and if she will make a statement; [4044]

  (5) what criteria are used to decide on road closures in an infected zone; and if she will make a statement; [4047]

  (6) what representations she has received on the three kilometre restriction zone from an infected premises. [4050]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 8 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food purchased railway sleepers prior to the foot and mouth outbreak; [2180]

  (2) how much coal was bought by MAFF as part of contingency plans in the past five years; [2170]

  (3) how many farms in the United Kingdom were not culled as a result of appeals or interventions by owners of livestock; [2771]

  (4) what assessment the Government have made of the source of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and what provisions have been put in place to avert another outbreak; [2545]

  (5) how many (a) lorry loads of sheep were collected from farms in the voluntary cull, (b) receipts were given by collection staff to farmers and (c) copies were published of the standard receipt/official collection documents; [3438]

  (6) what verification procedures were undertaken by her Department at (a) Carlisle, (b) Page Street and (c) Alnwick before compensation for animals slaughtered on an IP was paid out. [3433]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 13 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Lembit ÖOpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the contingency plans which have been put in place in the event of a significant increase in the incidence of new cases of foot and mouth; and if she will make a statement. [1828]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 13 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will review the compensation arrangements for farmers who have not had an outbreak of 1104W
  foot and mouth disease, but are unable to move their stock because they are under official D notice restrictions; and if she will make a statement. [2004]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 13 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the animal welfare implications of the methods of disposal chosen for animals culled under the foot and mouth programme, where such disposal was undertaken by members of the armed forces. [4177]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 13 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans were in place for vaccination prior to the foot and mouth outbreak; and when those plans had been made. [2187]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 15 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contractors under contract to her Department in(a) Cumbria and (b) England. [2764]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 17 August 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to respond to the recommendations of the task force of the hills; and if she will make a statement. [2071]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 3 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much foot and mouth has cost the rural economy to date. [6248]

  Alun Michael
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 3 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much financial assistance is available to businesses in Cumbria to help them survive foot and mouth disease. [3440]

  Alun Michael
  I replied to the right hon. Member by letter on 9 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the damage to the agricultural and tourism sectors of the foot and mouth outbreak. [3468]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 11 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1105W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what scientific advice the Government have commissioned that contradicts aspects of the Government's foot and mouth slaughter policy; and if she will make a statement; [272]

  (2) What divergence there has been between the projected number of daily foot and mouth outbreaks as presented by the chief Government adviser on 3 May and the actual number of outbreaks; [271]

  (3) what the Government's current assessment is of the scientific assumptions that underpinned the Government's foot and mouth strategy as set out at the end of March; [274]

  (4) on whose recommendation the change to the Government's slaughter policy in respect of foot and mouth, announced on 26 April, was made; and if she will make public the advice given on this matter; [739]

  (5) if she will publish in full the advice sought and received from Professor Paul Kitching with regard to the Government's foot and mouth strategy. [287]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: I replied to the hon. Member by letter on 19 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the money generated annually from country shooting her Department estimates will be lost this year as a result of foot and mouth disease restrictions. [5671]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I replied to my hon. Friend on 28 September 2001, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) date, (b) location and (c) numbers are of all deer found (i) dead and (ii) slaughtered on suspicion of foot and mouth; and what the results of laboratory tests were on these deer. [5355]

  Mr. Morley
  Seventy-one samples have been taken from deer that were found dead and submitted for testing. All results received have tested negative for evidence of the foot and mouth virus, antigens or antibodies.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on the susceptibility of deer to foot and mouth. [5356]

  Mr. Morley
  All cloven-hoofed animals, including deer, are susceptible to foot and mouth disease. Wild deer tend to show mild or inapparent disease, resembling the disease in sheep, although some species (eg roe deer and muntjak deer in the UK) may be severely affected.

  Deer can be carriers of the foot and mouth virus, and could transmit foot and mouth disease to susceptible livestock during the clinical stages of the disease. However, the Department's current veterinary risk assessment indicates that the risk of wild deer playing any significant part in the spread of foot and mouth disease is very low. There are therefore no plans at this stage to control wild deer populations, although as more
  1106W
  information becomes available about the epidemiology of the disease in areas where there are wild deer, the risk assessment will be updated.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost is of producing and delivering the new foot and mouth disease biosecurity video. [5248]

  Mr. Morley
  The cost of producing and distributing the biosecurity video amounted to £142,000.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence she has collated about the ability of(a) crows, (b) seagulls, (c) geese, (d) pigeons, (e) pheasants, (f) foxes and (g) badgers to spread foot and mouth by (i) body contact and (ii) other means. [5354]

  Mr. Morley
  Although none of these animals and birds is susceptible to foot and mouth disease, any of them could, in theory, play a role in spreading disease mechanically by moving contaminated material from one premises to another. However, there is no direct evidence of such spread in the current outbreak. The mechanical transmission of the FMD virus by rats and birds was the subject of research in the late 1960s/early 1970s. The risks were considered to be negligible if not zero.

  In relation specifically to geese, a veterinary risk assessment has been carried out on the risk of migratory geese spreading foot and mouth disease. The conclusion of the assessment was that the risk of spreading FMD virus was "very low". The assessment may be found on the DEFRA website at: http://defraweb/footandmouth/ disease/risks/risk 12.htm.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if ring vaccination for foot and mouth actively was considered by her Department in the First week of the epidemic. [5265]

  Mr. Morley
  Vaccination against foot and mouth disease remains an option that is kept under continuous review. Ring vaccination is one possible approach, which aims to control the spread of infection within and outside an infected area. It reduces the amount of virus circulating in the area, as the vaccinated animals will be less infectious.

  We did not ring vaccinate at the start of the outbreak because it was apparent that the virus had potentially been spread across a wide area, owing to the large number of movements that had taken place before the first case of foot and mouth disease was identified. This made ring vaccination an impractical option.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what instructions were given to the Post Office about disinfection of vehicles in foot and mouth risk areas. [5245]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF provided the Post Office with general advice on the precautions they should take in the first few days of the outbreak. Detailed guidelines were subsequently drawn up on 12 March for all delivery companies. These guidelines were checked by veterinary staff, and the Post Office. A final version of the guidelines was sent to the Post Office on 25 March and placed on the Department's website on 10 April.
  1107W
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions her Department has contacted farmers to inspect animals for foot and mouth which had been slaughtered. [5349]

  Mr. Morley
  We take every care to avoid making visits to premises where animals have been slaughtered due to the foot and mouth disease outbreak. However, the scale of the current outbreak means that occasional errors do occur. While there are no figures available, we believe these to be isolated incidents.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Department first gave detailed advice to farmers on foot and mouth bio-security. [5247]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's predecessor, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, issued a News Release on 22 February providing advice to farmers and the public, including advice on cleansing and disinfection. Foot and Mouth Disease Public Information Factsheet Number 2 (How to protect your farm) was sent to all livestock farmers on 5 March.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what farmers were involved in an advisory capacity in the production of the foot and mouth disease bio-security video. [5249]

  Mr. Morley
  An NFU representative with a farming background was involved at every stage of producing the biosecurity video which was distributed to all livestock farmers. He worked in collaboration with the production team, providing advice on the visual content, checking the script and making any changes necessary, and reviewing the 'rough cut' and final version of the video tape. The final version of the biosecurity video had the NFU's stamp of approval. The NFU representative in the Joint Communication Centre in London also had input in the cover letter to farmers which accompanied the video, signed by Chief Veterinary Officer, Jim Scudamore.

  During taping itself, two farmers were directly involved because their properties featured in the video. One farmer was from Yorkshire and the other from the south-east.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contractors used by her Department in Carlisle on(a) 1 March, (b) 1 April, (c) 1 May, (d) 1 June and (e) 10 July. [5241]

  Mr. Morley
  From information held centrally, the contractors who have been used by the Department in Carlisle on(a) 1 March, (b) 1 April, (c) 1 May, (d) 1 June and (e) 10 July (contractors dealt with MAFF up to and including 9 July and with DEFRA from 10 July onwards) are provided in a table available in the Libraries of the House.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason washing soda was not included on the list of suitable foot and mouth disease disinfectants for washing farmers' clothes and boots. [5244]

  Mr. Morley
  Sodium carbonate (decahydrate) complying with BS 3674 of 1963 is approved as a disinfectant for use against foot and mouth disease when 1108W
  used at the approved dilution rate, as indicated on the list of approved disinfectants on the DEFRA website http:/defraweb/footandmouth/disease/disinfection/disinfect2.asp.

  Further advice on the use of sodium carbonate for cleaning shoes and clothing can be found on the website at/disinfection/ph.asp.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the advantages and disadvantages of using vaccination against foot and mouth. [5289]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's priority is to eradicate foot and mouth disease. The primary advantage of vaccination against foot and mouth disease is that it could help to contain the disease. The primary disadvantage of vaccination is that it does not remove the virus.

  Detailed information about the issues to be considered in the use of vaccination and the underlying science is on the DEFRA website and is included in my letter of 13 September 2001 to all Members of Parliament.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the detailed information on foot and mouth bio-security available on the MAFF website was circulated to farmers in hard copy form. [5243]

  Mr. Morley
  Biosecurity information was first mailed to all farmers in England on 5 March 2001. This was supplemented by further information contained in mailings on 12 April, 21 April, and 17 May. All information was posted on the MAFF website at the time of mailing.

  The 'Stopping the Spread' of disease campaign material (video and leaflet), which forms the core of the biosecurity information currently featured on the DEFRA website, was mailed on 6 July.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list in descending order the main ways in which the foot and mouth virus spreads. [5246]

  Mr. Morley
  Analyses have been completed for the first 1,903 infected farms, and epidemiological investigations continue on the most recent cases to determine the source of infection and method of spread.

  Short distance aerosol spread cannot be distinguished from other causes of local spread within 3 km of infected premises, which accounts for 79 per cent. of cases. In these cases there is often a number of possible means of spread such as using common facilities, contaminated roadways and movement of people and farm vehicles. In addition, however, 107 cases have been specifically associated with lorry movements or movements of people.

  In the latter part of the epidemic, transmission by vehicles, other inanimate objects and people have predominated.

  The breakdown is as follows (as at 31 August 2001):

  1109W

  GB

  Total

  Wind borne (not local)

  18

  Dairy tanker

  11

  Truck

  28

  Other inanimate object

  12

  Local1

  1,500

  Person

  68

  Infected animals

  89

  Under investigation

  177

  Grand total

  1,903

  1IP within 3 km of another IP; exact source unclear, but associated with two or more means of spread through vehicles, people, inanimate objects and local aerosol spread

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many European vets have been taken off foot and mouth duties because of complaints from farmers about their(a) ability and (b) behaviour. [5348]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of European vets taken off foot and mouth duties because of complaints about their(a) ability and (b) behaviour is 2;

  (a) ability is 0

  (b) behaviour is 2 out of a total of 412 who have been dealing with foot and mouth disease.

  Note:

  These figures are correct as at 30 September 2001

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm pyres in Cumbria have had to be re-lit with the use of diesel oil; and on how many occasions. [5353]

  Mr. Morley
  All 131 pyres were lit with diesel oil used as an accelerant. However some pyres needed to be stoked up with additional materials (pallets, straw etc.). No records were kept of the number of pyres that needed to be re-lit. On no occasion was a pyre re-lit using diesel oil only.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vaccination shots against foot and mouth are available for use in the UK; and if she will describe the vaccine. [5252]

  Mr. Morley
  Vaccine is formulated from antigen (inactivated FMD virus) in a solution (adjuvant) which stimulates the immune response. The virus strain used is O1 Manisa.

  As of the end of September 2001 we have 6.4 million doses of commercial antigen which would be enough to vaccinate at least 2.5 million animals. The exact number of doses needed per animal depends on the potency strength of the final vaccine, the number of doses given and the length of time we wish the animals to be protected. We have also placed a reserve on 125,000 doses of vaccine held in the European Vaccine Bank. This would have to be replaced if it was used.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the work being done with animal carcases at the Hallburn site, Longtown, Cumbria. [5347]

  Mr. Morley
  The DEFRA Hallburn site is used to transfer carcases of slaughtered animals to render vehicles for onward transportation to render plants. However,1110W
  wherever possible, carcases are now being sent directly from the farm to the render plants. The Hallburn site is still needed in those cases where direct transfer from farm to render is not practical due to the small number of animals involved of where farms are inaccessible to the normal render wagons.

  DEFRA is now looking for new sites in which to locate the render transfer facility, to reflect the fact that recent cases have been occurring in the south of the county, nearer to the render plants. If a new site is found, the facility at Hallburn will be decommissioned.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning(a) co-ordination by her Department's officials of efforts to combat foot and mouth and (b) the way in which her Department's officials observe the Department's biosecurity precautions; and if she will make a statement. [5507]

  Mr. Morley
  We have received a number of representations on both these issues from a wide range of interested parties.

  Part of the Government's approach to combating the foot and mouth outbreak has been regular meetings with stakeholders at local and national level and the involvement of other key Government Departments and agencies, both in the regions and in a central Joint Co-ordination Centre (JCC). The Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR) has provided a forum for high level and strategic co-ordination, chaired by Ministers. During the height of the disease, COBR met seven days a week (twice a day on Monday to Friday).

  The Government's key priority is to eradicate foot and mouth disease as quickly as possible and vigilance and high standards of biosecurity are crucial. It is therefore imperative that DEFRA staff are seen to be applying good biosecurity measures at all times and at every available opportunity officials are reminded of this. Any breaches in these standards will be treated with the utmost seriousness.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received requesting a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis. [5508]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers have received a number of representations from a variety of organisations and individuals regarding a full public inquiry into the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  On 9 August, the Prime Minister announced three independent inquiries into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak and the future of farming and the countryside. These will cover the lessons to be learned from the outbreak, to be chaired by Dr. Iain Anderson; a scientific review by the Royal Society to be chaired by Sir Brian Follett FRS; and a Policy Commission on the future of farming and food to be chaired by Sir Don Curry.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made towards producing contingency plans for preventing the spread of foot and mouth through(a) the Vale of York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) the Yorkshire and the Humber Region. [5435]
  1111W
  Mr. Morley
  Further to my letter of 6 August to the hon. Member, which is available in the Libraries of the House, I confirmed that a contingency plan had been drawn up and would be refined in the light of new developments. Detailed planning has continued to address the possibility of any resurgence of disease in Yorkshire. A revised version of the contingency plan was prepared in September. Following the success of the Thirsk Restricted Infected Area (RIA) the plan includes, among other things, provision for the establishment of further RIAs should they be needed. The plan will be kept under continuous review.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms were visited by a vet from her Department before contracting foot and mouth disease during the current outbreak. [5618]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministry veterinary staff are required to visit farms as part of their day to day responsibilities. In the context of the current outbreak, these visits could include patrols or be for licensing reasons. We have no information on how many of these farms subsequently became infected premises.

  Visits by DEFRA staff would be investigated as part of the epidemiological review. In the current epidemic there is no evidence of infection having been introduced by this means.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out in detail the steps taken by her Department to process claims for animals slaughtered on an infected premises, setting out the reasons for taking each such step. [5615]

  Mr. Morley
  A claim form signed by the owner, the valuer (if applicable) and departmental official who attended the valuation is submitted to the local animal health office where initial scrutiny of the claim is carried out. A record is kept of all claims submitted and copies of the form are retained. The claim is then sent to Page street HQ in London where it is processed for payment, except for payments under the Cumbrian 3km cull which were sent direct to the DEFRA finance unit at Alnwick.

  At Page street all claims are checked for arithmetical correctness and to ensure they are correctly signed by valuer, owner and departmental official. The number of animals claimed for the dates the animals were valued and slaughtered are checked against centrally held records and any discrepancies resolved. On some occasions, additional information is requested from valuers to substantiate the value for some animals. The reason for the checks is to ensure the Department pays the correct amount of compensation for the right number of animals slaughtered to the rightful owner of the animals.

  After payment has been approved at an appropriate level, a payment request is sent to the DEFRA finance unit at Alnwick, along with bank account details to enable payment to be made to the claimant by BACS transfer. Where bank details are not available payment is made by cheque.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers in Cumbria have been notified that the numbers of sheep collected by lorries in the voluntary cull were less than the numbers previously valued. [5547]
  1112W
  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA/MAFF received over 2,100 compensation claims in total as a result of the 3km cull. Around 200 farmers were initially paid for less than the total number of animals shown on the valuation. This was because of differences between the number of animals valued and the number shown as collected.

  Farmers who were not paid their full valuation were told that the reduction was an interim measure to allow us to pay them something and they were given an opportunity to make representations and submit additional information to allow us to reassess their case. Following receipt of additional evidence and information we have authorised 169 additional payments in respect of the valuations originally reduced because of discrepancies between numbers claimed and collected.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation has been paid to date to people affected by foot and mouth in East Devon. [5745]

  Mr. Morley
  It is difficult to establish the exact amount of compensation paid to particular parts of a county or region. From the information currently available the provisional amount paid in statutory compensation for foot and mouth disease to producers in Devon is £86,901,302.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what restrictions are placed on the import of meat from countries in which foot and mouth disease is endemic; [5178]

  (2) in which countries foot and mouth disease is endemic; and from which of those countries the importation of (a) carcases, (b) raw meat and (c) cooked meat is permitted. [5179]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: Community legislation does permit the importation of meat and meat products from certain countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic but only where the disease is restricted to specific areas. Imports are only permitted from parts of the country that are free of disease or under conditions that ensure the meat does not represent any health risk. These provisions are in line with the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee following the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK.

  All meat and meat products imported from third countries must be accompanied by veterinary certification, which includes confirmation that the meat is derived from animals which have been subjected to an ante-mortem inspection during the 24 hours prior to slaughter in order to confirm, among other things, that the animal shows no signs of foot and mouth disease.

  If there is an outbreak of disease likely to present a risk to human or animal health such as foot and mouth disease, Community legislation allows us to ban imports of meat from all, or parts, of the country concerned. Recent examples include Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay and Zimbabwe, and within the EU, France, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland.

  All meat and meat products imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where they are subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to

  1113W
  documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition. They are carried out by Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) employed by the local authority in which the BIP is located.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help will be provided to farmers affected by foot and mouth disease to enable them to return to farming. [6206]

  Mr. Morley
  The previous Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), announced on 8 May a range of measures amounting to £15.4 million, made up of: £10.4 million for an enhanced Farm Business Advice Service (FBAS) offering up to five days of free business advice for farmers whose livestock have been slaughtered under the foot and mouth control measures; £2 million in grant aid made available under a new round of the Agricultural Development Scheme, to improve marketing performance and competitiveness of sectors affected by foot and mouth; £3 million for a targeted trade development and market campaign, made available through Food from Britain who will co-ordinate their campaign with the Countryside Agency, Meat and Livestock Commission and others with an active interest.

  FBAS is a free and confidential service which is provided by an experienced farm business adviser and is available to any farmer in England who has had stock compulsorily slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. We have sent a letter to all farmers in this category.

  An adviser will review the farmer's business and arrange for an environmental evaluation to be conducted by an appropriate specialist. The adviser will then help them prepare a whole farm recovery plan which will help farmers to develop new income opportunities and access the range of other support measures available to them. Advice is also provided on re-stocking.

  The Government's long-term strategy for the future of the agriculture industry aims to facilitate the development of a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector within a thriving rural economy that advances environmental, health and animal welfare goals. The independent Policy Commission announced on 9 August will look at the future of food and farming and advise us on how to achieve this.

  All this is in addition to the £1 billion paid out to farmers in compensation for animals slaughtered due to foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation has been paid to date to people affected by foot and mouth disease in south Lancashire. [6207]

  Mr. Morley
  From the information available on 27 September, the provisional amount paid in compensation for livestock slaughtered due to foot and mouth disease to producers in Lancashire is £39,763,091. A figure for south Lancashire could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1114W
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers have yet to receive compensation for the slaughter of their animals resulting from the foot and mouth disease crisis in(a) the UK and (b) Wales. [6408]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 4 October 2001 the number of farmers awaiting compensation was;(a) 430 in the UK, including (b) 53 in Wales.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of Britain's abattoirs she estimates will close due to the foot and mouth crisis. [6247]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of abattoirs has been in decline for a considerable number of years. It is recognised that abattoirs have experienced much disruption during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. However, identifying the impact of foot and mouth disease would be extremely difficult, especially before the outbreak has run its course.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria she will use in deciding when the foot and mouth outbreak is over. [6249]

  Mr. Morley
  The OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) sets out the criteria for regaining disease-free status. To regain our disease-free status (without vaccination), we must be able to declare that there have been no outbreaks of disease for three months; that no vaccination has been carried out for at least 12 months; that we have not imported vaccinated animals; that all regulatory measures for the prevention and control of foot and mouth disease have been implemented and that we have documented evidence of an effective system of surveillance in operation.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what audit procedures are undertaken on authorised contractors to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are retained on contracts to cleanse and disinfect foot and mouth affected premises. [6084]

  Mr. Morley
  Authorised contractors to DEFRA retained on contracts to cleanse and disinfect foot and mouth affected premises have their services and charges subjected to audit and review by clerks of works, quantity surveyors and forensic accountants engaged by DEFRA.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to ensure that British agriculture is protected in case of a resurgence of foot and mouth disease. [6487]

  Mr. Morley
  Once foot and mouth disease has been eradicated, we will continue to be vigilant, in order to prevent a recurrence of the disease.

  Imports of meat and meat products into the United Kingdom, as into other member states of the European Union, take place within the framework of European law. The UK imports livestock under EU or national rules only from countries or areas officially recognised as being free from foot and mouth disease.

  The control of meat and meat product imports into this country involves the inspection of commercial imports at border inspection posts, controls on personal imports and

  1115W
  action in shops and other food premises against sales of illegally imported food. The Government are taking action in all of these contexts to build on existing controls.

  Where farms have been culled due to foot and mouth disease, certain rules apply before restocking can take place to minimise the risk of recurrence of the disease. Alternatively, if the farmer does not wish to restock at once, restrictions are lifted four months after the full and final C and D, subject to a final inspection. If it has not been possible to complete a full C and D to DEFRA's satisfaction, 12 months must elapse after the preliminary C and D before restocking can take place.

  Biosecurity measures are also vital in helping to prevent the spread and resurgence of foot and mouth disease. As part of the ongoing campaign to provide timely and accurate information and advice to all concerned we have mailed biosecurity guidelines, leaflets and letters and placed adverts in local, national and specialist publications. In addition, local veterinary inspectors have contacted their clients to discuss biosecurity and other aspects of the disease.

  The Department has contingency plans to deal with all notifiable exotic animal diseases, including foot and mouth disease. These are regularly updated and tested by the state veterinary service.

  The Government in addition have announced two independent inquiries to look into the lessons to be learned from the current outbreak of foot and mouth, and a public commission to examine how the Government can create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector which contributes to a thriving rural economy while at the same time advances environmental, economic health and animal welfare goals. We want to learn the lessons for the future, quickly and without great expense.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 2001 (4135),Official Report column 396W, what is the nature of the help being offered by Advantage West Midlands to businesses in Worcestershire affected by the foot and mouth restrictions. [6630]

  Alun Michael
  Advantage West Midlands has worked with partners to tackle the economic impact of foot and mouth disease through a range of measures including: advice to businesses via Business Link and £4 million Rural Recovery Fund targeted at small businesses in Staffordshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. As a result, 57 of the businesses helped have been in Worcestershire Advice to visitors through a promotional campaign developed by the Heart of England Tourist Board, with a marketing campaign around the May bank holidays. A tourism marketing recovery programme of around £800,000 with a balance of regional and local activity including £70,000 given to a Worcestershire programme.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of officials her Department needs to manage the foot and mouth outbreak. [6626]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of officials engaged in the management and control of the foot and mouth outbreak has varied widely according to the state of the disease. At 1116W
  the height there were about 6,000 officials directly involved with the management and control of the disease. This figure has now reduced significantly, but staff can quickly be recalled in the event of an escalation of the disease.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many businesses have received financial assistance through grants offered to businesses affected by foot and mouth disease; and how much the budget is for such grants in the South West of England. [6473]

  Alun Michael
  Some 3,500 businesses in England have so far received a grant. The budget for such grants in the south-west is £9.2 million.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date guidance was sent to Forest of Dean district council concerning grants and assistance to tourism businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [6464]

  Alun Michael
  Business Link Gloucestershire provided the Forest of Dean district council with an outline of the scheme in May. It was agreed that the Business Link would work in partnership with the Forest of Dean district council to promote awareness of grant funding, and at the beginning of June the businesses who had contacted FDCC to seek assistance were sent details of the scheme.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it is expected that businesses in the Forest of Dean, which have met the criteria for obtaining grants to assist them after foot and mouth disease, will receive the money. [6465]

  Alun Michael
  The timing of receipt of money depends on the speed at which the business, which is being grant aided, can complete the relevant action. Thirty-six businesses have already been grant aided to a total of £342,000, and 26 businesses are still in discussions with advisers.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are for obtaining a grant for a business affected by foot and mouth disease; who set the criteria; and on what advice. [6466]

  Alun Michael
  The criteria were set by the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) in consultation with other Government Departments, to the effect that the business had been substantially adversely affected, had taken all reasonable steps to reduce costs, could present evidence of sound trading immediately before the outbreak, and could demonstrate that it was likely to be able to return to profit within 12 months. Help was available only to small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) and to a maximum of £15,000.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many businesses in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) Herefordshire have received financial assistance through grants offered to businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [6467]
  1117W
  Alun Michael
  One hundred and six businesses in Gloucestershire had received approval for grant funding as at 20 September. Ninety seven businesses in Herefordshire had received approval for grant funding as at 30 September.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when information and guidance was issued to Gloucestershire Business Link about grants and assistance to businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [6469]

  Alun Michael
  Business Link Gloucestershire received formal notification via a contract dated 31 May (which they received on 4 June).

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been awarded to Business Link Gloucestershire for grants to offer assistance to businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [6470]

  Alun Michael
  £2.421 million has been allocated to Business Link Gloucestershire for business support.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average length of time is between application and award by(a) Gloucestershire Business Link and (b) Herefordshire Business Links in respect of grants to assist businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [6488]

  Alun Michael
  Care has been taken to allow decisions on applications for help under this scheme to be dealt with in a way which meets the needs of each region and the local needs within each region, which is why we have depended on the local expertise of Business Links.

  The different administrative systems adopted by the two agencies do not allow a straightforward comparison of this sort to be made.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to increase awareness among rural businesses of the financial aid available due to the foot and mouth outbreak. [6668]

  Alun Michael
  The Government have been actively raising awareness among affected businesses of the financial aid available to help cope with the impact of foot and mouth disease. The Small Business Service has sent out 3.7 million copies of their leaflet "Coping with Foot and Mouth—help for business" via banks, post offices, trade associations, employer organisations, etc. Business advice fact sheets have been posted on DEFRA's website, http://www.defra.gov.uk/ and we have set up help lines. The regional development agencies have also been actively promoting the business recovery fund.

  Preliminary results from research by Prism Consulting for the Department in September reveals that 40 per cent. of businesses had sought assistance from an outside organisation—be that central or local government, or through the regional development agencies, etc.—which is an improvement on earlier results. We continue to look at the most effective means to engage the rural business community in order to make sure that assistance gets to those businesses with the most pressing need.
  1118W
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will introduce a UK national top-up to the sheep annual premium scheme to offset the reduction in premiums arising from the effect of the foot and mouth outbreaks. [7444]

  Mr. Morley
  Rates of sheep annual premium are determined each year by the European Commission and are based on the difference between the EU basic price for sheepmeat and the annual average price for sheepmeat on the EU market. There is no provision in the EU sheepmeat regime for national top-ups of the EU rate.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the import into Britain of livestock products is allowed from countries in which foot and mouth is endemic. [7763]

  Mr. Morley
  European Community legislation does permit the importation of meat and meat products from certain countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic but only where the disease is restricted to specific areas. Imports are only permitted from parts of the country that are free of disease or under conditions that ensure the meat does not represent any health risk. These provisions are in line with the guidelines set out in the Office International des Epizooties International Animal Health Code 2001.

  All meat and meat products imported from third countries must be accompanied by veterinary certification, which includes confirmation that the meat is derived from animals which have been subjected to an ante-mortem inspection during the 24 hours prior to slaughter in order to confirm, among other things, that the animal shows no signs of foot and mouth disease.

  All meat and meat products imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK border inspection posts (BIPs) where they are subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition.

  Landfill Tax
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the landfill tax receipts to be collected in each of the next five years. [5471]

  Mr. Boateng
  Forecast tax receipts for the following year are published each March in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR) for all indirect and direct taxes. By convention, forecasts of tax receipts in later years are not published separately; they are, however, implicit within the projections of total receipts provided in the FSBR.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Lord Fearn
Ronald Cyril Fearn, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Fearn, of Southport in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rennard and the Baroness Walmsley.
Lord May of Oxford
Sir Robert McCredie May, Knight, having been created Baron May of Oxford, of Oxford in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Flowers and the Lord Butler of Brockwell.

Tributes to the late Lord Longford
2.48 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I rise today to pay tribute to Lord Longford and Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: two great men, both distinguished Members of this House, and both full of many happy and fulfilling years. The two men knew each other well: they were both born at the beginning of the last century; they were both men of first-rate intellect, both educated at Oxford and offered positions by that university. Curiously, the two men even contested between them the seat of Oxford City in 1945—a contest which Lord Hailsham won. Although there were many parallels in their lives, the two men were, in fact, remarkably dissimilar. I shall speak about Lord Hailsham shortly, but perhaps I may begin by saying just a few words about Lord Longford.
Frank was a very familiar figure here; known to all of us, and admired by many. He was, of course, a distinguished Leader of this House. It is with a sense of gratitude for a long life, lived to the full, that I pay tribute to him today. He was born as Frank Pakenham in County Westmeath in the centre of Ireland. He was educated at Eton and at New College, Oxford, where he took a first in 1927. He began his political career by working at the Conservative Research Department. He changed allegiance to the Labour Party, and for the next 65 years never wavered. Plainly, he believed in the power of redemption through good works—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One of the most important events in his life was his conversion to
328
Roman Catholicism. Throughout his life, his faith plainly sustained and supported him, and gave him a sense of moral and religious certainty.
From 1941 to 1944 he worked with Sir William Beveridge and, with him, drew up the blueprint for the foundation of the post-war welfare state. He began in this House as a Whip, and soon became Under-Secretary of State at the War Office with special responsibility for Germany. His approach was typical and controversial: he was ready to forgive the German people more quickly than many others. He worked tirelessly to stop starvation in Germany, focusing on the re-opening of schools and hospitals, and on currency reform. That approach did not necessarily make him universally popular at home. However, looking back, it may be that that period of his life was his finest hour.
Frank moved later to the Ministry of Aviation, and in 1951 became First Lord of the Admiralty. In 1955 he founded New Bridge, the first organisation dedicated to the welfare of former prisoners. In 1963, Harold Wilson appointed him chairman of a special committee to investigate penal reform. That committee's report, Crime—A Challenge, advocated the abolition of capital punishment, aftercare for prisoners, and the introduction of the parole system. I believe that we shall remember him most clearly for his contributions on those subjects.
His ministerial career reached its climax as he was appointed to the Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of this House in 1964. He stayed in the Cabinet for four years but resigned on principle when the Cabinet abandoned a commitment to raising the school leaving age. still remember that with admiration and recall that the days are not long past when a senior politician could resign over a question of deep principle.
Thereafter he campaigned and published. His most published campaign was for the release of the Moors murderer, Myra Hindley. It is fair to observe that his point of view on that matter was not popular. It was an article of faith for Frank to condemn the offence but care for the offender. He became a tireless prison visitor visiting anyone he came to hear of who seemed to need help or support.
He was a prolific author whose books commanded admiration and respect. As chance would have it, I read his obituaries far away from this House. The Daily Telegraph listed his books in order of publication. One that caught my eye was A History of the House of Lords. The next in order was Suffering and Hope. I think that somewhere Frank may be smiling at that felicitous conjunction.
He was a man of principle. I did not always agree with him; I do not think that he ever agreed with me. However, we all respected the way that he followed his conscience, whatever the issue and whatever the cost. He did sometimes look absent-minded and dishevelled but one should beware—as we on the Government Front Bench all discovered—as that masked a clear, accurate and witty mind. He was for 56 years a Member of this House. Therefore, it is no wonder that

329
it is strange not to see him here today. I know that the whole House will wish me to express to his family not only our sincere condolences but also our affection, respect and admiration for this grand old man of politics.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in paying tribute to Lord Longford and Lord Hailsham. Like the noble and learned Lord, I shall begin by paying tribute to Lord Longford who was one of the most interesting characters to sit in this House and was one of the few people of whom one can genuinely say that he became one of the fixtures and fittings of the House. He was with us until an age far beyond that allotted to most. As the noble and learned Lord has said, Lord Longford was a Member of this House for over 55 years and to the end he spoke out for what he believed.
Interestingly, Lord Longford acquired a medley of peerages which I suspect will render him for ever unique in Labour Party circles. He acquired an hereditary peerage of first creation in 1945, an earldom in the peerage of Ireland in 1961, an inherited UK barony in the same year and a life peerage in 1999—not bad at all! It was a collection he was openly proud of. I do not suppose he would ever have been described as a "People's Peer" but perhaps he should have been, for wherever there was suffering, whether in the form of poverty or, as he saw it, unjust imprisonment, there he was on the side of people who could not speak for themselves or for whom others did not care to speak. That flowed from that powerful Catholic faith which informed his entire career and which I suspect made him not always the most comfortable of colleagues in either Cabinet or Parliament. He was not one to compromise the diktat of conscience even in the face of scorn and hostility from parts of the media.
He was a Cabinet Minister over 50 years ago, before some of us were born. He led this House in the 1960s but he was someone who throughout that long career of public service always loved this place and loved it with deep emotion and passion. I join wholeheartedly the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in expressing our sympathy to his family and friends. As the noble and learned Lord has just said, Lord Longford began life as a Conservative. Someone "boobed" in 1932 when we lost him to the Labour Party. His sense of social justice was respected in every part of this House. It is by standing for that sense of natural justice in the future that this House will best honour his memory.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add the voices of these Benches to the tributes paid to Lord Longford and also to those paid to Lord Hailsham, about whom we shall speak shortly. The good fairy obviously gave to both those distinguished men an astonishing array of gifts, in particular a remarkable intelligence, a deep sense of humanity, a very strong sense of integrity and a profound religious faith.
330
Lord Longford was a member of the Attlee government and subsequently of the Wilson government and served them both in senior capacities. As a young man he had been a politics lecturer at Christ Church. In that he shared a link with Lord Hailsham as both had been educated at Eton and Oxford. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that perhaps the single most distinguished period of Lord Longford's life was when he had responsibility for occupied Germany. He brought to occupied Germany an astonishing sense of compassion and empathy. I for one believe that one of the reasons why Germany is one of the great successes of the post-war world and is a truly powerful and strong democracy is that it was taught by Lord Longford a different way from that of violence and war.
As has been said, Lord Longford became Lord Privy Seal and in that capacity resigned over the issue of the raising of the school leaving age. At that time I was a junior education Minister and that action profoundly met my own sense of sadness at the decision of the then government to abandon their commitment to raising the school leaving age.
As we all know, having left the House of Lords and politics, Lord Longford became chairman of The National Bank which was effectively the National Bank of Ireland. Subsequently in this House he played a large part in two areas open to derision and criticism. One of them was prison reform with which he was closely identified, often with its least popular aspects. The second was pornography on which he wrote a distinguished report which immediately turned him into a cartoon figure for virtually every one of the tabloids.
The remarkable thing about Lord Longford, whose family have been friends of my family all my life, was that, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, criticism and derision slid off his back like water off a duck. He paid not the slightest attention to it. If he believed that what he was doing was right, the press could go and create whatever cacophony they liked; Frank was undisturbed and in no way impeded.
Finally, some people called him a fool. If so, like Dostoevsky, he was a holy fool. He brought to this House an astonishing sense of spiritual mission and an astonishing belief in the infinite potential of every human being. He was one of the luminaries of this House. Now that the light has gone out, many of us recognise what the House owes him and will not forget his passing.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, on behalf of all noble Lords on these Benches and myself, I add our support to the tributes that have been so eloquently made from the party Benches. All noble Lords here today will have their own special memories of Lord Longford. My own admiration was for his eloquence and for his determination to support those causes dear to his heart.
He was very much his own man. He combined in equal measure his championing of the less well respected members of society with an unquenchable

331
patrician air, as a member of a very distinguished and noble family. We shall all miss his contribution and his unfailing memory of the business of this House, which, for him, stretched back for more than half a century.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, from these Benches we salute a life that was devoted to the service of Christian truth and of humanity. The obituaries have recorded Lord Longford's double conversion—to the Labour Party and to Roman Catholicism. Of far deeper significance was his profound conversion to God and to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Our concern today is not with his private life, though one may point to the witness of a marriage of nearly 70 years and his evident capacity to win devoted friends. Of his public life, one must say that in everything that Frank Longford said and did, he sought to bear witness to the truths and claims of the Gospel. He was passionate, he was fearless, he was of the stuff of which martyrs are made.
I shall mention two instances of the way in which, in the face of prevailing opinion, he sought to follow the moral claims of his faith. The first was soon after the Second World War when, as the Minister responsible for Germany, he set his face against the punitive attitude towards the Germans that still prevailed and instituted policies for social, economic and political reconstruction. It is said that Konrad Adenauer counted him as one of the founders of the Federal Republic. In retrospect, we can see that that policy was not only moral, but also politically right.
Secondly, there was his care for prisoners and for the victims of injustice. His concern was not merely theoretical, but practical. Few of us can have agreed with him in every cause that he espoused, but we all admired him. That is because he was no mere moral campaigner. He once said:
"I am much happier taking up the cudgels on behalf of the stricken. In the end, I feel that my vocation lies there rather than in the denunciation of evil".
Such is the memory of the man to whom today we pay tribute and for whom today we thank God.

Tributes to the late Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
3.4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may now say a few words about Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. He was born in 1907 and educated at Eton, where an exceptional intellect was quickly recognised. He took a double first at Oxford and was immediately successful in obtaining the much-prized Fellowship of All Souls.
In 1932, he was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn. By that time, his father had been awarded an hereditary peerage and had served for three years as Lord Chancellor. By all accounts, Quintin Hogg received the news of his father's hereditary peerage with some dismay. Even at that early stage, he harboured
332
ambitions of going into politics. In those days there was no way of disclaiming a peerage, so his father's acceptance of the honour condemned him to sitting on a red Bench rather than a green one—something that he deeply regretted at that stage.
However, as long as the unwelcome peerage was held by his father, he was eligible to stand for the House of Commons. In 1938, as is well known, he won the Oxford City by-election. So he began his political career.
Only a year later, war broke out. He joined the Army, was commissioned into the Rifle Brigade, served in the Middle East, was wounded and, in 1942, was invalided out. He went back to the Commons, where he formed, with others, the Tory Reform Committee. He was instrumental in urging the coalition government to accept the Beveridge report on social security—that very report which Lord Longford had worked so hard to produce. In 1945, he became joint Under-Secretary of State for Air.
He was obliged to leave the Commons in 1950, when his father died. He took silk in 1953, but even then I think it is fair to say that his heart was really with politics rather than with the law and he continued actively in Parliament. He became a Privy Counsellor in 1956 and in the same year was made First Lord of the Admiralty—five years after Frank Longford had held the same post. He had a succession of ministerial posts in the Macmillan administration and he was a distinguished Leader of this House from 1957 to 1963.
All that came to an end when Mr Macmillan fell ill in 1963. Viscount Hailsham became the first Conservative Peer to take advantage of the provision in the Life Peerages Act that allowed art hereditary Peer to disclaim his peerage. He did so and threw his hat into the ring with vim and vigour. He was a serious contender. He had captured the imagination and, more importantly, the affection of the public when he was Conservative Party chairman, campaigning in the 1959 election by tolling a handbell for the death of the Labour Party—an interesting if somewhat over-hopeful suggestion.
Such dramatic stunts were very much a part of the person in exactly the same way, perhaps coincidentally and bizarrely, as his extraordinarily powerful intellect. He was a humorous and mercurial man and in the end his party preferred another. That was a disappointment, but he was soon back in the House of Commons representing St Marylebone. He served loyally in a variety of ministerial roles until 1970, when he came back to this House, this time with a life peerage—so his collection was not as extensive as that recited by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, i n the case of Lord Longford, but it was still interesting. He came back here as Lord Chancellor.
It is in that role that he will be mainly remembered. He was fiercely proud and defensive of the independence of the judiciary. He saw through the implementation of the Beeching proposals for the reform of the criminal courts. However, even as Lord Chancellor, his main focus was politics rather than the

333
law. As a member of Mr Heath's Cabinet and Mrs Thatcher's Cabinet he was forthright, respected and entertaining.
His skills as an orator were second to none. He could argue a case with eloquence and charm so that sometimes people actually changed their minds—a distinct shock to the nervous and political systems, as your Lordships well know. He was one of the outstanding characters of 20th century politics. He had a truly impish sense of humour. He could be impatient when those around him could not keep up with his intellectual pace. His sense of morality and public service seemed to belong to an older school, which, curiously, made his contribution in this House all the more necessary and all the more valuable. He was frailer in those later years and less often about this House. But we remember him as a man of energy, vigour and drive who served his country throughout his whole life with integrity and enjoyment. We shall miss him for many years to come.
I have of course written on behalf of us all to the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, who I am most pleased to see in her place. On all our behalf I send, through her, our condolences, our affection and our remembrance to his family.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Lord Hailsham was one of the giants of British politics and the English legal system in the latter part of the 20th century. His succession of high offices in the service of both country and party, including leadership of this House, culminated in 12 years as a distinguished Lord Chancellor—a term of office unequalled in modern times.
As Lord Chancellor, he was a powerful defender of the independence of the legal system. He also sat relatively frequently in judgment, taking as active a part as the modern role of Lord Chancellor allows. But it was his wise political judgment that was respected by Prime Ministers as diverse as Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher. He was striking proof of the way that the office of Lord Chancellor can benefit politics, Parliament and the law alike.
His long career would mark him out as a remarkable figure in any age. So, too, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House reminded us, would his acute mind, marked by a Fellowship of All Souls and a range of notable publications over nearly 60 years in the fields of law, politics and the constitution. He also wrote about spiritual matters, for he was a man whose firm Christian faith and abiding integrity were lodestars of his career.
For those of us who were privileged to have known him and to have watched him at work, there was something far more than the records of a great life of public service that will be written for ever in the history books. It was the presence of a character as unique as any in modern politics—the twinkle in the eye, the flash of humour, followed invariably by that throaty
334
chuckle that showed him unable to contain his delight in his own wit, and a commanding resonant oratory that now seems something of another era. A personal kindness and a moral and physical courage were two striking sides of his nature.
Who can forget his whispered asides from the Woolsack, his taking out his walking stick to batter a poster of Harold Wilson, or his arrival at No. 10 on a bicycle to accept office under Margaret Thatcher? He was a figure both lovable and loved.
The dramatic renunciation of his peerage and his failure to secure the leadership of the Conservative Party, which almost everyone believed was his for the taking, could have been the defining moment of his career. It could have led to bitterness and to the renunciation of public life, but in his case it did not. Unlike others, he readily took office under the leader who had defeated him. He was too big a man to do other than his public duty. He was a great parliamentarian as well as a great public servant. And he left us with a lasting phrase of warning—the "elective dictatorship" that we must bear in mind whenever the independence of Parliament is threatened by change.
Our heartfelt sympathy and good wishes go to his family at this time. They can be reassured by the memory of a great life, nobly lived, and by a member of a family steeped in public service over many generations which is still living out those ideals. They must know that so long as the Hailsham title lives, it will be associated indelibly with the memory of this extraordinary and gifted man.
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, among the many talents showered upon Lord Hailsham—high intelligence, wit, ebullience and a tremendously energetic personality—there was a secret ingredient: like Winston Churchill, he had an American mother. There were also two talents which he did not possess—talents indispensable to political advancement. The first was caution and the second dullness. Lacking those two, it is perhaps not altogether surprising that a man of such abounding talents did not become Prime Minister, as he had long wished to do.
Lord Hailsham was, as we know, someone who embarked with enthusiasm on politics. He began by getting it wrong because he was, of course, the pro-Chamberlain candidate in the famous 1938 Oxford by-election. However, being a man of ebullience and also a man with a capacity for learning and learning quickly, he came back from that rather unfortunate experience. Indeed, he served with great distinction in Her Majesty's forces and, after the war, played a very large part in politics.
Perhaps I may underline two or three other characteristics of his political career. One was that, rather like Lord Longford, of whom we spoke previously, he had, to his credit, an astonishing achievement in the area of education. He was twice Secretary of State for Education. Many people forget that he was the great champion of the Robbins report,

335
which enabled a much larger proportion of the British population to move on to higher education than had ever been the case previously. I believe that it is to Lord Hailsham that we all owe one of the planks of our democracy—the widening of opportunities to a larger and larger range of our fellow citizens.
The second point about Lord Hailsham that I want to mention is his long and distinguished career as Lord Chancellor. As the previous tributes have indicated, in that role he was a powerful champion of the independence of the judiciary and, indeed, also a strong champion of the rights of individuals, marked time and again by his complete opposition to any attempt to water those down.
People may forget that in 1973, when the IRA made its attack on the Old Bailey, Lord Hailsham decided, as Lord Chancellor, that it was his duty to visit the ruined courts of law. However, he decided that it would be inappropriate to take his official car because it would disturb the work of the police. So he got on that famous and capricious vehicle known as a bicycle and cycled down to the Old Bailey wearing, as ever, his bowler and his pinstriped trousers in order to give comfort and assistance to his fellow members of the Bar and to other members of his profession.
I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said. In his long and remarkable history of writing thoughtful books, including a very distinguished one on the laws of England, Lord Hailsham warned time and again of the dangers inherent in modern democracies and, in particular, the dangers of unrestrained executive power. In that. I believe that he showed considerable foresight because we are all conscious that the executive has more power under all governments today than it did in the past.
I conclude what I have to say about Lord Hailsham by quoting his own remarks when he was asked why he chose to bicycle to the Old Bailey. He said—I am sure that some Members of this House will see the pertinence of my quotation:
"it does no damage for a Lord Chancellor to appear a little ridiculous from time to time as long as it is not all the time".
Nothing could quench the ebullient wit of Lord Hailsham. Time and again it broke through what might be considered to be the wiser course because he simply could not bear not to give vent to his spirit. We all remember the occasion when he invited the tabloid press to watch him walk into the sea at the Conservative Party conference—incidentally, a very cold sea—wearing unbelievably old-fashioned swimming trunks. At one and the same time they told us what a brave man he was but also how, in some ways, he was rather out of touch with fashion.
Finally, as with Lord Longford, perhaps I may mention the two great pillars in the life of Lord Hailsham. One, as the Leader of the House said, was his profound religious faith. I believe that sometimes he held a kind of dialogue with the Almighty in which it was not clear whether or not they were speaking as equals. In the case of Lord Longford, the approach was perhaps rather more humble.
336
But both men were also borne up by extraordinary and astonishing marriages. As the right reverend Prelate said, they were long marriages with women of great character, strength and courage. As we all know, after a long marriage Lord Hailsham was devastated by the death of his second wife in a tragic riding accident. But, fortunately, he found happiness in his last years with his third wife, the late Lady Hailsham.
Therefore, we may say that the two institutions—religion and marriage—were crucial parts of the greatness of these two men and that they brought to them an astonishing degree of persistence and determination. Let us again thank God that we have had the experience of having such distinguished people in our current House.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is a privilege on this occasion to express our condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, and members of Lord Hailsham's family. I shall not repeat the long catalogue of his formidable achievements, which were fully and eloquently expressed by others. My memories of him are more personal.
Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor when I was first chosen as Speaker in 1983. Thereafter. we travelled together to numerous Commonwealth and European Speakers' conferences. At the time he was a widower, and my wife became his unofficial minder and sought to ensure that he was on time and dressed in the correct garb. It was a formidable task but also great fun.
I shall never forget the after-dinner speech that Lord Hailsham made in Athens at a European Speakers' Conference. No one who was present will ever forget it. He delivered his speech in Greek. Unfortunately, he did so in Ancient Greek and nobody understood a word, but his speech deservedly achieved a standing ovation.
Lord Hailsham was indeed a legend in his lifetime, and his service was very distinguished both in war and peace. He served under seven Prime Ministers in a number of distinguished ministerial offices and, as has already been mentioned, he was the longest-serving Lord Chancellor.
Just before the Recess, I ran into his son, Douglas, who is a Member of the other place, and said, "How is your father?", to which he replied, "Gone, I am afraid". I fear that Quintin's last days were not happy ones for him or for his family. As I said, our hearts go out to them today. He is gone, certainly, but he will always be remembered by those who were privileged to know him with great affection and esteem.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I add the tribute of these Benches to what has already been very eloquently said about the life and career of Lord Hailsham and I offer our own condolences to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hailsham was a person who gave enormous service to London, as had many members of his family. I remember also his enormous contributions to many institutions within London. He once said that every

337
politician worth his salt, no matter how devoted—we have heard of his extraordinary parliamentary service and loyalty to the traditions of Parliament—must have interests outside politics. He continued, "For the more intelligent of my friends, it is religion; for the less intelligent, it tends to be hunting".
As we recall the memory of Lord Longford, we also remember Lord Hailsham's conversion, as a very strenuous intellectual, to Christianity and his life as a reader in the Church of England. We acknowledge and are grateful for his insistence as a great parliamentarian that wherever the Church of England might be, it is a Church of apostolic foundation and certainly not merely a creature of Parliament. It was good to have the great parliamentarian underlining that fact.
That is not to suggest that Lord Hailsham was never critical of bishops. I remember him saying, "The trouble with bishops is that they tend to blow in, blow off and blow out". Nevertheless, despite that occasional asperity, we, like other noble Lords, remember a parliamentarian of dignity, magnanimity and greatness of soul. I have no doubt that the trumpets—in his case, probably the bells as well—are ringing for him on the other side.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I hesitate to delay the House. But even as a mere adjunct of the Hogg family, may I express appreciation of what has been said this afternoon and convey the regret that my husband Douglas could not take his place at the Bar of the House to hear what noble Lords said? He was detained not by business in another place but by something that I know his father would consider equally important: representing his clients' interests in court. I am very happy that so many of Lord Hailsham's family who looked after him so devotedly in his declining years were in the Gallery to hear what noble Lords had to say.
With the indulgence of the House, I should like to end with a brief quotation from his last great book, A Sparrow's Flight, which I feel may be tremendously appropriate in view of the dangerous and difficult times in which we currently live. He wrote:
"Despite all the destruction and malevolence of the world, I do not believe in a malevolent deity or an irrational universe. I believe in goodness, truthfulness, loving kindness, beauty, generosity and loyalty. They all exist and are qualities which demand just as much explanation as malevolence, mendaciousness, cruelty, ugliness, meanness and treachery".
As the considered judgment of a brilliant but not over-optimistic man, we can perhaps take some comfort from that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I strongly associate myself with all that has been said. As noble Lords know, I had the great honour of succeeding Lord Hailsham as Lord Chancellor after the sadly short period in which Lord Havers served in that position.
I pay public testimony, since I have the opportunity to do so, to the warm and affectionate support he gave to my wife and myself during my term of office. He did
338
not always agree with what I was doing. As some noble Lords may remember, he had views about where some ideas were coming from—from which part of one's anatomy. Notwithstanding that, he was a firm and affectionate friend; that warm communication of affection continued until very near the end of his life. We had the privilege of having him with us in Edinburgh in our home on one occasion. Our children have never experienced such an erudite conversation at breakfast!
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, as we speak of these two great men I hope that I may pay tribute to the continuing work of Lord Longford. Many years ago he established the New Horizons youth centre in King's Cross. That continues today to provide help for homeless people in that area, including young prostitutes working in King's Cross and young men coming out of prison. All of the sorts of people whom he used to help continue to be helped thanks to his foundation of the centre.

Hepatitis C
3.28 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further consideration they are giving to the Haemophilia Society's call for a public inquiry into the infection of haemophilia patients with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government have great sympathy with haemophilia patients who were infected with hepatitis C before the means existed to remove the virus from blood products. We have given careful consideration to the call for a public inquiry but do not believe that that is the way forward. The facts have been set out clearly on many occasions in debates in both Houses, in meetings with Ministers from the Department of Health and in correspondence.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is it not grossly damaging to the reputation of the National Health Service that we still await a public inquiry into its worst-ever treatment disaster—one that has already taken more than 100 lives among the now more than 1,000 haemophilia patients who have died from contaminated NHS blood products? And will my noble friend respond to the deeply disquieting recent disclosure made by my former ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, to the BBC's "Face the Facts" programme, when he said that money laid aside, when he was health Minister, to protect haemophilia patients from infection from blood-borne infection was diverted to other purposes? Is this not still further evidence that an in-house departmental inquiry is no substitute for the public inquiry the Haemophilia Society is seeking?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that all the facts have been produced in various debates in your Lordships' House and in the other place. There can be no doubt that any Minister who had a decision to make on the issue cannot but deeply regret that so many people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through blood products. As soon as the technology became available to make blood products free from hepatitis C, it was introduced by the National Health Service.
I have asked officials to look into statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We shall respond to those statements in due course. My understanding is that the resources promised by the noble Lord when he was Minister of Health were allocated to the then regional transfusion centres to increase production of plasma for the bioproducts laboratory. That resource was used and, as a result, production was increased considerably. However, because of the rapid growth in demand for those products we did not achieve self-sufficiency in this country. Even if that was achieved in the late 1970s, the fact that heat treatment did not take place until the mid-1980s meant that self-sufficiency would not have prevented haemophiliacs being infected with hepatitis C.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what moral distinction the Government make between their decision to set up a £60 million compensation fund for those who contracted new variant CJD and their adamant refusal to do the same for those who contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood products? Is that not a case of double standards?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. Such decisions are always difficult and no Minister would ever make them lightly. The plight of individuals and families affected by new variant CJD was the result of a unique set of circumstances. The Government considered that society as a whole should bear a moral responsibility. New variant CJD is a particularly distressing condition. Even though we were advised that we were unlikely to be legally liable, we considered it right to make payment to the victims and their families.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the situation in this country is different from that in France where I understand that the Government knowingly allowed HIV-transmissible injections to be used for haemophiliac patients? I believe that one of their Ministers admitted to that. Are we sure that that was never knowingly done in this country? Can the Minister tell the House the number of relative cases of hepatitis C as opposed to the number of HIV/AIDS cases that have been transmitted to haemophiliacs through blood products?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, clearly, circumstances have differed in every country which has had to face up to this problem. In the early 1970s,
340
clinicians knew that there was a risk of hepatitis. However, there was great demand and, indeed, enthusiasm, for the new treatment from haemophiliacs and doctors. The impact of hepatitis C was not fully understood at that time and its effects were unclear. It was not until the mid-1980s and the attempt to prevent HIV that heat treatment was first used. It was not until then that there was a process which could have prevented the hepatitis C infection.

Zimbabwe: Restoration of Rule of Law
3.33 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Blaker who is indisposed, and on his behalf, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
What steps are being taken by the Commonwealth and other international bodies to aid in restoring the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, perhaps I may first wish the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, a speedy recovery.
We are working with Commonwealth colleagues to encourage Zimbabwe to abide by the commitments it made to the Commonwealth in Abuja. With the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), EU partners and other concerned members of the international community, we are continuing to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. First, is it the position that the Abuja agreement is working or has it not broken down and been abrogated by the Zimbabwe Government? Secondly, what action will be taken to ensure that the forthcoming presidential elections are free and fair? All the signs indicate that they may not be. Finally, is it correct that Libyan troops are now placed in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it would not be true to say that the Abuja agreement has broken clown. Zimbabwe gave a number of assurances at the Abuja meeting, including a commitment to the democratic and human principles contained in the Harare Declaration, a commitment to no further occupation of farmland and a commitment to the restoration of the rule of law. With the partners to the Abuja process we have been monitoring the Government of Zimbabwe against such assurances. We are concerned that they are not meeting the commitments they made. Commonwealth partners, led by Nigeria, are planning an early visit to Zimbabwe to look at the processes and talk to the different stakeholders who are concerned with those issues.

341
As regards the presidential elections, together with our EU partners, SADC colleagues and others, we are working extremely hard to ensure that election observers are in Zimbabwe for the elections. President Obasanjo, who played a key role in the Commonwealth process, has undertaken personally to intervene with President Mugabe as regards election observers.
I have no information to give the noble Lord as regards Libyan troops. I shall certainly seek further information, but I am not aware that Libyan troops are in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of a report that the leader of Libya visited President Mugabe in order to encourage him in energetic election campaigning. Given that the campaigning has already begun, with allegations of substantial intimidation, can the Minister tell the House whether or when election observers might be in place? Can she also tell the House whether any resettlements have taken place under the Commonwealth scheme?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot give a date when election observers might be in place. Together with our EU partners, the United States and our African partners we are concerned to ensure that election observers go into Zimbabwe as soon as possible. As everyone in this House will be aware, the process in the run-up to the elections is critical. That is why we consider the process now to be so important. We shall continue to push hard on that issue.
As regards resettlement under the Abuja agreement, the Zimbabwe Government committed themselves to no further occupation of farmland and to take firm action against violence and intimidation. As the Government of the United Kingdom, we undertook that if the Zimbabwe Government adhered to their commitments, we would again consider putting resources into a transparent land reform programme. We made clear that it would be important for the UNDP mission to go into Zimbabwe to conduct an initial assessment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, first, can the Minister tell us what truth there is, if any, in the statement that the International Red Cross has been prevented setting up camps and places of refuge for the many Africans who are suffering grievously from expulsion from the farms? Secondly, can she comment on the press report at the weekend that large numbers of Zimbabwe passports are to be issued to Libyans, a matter which, in the present circumstances, must be of interest?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are concerned to ensure that NGOs operating in Zimbabwe are able to do so in a way which will assist them in their work. Perhaps I may seek further information from the noble Baroness with respect to the International Red Cross. That is an internationally recognised organisation and
342
I am not aware of it having been prevented setting up camps to assist Zimbabweans. We would be extremely concerned if that were the case.
As regards passports being issued to a large number of Libyans, that has not been verified. I have heard those reports but I do not know whether or not they are true.
Lord Elton: My Lords first, does the Minister agree that the grievousness of what is happening in Zimbabwe is as great today as it was before 11th September, and that this House maintains its interest at the same level as was the case before 11th September? Secondly, will she tell us to whom the international observers of the elections will report and what action will be taken, and by whom, if they report that the elections have not been free and fair but the result of intimidation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this House will continue to take a great interest in what is happening in Zimbabwe, as will the Government. We have worked long and hard—and it has not been an easy process—to build an international consensus around what is taking place in Zimbabwe. The noble Lord will know that we, our Commonwealth colleagues, the European Union, the United States, as well as African partners through SADC and through their bilateral contact with Zimbabwe, have expressed concern about this matter.
With regard to international observers, a number of different organisations have expressed interest in sending international observers to Zimbabwe—the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United States, to name but three. The election observers would report through the processes that operate in each of those areas. The Commonwealth observers, for example, would report to the Commonwealth Secretariat, and each organisation would then take the action that it thought fit, depending on what election monitors said about the outcome of those elections. If there were concerns about the outcome, I believe that the kind of international consensus that we have seen would be maintained and there would continue to be a push on the government of Zimbabwe to change their ways.

Farming and Food
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have not stated that ensuring the ability of the British farming industry to feed the British public will be their prime objective in considering the future of farming in Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the establishment of the Policy Commission on Food and Farming was

343
announced in August. It is due to report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State by the end of this year. It has a wide remit. That will allow it to consider issues of food security and self-sufficiency in the context of the wider objectives of economic, environmental and social sustainability within the international and EU framework, together with issues of rural development, food safety and consumer requirements.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I think the Government still need to emphasise the point that sustainability is about reducing food miles and about food production in harmony with the environment. In particular, Britain's ability to produce food for itself is now severely undermined by the rising age of farmers, a lack of government support for an entrance scheme for young people, such as is being introduced by Southern Ireland, and a lack of investment in processing and research and development, so that in 10 to 15 years there will not be very many bright young people with the energy and experience to produce our food. Does the Minister therefore agree that this is a serious issue?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is a serious issue that entrants to farming are discouraged by the present situation. I expect the policy commission and the Government to address the raising of the quality of inputs to farming in general, in terms of personnel, marketing skills and research and development, a large part of which the Government do fund on a very substantial basis. Therefore, the modernisation of the industry will be a key factor in the process of the recovery of agriculture.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how much additional support has been given to the agricultural sector by the Government since they came to power?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in addition to the support from the common agricultural policy, which is currently running at approximately £3 billion per year, the Government have committed additional expenditure of £1.7 billion to support key aspects of the modernisation of the industry. Of course, as noble Lords will be well aware, the total cost of the foot and mouth disease epidemic will now amount to over £2 billion.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I declare my interest as an organic farmer. Are the Government considering whether diseases such as salmonella in hens, swine fever in pigs, BSE and foot and mouth disease in cattle indicate that British agriculture has followed a path that is too intensive and too cost conscious, and will they by all possible means encourage more natural and holistic methods for the benefit of both farmers and consumers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have substantially increased support and encouragement
344
for organic farming of all types. However, the incidence of the kind of diseases to which the noble Lord has referred is not in any objective sense directly related to the production methods that are involved. Indeed, such problems are found in all forms of farming production. Nevertheless, the elimination of such diseases will play an important part in ensuring that our farm produce is safe and acceptable to the consumers of this country.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I accept the Minister's response to the previous question about money given to farmers. However, I should like to ask two questions. First, if the Government really believe that we should produce our own food and supply our own basic food needs, why is the word "farming" not used in the title of the new department? Secondly, having regard to the figure of £2,500 average income, released last week, does the Minister accept that it is hardly surprising that farmers are struggling? Thirdly, will he say how he regards Margaret Beckett's desire to get cheaper food on to the shelves, if in fact the farmers cannot make a living at the present time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards farm incomes, while the precise figures relate to a particular sample, it is absolutely clear that there has been a very severe reduction of farm incomes in recent years. Part of the need to address the future of farming and to change much of what happens in farming and the marketing of farm produce relates to ensuring not only an environmental sustainability but also an economic sustainability for those engaged in farming. That requires us to look at the food chain as a whole, which is central to the mission of my new department, to ensure that farming is not isolated from the rest of the world, as it sometimes has been, but is placed within the whole of the food chain and within the overall context of rural and environmental development. That would result in an enhancement of the status of farming in relation to the way in which we can achieve a sustainable countryside and a sustainable food chain.
With regard to price, one of the needs of British farming is to meet international competition. Developments in both the WTO and the CAP are likely to increase that competition, and it is important that in the sectors in which British farming continues to compete we produce value for money and competitive prices. It is also important, of course, that consumers recognise the need to pay, directly or indirectly, for some of the other benefits that farming brings to this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in his answer two supplementaries ago, the noble Lord referred to amounts paid by the European Union to this country in respect of agriculture. Does he agree that the money is placed, first, at the disposal of the Commission for this service direct from the British taxpayer, so that we are merely getting a return of part of the money that we ourselves have put in?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is largely true. However, it does not alter the fact that the tax system at both European and British level recycles very substantial amounts of the taxpayers' money into support for farming, though I think the noble Lord and I would agree that the way in which it does it leaves something to be desired. A radical reform of the common agricultural policy must obviously be part of the medium to long-term future for agriculture in this country and world-wide. CAP reform is, therefore, one of our top priorities.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. Does the Minister agree that, everything else being equal, it is desirable that food which is consumed in Britain is produced in Britain?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we live in a world economy and some trade is necessary. In fact, of total food consumption a remarkable amount is produced in Britain; some two-thirds. As regards indigenously grown products, the amount is some 80 per cent, a figure which is not achieved in many other industries or sectors.
Nevertheless, I take the broader points behind the noble Lord's view that the degree of travel and the number of changes to which products are subject between the primary producers and the final market add to the cost and to environmental and economic damage. To that extent, we want to continue to support home produce.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about bringing young people into farming? I do not believe that he covered it sufficiently. Does he appreciate that today young people do not want to be out seven days a week in all weathers looking after stock at all hours? The Minister spoke about modernising farming but one cannot modernise that system. Does he agree that young people need appreciation for the work they do and in this case financial appreciation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the noble Countess in part. It is clear that societal and financial rewards are needed if we are to attract a new generation into or to stay in farming. However, it is also necessary to recognise that the range of tasks which small and medium-sized farmers in particular currently undertake may not be appropriate for the future development of agriculture, world trade and the demands of consumers. That may require sections of agriculture to develop a different degree of professionalism, perhaps specialism, than has been the case for the farmers who tilled their soil and looked after their livestock in previous generations. A cultural change is probably needed in addition to the environmental and economic changes.

Feltham B Prison for Young Adults
3.52 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken following the last report by the outgoing Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, on the situation at Feltham B prison for young adults.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Prison Service was able to direct substantial new investment into Feltham B from April this year. Consequently, more than one-third of the recommendations in Sir David's report have already been implemented. In particular, purposeful activity hours have been increased and now average more than 20 a week.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that this is precisely the kind of Question in respect of which the whole House will miss the voice of Lord Longford?
Does my noble friend agree that in an institution charged with the safety and well-being of highly disturbed young people it is totally unacceptable that in that institution there was in September a tragic suicide; that there had been a suicide a year previously; and that there was a most ugly murder? Does he further agree that there is no room for complacency?
Does that not raise the issue of the prevailing culture within the Prison Service—a battle that must be won in order to ensure that those who join the service do so in the cause of rehabilitation and the real fight of turning young people into decent citizens?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, in respect of my noble friend's first point, it was a privilege to be in this House in July during one of its many debates—as I was warned—on prisons. I was able to listen to Frank Longford speak in that debate and afterwards told people what a privilege that was.
As regards my noble friend's substantive point on self-inflicted wounds and self-inflicted deaths, I cannot comment on the tragedy which occurred in late September or on the previous one, save to say that full inquiries are taking place. Furthermore, there is an action plan to ensure that young people are inducted into such establishments and that there is a proper programme tailored to their individual needs. We hope to reach the point when they have telephone cards and people to speak to who will listen to what they say, and not the isolation which can build up to such tragedies.
There is still a lot to do and I make no bones about that. Nevertheless, we are working hard on Feltham and on Feltham B in particular. There is much to do between now and January when Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons will return to the prison.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the mention of Sir David Ramsbotham's name in the Question will be taken by some as an opportunity to pay a real tribute to the courage, intelligence and honesty with which he performed a difficult job? If it is true that by chance some of Sir David's comments may have caused a little discomfiture in the higher realms of the Home Office, then as far as many of us are concerned he was the better for that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hate to quote myself but I remember that in answering a Question in the summer I made it clear that it is no good appointing an independent investigator or regulator to conduct an inquiry and to compile a report and then complain about the report. That response was made in respect of Sir David Ramsbotham and I made it clear that that was my view. Indeed, I pay tribute to his work.
I am prepared to admit that Sir David's 1996 report on Feltham B was dealt with inadequately and that his 1998 report made us move up a few gears because clearly there was much to do. Both Houses have paid tribute to his work; he has illustrated many shortcomings and we are trying to put them right.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the success of Feltham A has been the result of more resources, a more liberal regime and the fact that standards were set by the Youth Justice Board? Has he in mind proposals whereby the Youth Justice Board or a single body can set up standards so that we can monitor progress in Feltham B where the regime is still most restrictive and poor and where to a great extent the situation has not improved as we thought it would?
Lord Roolker: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Since being in post I have visited only one young offender institution. which is Prescoed. The difference in the treatment of under 18s and over I 8s is clear. The Youth Justice Board ensured that massive resources have been directed at the younger people.
The situation is tragic in places such as Feltham where offenders move from one section to the other and where resources have not been adequate. Nevertheless, the new governor and the team are working their socks off in order to ensure success and that we complete the rest of the action plan. It is to be hoped that there will be better news to report early next year after the inspectorate has returned on 14th January. New resources have been put into Feltham B and there is the opportunity for association and education one no longer has to choose between—one and the other—but we still have a long way to go.

Business
3.58 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment in the debate on the Office of Communications Bill, my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in
348
another place on anti-terrorism measures. After that, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on action against the funding of terrorism. After the second Statement, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Railtrack.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the usual channels have agreed that there will be a further debate on the coalition against international terrorism on Thursday 18th October. The debate will follow the Report stages of the International Development Bill and the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill.

Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills
3.59 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a formal Motion but it has a human side to it. We are to lose Dr Philippa Tudor to the Scotland Office. She is to be replaced as Clerk to the Private Bill Office by Mr Tom Mohan. Those who have worked with her—I see the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, nodding his head, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, would agree—would like to thank her for her clerkship of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and wish her well in her new job. I beg to move.
Moved, That, pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 69, Mr T. V. Mohan be appointed an Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Dr F. P. Tudor. (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 12,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 13 to 27,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 28 to 30,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 31 to 65,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 66 to 92,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 93 to 96,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 97 and 98,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 99 to 102,

Schedule 8,

349

Clauses 103 to 105,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 106 to 123,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 124 to 130,

Schedule 11,

Clause 131,

Schedule 12,

Clause 132,

Schedule 13,

Clause 133.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Office of Communications Bill [H.L.]
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In December of last year the Government published the White Paper A New Future for Communications which set out their vision for the future of telecommunications and broadcasting in the UK. In doing so, the White Paper recognised the enormous changes which have been taking place in telecommunications and broadcasting, both domestically and on a global scale. Rapid technological advances and a growing convergence between the two sectors are creating new opportunities which are changing the way we all communicate and interact with each other. As these changes take place, not only do they create exciting new openings; they also raise huge challenges if the UK is to take full advantage of them.
The White Paper affirmed the Government's aim to make the UK home to the most dynamic and competitive communications and media market in the world which ensures universal access to a choice of diverse, high quality services and proper safeguards to protect the interests of citizens and consumers.
Central to achieving this vision was the creation of a unified regulator which would take over the responsibilities of the five existing regulators operating in the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors: the Broadcasting Standards Commission; the Independent Television Commission; the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel); the Radio Authority; and the Radio Communications Agency. I pay tribute to the work of the current regulators and the skills, knowledge and dedication of their staff. Indeed, these same qualities will be needed in seeking to build the new regulator.
However, it was clear that the current system of regulation, with a number of separate regulators each responsible for different aspects of different sectors, was more a reflection of the way communications had developed in the 20th century than the kind of organisation that would be essential to meet the challenges of the 21st. In taking the bold step to create a completely new regulator, which will be known as the Office of Communications, or Ofcom for short, the Government intend to set up a body that will be in a
350
position to take a broad view across the converging industries and make strategic decisions which take account of complex technical, economic and cultural issues.
After the White Paper was published there was a further round of consultation with key stakeholders and other interested parties. Overall, the White Paper was received warmly by almost all respondents. The vast majority welcomed the Government's overall aims and there was almost universal support for the establishment of Ofcom which many felt would serve to simplify the current complicated web of regulation. This general consensus has also been reflected in cross-party support for a unified regulator. Each of the main political parties has expressed general support for the concept of establishing Ofcom to oversee the converging sectors and have called for early action to be taken to bring about this necessary change.
As many of your Lordships will remember, in February my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane introduced a timely debate in this House on the proposals in the White Paper. There were many eloquent and well informed contributions and most noble Lords gave a general welcome for the proposal to create Ofcom. I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say in this debate about the proposals to establish the new body which are before the House today.
Despite setbacks in recent months with the deflation of the dot.com bubble, over-capacity in telecommunications and the recent downturn in advertising, technological innovations in the communication sector continue to change lives and businesses. It is vital that we are able to compete in global markets and ensure the UK's place in providing high quality infrastructure and content. To help ensure this, we must create the right regulatory structure so that UK business can continue to develop and grow. Indeed, the more difficult the economic circumstances, the more important it becomes that the regulatory framework is right to avoid stymying business further.
The Queen's Speech announced the Government's intention to publish a draft communications Bill later this Session. That Bill will set out in detail the proposals for the new regulatory regime which Ofcom will eventually oversee. Your Lordships will appreciate that regulation in this area is very complex and we want to make sure that we have the detail in the Bill right. We shall, therefore, undertake full consultation with industry and other stakeholders on the contents of the draft communications Bill in the spring to enable them to consider the proposals properly.
If noble Lords want to speculate on the policies to be set out in the main Bill I shall of course listen carefully to what they have to say. But the time to debate those matters is when the main Bill is available. Therefore, my noble friend Lord McIntosh will not be adding to the broad principles of policy set out in the White Paper when he winds up our debate this evening. Instead, publication of the draft

351
communications Bill in the spring should provide ample opportunity for Parliament to debate the new regulatory regime. Pre-legislative scrutiny would normally be undertaken by the appropriate Select Committees in another place. The possibility of a Joint Committee of both Houses has also been raised, and nearer the time we shall consider whether to invite Parliament to adopt that approach. Either method would allow us to take account of Parliament's views before finalising the communications Bill prior to its introduction when parliamentary time is available.
The Ofcom Bill which is before you today is a paving measure which will enable us to make progress on the essential practical work which is necessary to set up Ofcom. Folding three statutory organisations, one non-ministerial government department and an agency into a new statutory body is extremely complex. We have to bring together five separate groups of professional expertise based across 20 or more offices around the country, with differing pay systems, pension schemes and organisational cultures, without disrupting this important industry and while maintaining effective protection for consumers.
The Ofcom Bill will allow the preparatory work to begin so that the new regulator will be in a position to take on its regulatory functions quickly once the regime which will be set out in the main communications Bill has been fully discussed and comes into force.
The measures set out in the Ofcom Bill are straightforward. They will establish Ofcom as a statutory corporation. The new regulator will be governed by a corporate board made up of executive and non-executive members (referred to in the Bill as staff and non-staff members) who will be able to bring a range of knowledge and expertise to the organisation. Appointment of the chairman and other non-staff members will be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Bill proposes that, initially, as Ofcom will have no regulatory functions, there should be a small board of between three and six members, including the chairman and the chief executive. However, the Bill also provides the Secretary of State with the power to change the size of the board. It is envisaged that that power might be used at a later stage to widen the range of expertise available to the board once Ofcom takes on its regulatory functions.
The Bill provides Ofcom with just one function: that of preparing to assume its other regulatory functions at a later stage. As I said earlier, bringing Ofcom into being is complex and includes preparation of schemes for the transfer of staff, property and other assets or liabilities from the existing regulators to Ofcom. The schemes themselves, however, will not be made until the communications Bill has been passed. Moreover, they will not involve the transfer of any regulatory functions. Those regulatory functions will be conferred upon Ofcom only when the main communications Bill is brought into force after Royal Assent.
352
Ofcom will only be able to undertake the necessary preparatory work successfully with the full co-operation of the existing regulators. The Bill, therefore, contains provisions to ensure that Ofcom has a duty to co-operate effectively with the existing regulators during the transitional period. Similarly, the Bill places an additional duty on the existing regulators to do everything necessary for Ofcom to make its preparations.
In order to avoid regulatory uncertainty occurring during the transitional period, provision is made in the Bill preventing Ofcom interfering with the carrying out by any of the existing regulators of their current functions. It therefore remains clear that during the transition period the current regulators will continue to carry on with their day to day duties until Ofcom assumes its regulatory role.
Clause 4 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to wind up Ofcom. In practice the Government do not anticipate that measure being required. It is included purely as a safeguard to provide assurance that should any unforeseen circumstances prevent progress in bringing forward the policies contained in the communications Bill, the Government will be able to take the necessary steps to dissolve Ofcom should the need arise. After 2003, the Secretary of State will have a duty to act if no progress is in prospect.
The Bill contains provisions to give Ofcom the power to establish committees. Ofcom will have the flexibility to determine its own internal working arrangements and establish committees which are advisory in nature or ones which will have decision-making functions delegated to them. Ofcom will be able to appoint non-board members to be included in the committees to enable them to benefit from particular expertise or the representation of particular interests. The White Paper made specific reference to the new consumer panel which would represent the concerns of consumers to Ofcom. Further details of how that panel would be constituted will be set out in the main communications Bill.
In summarising the main purpose of the Ofcom. Bill, perhaps I may stress again that it is the intention to provide Ofcom with just the single function of preparation. Ofcom will have no regulatory functions until Parliament has had the opportunity to consider precisely what those functions should be. Nothing in the Ofcom Bill prejudges those substantive issues.
Your Lordships may be aware that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee issued its report on the Bill in July with a single recommendation. It noted that in Clause 4 of the Bill—the sunset clause—that subsection (3) applied the negative procedure to the Secretary of State's power to make an order for Ofcom to be wound up and dissolved. The committee's view was that Parliament should have sufficient opportunities to discuss the fate of Ofcom before any such order was made and therefore recommended that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in connection with that power. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are happy to adopt that recommendation and therefore propose to put down amendments to the Bill in Committee to that effect.

353
As envisaged in the White Paper, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry have worked closely with the five existing regulators to start the planning stages of the transition process needed for the eventual creation of Ofcom. I thank the boards and chief executives of the regulators and their staff for their extremely constructive and valuable contribution throughout the process. A steering group comprising the regulators and representatives from both departments has been established to oversee this planning process. The results of an initial scoping study, undertaken by independent consultants, have recently been published which assess the kind of organisation Ofcom might be and how the complex task of transition might be managed. The main management decisions relating to structure, staff appointments, human resource policies, vision, organisational culture and many others, will ultimately be for Ofcom itself to take when a chairman and board are in place. But a great deal of work needs to be done—for example, in gathering information, benchmarking against other organisations and identifying options—if we are to meet the 2003 target date. In the meantime, the work process now embarked on by the steering group provides a satisfactory basis for carrying on with the planning for the new body.
Obviously, the chairman and board of Ofcom will have a crucial role to play as the transition process develops; and the timing of the appointees to these posts will be important to ensure that they are able to contribute fully. We still need to find the right mix of experience and skills to cover the range of Ofcom's responsibilities. That process will need to start soon, but it is one that cannot take place overnight. We will, of course, follow the full public appointments procedures in making the appointments. In view of that, the appointment of the chairman of Ofcom will not take place before spring 2002. Subsequently, we hope to have the full board of Ofcom in place by autumn 2002.
Following the consultation process, and pre-legislative scrutiny, of the draft communications Bill which I have already outlined and which will take place in spring next year, we aim to introduce the main communications Bill as soon as parliamentary time is available. The Government remain committed to the target of having Ofcom operational by the end of 2003.
Both broadcasting and telecommunications are vital for the cultural and economic interests of the whole country. A modern, forward-looking regulator operating a flexible, effective and proportionate regime will be crucial for creating the conditions within which these converging sectors can flourish. Through the promotion of competition, high standards and a vigorous communications sector, Ofcom will be well placed to help ensure that the expectations of consumers, citizens, viewers and listeners can be met. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Baroness Blackstone.)
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I look forward to hearing later in the debate the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale.
I begin by agreeing with the Government on one basic point: the speed of development of digital technology and the convergence of communications have highlighted the inability of the regulatory framework to keep up with the pace of rapid change. After all, the current framework was designed at a time when the full implications of the digital age could not have been predicted by either politicians or the industry. It is true that we need to get right—and to get right for a generation—the proposals contained in the paving Bill before us as well as those in the communications Bill.
As a child, I can recall huddling with my parents around a seven-inch television set, watching black and white pictures and thinking that I was extremely lucky because so few people owned television sets. I listened avidly to the Home and Light stations on the radio and later, as a teenager, I struggled to find Radio Caroline on the wavelengths. Today, of course, I enjoy access to digital TV through my satellite dish, as well as to digital radio by the same means. I use my telephone line to gain access to the Internet, slow though it is, and, although I have not yet caught up with WAP technology, I hope to do so soon. I am proud of the lead taken by the industry in this country both in telecoms and broadcasting and I await impatiently the next stage of convergence of the telecoms and broadcasting sectors. But I also impatiently await the next stage of the Government's plans for the communications Bill. The Minister rightly forecasted the fact that Members participating in this debate and those involved in later stages of the Bill would refer to that matter with some angst, because so much of this Bill predicts what may or may not happen in the future.
The Minister told the House that the Government intend to publish the draft communications Bill in the spring of next year. In this country, spring can last for a long time before the cold winds finally disappear. Let us hope that on this occasion spring comes early.
The Minister was brief in her exposition of the paving Bill now before the House. Perhaps the Government are keen to avoid consideration of the issues that will necessarily form part of our deliberations on it; namely, issues raised by the Government's own inaction on the communications Bill itself. Because that Bill did not come forward in proper time, the Government have now had to take the extraordinary step of asking the House to approve a paving Bill. That in itself is a matter to which we shall have to pay close attention.
With regard to the issues raised by the paving Bill, we give our general support to the idea of a single over-arching body to serve as the regulator. The Minister was absolutely correct to point out that there is general cross-party support for the proposal. However,

355
practical probing amendments will have to be tabled in Committee to ask the Government questions about the model they have chosen for Ofcom to ensure that it acts as a board and not as a dictatorial body. How can we be sure that the embryo Ofcom created by the paving Bill will be able to operate in a manner that is appropriate, fair and effective both before and after the passage of the communications Bill? Will the new super-regulator have the super flexibility required to meet the changing needs of industry and consumers? Will it owe its loyalty to politicians, to viewers and listeners, to broadcasters and to Internet service providers?
When Ofcom acquires its powers, will it provide light-touch regulation? The Government have said "Yes" to this question, but we all know that their idea of a light touch can turn out to be someone's else's idea of sticky fingers. Witness the debacle earlier this summer over Tessa Jowell's initial reaction to the "Brass Eye" programme when she wanted to step in ahead of the regulator, but then had to beat a retreat. The problem is that we do not have the answers to those questions, because today the House is being asked firmly to put the cart before the horse. Worse than that, we are being asked to approve the Government's decidedly sketchy design for a cart and we do not even know what kind of horse is to pull it. Indeed, the Government are so lacking in confidence in their design skills that, as the Minister pointed out, they have inserted into Clause 4 an option to pull the whole cart to pieces and throw it in the skip.
What will be our guiding principle when considering the Bill? The test that we shall apply throughout is that we believe it is vital that the initial functions of the paving Ofcom body, the embryonic Ofcom, should not pre-empt or prejudice any matters on which Parliament may wish to legislate in the main communications Bill—whenever it is brought forward. Clauses 2(5) and 3(4) try to give a reassurance that nothing will be done by Ofcom which would supersede or circumvent decisions that properly should be taken by Parliament. But the fact remains that the provisions contained in the Bill raise significant questions as regards structure and function which may undermine Parliament's ability to approach the communications Bill unfettered.
I propose to cite only four examples in my remarks. My noble friend Lady Miller will address further examples. I shall refer to issues regarding structure, appointments, finance and the regulators themselves.
With regard to structure, it is important that the existing regulators are not simply Sellotaped together. The Bill provides an ideal opportunity to rethink the way in which regulation should take place. We need to bring to this a fresh mind, unencumbered by the policies of the existing regulators. The Bill needs to make that clear. However, the underlying question here is: what are the Government really asking us to debate? Is it what the Minister proposed; namely, the constitution of Ofcom for the purposes of its present function, as set out in clause 2(1), "to facilitate implementation", or are we being asked to debate the anticipated future functions of Ofcom as an industry
356
regulator? The noble Baroness stated firmly that we should not do so. Unfortunately, although logic states that it cannot be the latter (because we cannot yet determine whether Ofcom's structure will be suitable for functions which Parliament has not yet decided that it should have), if It is the former, I fear that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill are misleading. The notes suggest that certain provisions are being included in the Bill due to their relevance to Ofcom's operations after the future communications Bill has come into force. I refer to paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Notes, which outlines the establishment of committees by Ofcom.
In her remarks, the Minister referred to the Towers Perrin report, published only three days ago. Although I have had the opportunity only to look at the executive summary, it makes it clear that the report was prepared,
"on the understanding that final decisions on structure will rest with the paving Ofcom board",
that is, not the full board. That means that, as the Minister said, we are being presented with something of a fait accompli with regard to the structure of Ofcom. However, even without that report, the reality of the Bill before us is this: once an organisational structure has been created, however skeletal—even before a chairman has been appointed—those people who staff it will have to make decisions and plan for the future. The organisation will begin to take on a life of its own.
I turn briefly to the matter of appointments. The Minister was most helpful in outlining when the Government hope to make some of the key appointments to the board. It is true that the board will need a membership that has the support of both consumers and the industry. It is also important that there is transparency in the appointments process. However, I have to say that that process is not made clear in the Bill. The noble Baroness will not be surprised if we probe a little further on it when we debate the Bill in Committee.
A time will come when the preparatory work is so advanced that the key decisions on how Ofcom is to work will have to be taken by those who will be ultimately responsible. After the Government have made the appointments of the chairman and members, there will be a key period when those members will be making decisions which may undermine what Parliament wishes to achieve in the communications Bill.
As regards the size of the board, I understand much of what was said by the noble Baroness with regard to the need to start small and then perhaps to grow. However, I believe that there may be inherent problems in that approach, although I recognise the tension between, on the one hand, establishing a board that is small enough in number to respond rapidly with regard to economic regulation where swift decisions must be reached, and, on the other hand, balancing the need to appoint enough people to the board fairly to represent the broad swathe of abilities that will be needed in order that the super-regulator will be able to do its job well. Furthermore, there is the moot question

357
of how the Government will cope with their relationship with the devolved administrations. Will each administration nominate a member to the board? If not, will another way be found for them to feed in their views on appointments?
As regards finance, I believe that we need further clarification on the budget and funding of Ofcom during the transitional period. Ofcom is being asked by the Government to conduct an expensive guessing game, which the Bill itself acknowledges may have become pointless by 2003. The Explanatory Notes put the risk at about £5 million—my noble friend Lady Miller will have something further to say about this later—but the question is who should carry that risk. The Explanatory Notes state that,
"the Government will share with industry the cost of initial establishment",
but what will happen if Clause 4 is invoked and Ofcom is abandoned? Who will pick up the bill then? I would hope the Government.
I turn now to the question of the regulators covered by the Bill. The clearest way in which the Bill may be seen as defective—by "defective", I mean pre-empting what may be Parliament's will in the communications Bill—is the omission of the BBC governors' regulatory remit from the remit of Ofcom during this preparatory phase. It is surely illogical to establish what the Government call a single converged regulator and then to exclude from its remit services which represent a major part of broadcast television and radio. As the National Consumer Council points out:
"Excluding the BBC from the full remit of OFCOM limits the potential benefits to consumers of a much improved regulatory system".
It is important to have a significant debate on the nature and structure of the BBC's regulation. It is important to have that debate now simply because the way in which the Government have introduced this paving Bill makes it vital that we should have such a debate. If Parliament decides that the BBC governors' regulatory role should be transferred to Ofcom, we need to prepare for that in the Bill.
Clause 2(1) gives Ofcom the function to do just about anything it considers appropriate for implementing or modifying proposals covering regulation, but it is limited by subsection (2) to working only with the Secretary of State and existing regulators—and, of course, the definition of "existing regulator" at Clause 5 excludes the BBC. If the BBC is left out of the loop, it will surely be too late when we come to the communications Bill to bring BBC regulation fully within Ofcom, if that is Parliament's wish. Ofcom will have worked throughout the transitional period without building up its relationship with the BBC governors in the proper manner.
It is important to bring the regulatory functions of the BBC governors into the loop now in order that we are able to ask the industry to move forward as a whole. In Committee, we shall ask the House to do the right thing by the BBC, the industry and consumers—that is, to ensure that the BBC works with the paving
358
Ofcom in such a way that it is ready for the regulatory powers of the BBC governors to be transferred to Ofcom, if that is what Parliament decides in the communications Bill.
Finally, the Government will have a duty in Committee to prove that the provisions of the Bill will enable Ofcom to do a job which has not yet even been defined in a draft Bill, let alone in statute, and to exercise powers which have not yet been debated, let alone agreed by Parliament. The Government must satisfy the House that nothing in the Bill will pre-empt or prejudice our debates on proposals in the communications Bill. This is a paving Bill which may, if we are not careful, trip up both the Government and the industry. I am sure that the Minister and the Government are perfectly capable of looking after themselves, but we have a duty of care to both the industry and consumers. I look forward to trying to fulfil that duty of care in later stages of the Bill.
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I, too, am looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale. They have chosen a difficult debate but I know that their expertise will add great value to our deliberations.
I say that it is a difficult debate because we have had so much time to consider how to address this paving Bill, as it is rather loosely called, and now none of us will be making the same speech today as we would have made a month or six weeks ago. Inevitably, whether consciously or subconsciously, we have in the back of our minds the terrible events which took place at the twin towers in New York and ensuing events.
Britain has a great reputation in communications and broadcasting and the Government are now looking to take that forward into a new age of technology. From my experience—I express my own view; I am sure that at Second Reading noble Lords will forgive me this indulgence—of listening to many broadcasts of the BBC's World Service, I am struck by the very high quality of its broadcasting. I get extremely angry when I am riding around on my bicycle or my motor-cycle—which is extremely dangerous—when I think of the number of times we in this House have pressed, and others have pressed the Front Bench in another place, for some reassurance about the continuance of funding for the World Service of the BBC. There is always the possibility of the cutting down of vital services.
In Afghanistan there has always been a very high percentage of people who listen to the World Service of the BBC. I believe it is some 60 to 70 per cent in both the major language groups, Pashto and Persian. Noble Lords will be aware that during the unfortunate disagreement we had with the Taliban over the Buddhist statues, the World Service spokesman in Afghanistan had to be removed. It is interesting that now, at the wish of the Afghan authorities, the spokesman has been recalled and the level of listening to the World Service is as high as ever.

359
There is even an Afghan version of "The Archers" programme, which deals with two villages. I do not know what the programme is called in the Afghan language, but it shows the ingenuity and creativity of the British There is a lot of high-flown talk about the new Bill releasing or unlocking creativity. There is no shortage of creativity—it does not need to be unlocked in this country because there is plenty of it—but there needs to be an opportunity for people to recognise it. Management is required, and it is management that we shall be looking to in the new arrangements.
Having said that, the noble Baroness described exactly how the next few months will proceed. Some of us will be more sceptical than others about the timetable she has given for the arrangements because convergence will take place at differing rates. The solutions to the problems of staffing, staff welfare and property disposal that the Minister told us about will take a good deal of time and complex negotiation.
As the noble Baroness said, the purpose is to provide an efficient structure for our communications industry. That is quite normal because of the way in which we are all aware of broadcasting in this country. However, the majority of provisions in the Bill, when we come to it, will not concern broadcasting matters but the Internet, fixed and mobile telephones, increasing the choice available to consumers, the quality and cost of equipment and so on.
The public service environment in this country requires not only parliamentary debate—I was interested that the Baroness indicated that there may be a joint committee of both Houses to examine many of the issues leading up to the Bill proper—but the future of public service broadcasting in the new digital age has not been properly debated in the nation as a whole. People are not yet aware of the complexities entailed. There are so many difficulties in the new environment that special interests will be extremely fearful unless they are assured in short order. The poor, those who live in rural areas, the disabled, the blind and the deaf all have a vested interest in seeing that their needs arc catered for in the new environment.
As the noble Baroness acknowledged, we have no objection in principle to the combining of the functions of the existing regulators into a new regulatory body, at the same time acknowledging the difficulties that that entails. The existing bodies have served us well. There have been hiccups, and there is an overlap between them. Taken together, the regulators employ a much larger number of people than is widely realised. The possible uncertainty for staff if delays occur and the danger of losing good people must be borne in mind.
The fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not address issues other than those set out in the Bill makes this a difficult and unusual debate. Our concern will be with the content of broadcasting, which has undergone great changes. There are many distinguished broadcasters in this Chamber and I meet many others. My assessment as a radio listener—an assessment that is probably shared by a large
360
proportion of the population—is that radio broadcasting in this country has maintained its quality to an extent that many of us would not have thought possible as we entered an age when the race for television audiences became evident. As one who has listened to the radio every day over a long period of time, I take the view that 70 per cent of the programmes are of an extremely high quality; indeed, they are probably unmatched in the world. My comments relate to education, entertainment, information and many other areas.
However, public service television broadcasts—I see noble Lords opposite making a "thumbs down" sign. I would not go quite so far as that, but a higher and higher proportion of broadcasts on public service television are meretricious rubbish. That is sad, given the great traditions of broadcasting in this country. We looked on the old BBC rather like a schoolmaster for whom we had affection: we thanked him for teaching us well but did not want to spend too much time with him in private; we did not want too many of the moral strictures that the old nanny gave us. The BBC set a standard in broadcasting which has been maintained on radio but which has not been maintained on television. Competition from the new satellite channels and from other areas has made matters difficult. There has also been pressure from government in regard to ratings, although that is denied by the BBC.
These matters will need to be discussed in some detail. Standards of decency will also need to be discussed. They are part of the content of programmes and they have changed enormously. That change presents great difficulty for the older generation, in which I happily include myself. I sometimes ask my children and grandchildren whether the programme they are watching is suitable, and receive looks of kindly derision. Those of us who are over 50 are hopelessly out of date as regards what young people want, like and accept in terms of pornographic material, language and so on. All these points will have to be dealt with as we move towards the forthcoming Bill.
Returning to the importance of radio, I realised only when we were briefed by the Radio Authority that there are 100 million radios in this country. The average household has five radios. Some may not be in use; for all we know they may be submerged in bath water, but the number is enormous. Twenty per cent of radio listening takes place during people's car journeys to and from work—long periods of time for many people. Large numbers of young people listen to music programmes, which are a wonderful medium. All this relates to the comments of the noble Baroness; she wishes to create a dynamic, effective and well-structured communications industry continuing into the digital age.
Carrying out the proposals will be an extremely difficult job. The Bill before the House is simple. I admit that I have paid scant attention to it, but we do not disagree with its terms. We see the difficulties and

361
we shall co-operate as much as possible in the run-up to the Bill proper, whenever that is, in trying to arrive at a decent result.
The legislation will create one of the biggest ever quangos. The word "quango" has certain pejorative tones and people do not like it, but this body will be a quango. We shall examine the terms of the proposals very carefully in order to ensure that it has the flexibility, the capability and the standards that are required, consistent with British traditions and at the forefront of their thinking. I wish the noble Baroness great good fortune in the run-up to the final legislation.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before we move to the three Statements on anti-terrorism measures, the funding of terrorism and Railtrack, perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Anti-terrorism Measures
4.36 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on the legislative steps necessary to counter the threat from international terrorism.
"Can I immediately pay tribute to all those in the emergency services and elsewhere who have already risen to the challenge over the last five weeks, and all those who have assisted in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack in New York itself.
"It is the first job of government and the essence of our democracy that we safeguard rights and freedoms, the most basic of which is to live safely and in peace. It is necessary now that we should look afresh, in a measured and proportionate manner, at whether our legal framework is adequate and our security sufficient.
"Whilst the nature and the level of the threat is different than previously envisaged, wholesale revision of our anti-terrorism laws is unnecessary. This is also the view of law enforcement agencies. However, we do need specific and targeted measures, which is why I intend to introduce an emergency anti-terrorism Bill. I am determined to strike a balance between respecting our fundamental civil liberties and ensuring that they are not exploited.
"Through these measures we will reinforce action against the perpetrators of organised crime, drug and people trafficking. In the next few days we will
362
therefore introduce separate measures in the proceeds of crime Bill, which will now be complemented by anti-terrorist legislation.
"Terrorists use organised crime and trade in human misery to finance their activities. The tough new financial controls in the emergency Bill will help us to staunch the flow of terrorist funding. The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the proceeds of crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance, through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists.
"My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will spell out in more detail measures on the seizure of cash within this country, and strict reporting requirements on the financial sector. Separately, a new anti-terrorist finance unit is to be established in conjunction with my right honourable friend under the auspices of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
"The events of 11th September have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and international level. Terrorists do not respect national boundaries. In line with the European-wide endeavour, I intend to include in the emergency Bill an enabling power to allow implementation of measures from the Justice and Home Affairs Council on police and judicial co-operation, by affirmative order.
"But, regrettably, there are also those who are prepared to exploit the tensions created by this global threat. Racists, bigots and hotheads, as well as those associating with terrorists, are prepared to use this opportunity to stir up hate. It is my intention therefore, to introduce new laws to ensure that incitement to religious, as well as racial hatred, will become a criminal offence. I also intend to increase the present two-year maximum penalty to seven years.
"I am examining wider powers in relation to incitement by people in the United Kingdom, against groups or individuals overseas. I am also examining additional powers in relation to conspiracy. None of this is intended to stifle free speech, dialogue, or debate. Fair comment is not at risk, only the incitement to hate.
"Obtaining good intelligence and being able to target and track potential terrorists is essential. We need comprehensive powers to require best practice to become the norm. This legislation will therefore facilitate the exchange of information in two key areas. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies can access vital information on passengers and freight. It will also enable Customs and Revenue officers to pass information to the police. These provisions will remove barriers that currently prevent the exchange of information in the fight against terrorism. These will be carefully targeted measures designed to protect the public, not affecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
"We shall introduce measures to enable communication service providers to retain data generated in the course of their business: by which I

363
mean the records of calls made and other data, not the content. We shall work with the industry on a code of practice.
"I wish to thank those who have co-operated so well over the past five weeks.
"I believe we all accept that there is a compelling need for more effective powers to exclude and remove suspected terrorists from our country. We rightly pride ourselves on the safe haven that we offer to those genuinely fleeing terror, but our moral obligation and love of freedom does not extend to offering hospitality to terrorists. That is why both in the emergency terrorism Bill and in a separate extradition measure, I shall ensure that we have robust and streamlined procedures.
"I believe that it will be possible to achieve these changes without substantial alteration to the Human Rights Act. Nevertheless, it may well be necessary, using Article 15, to derogate from Article 5 of the European convention. This would allow the detention of foreign nationals who we intend to remove from the country, and who are considered a threat to national security. This would occur in circumstances falling outside those permitted by Article 5 of the European convention, but within the scope of Article If of the 1951 refugee convention.
"I am also looking to take power to deny substantive asylum claims to those who are suspected of terrorist associations, and to streamline the existing judicial review procedures while retaining the right of appeal. Appropriate safeguards would apply to any such derogation.
"A review of extradition procedure had been undertaken by this Government prior to 11th September. I intend to bring forward a separate substantive measure to modernise and place our laws within the context of the new international situation. Streamlining, while retaining rights of appeal, will form part of the measure.
"I also intend, following an announcement to this House in the weeks ahead, to modernise our nationality and asylum system.
"There are four other measures that I wish to refer to today. The first, which relates to the responsibilities of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and Local Government, will strengthen security at airports and for passengers. Powers both within restricted areas at airports, and aboard aircraft, will all be strengthened.
"In addition, I can announce that we shall be expanding the role and jurisdiction of the British Transport Police, together with those working on enforcement from the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Energy Authority. We shall be asking the House to agree to widen their powers beyond the boundaries of particular sites.
"I shall also seek powers to provide to the police, and Customs services, the authority to demand the removal of facial covering or gloves. This is a basic
364
requirement to enable identification, where fingerprinting or other biometric tests are important.
"I am also including in the Bill clauses on nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological materials—generally described as, "weapons of mass destruction". These clauses will cover the intention to use, produce, possess or participate in unauthorised transfers of these materials.
"At the time of the millennium a great deal of work was undertaken to ensure the security of key utilities. I want to assure the House that both in the Civil Contingencies Committee, and more widely, we have examined and put in place further work to update our preparedness, preventive action, and remedial steps, should they be necessary.
"The United Kingdom has some of the world's best counter-terrorist expertise. Working together with international partners, we are taking every step to protect ourselves. These plans are continually reviewed and tested. There is no immediate intelligence pointing to a specific threat to the United Kingdom, but we remain alert, domestically as well as internationally.
"I know that many in this House will agree that strengthening our democracy and reinforcing our values is as important as the passage of new laws. If, therefore, we do not rise to the challenge, provide through our democratic institutions the commitment and will to face-down terrorists, then our economy, our social well-being, and our quality of life will suffer.
"The legislative measures that I have outlined today will protect and enhance our rights, not diminish them. Justice for individuals and minorities is reaffirmed, and justice for the majority and the security of our nation will be secured.
"On 11th September families lost their loved ones, and the threat of terrorism touched us all. If we fail now to take the necessary action to protect our people, future generations will never forgive us.
"That is why I am asking for the wholehearted support of all sides of the House in demonstrating that this Parliament, our democracy, and our judicial system, are capable of rising to the challenge and of doing so swiftly and effectively".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. Like the noble Lord's party, we also wish to see those changes in domestic law that are necessary to improve the effectiveness of the counter measures against terrorism in this country. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that over a number of recent years we have witnessed too many instances where we have legislated in haste and subsequently repented at leisure. We must be most

365
careful in what we do to ensure that we properly maintain the balance between public safety and individual freedom.
The Statement refers to building on the powers under the proceeds of crime Bill to deal with the question of cutting off funding for terrorist activities. I believe that the City is the biggest money market in the world; indeed, it is certainly by far and away the biggest within Europe. Can the Minister assure me that proper and adequate consultations are now taking place, especially with banks and other city interests, to ensure that, while every proper step is taken to ensure that we do what we can wherever possible to restrict the movement of funds that might be used for terrorist purposes, we do not take steps that might at the same time so restrict the City that we indirectly achieve the terrorists' purposes for them?
We welcome the acknowledgement that we need to change the law now in the interests of public safety so that the Minister can refuse entry to this country of persons known to pose a risk to public safety and national security. That law will require precise definition.
We also need to deal with the people who are already here. There will unquestionably be some, as we know from some recent court cases. What shall we do to remove them? Again, I welcome the Minister's assurance that action will be taken, but it is clear from recent cases that the removal of dangerous foreign nationals will present us with a tricky legislative problem.
The Statement appears to say that one way of overcoming that difficulty would be the indefinite detention of such individuals, but that may not necessarily be the best way forward. As we see the programme of proposed legislation, we shall need to explore whether other methods might be more appropriate.
We welcome the assurance that there has been in the past that Parliament will have the right to consider the Human Rights Act. Indeed, we may now have to examine the effect of that legislation in so many ways because of the counter-terrorist problem. The issue of counter-terrorism has affected not only this country. Europe has rightly woken up to the problem, which is a welcome response. We welcome the directive requiring other EU countries to pass legislation on terrorism that is parallel to our Act.
That is one thing, but to accept too slavishly what comes from Europe may not be as reasonable as the Statement implies. I admit to considerable concern about the part of the Statement that appears to imply that action to implement European arrest warrants might be passed into British law using only secondary legislation. That is so serious that we need to think more carefully about it. It could threaten the old British principles of habeas corpus and one is innocent until proven guilty. These are serious matters, and I should welcome the Minister's assurance that they will be treated with all necessary and due care when the legislation is brought before us.
366
It is clear that sunset clauses, to which I referred when we debated the Statement on emergency action a week or two ago, are very significant. Will the Minister assure us that there will be a sunset clause in the proposed new legislation on terrorism, as it relates to the present emergency, so that Parliament can review regularly both its effect and the need for it to remain on the statute book?
We support the principles that the Government have outlined and which they are trying to implement. The whole House will want to examine in detail the proposals, to minimise the possibility of any perverse effect. The legislation that is passed by Parliament must be in the best interests of all our people, whatever their background or their community within our nation state. That is our purpose and one with which we are happy to join the Government in pursuing.
5.4 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am not particularly good at mathematics, so I wonder whether he can tell me how many pieces of primary legislation he has announced today. I am sure that the House will be interested to know.
The most abiding memory of the events of the 11th September was the sight of firemen, police and other emergency services going against the flow and going into danger as others fled from it. There is no doubt that if we ever faced a similar attack, we could rely on a similar sense of duty and heroism from our own emergency services.
This is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to discuss or question home front matters and time will be needed for a debate on the issues raised. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that if truth is the first casualty of war, there is often a danger that civil liberties is the second, and freedom of the press is the third. There is a need for Parliament to be careful of the powers that government and the state ask for when facing an emergency.
As I said when I intervened in the debate on emergency action, it is not as if we have lacked legislation in these matters. The Terrorism Act, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, Immigration and Asylum Act and various Acts relating to criminal justice are all less than two years old, and presumably were drafted with an eye to emergency and attack. As regards some of the most recent Acts, in particular, Parliament should be willing to see how the new powers that were so recently granted apply to this situation.
On the question of money laundering measures, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred, I disagree slightly with his emphasis. I spent part of the summer talking to various authorities about money laundering, mainly in relation to drug trafficking. In listening to the professionals of the various bodies involved, I was struck by how much slack there is in London. Although I understand the desire of the noble I Lord not to damage the City of London and its

367
financial institutions, they cannot have it both ways. It is extremely important that bankers, lawyers and accountants show a sense of proper responsibility—I see one of our most distinguished accountants nodding vigorously.
The matter is important. It is no use saying, "I am not a private detective". I believe that those professional organisations have a public duty to help in taking effective action against money laundering.
Will the proposed emergency legislation on terrorism be published in draft form? Will there be a consultative process, especially considering the large number of parliamentary groups that are interested in these matters? Will our new Human Rights Committee be consulted? The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to a sunset clause and annual provisions for renewal, which are matters that concern us all, so it would be useful to have clarification.
No mention of identity cards was made in the Minister's Statement, so can we assume that the authoritative put-down by the noble Lord to a Labour party fringe meeting is the last word on these matters?
Will the proposals for derogation from the Human Rights Act be put to the Human Rights Committee and will there be scope for judicial review of derogations? Will derogations be time limited by the Government? We welcome the proposals referring to incitement to religious hatred, although it has been pointed out that the existing legislation on racial hatred has been rarely used.
I wish to touch on another point, which relates to the second half of the Minister's Statement that comes under the broad term of civil contingencies, or perhaps the more old-fashioned term of civil defence. Who is in overall charge of the security of London? Can he give us a categorical assurance that there are no "turf wars" between central government and the Greater London Authority as have benighted transport policy? It is important that we do not fall foul of such "turf wars".
I am aware that a review of civil defence is under way, but there is the worry that our civil defence is geared to fight a cold war and nuclear war and a possible attack from Russia. This is an emergency and we are fighting a different kind of threat. One wonders how well geared we are to meet the new threat. The Minister mentioned that the MoD, atomic energy and transport police will have extended powers. How will those powers match those of existing police bodies and those of the police authorities who have oversight of those bodies? Does the Minister fear that "turf wars" or contradictions may arise? That is always a danger with these matters.
The Minister ended his comments with a ringing declaration of wholehearted support and our duty to future generations. We are all aware of that duty. However, Parliament also has a duty to be certain that emergency legislation is just that; namely, that it responds to an emergency, is clearly justified and will apply only for as long as is necessary. The wholehearted support of these Benches will be gained if the Minister can reassure us on those points.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in the limited time available I shall do my best to respond to some of the points which have been made. However, it is inevitable that I shall not be able to respond to all the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord McNally.
The Government have taken on board the point with regard to legislating in haste. We are trying not to do that. Much preparation and thought are being put into the legislation. Many of the loopholes we have identified have existed for some time. Sometimes it has not been appropriate to seek to close them, as has been the case in legislation that has been passed in the past few years. This House has not been satisfied that some of them should be closed. Therefore, we do not have to invent the wheel in respect of some of these issues.
I understand that the proceeds of crime Bill will be published later this week. I warn the House that it is a massive tome with over 400 clauses. It is a substantial piece of legislation. It has involved much consultation and has already been published in draft. Some consultations on the draft Bill are ongoing. As I indicated, we shall have to revisit the human rights legislation. I make no bones about that. That will have to be done in conjunction with the other place. As I made clear, we intend to use affirmative procedures with regard to the proposals of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union. I make it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom cannot solve these problems on its own. We must co-operate closely with our European Union partners. We do not seek to undermine or fast track the matter. As I say, we shall use affirmative procedures in bringing forward matters relating to the Justice and Home Affairs Council. There will be full debate in this House.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I listed three Bills: the emergency anti-terrorism legislation; an asylum and immigration Bill and an extradition Bill. The proceeds of crime Bill will be modified to deal with some of the other matters. I take second place to no one in defending our civil rights, but inevitably there are those who will seek to abuse our liberal, tolerant democracy to undermine and exploit existing loopholes. We must make sure that we maintain our liberal and tolerant quality of life and not have it smashed by terrorist minorities. We must be careful. People have rights but they also have duties. One cannot have dutiless rights and have a decent civic society.
The other day I came across The Principle of Duty by David Selbourne. The book fell open at a page where a point was made that clearly fits the current circumstances. We must defend our rights but those rights involve duties. We shall consult fully. I hope that we have made that clear from the beginning of the parliamentary Session as regards the legislation that we are bringing forward. I cannot promise that it will be published in draft form. An emergency anti-terrorism Bill will be brought to the House quickly. I suspect that there will not be time to publish it in draft form. It will be introduced first in the other place

369
and, to that extent, its contents will not come as a surprise. In so far as we can consult with all relevant parties we shall certainly seek to do so.
I was asked about ID cards. I was asked a straightforward question; namely, whether ID cards were part of the Government's emergency legislation. I replied, "No". I did not add, "How could they be? If we were to do that it would take years and this is emergency legislation". The next day the headline in the media was, "Government abandon ID cards from emergency legislation". When I replied "No" to the question that I was asked, it was an honest answer. That is not to say that the Government are still not considering the issue. I have not issued a "put down". I simply made the point that we were not rushing the matter, that there were no secret policies or plans and that the Government would discuss that matter and, if it was considered appropriate, we would bring forward proposals but that it would not be part of the emergency legislative package. It could not possibly be so in a country with nearly 60 million people. There are no "turf wars" in Whitehall.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall not say any more as anything I say will qualify that statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I referred to the British Transport Police, the MoD police and the atomic energy constabulary. Those police forces already operate. The atomic energy constabulary was armed many years ago when Tony Benn was the Secretary of State for Energy. I remember the legislation going through the House of Commons. It was "touchy" at one point. Nevertheless, their powers are highly restricted and curtailed. I made the point that there are probably grounds for extending some measures beyond particular sites. Obviously we shall hold full discussions on that matter. It would not make sense for proposed changes not to involve the co-operation of the police. Therefore, as I say, the matter will be fully discussed.
As I say, I cannot respond to all the points made but I shall do my best. We shall, of course, revisit the issue soon.
5.18 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord please help me? First, will he define "terrorist"? Secondly, will he remember that I have a vision of a man who was an Omagh bomber, leading a Rottweiler, carrying a target pistol and going to a football club to be a hooligan? All of the legislation covering those matters was passed in a rush and no one has taken a blind bit of notice of it. We have had terrorists in this country for 30 or 40 years now. We have introduced emergency legislation after emergency legislation after emergency legislation and it has not worked. I do not say that it is completely unnecessary, I just ask the Government to consider the matter carefully and to accept the situation if measures turn out to be illiberal and unnecessary.
370
Instead of being stubborn and saying, "We cannot resist", I hope that they will say, "Yes, we shall listen". That is the mark of a good government.
I produce one further small point for the noble Lord to consider. As regards stirring up religious hatred, we are in difficulty with monotheistic religions. The Christians quote Jesus saying, "Only through me can you have salvation". The Muslims say, "There is one god, no god but God, and Mohammed is his Prophet". The Jews say, "God loves us and no one else". Those are all pretty mutually exclusive bits of, some could say, unpleasant attitudes. We have to be very careful before we embark on such legislation, because it will be illiberal in concept and difficult to enforce and the charges will create martyrs.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Earl a legal definition, but it is a bit like the elephant on the doorstep: I will recognise a terrorist when I see one and so will the people of this country. We have had this problem with legislation in the past. It has been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Generally, the people of this country and the people who were affected by what happened on 11th September recognise terrorism when they see it.
On the noble Earl's other point about religion, there is one God and there are many prophets.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Government take this opportunity to review the rules that prevent the extradition of someone accused of serious and appalling crimes to other countries—even to an ally such as the United States—unless they change their domestic law on capital punishment?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is not true. We have extradited many people accused of heinous crimes to the United States. We have an agreement with the United States and the rules are clearly laid down. We will extradite if there are reasonable grounds, provided there is a commitment that those extradited will not be subject to the death penalty. That has worked. It has not proved a barrier to extraditing people to the United States and there is no reason why it should prove a barrier in the future.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Statement seems to envisage creating an arbitrary power of arrest and detention without trial and giving to the Home Secretary an arbitrary right to expel suspects, apparently without any form of judicial process or judicial examination of the merits of the case. Will the Minister assure us that, although the judicial review procedures may be streamlined, the Government do not intend to take away the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not qualified to give answers before full legal authority, but I think that I have made it clear, as the Home Secretary did throughout his Statement, that we are not seeking to remove appeal rights. We are seeking to streamline the position, for example by removing judicial review

371
from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I do not want to fall out with the legal nobles here. I assure the noble Lord that the legal industry, or legal trade, in this country will still be able to earn a living. We are not going to put them out of business, but neither are we going to let them misuse the legal process on key decisions to frustrate what we are seeking to do with our partners, as has happened in the past. That is all that we are seeking to do.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the Minister referring to Her Majesty's judges? It is they, not the lawyers, who take such decisions.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I shall refrain from the temptation to indulge in a lecture on theology or comparative religion, but I should like to comment on the Government's intention to act against incitement to religious hatred. No healthy religion has anything to fear from scrutiny and honest debate. That is not the problem. The problem arises when attacks on a particular religion are used as a cover for racism and xenophobia. There is no difficulty with religions such as Judaism, which belong to a particular ethnic group. Anti-racism legislation is sufficient there. The difficulty arises with religions such as Christianity and Islam, which, in principle, transcend all ethnic divisions, but which, in particular historical circumstances, have become associated with an ethnic group. Islam is not an inherently Asian religion, but in this country it is generally perceived as such, so attacks on Islam are used as a cover for incitement to hatred against people of Asian origin. That is the problem.
I know some people who do not think that there is a problem, but there is. They should see some of the material recently distributed by the British National Party urging parents to withdraw their children from religious education on the grounds that it is an instrument for the Islamification of Christian Britain. For those reasons, the Government's intention to legislate against incitement to religious hatred is welcome. However, will the Government be very careful in drafting their legislation to ensure that they hit the intended targets and do not give unintended protection to bogus groups, whose names we can probably all think of and who deserve no protection from the most searching scrutiny?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate made the case for me at the beginning of his remarks. We do not intend to define religion in the legislation as far as I am aware, because that is not the issue. The issue is criminal behaviour, which the courts can identify. There is no doubt that people have exploited religion as a cover for racial hatred. We are not seeking to ban or outlaw fair comment or debates within different religions. We are after the misuse of religion as a proxy for other purposes in the context of criminal behaviour. That is where the courts can be used to make the final decision.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I strongly support what the Government have recommended this
372
afternoon. It is entirely appropriate when faced with dangers such as those that we have faced since 11th September that the Government should bring in measures such as those that have been outlined. Indeed, they would be negligent in their duty if they did not do so.
We have been dealing with terrorism in our country for the past 150 years, but the nature of terrorism has changed significantly since 11th September. When the perpetrators of acts are prepared to destroy themselves in the process, new and uniquely difficult dangers are created for innocent people and prominent people. That is why the measures outlined have my strong support.
The Minister said that the Home Secretary was still considering two measures. One relates to those who, from the safe haven of Britain, still promote and support subversion and terrorism in their own country. I hope that those measures can be brought in relatively soon. As we shall be seeking to identify fanatical individuals and groups, we shall need much more intelligence about their activities, not only in this country but in the country from which they came. I very much hope that the resources available to the security forces will be increased significantly.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The nature of the threat has changed. If we do not recognise that, we and our fellow citizens in this country are in real trouble. However, that does not mean that we should over-react and destroy our way of life in meeting the threat. We have to be mindful of that. We need to use our brains to maintain the liberal tolerance of our society, but also to fight the new threat. That means change and accepting some duties that would not have been placed on citizens in the past. It means accepting a degree of intrusion. Communications is one example. We are not after the content of communications, but information such as the dates on which calls are made and which number rang which number. That will protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. The noble Lord is right about the intelligence services, because we cannot operate without good intelligence. We are looking at that issue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like my noble friend to address a single point on money laundering. I think that there is agreement among the general public that money laundering is one of the means by which terrorists help to organise their activities and get the materials and transportation that they require. I ask my noble friend whether he will try to ensure that the money laundering instructions or regulations that the noble Lord may have in mind will be much more precise in nature than the mere generalisations that have been offered over the past year or so. Those are so general in their effect that one can escape them very easily.
Money laundering is an activity that benefits not only the person who wants to launder the money but also the person or body who supplies it. Therefore, it is a very sensitive matter. Can my noble friend assure

373
me that some detailed precision will now be applied to the regulations that will be rigorously enforced? The Government should have studied the matter over the past year but the issue has now become vital. If we are successful in cutting off the money, we shall deal a very heavy blow against terrorism.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I say to my noble friend that the Statement which is to follow this one will probably be more specific to the financing of terrorism. However, the point that he makes is correct. If we do not apply precision to the legislation, the matter will end up in the courts. As a result, the legal profession and not Parliament will make the decisions. Therefore, the more precise that we are, the greater the chance that Parliament and not the courts will make the rules. That is a matter about which we are actively concerned.
I return to the subject of the proceeds of crime Bill. As I indicated, it is a substantial piece of legislation and there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss it. I hope that the length of the Bill is an indication of its precision. Obviously, a broad-brush approach would leave gaping loopholes all over the place. Therefore, we must hone in on and target exact offences; otherwise, the matter will be taken out of Parliament's hands and into those of the courts.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can answer the last part of the previous question concerning resources. We shall need a great many more people in the security services. Will he obtain the necessary money from the Treasury?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, there are no turf wars and we have joined-up government. At present, resources are being made available as required.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why should a person within the United Kingdom be allowed to board an aircraft without being required, if necessary, to prove his identity? Is there resistance within the department to the introduction of national identity cards?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have not kept embarkation details in this country for several years. Rather, the situation has gone the other way: we check those who enter the country, not those who go out. However, measures are in hand which I believe will meet the point to which my noble friend referred. As touched upon in my Statement, other legislation will deal with aircraft security, the swapping of information about people on flights before they land, and so on, so that the authorities receive good advance notice. I consider that to be important.
So far as concerns my noble friend's second point, the answer is no. There is no barrier in the department.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, convicted terrorists in my part of the world have for many years continued
374
their dastardly trade from behind bars. Are there no conditions under which Her Majesty's Government will consider the reintroduction of the death penalty?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. In any event, as I understand it, that has always been a matter for a free vote in both Houses. I believe that the issue has been put to bed. The subject has been debated in Parliament time and again, and the result has been the same. Therefore, I say that there is no prospect of reintroducing such a penalty.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in his remarks earlier, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us of the abiding scenes of the emergency workers in New York. We also recollect the rock solid qualities of the Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, standing in the midst of the mayhem and creating some order out of the chaos. I want to ask the Minister whether he is happy that, if, God forbid, similar circumstances were ever to occur in this country—here in the city of London especially but also in our other great metropolitan centres—there will be clear lines of authority. Will someone be seen to be in charge and able to gather together all the resources of the state to deal with such problems?
Coupled with that, and endorsing a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about the importance of intelligence gathering, does the noble Lord recall the occasion in the 1990s when intelligence was able to detect that the state of Iran sought to purchase chemicals from Poland? That attempt was thwarted by good intelligence. Indeed, two-and-a-half years ago his own department quite properly warned of the dangers of anthrax and smallpox being brought into this country. Does he agree that good intelligence is the best way for us to combat the evil of terrorism? The noble Lord, and, through him, the Home Secretary, has asked for the support of all sides of the House today. In principle, he is entitled to that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, contingency plans are, by definition, contingency plans. They are always being updated and tested. However, we do not advertise the fact and we do not make announcements. Exercises take place on an ordinary basis. During my time as a Minister since 1997 I have participated in contingency plans and exercises. However, that is not the type of matter about which one issues a press release. That would defeat the object of the exercise.
Obviously, post-11th September contingency plans have been considered, updated, extended and modified. I say with all sincerity that I have no reason to believe that a situation, as described or hinted at on more than one occasion, will arise in which we shall not know who is in charge in our great cities.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is my noble friend able explicitly to reassure the House that, amid all the important measures that are anticipated, the Government remain determined that one of the values which has been central to our life in Britain will be

375
upheld? Will Britain continue to be a safe haven for the genuine refugee and genuine asylum seeker? Can he reassure the House that we shall not in any way be driven from that commitment by the terrorists?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that absolute commitment. There is no question of undermining this country as a refuge and safe haven for those who flee persecution and torture. The fact is that those who genuinely flee persecution and torture are a minority of those who seek asylum. Because criminal gangs organise the trafficking of people in whose cases there is no shred of evidence under the 1951 convention, the concern remains that the genuine person who flees persecution may be prevented from reaching a safe haven. However, we do not seek to undermine our commitment to the 1951 convention or to undermine this country's proud tradition of being a safe haven for those who flee persecution and terror.

Action against Financing Terrorism
5.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to announce measures to cut off the supply of funds to terrorism.
"Those who finance terror are as guilty as those who commit it. So our response to the funding of terrorist acts must be every bit as clear, as unequivocal and as united as our response to the terrorist acts themselves.
"The action plan that I am placing in the House of Commons Library and making available in the Vote Office"—
I acid in parenthesis that they are also available in the Printed Paper Office and our Library—
"today arises from concerted work across governments, in particular from decisions of the G7 group of finance ministers and central bank governors on 6th October and will tighten the law, further empower the police, and strengthen co-ordination across the world.
"I can report to the House that, having already fully implemented UN Security Council Resolution 1267, on the Taliban, and UN Security Council Resolution 1333, on Osama bin Laden, the UK has now frozen 35 suspect bank accounts, immobilising more than £63 million of suspect terrorist funds.
"I can also report that by Order in Council following the latest UN resolution, Resolution 1373, we have frozen all UK bank accounts associated with the individuals and organisations named in the US Treasury suspect lists; the effort includes action this weekend by which bank accounts have been frozen and £180,000 belonging to those identified in Friday's updated lists have already been seized.
376
"Our UK domestic controls are already among the best in the world but, as part of the emergency anti-terrorism Bill that was announced this afternoon by the Home Secretary, the Government propose a new power to freeze funds when suspicious transactions are under investigation. They will be backed up by new reporting arrangements on financial institutions so that they must disclose not only known transactions that are destined for terrorism but also transactions about which there are grounds for suspicion.
"Clearly, a balance has to be struck between individuals' right to privacy and their security at a time of increased risk. However, we believe that there is a case for new powers for the police to monitor accounts that may be used to facilitate terrorism, for Customs to be allowed, where there are suspicions, to seize cash not only at our borders but also within the UK and for the Inland Revenue and Customs to share information and co-operate more effectively with the police. We do that because of the weight of evidence concerning the finances of Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda organisation, which are complex but which are becoming clearer daily. It is not primarily his personal wealth that supports the Taliban and active terrorist operations, but the profits from the drugs trade and other businesses and from individual and company donors. That money is channelled through a range of financial centres across the globe and the evidence already points to centres in the Gulf, Pakistan, and central Asia and to money laundering through an established underground banking system.
"The cells that form part of the wider Al'Qaeda network are often self-financing, and possibly use business fronts and crime to sustain themselves. Unravelling that relies on first-rate co-ordination.
"Since 11th September, security services, the police, the special branch and Customs and Excise, co-ordinated by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and our Armed Forces, have worked together to track down terrorist finance. I believe that the whole House will wish to express its gratitude to them. To enhance those efforts we now propose to establish and fund within NCIS a new multi-agency terrorist finance unit that is fully supported by additional special branch investigative resources.
"To further improve financial intelligence a new task force will also bring into the anti-terrorism effort the best academic, financial and commercial expertise and use the best skills of forensic accountancy to track assets. It will also investigate underground banking, which is often used for legitimate purposes, such as remitting earnings to far-away families and communities but which is also known to provide a very easy means by which criminals and terrorists can conceal the laundering of money and its movement around the world.
"Bureaux de change are another network by which money can be laundered and transferred. During the past 18 months, Customs and Excise has charged 89 people in connection with the laundering

377
of £590 million. I believe that that is just a start. In the consultation document that we are publishing today we therefore propose the implementation from 12th November of a new regime of supervision to ensure compliance with money laundering regulations; we will also consult on a registration charge. To make easier the tracing and tracking of criminal and terrorist assets we are also consulting on a new requirement for the proper disclosure of the beneficial ownership of companies.
"Large financial centres all over the world have an important part to play in cutting off the supply of terrorist funding. I am able to tell the House that many of the measures that we are bringing forward are to be replicated throughout UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories. They are announcing their own plans to introduce appropriate equivalent measures.
"The G7 finance ministers and central bank governors met in Washington on 6th October and concluded that a special plenary of the international financial action task force would meet later this month to agree the imposition, enforcement and monitoring of a new international standard to combat terrorist finance. The UK is also pressing for the United Nations to establish a permanent monitoring unit, for the IMF to provide expert help to countries setting up economic crime units and for the early ratification of the EU second money laundering directive and of the UN convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism.
"At those international meetings G7 ministers also had a chance to review the current state of the world economy. We expressed solidarity with the US Government and the whole of the USA after the tragic events of 11th September and agreed that the global economic challenge demanded a global response. Not only have interest rates been brought down worldwide but the central banks of America, the euro area, Japan and Britain have made clear their determination to take any necessary further action.
"Oil prices, which have previously risen in times of trouble, have fallen during the past month. We will continue to work with the oil-producing countries to ensure steadiness of supply and prices. Where markets have failed, as in airline insurance, governments across Europe and America have acted together, with a new short-term insurance guarantee.
"These remain uncertain and testing times. As governments and finance ministers work together, every one of us is conscious of the human consequences of economic uncertainty—there are particular concerns about employment. However, since 11th September, the world has acted together and decisively to maintain the conditions for stability and growth.
"The Government's assessment of the current state of the economy and our forecasts for next year will be published next month in the pre-Budget report for full discussion in this House.
378
"If fanaticism is the heart of modern terrorism, finance is its lifeblood. I believe that the whole House will agree on the need to move expeditiously to cut off the supply of terrorist finance. This House is once again demonstrating its unity and determination—it is standing firm, as one, to cut off all means of support to terrorism."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for giving us an opportunity to hear the Chancellor's Statement and for giving these Benches this opportunity to respond.
We remember the thousands of people who died in the attacks in September, but a month later people are still confused. In how many countries do the terrorists still have cells? How did they plan such a crime in total secrecy? Why even now do we lack intelligence about the whereabouts of a veritable army of men? However, there is one thing about the terrorists of which we can be sure—they must eat. And to eat, they must have money. As today's money is electronic, it should leave a money trail. However, as the Minister has just said, life seems to be more complicated than that.
We recall that in the second of our emergency debates the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House rightly said that the present supervisory oversight system for transactions in the UK has many weaknesses. He referred to the £63 million, which was mentioned in the Statement, that had been frozen in UK bank accounts as a drop in the ocean. That description must also apply to the £180,000 that was mentioned in today's Statement. He wisely advised that our best course of action in defeating terrorism might well be to follow the money.
We also recall the words of the US Defense Secretary, who said that we were now engaged in a cold war. We remember that the previous cold war, against communism, ended when the economic system of communism collapsed. I hope that today's Statement will bring forward the day when, in Mr Rumsfeld's phrase, terrorism also collapses from within. That is why these Benches wholeheartedly welcome the Chancellor's Statement and support bipartisan legislation that will demonstrate to our friends and enemies, here and abroad, that Britain stands with the US in the campaign to dismantle the financial infrastructure of terrorism.
I dare to hope that the Chancellor's new procedures will become a model for the gaining and sharing of financial intelligence. It is certain that a new approach is required. Many experts in the financial services sector are asking questions such as: what is terrorist financing? For example, are terrorist organisations moving funds into the UK banking system through third-party correspondent accounts at major UK banks or are they relying more on cash transfers through underground money services businesses? How did those people get credit cards and bank accounts without raising suspicion? If the attacks could be executed without leaving an obvious financial

379
trail, what might we be missing now? Finally, there is the chilling question of whether it is possible that terrorist financing is continuing undetected in the UK.
These are urgent questions. Our purpose on these Benches must be to help the Government to devise effective legislation and procedures to stop it, however it occurs. From what investigators have so far pieced together of the money trail, I find that there are still more questions than answers as to how the operation that culminated in the horror of 11th September was paid for. What we know suggests that we should place a much higher priority on non-traditional or "underground" banking systems that fall largely outside the scope of normal reporting and record-keeping requirements.
For example, the ancient money exchange system of "hawala" is virtually impossible to detect. Hawala is an Arabic word that means word of mouth. It is an international underground economic system by which people in different locations honour each other's financial obligations by making payments wherever needed. Such activities have no apparent victim and involve people who are legitimate businessmen in every other way. There is no movement of money between countries. It is hard to see how we can possibly detect such transactions or stop them.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, is he convinced that the proposals described in the Statement are adequate to address the particular features of terrorist financing which I describe? I am not sure. The new regime seems to be designed to detect the kind of money transfers associated with crimes that generate significant proceeds. It does not appear to be particularly well suited to catch an unconventional terrorist operation often financed by legitimate business activity.
Does the Minister agree that the fight against terrorism should not be regarded as a sub-issue of money laundering but as a battlefield of its own? My right honourable friend the Shadow Chancellor said in another place earlier this afternoon that money laundering involves making dirty money clean, but here we are dealing with a system which makes clean money dirty. Does the Minister agree that a recognition of the distinction between money laundering and terrorist financing should be at the heart of our approach, and that simply building on the same laws as may arise against money laundering may not prove to be the right course? For example, does the Minister agree that the proceeds of crime Bill seems to be particularly ill-named as a vehicle for the right kind of legislation against terrorist financing?
Secondly, this morning The Times newspaper reported that:
"The Home Office and the Treasury were unclear yesterday as to precisely how their responsibilities for the anti-terrorism measures were divided".
Is the Minister sure that there will be what the Statement called "first-rate co-ordination", or does he take the point made in one of our emergency debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—who I am pleased to see is in her place—that there are perhaps
380
too many bodies involved in this process? I believe that the noble Baroness cited the Treasury, the Home Office, the Financial Services Authority and the DTI. Can the Minister tell the House how the new unit described in the Statement will interact with those four bodies? Who will be in charge?
In summary, we see three major goals for government policy. The first is to bolster the ability of the police to find and destroy the financing f terrorist organisations, whether in banks or in underground hawala systems. The second is to establish a government-industry partnership to stop terrorist funding. The third is to track any terrorist money kept in foreign bank accounts and to increase foreign co-operation with the new UK and US policies. We shall support the Government in their efforts in those areas.
The best way for our Parliament to commemorate the lives of the victims is to ensure that the gates to the financial services system are locked to terrorists. Now is the time to draw the line.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, we shall have to look at the details of the proposals but, in general, we warmly welcome these measures. It seems to me of the greatest importance that there should be international co-operation and better co-ordination of services on the part of the Government in this country. These are practical measures and are likely to be an effective weapon against terrorism.
However, I have some questions for the Minister. First, what is the status of sanctions on non-co-operating countries? A number of countries have not co-operated on international measures in the past. In the Government's view, can the legislation deal with money laundering in the state funds of some developing countries and other countries; for example, in Nigeria, Indonesia and Russia?
Secondly, in the past there has been some coincidence between tax havens and money laundering. Do the Government see such a connection? If so, how will that affect their actions? Thirdly, I shall make a general observation. Towards the end of the Statement, the Chancellor refers to measures dealing with recession. I am sure that the Government agree that irrational and panic reactions are worsening recessions and thereby serving the aims of the terrorist. Do not the Government accept that some of the language used and statements made have increased public fears irrationally on both sides of the Atlantic? Should not there be, generally, more emphasis on operations against terrorism and rather less use of the language of war? Would not that be more effective in defeating the aims of the terrorists?
5.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Saatchi and Lord Taverne, for the general welcome they gave to the Statement. More than that I am grateful to them for their constructive approach in suggesting further

381
measures we might take, and, indeed, for a proper degree of criticism and realism about what is proposed.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that the key to all of this is the money trail. As he said, we must follow the money. He is right to say that support for bi-partisan legislation must depend on agreement on the way in which we propose to proceed. Perhaps I may say straightaway that the proposals put forward by the Chancellor do not rely principally or even largely upon legislation. Many of the measures announced by the Chancellor can be introduced either through Order in Council, as happened last weekend in response to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, or by administrative action, as the new units in the National Criminal Intelligence Service imply.
There is legislation, which is part of the spectrum of legislation referred to in the Statement given by the Home Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is right to say that the "proceeds of crime" is not a natural way to describe terrorist financing. On the whole, those are legitimate movements of funds which may be used for illegitimate purposes rather than the other way round.
Other powers will be needed. Some will require only secondary legislation; for example, the introduction for the first time of proper controls over bureaux de change. Some will require primary legislation, for example, wider grounds for freezing funds: greater police powers to seize cash and monitor accounts; greater monitoring obligations on banks and money-holders generally, and reporting obligations to Government. We shall certainly consult on those matters with the financial institutions concerned.
Reference has not been made to what may be a controversial element of the proposals; namely, a greater co-operation between departments. I am aware that that is a matter which concerns noble Lords, and rightly so as civil liberty issues are involved. I can only say that Parliament will be adequately consulted and will have an opportunity to express its views on those matters.
It is true that the kind of underground financial organisation which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi as hawala, is the most difficult type to identify. That is particularly so as there is no flow of money involved, simply the flow of oral promissory notes. I believe that the answer to that will be not legislation but intelligence, which the Chancellor has put forward in the Statement. Subject to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, I believe that such proposals deserve the support that he is prepared to give.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has quite rightly said that international co-ordination is the key. A large part of the Statement is about the G7 meeting on 6th October and the agreement to hold a wider group meeting before the end of this month. At that meeting consideration will be given to one of the issues properly raised by the noble Lord, namely; sanctions
382
on non-co-operating countries. Such sanctions are possible. The noble Lord also raised the issue of tax havens. The Statement made it clear that, as far as we are concerned, our Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are working on similar steps to those described in the Statement. Finally, he urged that we should not give way to panic reactions, which increase public fears. I entirely agree.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the measures applying to the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories will also apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had understood them to be included in the phrase, "Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories".
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the detailed legislative measures are tabled, consideration will be given to some of the devices used by criminals operating on the international scene? They do not conveniently have bank accounts in the names of terrorists. Corporations are widely used. There are two well known methods of concealment: first, nominee shareholdings, which make it impossible, under many legislative systems now in force, to know who owns a company; and, secondly, the peril of bearer shares. I know of a particular case involving criminality in one part of the Commonwealth, in which money was held in a company in the form of bearer shares, for which there is no register, making it totally impossible to establish the ownership of the company. It is therefore important to introduce some transparency into the very dark areas of finance of which these master crooks are already well aware. I hope that consideration will be given to that matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Neill, makes a very valid point. Reference is made in the Statement to the need, difficult to achieve, to identify and force financial institutions to identify the beneficial owners of shareholdings and funds. Unless we can do that, criminals and terrorists will continue to exercise ingenuity to conceal the true ownership of those funds. The funds that have been seized, particularly by the American Government, who have issued lists, are not held in accounts named, "Al'Qaeda Terrorist Account Number 1". Rather, they are held in the names of corporations and individuals. Therefore, effective intelligence and effective co-operation between the intelligence agencies is needed to ensure that those covers do not succeed. The controversial point is the obligation to reveal the beneficial ownership, and that affects bearer shares and a large number of devices that have for many years been supported by financial institutions in all countries of the world.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we all recognise that the sums involved in crime, particularly crime related to drugs, are enormous. However, it is apparent that

383
the sums involved in terrorism are rather remarkably small. I have seen an estimate—I do not know how reliable it is—of the total operation and administration cash cost of the atrocities of 11th September of little more than 500,000 US dollars. Does the Minister recognise that from 1st January next year, when the euro is introduced—and the biggest euro note will be 500 euros—the total amount required for such an operation, assuming that that figure is anywhere near correct, can be transported in something little larger than a fairly big paperback book? It therefore seems to me that the more sensible approach, as was mentioned earlier, is to investigate very fully the finances of suspected terrorists, rather than merely spending enormous resources on examining finances in the hope of finding the terrorists who might be using them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have seen an estimate that the total direct cost of the 11th September atrocities was more like 11,000 dollars because it represented 19 one-way airline tickets. It can be defined in a number of ways. It must cost a substantial amount of money to operate a network of terrorists in a large number of countries, with terrorists acting as sleepers in those countries, to train them in the first instance, to maintain communications with them and to supply them. But, of course, by definition it is an unknowable statistic. If we knew how much it cost, we would know where to find it and how to wipe it out. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is quite right that the profit to be made from drug smuggling and drug production and distribution is much greater than that which results from certain kinds of terrorist attacks. However, that does not mean that we need not do as much to eliminate finance for terrorism as we try to do in respect of drugs.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I should like to ask some questions about the role of the Financial Action Task Force, the organisation established some years ago by the G7 to undertake measures against money laundering. First, what role will the Financial Action Task Force play in the development of anti-terrorism measures in this country? Secondly, are the Government seeking to encourage other members of the G7 to extend the powers, scope and resources of the Financial Action Task Force? Thirdly, what will be the relationship between the Financial Action Task Force and the new organisation to be established, to which the noble Lord referred?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Statement refers to new organisations to be established in this country, and that clearly is not the proper homologue of the Financial Action Task Force. I think the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is seeking some indication of the way in which the international conference, which will meet before the end of this month and to which the Statement refers, will operate and how it will relate to the task force. There is no answer to that question. It still has to be determined.
384
I should make it clear that we act at all times in accordance with, and sometimes even in advance of, the actions of the United Nations. For example, we were one of the first countries to ratify the United Nations Convention on Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, passed in December 1999, ratified by us in February 2000, along with only Botswana and Uzbekistan. It is clear that much more needs to be done in the international sphere to ensure that international co-operation is pursued. That is why, as the Statement makes clear, we are pressing the United Nations to establish a monitoring and enforcement unit to make sure that we have the kind of co-operation that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, rightly desires.

Railtrack
6.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): With the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement concerning Railtrack: to describe to the House the worsening financial crisis facing Railtrack which led the Government to petition for railway administration on 7th October; and to outline the further measures that we intend to take to put the interests of the travelling public first.
"The House will be aware of the history of Railtrack. When the railway industry was restructured following the 1993 Railways Act, Railtrack was created.
"It was in 1996 that Railtrack was privatised. Railtrack was the only publicly floated utility subsidised by the Government, this subsidy making up the majority, in fact some two-thirds, of its revenue.
"After the Hatfield train crash, the whole network was urgently reviewed and fundamental safety issues addressed. This added significantly to costs, with Railtrack claiming it needed an additional £700 million a year to put the track into a proper condition.
"On 2nd April 2001, Railtrack asked for help because of pressing financial difficulties. We brought forward £1.5 billion of investment from the period beyond 2006 to the five-year period beginning on 1st April 2001. The first instalment of £337 million was paid on 1st October 2001. However in May, June and July, the company's position apparently deteriorated.
"Finally, on 25th July at a meeting in my office the chairman said that the position was far worse than it was thought in April. It was clear that unless extra financial assistance was provided, on 8th November when Railtrack was due to give its interim results, it would be unable to make the

385
critical statement that "it was a going concern". The effect of this would have been disastrous. Immediately I ordered intensive discussions with Railtrack.
"In August, Railtrack's advisers came back to the department and said that there were only three options: restructuring; renationalisation; or, as they described it, receivership. So it was Railtrack's advisers who first raised the possibility of insolvency if no additional government funding was available.
"I asked my officials to investigate the restructuring option, which involved the provision of yet more funding to Railtrack. Railtrack asked for government funding to cover all its costs, plus a profit, plus a four-year suspension of the regulatory system. That was Railtrack's proposal.
"Given the company's demands, we also began to prepare for the possibility that we might feel unable to provide additional funding and that, as a consequence, Railtrack would prove to be insolvent.
"To protect the interests of passengers it was clearly right to explore the need for railway administration on a contingency basis. As a result, preliminary contact was made with Ernst & Young on 23rd August.
"There were further negotiations and various modified proposals. But it was becoming obvious that the company could not continue unless we offered to fund whatever losses it might have for a period of several years. I took the view that I simply could not responsibly enter into such a guarantee on behalf of the British taxpayer.
"We carried on discussions until 3rd October, but no way out of the dilemma could be found. Either we gave the guarantee on money or the company became insolvent.
"On Friday 5th October, I reviewed all the relevant papers and considered all the options, including Railtrack's proposed rescue package and the additional funding that would be required. Railtrack's proposals were cast in such a way that it was hard to be sure the precise sum it was seeking, but it was effectively an open-ended funding request on the Government.
"I decided that I could not give Railtrack a blank cheque. I informed John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, on Friday afternoon of this decision and of my intention to petition the High Court for a railway administration order if the company was insolvent. This order was granted on 7th October.
"Railtrack was taken into administration because it was, or was likely to become, unable to pay its debts. Our petition to the High Court showed that there would be a deficit of £700 million by 8th December, rising to £1.7 billion by the end of March next year.
"In granting the order, Mr Justice Lightman said:
"This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential, and I shall therefore make that order immediately".
386
"Much has been made in the press of the position of shareholders. At the time of the April agreement the Government felt that we should make clear that the role of government should be to support the railway network, but that we should not be seen as acting as guarantor of individual companies or their shareholders. We therefore agreed with Railtrack a statement of principles. The first point in the statement reads as follows:
"The Government stands behind the rail system but not individual rail companies and their shareholders who need to be fully aware of the projected liabilities of the companies in which they invest and the performance risks they face".
"To ensure that this had a wide circulation in the City it was sent out through the Stock Exchange News Service.
"The directors of Railtrack have said that they want £3.60 a share. On our calculations that would require the transfer of up to £1.5 billion of new money from the taxpayer to Railtrack shareholders. We believe that it would be wrong to make new money available. We will not do it.
"In the light of the administration of Railtrack, we believe that we should now consider reshaping the structure of the industry in a way which recognises that the needs of the travelling public must come first. We shall be proposing to the administrator that a private company limited by guarantee be established to take over Railtrack's responsibilities. Any operating surplus it makes would be reinvested in the railway network. Such a company would have the needs of the travelling public and other users as its priority. With no shareholders we would remove the conflict between the need to increase shareholder value and the interests of rail passengers.
"The company we propose would have responsibility for operations, maintenance and renewals. It would have a small professional board of executive and non-executive directors. Performance targets would be set linked to levels of service, safety and value for money. It would have a board working on commercial lines but focused solely on delivering a safe, well-maintained rail network that is fit for the 21st century.
"The company would be able to promote collaboration and co-operation around the wheel and track interface, the absence of which has been one of Railtrack's weaknesses.
"A private company limited by guarantee would need far less intensive regulation. We therefore intend to streamline the existing structure while still recognising that there will be a continued need for some form of independent economic regulation.
"We shall discuss our proposals with the industry's key players, but we are clear that it is important for the new structure to provide the following: strong strategic leadership; a cut in the burden of day-to-day interference; an end to the self-defeating system of penalties and compensation; clearer accountability; and an end to perverse incentives.

387
"The new company we will be proposing would be able to raise funds in the market. Private sector funding would operate in partnership with government to deliver the 10-year plan objectives for rail. Under our proposals, we intend to offer all existing lenders to Railtrack plc the opportunity to transfer over to the new company with no loss of principal or interest. Any debt transferred to the new company will be financially sound and have, at the time of transfer, good long-term and short-term credit ratings.
"Mr Speaker, there are many talented and motivated people working in Railtrack. They have worked with dedication, in particular over the past seven days, and I want to thank them for that. I know that they and the rest of the industry want to see an improved railway system. I believe that with the demise of Railtrack that is what they will get. The Government are committing some £30 billion to the network over the next 10 years.
"The administration of Railtrack provides us with a golden opportunity to create a railway system which is united and not fragmented; a railway industry with a shared strategic vision; a railway industry which can respond to the needs of our time; and a railway network provider that answers to the millions of passengers and not private shareholders. Our decisive action makes all this possible and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. Before I start to attack the Government, perhaps I may express my sorrow for the noble and learned Lord who has just managed to leave the mess of the Dome only to move to the mess of Railtrack. Bad news appears to follow the noble and learned Lord.
This mess has been brought about by government bungling and mismanagement. The future of the whole rail industry is in tatters, and there is now little hope of the £34 billion of private sector investment, alongside the Government's £30 billion, required over the next 10 years going ahead. The Secretary of State has been caught out by the disgraceful behaviour of his own spin doctor. Ms Moore told a Sunday Times journalist who asked about Railtrack and possible administration:
"If you run that you will look like an idiot".
In fact, she used words worse than that. Next day, the Secretary of State made that announcement. When will Stephen Byers follow the advice of his own senior Back-Benchers in another place and get rid of Ms Moore? I remind noble Lords of her words within an hour of an aircraft flying into the World Trade Center:
"It's a very good day to bury bad news stories".
This is another bad news story. The Financial Services Authority is to investigate claims that the Secretary of State rigged the market for shares before forcing the company into administration. The
388
Railtrack group is considering suing the rail regulator under the Railways Act 1993 and bondholders are considering legal action. Class action suits brought by pension funds and other shareholders loom. Finally and importantly, the employees of Railtrack, 90 per cent of whom are shareholders, face losses and possible redundancies.
The Secretary of State forced Railtrack into administration without giving it the opportunity to appeal to the regulator. Can the Minister tell the House what meetings took place with Railtrack before the Secretary of State's announcement? At what date did the Secretary of State take the decision to formulate the plan to put Railtrack into administration? Is it riot true that Railtrack would have been solvent if the funding promised by government had been committed by them? This will have an effect on all the Government's other PFI initiatives. It is interesting that the rating agencies have reduced Railtrack bonds to junk status despite government promises. They do not believe the Government either.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister what the Government propose to do about the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, ownership of which is essential if the Railtrack group, as opposed to Railtrack itself, is to survive. The Secretary of State had accused Railtrack of not controlling its costs, but is it not true that those increased costs have been imposed by the regulator and the Government themselves so that Railtrack has been squeezed at both ends?
What guarantees can the Minister give that there will be sufficient public funding for the rail network in the future? The Minister said that a private company limited by guarantee would lead to less intensive regulation. Can the noble and learned Lord explain why? It will still raise funds in the market. Extraordinarily, the Secretary of State believed that this would be a good news story—a political coup—which would be welcomed as nationalising Railtrack and bringing it back into public ownership. Clearly, it is not. The Secretary of State ignored the advice of the Treasury and the Chancellor and rushed out an announcement.
But the most important group of people—the poor long-suffering passengers—have been left entirely out of the equation. The train operators do their best but in future. when passengers suffer delay, fares go up and track upgrades are put off, the Government will not need to blame; the blame will lie opposite with the Government.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As far as concerns the response of the Conservatives, they were the ones who privatised the railways and are responsible for the mess. Over 80 per cent of the delays in Great Western, for example, are caused by Railtrack. Railtrack is the root cause of the problem and is a very badly managed company.
We welcome the Statement and that users, both passengers and freight, will be put first in future. It is time that passengers were put first. The taxpayer needs

389
to come second and the shareholders some way behind. We have heard too much in the media about the plight of the shareholders but nothing like enough about the passengers and users. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that there will not be a north versus south railway so there is growth under the 10-year plan in this part of the country but nothing is done in the Midlands and the North. I hope that the Government remain committed to delivery of the growth targets under the 10-year plan. We are beginning to get behind in some aspects. We want to see the railway developed but we have seen precious little of it in the past two or three years.
I hope that in future the SRA will be a purchaser of freight paths and will sell them on retail to freight users and that the gap will be met by state subsidy. We shall need to know something about land in the future. We are ready to help if the Government stick to their principles. We want a new railway and certainly do not have it now.
I and, I believe, everyone who is connected with the railway welcome simplicity, which means abolishing the regulator and loss of performance regimes which now take up as much money as we see going into the system. Lawyers may provide some benefits but the complexity that they bring to the railway is of no benefit to anyone. Access should be based on the CAA model. We should license many fewer franchises and roll them forward. We should also have franchises which are responsible for track and signalling so that blame is not passed from one to the other as in the past.
With the exception of one or two tiny areas, we do not believe that competition has worked on the railway. Competition over the same lines is not something that passengers welcome. We want to see regulation of a number of fares on some franchises and some franchises which have profiteered brought within regulation.
As to safety, within self-contained franchises we should like to see an independent safety inspectorate, not the Health and Safety Inspectorate, which, quite honestly, has cost a fortune and achieved little for railway safety. However, we support Lord Cullen in the need for independent investigation of railway accidents.
I shall not say more tonight because there is not much to say until the Government bring forward their proposals. However, we on these Benches are willing to co-operate in everything that the Government do along these lines because we believe that the user will welcome the bonfire that is to be made of Railtrack.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the steps that we have taken from the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am also grateful for his recognition of the past difficulties in relation to the structure and the fact that he takes the sensible approach of seeing what happens next.
390
I am surprised that the noble Viscount did not mention that the Conservatives were responsible for privatising the railways and caused Railtrack plc to be set up. I am absolutely amazed that he did not see fit to refer to that as part of the cause of this problem. I am also interested that, although he had a political rant at the start of his contribution, he did not dispute one of the propositions in the Statement that I repeated, in particular that on 25th July the chairman of Railtrack said that in order for Railtrack to survive—that is, not to become insolvent—he needed a blank cheque from the Government for the next few years and the suspension of all regulatory control and after that he would consider the position. I do not believe that any sensible government, having investigated the position as thoroughly as we did, would accept that.
The noble Viscount asked whether, if we had given the £1.5 billion that had been agreed between the Government and Railtrack on 2nd April, Railtrack could have survived. If he had listened to the Statement he would have heard that Railtrack, in particular its chairman, said that it would be insolvent at the time of its interim accounts on 8th November if additional sums of money over and above the £1.5 billion were not given. Attempts were made to discover from Railtrack how much that was. It proved impossible to find out how much extra, over and above the £1.5 billion, would be required to keep the company solvent. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord's specific question is, "No, it would not have been possible to keep the company solvent with the £1.5 billion". That is on the word of the chairman of Railtrack.
The noble Viscount asked various other questions. He asked when the plan was formulated to put the company into administration. After the distressing news on 25th July, the Secretary of State rightly instituted contingency plans in order to see what needed to be done if it was necessary to put the company into administration. That was in parallel with the detailed discussions that were going on with Railtrack to investigate the position fully. Those contingency arrangements were started on 23rd August when Ernst & Young, the company from which the administrators were appointed, was approached. The final decision to put Railtrack into administration occurred on 5th October.
The noble Viscount asked about contacts with Railtrack. There were contacts between the department and Railtrack in May, June, July, August, September and October during which all of these issues were thoroughly discussed. So far as concerns the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Railtrack Group Plc has a contract with London & Continental Railways Limited, which requires it to buy section one of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. That remains the position.
With regard to less intensive regulation, the reason for that is because there will be no shareholders whose interests need to be balanced when one has a company limited by guarantee.

391
We wholeheartedly agree with the point that there should be no North versus South railway. In relation to growth targets and the 10-year plan, as the Secretary of State made clear in another place, we stand four square behind the 10-year plan and behind proposals that will bring about a much better railway for the travelling public.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we can start with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and then continue with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, in view of what has been said by the Opposition today, is it not surprising that it was Railtrack itself through its senior managers which in July suggested that the company should be placed in administration? Is it not surprising that not one word of that has been mentioned by the noble Viscount today? Secondly, does the Minister remember any occasion when a senior rail manager showed any concern for the rail network or for its passengers? Thirdly, is it not clear that Railtrack could not continue, either in law or for any other reason at all, as at present, and that the Government have taken the right step in applying to the court for administration?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, I agree with the proposition of my noble friend that it was surprising in the light of the venom with which the noble Viscount made his remarks that he failed to refer to the fact that it was indeed Railtrack which first mentioned "receivership" rather than "administration".
Secondly, I do not agree with the proposition that there is not one senior manager in Railtrack concerned about the network and the travelling public. There are a great many people working for Railtrack who are concerned about the travelling public and the network and who are keen to deliver as good a service as possible.
In relation to my noble friend's third point, I am sure that the focus should be on getting a structure that delivers just that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Willliams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thought we had agreed that it should be the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, next.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that Railtrack during its existence carried more passengers, increased passenger use of the railways and had a better safety record than did British Rail in the
392
equivalent time before it? Is it also not true that this is nationalisation by the back door? Furthermore, is it not also true that someone said that this old Labour, but at least old Labour paid 3.5 per cent bonds when it nationalised the London, Midland, Scottish and Southern Railways, LNER and LMS?
Furthermore, is it not true that what the Government have done is what Talleyrand said of Napoleon when he said that a gentleman may cheat on his wife or may run into debt, but that if he cheats at cards he is not trusted by his acquaintances and friends? It looks as if the Government have cheated at cards. When the Prime Minister is doing his level best to put on the high moral authority against terrorism, for the Government to look as if they are cheating at cards does not stand very well in their favour.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that was a very intemperate account of what happened. Yes, of course Railtrack, by comparison with a number of things that British Rail did, has shown improvements. But on 25th July 2001 Railtrack ended up in a position where it said that it required an unspecified amount of money and a guarantee from the Government in order to remain solvent. Of course people who invest in shares recognise that they are taking some risk. It was for the Government to decide whether in the circumstances which presented themselves on 25th July it was right to commit the British taxpayer to an unlimited guarantee over a number of years, or to face up to what had happened; namely, that Railtrack was then insolvent. In those circumstances, the consequences for the shareholders were bad. However, I have no doubt that it was correct for the Government to face up to those consequences. That was not remotely cheating; it was facing up to what had happened.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the problem at the heart of the Railtrack privatisation was the incompatibility between serving the public interest and enhancing shareholder value, despite the fact that the Railtrack licence says quite clearly that the public interest must come ahead of the shareholder value? Is it not that which led to the huge escalation in the cost of investment projects now calculated at anything between 2.4 and three times what similar projects used to cost pre-privatisation? Furthermore, as a result is there not a much overdue need for a new company along the lines which my noble and learned friend described in the Statement, and will not that be widely welcomed not only on these Benches and on the Liberal Democrat Benches but by the millions of people who use the railway system as well as by the thousands who work on it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is possible to debate for some considerable time the precise causes of the problems. The structure, to which my noble friend referred, plainly has a part to play. But, whatever the precise causes, on 25th July and in the few weeks that followed we ended up with a company that

393
could not identify the amount of money it required to remain solvent. That is not a basis upon which it would be possible to provide the travelling public with the service that they are entitled to expect.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, shall we try the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, first and then definitely the noble Lord, Lord Peyton?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, can the Minister confirm newspaper reports that the Government want to experiment with the vertical integration of the industry in Scotland? Can he also confirm that there will now be more chance of an expansion in the network, particularly, for example, the reopening of the Stirling Alloa Dunfermline Railway?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the intention is to have a company limited by guarantee. That company will deal with the operations, maintenance and repair functions of Railtrack. That company will be able better to deal with the interface between wheel and track. Larger projects will be dealt with by special purpose vehicles. I do not think that it is right to go further than that at this stage because one needs detailed discussions with the industry on how to take the matter forward.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that I take the Minister with me to the extent of saying that perhaps the last way of dealing sensibly with a matter of this complexity is the one that we are using now. It will not work. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that I never thought that Railtrack was anything but a pretty dud idea. When the government who introduced that company departed from office, I was fairly confident that the then opposition party would rush to put things right. But it did not do that, and I suspect that the reason why it did not do so was that it knew well that an industry that was pretty much bankrupt would simply resort to relying on the Treasury to act as a banker. That is a death warrant for any venture.
I hope that the Minister will accept that I think the Secretary of State is to be envied in one matter alone; he has had at his disposal the noble and learned Lord's skill in defending the indefensible this afternoon. I hope very much that we shall have a proper debate on this matter, opened with a much fuller explanation from the Minister. It is easy to pretend that all was well, but I simply cannot credit it that the Minister concerned is not putting his own skin above every other consideration. I do not refer to the noble and learned Lord; I refer to the Secretary of State, whom the noble and learned Lord at the Dispatch Box has had the heavy burden of representing today.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I should correct what I said from a sedentary position. I am sure
394
that it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, opposed rail privatisation throughout the time that the proposals went through Parliament. He has been completely consistent in saying that it was a bad idea since it was first adumbrated. I think that few people would now disagree with the views that the noble Lord expressed at the time.
We thought that the right thing to do would be to try to make the system work in order to deliver good services to the travelling public. The noble Lord has stated that we are now going about it in the wrong way. Our hands were considerably tied by the simple proposition that, once it became apparent that Railtrack was insolvent, there was no option but to make that fact public and then make arrangements to protect the creditors. As the Statement made absolutely clear, if the choice was between a blank cheque from the Government to be issued for years to come or to face up to the insolvency of Railtrack, we think that the right course was to face up to that insolvency. I have not yet heard one dissenting voice in the Chamber in regard to that decision.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am concerned and mystified as regards how the new company will be able to raise any capital. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to give the House some clarification as to how he envisages such a vast amount of capital will be raised.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the new company will be able to raise capital on the basis that it will be a company limited by guarantee, with certain assets guaranteed by certain people. In that way, the company will be able to raise money.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their move to put Railtrack into administration. I believe that it is an event which has been coming for a long time. To that end, I cannot understand the complaints being made by shareholders who say that they did not know anything about the problems. Can my noble and learned friend confirm that if any shareholders had read the technical press or had listened to comments about Railtrack's performance over the past year they would have been able to form their own judgment? Personally, I do not believe that they deserve much compensation.
I am pleased that my noble and learned friend has confirmed that extensive consultation will be carried out with the industry. This is a complex situation and I am glad that my noble and learned friend is keen to see that the trains continue to run.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Perhaps I may put a question to my noble and learned friend. Rail Freight is in the final stages of a regulatory review of freight access charges which, it is said, will reduce those charges by around 50 per cent. I believe that the regulator is due to announce that any day now. Can my noble and learned friend confirm

395
that this arrangement will stand and that the Government will guarantee that finance? It is extremely important for the rail freight industry.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the position of Railtrack shareholders, I think that it would be wrong to make any specific comment save to say that my noble friend is right. The difficulties in which Railtrack found itself had been widely reported in the press. While it is true to say that the precise extent of those difficulties might not have been known, it was clear that a question mark and a risk overshadowed Railtrack.
Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on the issue of freight charges.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the Statement contains a wonderful phrase that I should like to repeat:
"The company will be able to promote collaboration and cooperation around the wheel and track interface, the absence of which has been one of Railtrack's weaknesses".
From that it would appear that the Government agree with those of us who believe that the separation of rail infrastructure from rail operation was a major flaw in the way that the rail industry was privatised. In the light of that, does the Minister believe that the ability merely to promote collaboration and co-operation will be enough to deliver the kind of changes which everyone knows are needed in the rail industry? It would be a grave mistake to think that simply removing shareholders from the equation and creating a "Son of Railtrack" will make a significant difference.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the promotion of collaboration will not be sufficient; collaboration itself is required here. We have indicated and outlined the kinds of proposals that we think should take the matter forward. But, as I have said, proper consultation now has to be carried out with the stakeholders, including those experienced in the running of railways.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the Statement the Government made it clear that they felt that they had acted properly and with perfect propriety. However, it is clear that in the City of London there is a substantial body of opinion that takes exactly the contrary view. At a time when the Government are looking to the private sector to raise equity funds to support our public services, notably the National Health Service, do they recognise that tremendous damage has been done to their credibility as a partner with industry and with financial institutions? Only a relatively small group of companies and banks have the potential to become involved in PPP or PFI projects. What will the Government do to remedy the undoubted damage that has been caused, whether or not it was intentional, to their ability to persuade the private sector to participate in public projects?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is most important to set the facts on the record as regards what
396
has happened. The vital fact here is that a decision had to be made by the Government in the face of Railtrack's need for an uncapped guarantee in order to avoid insolvency. That has been made clear in the Statement delivered by my right honourable friend in another place and which I have repeated in this House. I think that the noble Lord is saying that a guarantee of that kind has to be given in such circumstances because it was a privatised company. We do not think that that follows. We think that the right course was to take steps to protect the company from insolvency by appointing an administrator. That involves a very significant reduction in the value of the shares in Railtrack Group plc, but there is nothing remotely improper about that course; far from it. It was the course which the law required.
Baroness Gibson: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that the new company will have at its heart questions of health and safety? Bearing in mind the atrocious record of Railtrack over those issues, that is now much needed. Perhaps I may declare an interest as a former commissioner for health and safety.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can confirm that health and safety will be put right at the heart of any new arrangements made in relation to the railways.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall declare a non-interest by saying that I do not hold shares in anything. For that reason, I recognise that the noble Lord who spoke a little earlier in our debate knows more about the need for shareholders to read the relevant press reports and to keep themselves informed on what is taking place. However, I understand from newspaper reports that many of the shareholders are people who have worked all their lives for Railtrack. They believed in what they were doing and invested their not overly large savings in it. While I recognise that the Government cannot take on everyone's mistakes, I hope that something can be done in consideration of those people who thought it loyal and sensible to invest in the industry for which they have worked all their lives. I hope that that group will be helped in some way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that nothing I have said reflects anything other than regret about what has happened to those shareholders. But we must return to the basic dilemma faced by the Government: should an uncapped guarantee be offered, lasting for years? That would mean that taxpayers' money would have to be spent. Alternatively, should steps be taken to protect the company from insolvency? We have taken the view that the company should be protected against insolvency.
There is some value in Railtrack Group, which is the company quoted on the Stock Exchange. It is dramatically less than it would otherwise be as a result of the insolvency of the plc. Only time will tell what is the residual value in relation to that company, which is where the shares are. So it may be that there is some value there.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to issues of health and safety in answer to a previous question. Can he say who is in charge of safety now? The Minister has made it quite clear that the person who calls the shots in this business is his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He also referred to the administrator, who is, as I understand it from the Statement, running the business. Is the administrator now the person where the buck stops in relation to safety, or is it the Secretary of State?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the company which is in administration continues to have the legal obligations in relation to safety. It is supervised in relation to that by the Health and Safety Executive. So the arrangements in relation to safety remain, legally, exactly as they were before the administration.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, as one who declares an interest only in a return to a situation where I can use the West Coast Main Line between London and Glasgow, which has been run down under Railtrack to a state where that is no longer a pleasant proposition, I echo the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, when he stated that it is important that whatever emerges from the restructuring—which I believe will be widely welcomed—does not serve only London and the South East but has wider benefits.
This may be an unfair question to ask the Minister, but I shall ask it nevertheless. Given the dissembling, I use the term advisedly, of the chief executive of Railtrack in terms of "ambushes" and apparently forgetting that it was Railtrack's own advisers, Credit Suisse First Boston, who first raised the question of insolvency as long ago as August, can my noble and learned friend assure the House that if the chief executive demits the post—I am not sure whether that has been confirmed—he will not be given any kind of golden handshake? Failure must not be rewarded.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I repeat what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. We fully appreciate the importance of a rail network which serves the whole country. Anyone who lives outside London knows very well how important is the rail network outside London, just as it is to the people who live in London and work in London.
It would be invidious of me to comment on any arrangements that are matters for Railtrack and the administrator.

Office of Communications Bill [H.L.]
6.53 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I first declare an interest. I am currently chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission and I was previously deputy chair of the Independent Television Commission. I therefore
398
speak for myself. It is quite clear that any comments on behalf of the regulators are made by the Minister and, in accordance with the rules and conventions of the House, the views I express are simply my own.
I welcome the Bill and I warmly welcome the intention to set up Ofcom. It is right that there should be a light regulatory touch, although I accept that this is easier in theory than in practice. I also welcome the fact that the intention is that Ofcom will not merely be the sum of the five bodies going into it but will have an independent structure and life of its own. It is however to be noted that the five bodies—I believe that there are four regulators plus the Secretary of State in the terminology—are working closely together and establishing close co-operation. That augurs well for a smooth transition to Ofcom when it happens.
It has always been clear that having several regulators with overlapping functions led to confusion and, in some instances, resulted in double jeopardy for broadcasters.
I also welcome the fact that within the concept of Ofcom there is to be technological advance. That means that it is right that the new regulator should cover not only broadcasting but related issues such as the Internet and broadband.
We should ask the question of why it is necessary to regulate broadcasting at all? The answer is that as a society we have long accepted certain values attached to broadcasting. We have usually used shorthand and called it "public service broadcasting". We have accepted that market forces and competition, which have an importance and strength in the scheme of things, may not in all instances protect those values or ensure that the values we believe in are featured sufficiently prominently in broadcasting. So we need to intervene in that process and, hence, we need to have regulation.
There is a cost in this. It may be the BBC licence fee, it may be the way in which independent television companies operate and the way in which Channel 4, with its unique position, operates. We should recognise that there is a cost and that it is part and parcel of the way in which we have broadcasting arrangements in this country.
I do not want to spend a long time defining public service broadcasting. Very briefly, there are certain elements which are important: there should be adequate coverage of news and current affairs; coverage of the arts, culture and religion; proper diversity in our broadcasting media; proper emphasis on regional broadcasting and on regional production. Those are elements in what we would call public service broadcasting.
My noble friend the Minister mentioned in her speech that the Bill gave the Government the ability to time the key appointments to Ofcom in a sensible way, neither too soon, when there would be a bunch of able people not having much to do, nor too late, which would impede a smooth transition to the new body. That is important.

399
It is quite clearly understood that the five bodies—the four regulators and the Radiocommunications Agency—represent different cultures, different degrees of independence and, in some cases, dependence on government. The most important single issue before us today is that Ofcom will be a large and powerful body. It is crucial that it should have a cutting edge; that it should not be a bureaucratic elephant but able to move speedily, flexibly and dynamically in an industry which is both dynamic and changing rapidly. The worst outcome would be if Ofcom were to be an insensitive body which could not get on with the job because it was large and unwieldy.
It is therefore crucially important that the people to be appointed—the chair and the small number of non-executive directors—are people who accept the need for a body with a cutting edge. Those non-executive directors will set the tone and appoint the chief executive. That is the crucial task before them long before the Communications Bill comes into force.
I have considered whether there is any way of reducing the size of Ofcom—it will have a large staff—but that will be difficult given the size of the five bodies that will go into it. We are, as it were, stuck with the size of it. It is therefore important that the culture and mode of operation is dynamic and not bureaucratic.
There is a related issue. Given the power that the new regulatory body will have, will there be a mechanism whereby people can appeal against its decisions? Clearly a complicated appeals process will slow things up. I am not certain whether there will be any redress at all. I simply pose the question.
I trust that the people appointed to Ofcom will be fully aware that they are charged with protecting the interests of citizens and will also have a responsibility for the economic wellbeing of the industry, broadcasting, the Internet and so on. From this it follows that the people appointed must be able to exercise their judgment in achieving the right balance between the two pressures of protecting the citizen and looking after the well-being of the industry.
I recognise that there will be an enormous difficulty for the Government in achieving regional representation. They are under great pressure from Scotland, Wales and elsewhere. It will be difficult. If the main board of Ofcom is to be large enough to encompass all of the different regional and other interests, it will not be the kind of board which will manage Ofcom as effectively as it ought. It would not be advisable to have regional representation through the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly because the appointments should surely be subject to the Nolan procedures and a nomination from elsewhere would go against that.
The difficulty lies in the fact that if the main board of Ofcom were large enough to encompass all the different regional and other interests, it would not be the kind of board that would manage Ofcom as effectively as it ought to do. It would not be advisable to have regional representation through the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern
400
Ireland Assembly. Appointments should surely be subject to the Nolan procedures, and a nomination from elsewhere would go against that principle. The difficulty arises of making the board too big if regional questions are too strong—although I understand the force of the argument for some regional representation.
One way round the difficulty may be for the proposed content committee—a committee under the main board with lay representation looking after the important area of content—to have some regional representation in order to provide a sense of balance.
The Minister suggested that that we should focus mainly on the Bill that is before the House. However, she invited us to speculate mildly about the communications Bill that is to follow. Perhaps I may take her advice and speculate a little, given that I shall not be the only one who does so. I believe that my noble friend will understand the motive. It is not that we expect an answer from the Minister who will reply to the debate; we merely wish to put down markers which I hope will influence the Government as they finalise the drafting of the communications Bill.
First, I welcome enthusiastically the Minister's willingness that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny. That will greatly facilitate our task when the full Bill comes before the House. I hope it will be possible for the parliamentary draftsmen—are they draftsmen, or draftsmen and women?—to consolidate in the communications Bill the previous two broadcasting Bills. Otherwise, we face the nightmare of having three Bills on our knees while we are trying to sort matters out. The Minister's task will be significantly facilitated if there is a consolidation measure.
I turn briefly to the BBC. Of course, there will be plenty of chances to debate it later. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the BBC and what it stands for. However, I believe that it is in the interests of the BBC that it should come under Ofcom. Otherwise, the arguments about how the BBC operates in regulatory terms will be between the Secretary of State and the BBC, which would be the unhealthiest possible position for the BBC. It is much healthier, in the case of any regulatory argument, for the BBC to receive a slight wrap on the knuckles from Ofcom rather than there being a major row between the Government and the BBC. It is because I have such respect and affection for the BBC that I argue in favour of it coming fully under Ofcom.
I have referred to the desirability of a content committee in terms of regional representation. I believe it to be important also in terms of having a proper focus on content matters, which may not otherwise receive enough attention from the main board.
I am concerned about digital switchover. I understand that the majority of television sets presently being purchased are analogue sets. We must find some way of moving towards the Government's target dates for digital switchover. I know the difficulty: it is not just a matter of one black box per

401
household; it is the fact that there are so many television sets in most households and achieving digital switchover for all of them is difficult. The Government would surely not wish to upset all the young people and teenagers who have second, third and fourth sets.
I shall not comment on media ownership beyond saying that I accept that it is a difficult question for the Government. I shall look with interest to see how they wrestle with it. Radio is of great importance as one of the broadcasting media. I am delighted that a task paring report acknowledges that in terms of ensuring proper consideration for radio within the structural arrangements.
During the Labour Party conference I had an interesting meeting with independent producers who felt that their competitive position was seriously eroded by the kind of contracts they had, particularly in regard to the BBC and but also with other broadcasters. It may be that Ofcom itself is not the right body for protecting competition, but I should like to feel that we can achieve a better arrangement than presently exists if we are to give independent producers a better chance than they have at the moment.
Finally, I welcome the idea of a consumer panel, provided that it is made clear that the panel is not an alternative to the content committee of Ofcom dealing with complaints. If we confuse people, we simply repeat the present muddled situation. The consumer panel has a part to play, but it is not the body to which complaints should primarily be addressed. That is an issue for debate when the full Bill comes before the House. I apologise to my noble friends on the Front Bench for spending rather more time on the measures that I should like to see in the communications Bill than on the Bill that is before the House. I welcome the present Bill. It offers a sensible way forward for a very important industry.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking your Lordships and the Officers of the House most sincerely for the warmth and helpfulness of the welcome extended to me since my arrival in this place.
Even so, I address your Lordships on this particular topic with great diffidence that—is not merely because it is getting late—for this House is packed with communications and broadcasting experience and expertise, including most of my predecessors and successors as chairmen of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. Your Lordships have just heard the quality of my successor as chairman. Following that, I am rather surprised that I dare to speak at all!
Let me first emphasise that I see broadcasting as an important influence on us all. It helps to shape our attitudes, our culture, indeed the very way our democracy develops—critical your Lordships may think, at this unhappy time. I am a lifelong and, for the most part, enthusiastic consumer of British
402
broadcasting, sound and vision alike. I know from my travels that its literally global reputation for quality, diversity and impartiality is well deserved.
I understand as well the need to re-examine our regulatory framework. Change is inevitable. But we need to be sure, as we make those changes, that we do not risk losing strengths which have helped to shape and to secure the quality of British broadcasting. That is the basis on which we need, in my view, to consider the plans that are now in their early stages before this House, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
I start with one firm conviction. I believe that our experience has established the importance of having a visibly objective, independent statutory body to draw up codes of guidance and to receive complaints of the kind considered over 20 years by the Broadcasting Standards Commission and its predecessors. It must be a body empowered to consider—again, I emphasise, independently—both sets of issues that fall within the present remit of the BSC: taste and decency, and fairness and privacy.
How far do the present models, as they begin to be outlined in the White Paper, measure up to those standards? Perhaps I may say a word first about "taste" and "decency". Those two rather prim words tend to obscure what we are actually talking about. We are discussing the possible impact of unsuitable material at unsuitable times. I refer to the portrayal of sex, bad language and violence beamed directly into our homes. Competitive pressures in the broadcasting industry have pushed the boundaries of taste and decency ever further. The evidence, unsurprisingly, shows continuing concern, particularly about violence, and particularly about the impact of such material on children and vulnerable individuals.
In these circumstances, and with at least 60 per cent of even multi-media equipped viewers still preferring the public service "free-to-air" channels, I find it disconcerting, to say the least, that it is apparently proposed in the White Paper to leave decisions on this kind of complaint largely to the broadcasters themselves. They will be less transparently and independently accountable than now. That would contrast sharply with the move towards greater accountability almost everywhere else, from the health service to the railways—indeed, even in your Lordships' House.
As it appears, under the system proposed for taste and decency, broadcasters are to be both judge and jury in their own case—except where the complaint has not been dealt with "in a timely manner"—a somewhat quaint phrase drawn from paragraph 6.4 of the White Paper. I should be grateful if the Minister—if not in his reply then at some other time—would explain the thinking behind that. How exactly is "timeliness" to be determined, and by whom? What is to be done, and by whom, in respect of a decision affecting taste and decency which may indeed have been "timely" but where the broadcaster's reaction was perhaps unsatisfactory in every other respect?

403
I turn now to "fairness or privacy", or rather to the handling of complaints of unfairness or unwarranted infringement of privacy. On this topic, I am glad to say, the 'White Paper's analysis is clear, save in one important respect, of which I shall say more in a moment. For it recognises—here I quote from paragraph 6.5.2 of the paper—that,
"because of the invasive and powerful nature of broadcasting",
people should have,
"the right to complain directly to an independent body which is able to make, and ensure the publication of, adjudications".
Every word of that description of the present position is crucially important. The White Paper goes on to describe this approach, quite rightly, as,
"often the most effective means of redress for individuals or groups whose reputation may have been damaged",
and promises that the,
"right to seek such redress … will be retained as an important remedy for those … affected by a programme".
So far, so very good. I am glad to read and quote:
"This function is currently performed by the Broadcasting Standards Commission"—
as indeed it is, in respect of the BBC, as well as the commercial channels. As has already been pointed out, in the case of the BBC the Broadcasting Standards Commission is the only independent supervisory agency. For this purpose the commission uses "hearings", where both sides present their case in a simple, compact and mutually informative procedure.
The question—and my most important point—is whether the proposed new structure will ensure the continued transparency, effectiveness and, above all, independence of existing arrangements, including, for cases about unfairness and infringement of privacy, hearings of the existing kind. For the White Paper concludes that this will in future be available from Ofcom itself; or, indeed, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, possibly from a content board.
It is here that some of the most important uncertainties arise. Will Ofcom have, as it will surely need, the same explicit, statutory powers as the Broadcasting Standards Commission now has? Will they extend, as they do today for taste and decency as well as fairness and privacy, to the BBC? If not, why not? Who will make the decisions on complaints: staff, commissioners, or some other grouping?
In the case of the Broadcasting Standards Commission—in order to avoid the risk of so-called "agency capture"—care has been taken to secure a regular turnover of the membership of this independent commission. I stress that it is the members themselves who make the decisions on complaints.
Will it be possible to ensure the same detached relationship if the adjudicator—the content board, or whatever it may be called—standing between the aggrieved citizen and the broadcaster (and acting, I may say, in a quasi-judicial capacity) is so closely identified with Ofcom, the body whose primary purpose is managing the industry?
404
I see, of course, the case for reducing and rationalising the number of regulatory bodies. But I have to ask your Lordships: can we be sure that it is right to go for a single, huge integrated regulatory body? Should we not consider at least a "two body" approach—by continuing the existence of something more like the commission, a body with at least the same degree of independence?
I am all for having a "tidy mind". But the trouble with tidy minds—if I may outrageously mix my metaphor—is that they sometimes try to go "a bridge too far".
7.14 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, it is my pleasant privilege on behalf of your Lordships' House to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on her maiden speech. I do so wholeheartedly. It will have surprised no one remotely acquainted with the noble Baroness that her speech was succinct, resonant and full of rich goods no doubt waiting to be unwrapped at a later stage.
The achievements of the noble Baroness are dauntingly wide ranging—from the Equal Opportunities Commission and chairmanship of an inner London juvenile court for 20 years to, relevantly for us here today and as we have heard, chairmanship of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which, ironically, we may now be set to subsume into Ofcom. However, most tellingly for me, was her decision to take a degree as a mature student at the formidable London School of Economics. We await the noble Baroness's further interventions with some apprehension, as well as with keen anticipation.
Like other speakers, I must begin to talk on this Bill by declaring an interest. I work for Granada Television. I also work for BBC Radio—perhaps they cancel each other out. But the interest that I most want to declare is in public service broadcasting, in which I have worked for 40 years in the BBC, in ITV and in Channel 4. The British system of broadcasting is uniquely characterised by that public service tradition throughout. This is key to the issue of Ofcom.
It is easy to see public service in the BBC. Channel 4 was set up—with ITV money—to be a public service channel, commercially underpinned and it succeeds very well. Most remarkably of all, I think, ITV contributes massively to the public service coffers, at no charge to the viewer. It provides over 10,000 hours of news and other regional programming per year. Your Lordships might not know that that is twice as much as BBC1 and BBC2 combined. It also has a programme spend on creative talent in this country that is the biggest spend on any single channel in Europe. This is now at risk.
I believe that the public service notion cannot be kept out of this evening's debate. Like others among your Lordships, I wish rather to digress to tackle this point, or rather speculate, licensed by my noble friend the Minister. I welcome legislation that will enable Ofcom to be set up and running as soon as the full communications Act is brought into force, providing that it is fashioned to suit conflicting needs, which are

405
now—and quite cannily—individually tailored. But the arrival of Ofcom throws into relief the harmfully, even fatally, slow progress of the communications Act itself, which has been promised for so long—since 1997—and is now pushed back yet again to 2003 at the earliest, by which time it could be the lifebelt offered after the subject has drowned.
The danger signals in commercial television are surely unmistakable. To ignore them is to imperil a valuable commercial and public service enterprise. Ofcom is to be welcomed. But surely it must include the BBC in its remit. To leave out the BBC—approximately 50 per cent of broadcasting business—makes as much sense as having a regulating power for food standards yet leaving Tesco and Sainsbury to regulate themselves. No doubt they would do it responsibly, but the greater points are fairness, transparency and consistency and, for that, everyone needs to be under the same authority, which would be diminished without the BBC as the BBC would, I believe, be diminished without—that is to say, outside—Ofcom.
No one doubts the integrity of the BBC's governors. I am sure that your Lordships wish the new chairman well. No one doubts the high aspirations of the BBC to which the present director-general is devoting his great skills and energies. But the BBC must not be allowed to be a state within the state. Ofcom could become a powerful instance and metaphor for that.
Recently, when the BBC failed to get BBC3, a senior BBC executive said:
"The BBC will get what it wants. The BBC always does".
Even someone like myself, who is a 100 per cent supporter of the BBC, felt a chill come to the blood. No organisation should believe that it can behave like that in our country, and certainly not one wholly subsidised by the people to the tune of £2.5 billion a year.
If Ofcom is not allowed to engage with the BBC, then, like it or not, this will be further proof that the traditional personal and philosophical intertwining of a powerful government and by far the most powerful broadcaster is again prepared to lock forces against the rest of the broadcasting community. There was never a good time to do that. This is, and critically I believe, a very bad time to do it.
Do BBC governors fear to lose their independence if they accept Ofcom? They need not. Granada, under the ITC, which many think could set out proofs to show, is much tougher than the BBC governors. Granada still acts independently. Surely transparency ought to be welcomed by the governors, and consistency—that old level playing field; not a bad image; not an ignoble ambition in a democracy.
The fate of Ofcom will be a crucial signal to commercial, independent television in this country. Bluntly: is it truly part of the agenda, or not? Is this a country that wants commercial television or does it merely tolerate it? Is it prepared to see it wither, in effect, or will it make it part of its central broadcasting concern?
406
It is interesting in this context to look for a few signs. Granada and Carlton, for example, have invested £800 million in the UK's digital terrestrial platform, with £300 million more to go—yet the Government have failed to follow up their promised commitment to drive digital TV, and the result could be catastrophic. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place could help by deciding that a digital component be built into every new television set. That would help manufacturing too. A date for switch-over could be announced, allaying many of the uncertainties. Much else could be done, but there are no signs.
Yet more super-tax is being demanded from ITV while its losses mount. Are there any signs that cross-media ownership rules for TV and radio could be relaxed with instant and direct benefits from the regional to the international scene? Are there any signs that advertising, an essential driver in our society, should have its voice heard? There are still no signs.
There is more, but I shall add only one observation. Recently, the BBC secured not only a new and munificent licence fee settlement, but the Government reopened the previous government's settlement two years early—plenty of signs there. Remember, "The BBC will get what it wants. It always does", as the man said. It is odd, even bizarre. It is no wonder that the rest can feel left out in the cold.
The issue is not only about Ofcom, but about taking the whole of broadcasting equally seriously. It not so much level ground as common ground. The BBC should make alliances and lead. It has nothing to fear. We are a trading country that could enjoy much fuller rewards from one of the world's four great global industries—communications. It is right to support the BBC, but to favour it and conspicuously disadvantage so much else could mean that we miss great opportunities for skills to develop, in manufacturing, in job creation, and in making the best of the rich mix that we still, just, have.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, it is a strange experience to find myself here after 23 years in another place, but it is made much easier by the helpful welcome of so many of your Lordships, including my friends on the Front Bench and my staff. I do not doubt that as well as renewing old friendships, I shall probably find myself renewing old arguments.
I come to the debate as the spokesman who led for the Opposition during the passage in another place of the Broadcasting Bill 1990. That took a year out of my life, but we prevented the Bill from being as bad for broadcasting as it promised to be, although it did considerable damage to the "must carry" obligations of public service broadcasting, to which many of your Lordships have already referred.
That was 11 years ago, which was another world in broadcasting and communications. The technological changes have been fast and wide-ranging, but I take the view that broadcasting is about more than knobs

407
and buttons. Technology should not blind us to what underpins our broadcasting services. It is Ofcom's role to hold the ring.
The pride that we generally have in the quality of our broadcasting is properly placed because both the public and commercial sectors are built on the base of broadcasting as a public service with sensible regulation. Your Lordships will not expect me to be contentious in my first speech in your Lordships' House, but perhaps I may say as an aside that the commercial sector and BBC are regulated in different ways to common standards that take into account the differences between the two broadcasting sectors. I am not persuaded of the need to change that.
Public service obligations were placed upon the infant ITV regional network and remain in place today, although they are not as strong as they once were. The fact that the BBC is there and that ITV matches at least its main public service broadcasting obligations, gives the whole system its underlying strength.
Many years ago there used to be a television programme called, "Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width". In many ways, this is what has happened to broadcasting in the past decade. I am not against change, but against change that loses some of the essential ingredients of what we value most in the broadcasting sector. There is now less factual programming, especially on developing countries. The number of hours of serious documentaries on ITV has almost halved to about 18 hours a year. Budgets for these programmes have consequently been reduced. Despite criticism from the Independent Television Commission, ITV has failed to increase its documentary output. To be even-handed, I shall mention the BBC, which has pared its documentary schedule and there is a risk that its proposals for new digital services could move programmes from BBC1 and 2 to digital channels ahead of the time when most of the population can access them.
There is much for Ofcom to do on behalf of both audiences and those broadcasters who understand the importance of quality programming. Of course broadcasting must entertain, but in a vibrant democracy it has a duty to inform, educate and activate the public.
I am aware that the Bill is about the regulator rather than the detail of the regulation, but as the Minister issued the invitation, I thought that I might as well take the opportunity to offer a few words. In setting up Ofcom, we need to consider the place where it may be. As digital and other technology expands the number of channels, it is important that there is real choice and variety. I believe that that will be put at risk unless public service broadcasting regulations remain.
The point is well made by Public Voice, which is a voluntary sector network that supports public service broadcasting. It wants Ofcom to ensure that in the bid for audience share, important public service broadcasting obligations are fully and properly met.
408
Indeed, as the number of channels expands, it is my view that if there is to be real choice and variety, public service broadcasting becomes more important. More choice is less choice if it is a choice of more of the same. I should like the Minister to consider the call of Public Voice to expand the membership of Ofcom—the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to this too—from the proposed number of three to six people to between six and 12, so that a wider range of public interests can be reflected in the membership.
I endorse the suggestion from Public Voice that there should be a consumer committee, or citizens' jury to help Ofcom to assess performance against promise on public service broadcasting obligations by each broadcaster. That would enable and encourage real hands-on involvement by the public and give a spur to broadcasters.
I welcome the Government's stated intention that Ofcom will have powers to strengthen regional production in both TV and radio to give continuing voice to our important regions and the countries which make up the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will urgently look into disturbing reports that some ITV franchise holders want to halve the minimum level of regional programming to eight hours a week from next year. That comes only six months after the completion of the renewal of the last round of ITV franchises. If that is allowed to happen, it will severely damage one of ITV's most distinctive features. I hope that the Minister will also repeat an earlier pledge to retain Channel 4 as a non-profit-making corporation.
I support the idea of the UK as a world leader in communications because it helps our democracy, economy and jobs. I hope that this Bill and the communications Bill which follows will maintain real choice and diversity, increase those for radio and have cross-media ownership rules which protect the public from monopoly abuse.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. The last time I heard him speak was in the House of Commons when he was Robin and I was Kenneth. He served for some 23 years as a very distinguished senior Back-Bencher and a spokesman on the matters that he has just discussed. He was very respected for his views and he was also chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons. I am sure that he will speak a great deal in this House on these matters. However, I tell the Whips that he is not good whipping fodder. He is independent minded. He will always appear on "Today" or "Newsnight" when an independent voice is heard. I hope that that spirit will continue. I note from Who's Who that his recreation is pottering, so he has come to the right place.
It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I have known the noble Baroness for over 40 years. Her contribution to public life in that time has been quite outstanding and unique.

409
The work that she has done to promote the work, the cause and the role of women in our society has been impressive and effective. I am delighted that she is in this House—on some Benches anyway. In a moment I shall strongly support the view she expressed.
I express an interest in that I am the chairman of two companies, one of which provides Internet services to small companies and one of which also provides services to mobile phone users. However, nothing I shall say will have any effect upon the activities of those businesses. What is perhaps more important is that in the 1980s as I was the Minister responsible for privatising BT and Cable and Wireless, I had to set up Oftel. I had to invent Oftel and appoint the first director general. Later in my ministerial career I was responsible for all the other bodies that will be put into Ofcom. The spectrum agency did not exist in those times but I was directly responsible for spectrum allocations. Therefore, I have some experience of the complexity of what is proposed by the Government.
The way the Government are handling the matter is rather strange with a White Paper and then a paving Bill. The Minister said that tonight she would not give us any details of her thoughts and the Government's ideas as the Government wanted to listen and to collect the voices. I suppose that this matter could be dignified as a great public debate. However, on the other hand it could be described as indicative of a government who do not really know what they want in various key areas and decide to follow the good old process of grope, fumble and stumble. The French, as usual, have a word for this: Système D. When chaos is about to overwhelm you and you do not know what will happen or what to do, you employ Système D. "D" stands for débrouillard. It means, basically, to grope yourself out of the fog. That is the process in which the Government are engaged in the consultation process. What is missing from the White Paper is any intellectual discussion about the need, scope and the consequences of regulation both as regards telecommunications and the broadcasting industries and an assessment of whether the regulatory process which presently exists achieves, or will continue to achieve, the objects that it was supposed to achieve.
The body we are setting up, Ofcom, is rather a strange body because three of its constituent parts are basically concerned with economic matters. Oftel is almost solely concerned with economic matters as a price regulator. The Radiocommunications Agency is largely concerned with economic matters. The Radio Authority has an interest in content but is again very much concerned with economic matters. Those are the economic considerations. On the other side there are the content bodies: the ITC, which is primarily concerned with content, and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which is concerned with taste, decency, privacy and other matters of that kind. It is rather a two-headed beast, a kind of push me, pull me. Like any two-headed beast, it answers to two voices. It answers to the culture Secretary and to the industry Secretary. Therefore, there will be a huge number of turf wars as that is the very nature of these areas. Just
410
because the industries are converging we should not believe that the interests of those departments will converge.
Behind it all an even more important body in many respects is the OFT, which has to decide crucial matters of competition as regards amalgamations in the broadcasting industry and the television industry and cross-media matters. The regulator is, of course, an independent body. Ofcom will be independent. It will not be accountable to a Minister. Regulators are not accountable to Ministers. Ministers speak on their behalf but regulators make their own decisions and have to defend them. That is an important consideration.
I touch upon the economic regulation, which I consider one of the most important matters. I shall discuss broadcasting later. Is there a case for economic regulation of telecommunications and of broadcasts on the Internet? The answer is yes. There was, and is still, a case but one hopes that one will move to a situation where regulation will largely fall away. When I set up Oftel in the 1980s it was important to have a body that could cope with the overriding monopoly of BT. As we were privatising BT, the policy was to set up a competitor, Mercury. The role of the first director general, Professor Carsberg, was to ensure that that survived against the pressure of a monopolist. The pressure of a monopolist is almost overwhelming. It is difficult to prize the sticky fingers of the monopolist off the monopoly. That was the contribution that Professor Carsberg made. In 1990 we set up Mercury and it established a market share of nearly 20 per cent in seven years under a policy of duopoly.
In 1990 we gave the cable companies power to carry telephony as well as entertainment. That was a real convergence and we led the world. Virtually every other country has now followed our lead. That required a different type of regulation. The second Oftel regulator, Don Cruickshank, ensured that the cable companies could survive the pressures exerted by BT. It all comes down to the interconnect arrangements. That may seem technical but that process has created one of the greatest growth industries in our country. The cable industry and the other telecommunications operators were probably the biggest investors of cash in our country in the 1990s. That matter requires a form of regulation but the nature of regulation changes. The first regulator had to be concerned very much with international telephone calls as they were considered to constitute a racket. The present regulator does not have to control international telephone calls at all. He barely has to control the prices charged by BT. He is now much more concerned—the present regulator, David Edmonds, is a distinguished regulator—to ensure that BT does not stop unbundling in ADSL and also that the mobile operators do not "rip off- the public. If you look at your telephone bill, you will probably find that when you use your telephone to phone a mobile phone, that is the one item that sticks out enormously in the bill. That item may cost £1 or £2. It is cheaper to phone Australia. That is why two or three weeks ago David

411
Edmonds decided to regulate that area and to reduce the prices of calls between mobiles and fixed link phones.
That is the kind of work that Ofcom will spend most of its time doing. That is what the staff will be involved with and where the concentration of numbers will be found. That is economic regulation. The same applies to the Radiocommunications Agency that is to determine matters concerning the spectrum. That is a big business; over a quarter of a million licences of one kind or another must be policed. I assure your Lordships that the regulation of telecommunications is not only complicated but is also a lawyer rich area and an area where lawyers become rich. How can we ensure competition? What is the role of Ofcom and the OFT? For example, at the weekend I read that BT, Carlton and Granada may combine to form a TV digital platform. That is an interesting idea which I had not heard of before. That has substantial competitive considerations as it would bring together telecommunications and broadcasting. However, the cable companies bring together telecommunications and broadcasting. Therefore, who will decide whether that is given approval? Is that a matter for Ofcom or for a Minister? Will it be reported to the OFT? Those are the kind of questions which the Government will have to answer before they produce their Bill.
I turn to content. Most of the speeches tonight have concerned content on the broadcasting side of Ofcom. Here, one is concerned with the protection of children and vulnerable persons, the prevention of crime and disorder, the balanced presentation of news and current affairs and the wide range of programming and plurality of expression that make up public service broadcasting, which the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Bragg, touched on.
If that is to be done, surely the BBC must be included. I have a word of advice for Ministers. All three Labour Peers who have spoken so far in the debate have said that the BBC should be included. I am sure that the Government will be able to carry anything through the Commons with their large majority, but I would take a bet that it would be difficult to exclude the BBC from Ofcom when the debates come up in this House. I may be proved wrong, but I would be prepared to take a bet. I see two Labour Peers already nodding. The Whips had better note that. The Government should recognise that they have probably lost that one already and move on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked who would deal with content considerations. Who will decide the cross-media ownership rules? In my time in government, those rules were protected fiercely by Ministers. In his day, Harold Wilson decided the rules himself as Prime Minister. What will happen? Will that responsibility be moved to Ofcom or will Ministers still have a say on cross-media ownership rules? Will Ministers determine the broad parameters? The rules will have to change all the time because the structure of media ownership is changing. Will a Minister be asked to approve plans by the BBC to establish new channels? I read in the press that the BBC wishes to establish BBC3 and BBC4. That may be an admirable
412
thing to do, but it must have competitive implications for other companies. The BBC intends to produce a national curriculum resource that will be available to all schoolchildren. That is an attractive idea, but there are any number of companies—in which I have no interest—that already provide such resources on a commercial basis to schools. Who will decide on that? Will it be Ofcom? Will it be a Minister? Will the OFT be involved? I hope that the Government will address such considerations while they are gathering voices.
If Ofcom polices the quality and content of the ITV companies, what sanctions will exist to ensure compliance? The original ITC had sanctions to ensure compliance, but they have rather faded. Will there be any sanctions and how will they operate? Will that be done with the approval of Ministers?
As the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, asked, what sanctions exist if the ITV companies decide to reduce their regional content? Will that be Ofcom's responsibility or the responsibility of a Minister? The Government obviously do not know. I understand that. At the moment it is the job of the ITC, but will that continue? How important will the regional content be? What percentage will it constitute and who will decide on it? Those are interesting questions for the OFT.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, talked about taste and decency. The problem for Ofcom is that taste, decency, content and privacy are the issues that the public will mainly be interested in. They will not be interested in Oftel and the spectrum, although they might be slightly interested in the work of the Radio Authority. Those issues of taste and decency are what will turn the public on. If the head of Ofcom has to appear on television every other night, it will not be to defend telecommunications regulation, but to justify, defend or condemn something that has appeared that offends public taste and decency. That will be the main role of the chairperson of Ofcom.
The management consultants who were appointed to try to pull together the mechanics of making the process happen produced a report last week. It said:
"We took as our starting point the White Paper, and our understanding that Ofcom's regulatory objectives are now seen as falling under five headings".
One of those five headings is:
"Protecting the interests of citizens, by maintaining generally accepted standards to protect the public from offensive and harmful broadcast content and ensuring protection of fairness and privacy".
The word "privacy" is vital in this context. As I understand it, Ofcom will be able to examine complaints by ordinary citizens who believe that their-privacy has been unfairly intruded upon by a television programme. That is interesting, because Ofcom will operate under a code. Will it be the same code as that used by the Press Complaints Commission, administered by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham? The issues are very similar, but the media are rather different. Will there be different sanctions? If a citizen has been traduced by a television programme, that person could be punished for life. What remedy does he have? What redress for that grievance is envisaged

413
by Ofcom or the Government? Will there be compensation for that person? Will Ofcom be given the power to say that a particular programme must not go out or be repeated?
The Government are moving into an area of tremendous complexity and great public concern. I hope that in the next few weeks we will get some answers to the questions that I have raised tonight. The issues that I have touched on are so different from economic regulation that there is a case for having two bodies, but I suspect that we have lost that argument, because the flood was convergence. We are dealing with two separate areas of human decision making and human activity. The Government should have the humility to recognise that.
I had hoped to listen to the whole of the debate, but I am going to a dinner tonight where I am expected to say a few words, so I may not be able to stay right to the end because of the time taken by the Statements earlier. However, I shall read everything that has been said, particularly the Minister's reply.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I echo the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, on their maiden speeches. Both spoke with immense experience as, respectively, a former chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission and an opposition spokesman on broadcasting. That shone through their speeches. We all look forward to their contributions at the further stages of this Bill and when the communications Bill proper comes before your Lordships' House, which we anticipate will be in the next Session.
At first sight it may seem rather strange to bring forward legislation to establish the "office of communications" before we have even seen the Bill specifying what the functions of a future Ofcom will be. Further scrutiny does not totally dispel that impression. I fully understand the need for an orderly transition from the five current bodies or offices regulating the communications sector to a single, unified regulator for the entire sector, but unless that body is going to do nothing over the next year and a half or so until the communications Bill proper is passed—we are promised a draft of it in the spring—there must be a real danger that any actions that it takes or appointments that it makes may not accurately anticipate the final shape of legislation, which we have not seen in draft form yet, let alone discussed or amended.
To give but one example, it is by no means impossible that the Government may find themselves persuaded to bring the BBC more fully under Ofcom. If that were to happen, surely it would affect the weight given to the various functions within Ofcom, and possibly the personnel appointed to oversee their discharge.
The final draft of the new communications Bill is clearly not ready, otherwise it could have been introduced in the current Session. There is no disgrace
414
in having second thoughts, particularly in a sector such as communications, which is changing so rapidly. The technical possibilities of the communications landscape and, perhaps even more importantly, the economic resources to exploit them effectively, are changing all the time. Just think back to the spectrum options for the third generation of mobile telephony. The Chancellor certainly sold at the top of the market. How many of the bidding companies today would bid even half of what they committed themselves to less than two years ago, and, in any event, would the banks let them? Dates for digital switchover in television are being extended almost every month. The slump in advertising revenues is giving the commercial sector in broadcasting quite severe problems, perhaps thereby enhancing the case for further consolidation.
I hope that the Government are not hung up on delivering an up-and-running Ofcom by 2003 simply because the election manifesto stated that they would. I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps I may put forward what I hope is a helpful compromise solution. It would enable progress to be made before a communications Bill is passed but would delay the setting up of "pre-Ofcom" until we have had the Second Reading of the substantive communications Bill.
In opening, the Minister indicated that the Government do not intend to appoint the chair of Ofcom before the spring of 2002 at the earliest. I understand from Statements in another place that the rest of the board of Ofcom will not be appointed until later in the summer. As British Summer Time ends in October, I interpret that to be some time, but not long, before the next Session of Parliament. The insertion of a sunrise clause along the lines that I have suggested would delay matters only for a couple of months or so.
I very much welcome the course of action that the Government are taking in this matter. So far as I am concerned, the more pre-legislative scrutiny that we have, the better. I believe that the publication of the draft Bill in the spring will be the most effective public consultation that we can have. Consultation is always better when one talks about specifics rather than generalities. It will only be when people see the legislation as it impinges on them that they will become active and start to lobby properly. If we have consultation, together with the Second Reading of the communications Bill—although the legislation will not have been passed and will still be capable of amendment—the Government will have a very good idea of what we all want the new Ofcom to be like. If we were to delay the setting up of Ofcom until then, I believe that that would provide several advantages.
Establishing "pre-Ofcom" before then could be unwise. Until the preparations for the Queen's Speech are finalised next summer, there can be no guarantee that there will be a communications Bill in the next Session of Parliament. We could be establishing a body with planning and administrative powers before there is anything to plan or administer. If there is too long a gap between the setting up of a "pre-Ofcom" and the substantive debate on the future communications Bill, there is also a grave danger that

415
"pre-Ofcom" may create a predisposition to pursue a course of action other than that which Parliament may finally decide to be desirable.
It is important that Ofcom works to a clear brief from the outset. One cannot make appointments or, indeed, determine structures in isolation from that brief. There is also a very real danger that in the next 18 months or so before the passage of the communications Bill a prematurely created Ofcom could start to drain authority and attention from the existing regulators, who will still remain in control of the various sectors.
One issue which I gather will be a major talking point in the Bill is media ownership. I believe that we have always been a little too uptight in this country about media ownership to the extent that, if diversity of output is an objective of public policy, our current rules on media ownership perhaps militate against it. If one individual owns three television or radio stations or three newspapers, self-interest and public interest coincide. He will want to make them different because it will be in his own interests to do so. If, on the other hand, one compels them to be held separately, they will end up competing for the same market place. That is against the public interest.
I regard content regulation to be a far surer guarantee of public interest than ownership regulations. In that connection, one heard reports that the Government were prepared to countenance a single ITV. If that is the case in television, they should take a much more liberal outlook towards radio as well. In that, I declare an interest as chairman of Scottish Radio Holdings.
It is perhaps inevitable that our debate today strays into areas which will probably be debated more fully when we come to deal with the communications Bill. However, it is precisely because these matters impinge directly on the nature, structure and composition of Ofcom itself that they must be referred to today, even if only in broad outline.
In respect of the BBC, I hope that I shall be regarded as its friend.' I am certainly one of its staunchest admirers. However, I must say that I cannot see any logical reason—the noble Lord, Lord Baker, can now add another Labour Peer to his list—why the BBC should be left outwith the scope of Ofcom. It seems silly to leave the UK's largest broadcaster at least partially outwith the new system. I also believe that in the long run that will be to the disadvantage of the BBC in that it will leave it in an increasingly anomalous regulatory position.
By contrast, I should like to see the BBC as a benchmark for quality throughout the system but very much part of the system. In that, I advise the Government to reread the White Paper on broadcasting published by a Labour government in 1978. The White Paper drew attention to precisely that anomalous situation with regard to the BBC, which is judge and jury in its own case. I do not consider that to be in the BBC's interests. Such a situation is in contrast with that of the commercial sector, which is subject to regulation by an external body. Allocation of
416
frequencies and spectrum for new services can be made only on the basis of full knowledge of the plans, performance and promises of those involved. Having a major player partially outwith the system does not make much sense.
I also hope that we shall not allow technology to be the sole determinant of what we do. Of course, technology widens the range of choices open to us, but it should never determine the options that we choose. Those must be determined by listener tastes and the availability of resources, whether financial or human, to deliver them. One should reread the arguments in favour of the introduction of cable back in the 1980s and consider what has happened.
In particular, I hope that Ofcom will have regard to the overall health of the system. The fact that new technology permits 200, 400 or 2,000 television channels does not mean that we should have them or want them. Therefore, I hope that Ofcom will have regard to the health of the industry as a whole and will consider the impact of licensing new services before it acts on them.
Too often we regard regulation in a negative sense as preventing people from doing things. However, quite clearly in the case of the roll-out of broadband, Ofcom must have a proactive and encouraging role if we are not to continue with the present unhappy situation whereby only 100,000 UK households have a broadband connection.
Like other noble Lords, I have been deluged with lobbying material by those involved in the provision of broadband. I honestly do not know who is to blame for the current situation. However, what appears to be the case is that, while billions of pounds have been spent laying cable networks between cities and between countries, very little has been spent on the last local mile, which is absolutely necessary if the individual consumer is to participate. Indeed, doubts have been raised as to whether broadband would be viable outwith urban areas. Clearly Ofcom has a crucial role not only in regulating but in stimulating universal access if that is perceived to be a government policy objective.
Although I shall seek the introduction of a sun rise clause along the lines that I have suggested, and although I am pretty well agnostic as to the desirability of creating Ofcom in the form proposed, I am happy to support the Government's broad intentions. However, I warn the House that the creation of Ofcom in the form proposed will almost certainly involve terms and conditions for staff representing the highest common factor of those presently enjoyed by staff in each of the five regulatory bodies. It would not surprise me at all if this single, streamlined regulator did not end up costing us more than five separate ones.
However, it is good to know that the five separate regulators are working closely together. Reference has already been made to the document that they produced, scoping the work required to create the, full Ofcom. As a result of such meetings and work, they are quite confident that they know what needs to be done

417
in management terms. They are also confident that they can achieve it within the time-scale that the Government have outlined.
7.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Government for the initiative taken earlier this year by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It convened a meeting of senior representatives of Christian denominations and other faiths to discuss public service broadcasting issues relating to the White Paper and not least to this proposal. The former Minister responsible for broadcasting indicated at the time that she would convene a further meeting. I very much hope that her successor will be encouraged to do that as the communications legislation progresses.
Religious leaders of all faiths have a particular interest in any new settlement or rearrangement relating to public service broadcasting and especially to the way in which it is regulated. It was our unanimous view across the faiths at the meeting to which I have referred that it is important for the traditions that we have already established in public service broadcasting in this country to continue to be supported under the new regulatory regime and for the British public to continue to have access to quality programmes on a wide range of subjects. Ofcom's proposed responsibility in those areas appears to be reassuring, but I am still not clear—forgive me if I am being obtuse about this—exactly how it will determine whether broadcasters are meeting their public service obligations. Is the process through which Ofcom's decisions will be received sufficiently straightforward? Will there be a straightforward process by which those decisions can, if necessary, be challenged? The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already raised that problem.
There is much change taking place across the whole range of communications. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned, there are complicated matters to be teased out about the nature and regulation of public service broadcasting in a digital age. With so much in the pipeline it would be easy for a heritage part of broadcasting in one area or another to be destroyed; its subsequent re-creation would be much more difficult.
That consideration applies especially in relation to religious broadcasting, which has been a pillar of the public broadcasting scene since the inception of broadcasting. In the UK it has led to many memorable broadcasting achievements. Many programmes have been creative, informative and entertaining and others have reflected the mood of the nation at key times of sorrow or of joy.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the importance of religion, its place in our multicultural society and the way in which that is properly reflected in our traditions of public service broadcasting will be well understood by the new regulatory body? How does she envisage Ofcom fulfilling its role in that area?
418
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, discussed, in his excellent maiden speech—I offer him my congratulations—the danger that some serious programmes could be hived off to the digital channels. If that happened to religious broadcasting, it would be a betrayal of our public service broadcasting traditions. Would it not be appropriate for one of Ofcom's proposed advisory committees to be designated for that important role in public service broadcasting or for there to be some other properly agreed means of regular consultation between Ofcom and faith representatives?
I turn, as many other noble Lords have done, to the credibility of Ofcom in relation to the concern that has been frequently expressed by many people in this country, and it was eloquently articulated tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to whom I add my congratulations on an excellent maiden speech. It involves the issue of content and of taste and decency. I am no puritan; indeed, Wakefield was known in medieval times as the merry city and on Friday and Saturday nights it still is. I detect among the cross-section of the public whom I meet in my ministry—it is way beyond Church boundaries—a perception that broadcasters and regulators too often and too casually dismiss genuine complaints that are made to them about offensive material that is broadcast, especially on television.
Will the public have reason to be confident that Ofcom will have sufficient clout to deal with such complaints quickly, effectively and fairly? On what basis will it define the boundaries of taste and decency? As several noble Lords have rightly said tonight, generation gaps and different cultural backgrounds make such boundaries very difficult to define. What advice will Ofcom seek in those sensitive areas and from where will it seek it?
I look forward to our future debates on the communications Bill. We shall doubtless go into this matter in much more detail in future but, if the BBC is not included in the arrangements, can the Minister explain why not? I was present and had the privilege of taking part in an earlier debate on the communications legislation in this House. I recall clearly that noble Lord after noble Lord spoke about the need for the BBC to be within the framework of Ofcom. I seem to remember on that night that the Government responded with the advice that in future debates we would find that many people would say, "The BBC should be excluded". I wait to hear such speeches tonight.
Tonight we are putting in place the mechanics before we have addressed the substance and the principle. I understand why the Government wish to adopt that approach and I hope to be reassured by the Minister that those matters will come before the House and that they will not be hurried. Speaking from these Benches, I hope that she can address my concerns and reassure me about one aspect of public service broadcasting; namely, religious broadcasting.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, like several other noble Lords, I find it rather difficult to assess whether the form and structure of Ofcom, which is provided for in this paving Bill, are appropriate without knowing in any detail what its purposes and functions will be. The Bill requires Parliament to agree to the creation of a statutory body and to indicate its approval of a certain membership and of a relationship with existing regulators, but it has to do so without being fully aware of the ultimate role that Ofcom will have, perhaps for many years, in the world of communications.
I must declare an interest as the chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, which supervises the self-regulatory system that obtains in non-broadcast advertising. It is because of that interest that I would like to know, for example, whether Ofcom will continue the Independent Television Commission's highly prescriptive regulation of the content of television advertising, or whether we will move towards a so-called co-regulatory regime, which is contemplated in the White Paper and in relation to which some form of self-regulation would be extended across all media platforms, including broadcasting.
I am reminded of the 19th-century story in which the Archbishop of Canterbury was asked, in the course of a debate on some ecclesiastical Bill, to explain what an archdeacon was. He replied, "An archdeacon is one who discharges archidiaconal functions". "So, what are archdiaconal functions?" The reply came, "They are the functions performed by an archdeacon".
My first point is that we must press for the earliest possible publication of the draft communications Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who was the first to speak from the Conservative Benches, I hope that next year, spring will come early and that we shall see it as early as possible. We need to have a better idea of precisely what Ofcom will do and how it will be expected to work. We do not expect full answers from Ministers tonight—we have been told that we cannot have them tonight—but can we have them as soon as possible? Without full answers from Ministers, we shall have to wait for the draft communications Bill for a number of answers. I suppose that we shall need to await the debates on the BBC's Royal Charter to learn the fate of the board of governors. To whatever extent, Ofcom has a BBC involvement.
I happened to be in Italy when the World Trade Centre was attacked by terrorists. Naturally, I watched a good deal of television in my hotel. I have to say that BBC World Service coverage was superb and strikingly superior to that of CNN. I hold no brief for the corporation. I shall reserve judgment about the role of Ofcom until I see what is proposed. However, the strength of the BBC World Service, the intelligence of BBC news correspondents, the welcome development of BBC Online all stem from an excellent public service purpose of the BBC, and not from the strictures of any regulator.
Indeed, a regulator such as Ofcom may be able to prevent bad programmes, but I doubt that it will ever be able to call forth good programmes. Nor will
420
Ofcom be the answer to the menace of competitive television scheduling between BBC1 and ITV. I share the concern recently expressed by the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, about BBC1 no longer providing a broad mix of programmes of wide variety but always of high quality. Chris Smith reminds us that the raison d'être of the BBC is to act as a bench-mark of quality against which the rest of broadcasting must measure itself; in the famous phrase of Huw Wheldon, to make the good popular and the popular good.
One of the less attractive features of the modern BBC is the urge to compete with other television channels for the biggest audience figures. I am all in favour of competition; it is practically my middle name. Competition between rivals is normally the way in which consumer interest is best served in terms of value for money and efficient service. However, the ratings war is reducing consumer choice.
Both the BBC and ITV now give us their late night news bulletins at the same time, 10 p.m. I understand that total audience for news in peak time has, rather surprisingly, increased following those changes, but the fact remains that those who do not want any news at 10 p.m. have fewer alternative programmes from which to choose, and those who would like to have a news bulletin at 9 p.m. no longer have that choice on the main terrestrial channels.
Why was it that the BBC began to schedule an extra episode of "EastEnders"—which, as noble Lords may know, has 11 million viewers—at 8 p.m. on Fridays? It was because that is the time when ITV broadcasts "Coronation Street", which also has about 11 million viewers. The public interest is likely to be better served by the complementarity of programmes available at any one time rather than by several channels showing the same kind of programme at the same time: the news head to head with the news and one popular soap head to head with another. I hope that Ofcom will continue to insist on clear public service obligations from all their licensees and that the governors of the BBC will remember their obligations under the charter to ensure distinctive programming.
We are told that Ofcom will be a "light touch regulator". If I were in government I suppose I would use that phrase a lot. It does not mean anything in particular but sounds rather good. If Ofcom is to be a light touch regulator, the structure proposed in this paving Bill of an authority with a single board of executive and non-executive directors may well be appropriate. However, can we be sure that regulation of something so powerful in our democratic society as communications will really be light touch unless we ensure legislatively that it has to be so?
The most recent experience of the reaction of Ministers to the Channel 4 "Brass Eye" satire programme was not so much light touch as heavy handed or, as was put to me on one occasion, "riot so much light touch as light the touchpaper and retire to a safe distance". One thinks back to earlier interventions by other governments. Today's "Brass Eye" affair was little different from yesterday's "Real Lives" controversy.

421
Will an Ofcom constituted as in the Bill be sufficiently independent of government? Will the chairman, appointed by Ministers, be executive or non-executive? Will he or she have security of tenure for, say, five years? The need for the right constitutional structure is all the more important when one considers that as presently planned, Ofcom will be a single regulator of both the economics of the communications business and of content.
I mention briefly the regulation of advertising. In the new world of digital communications it is advertising which finances much of what we are discussing. Soap operas were originally a vehicle for advertising household soap. The White Paper was clear that the system of regulation of non-broadcast advertising run by the Advertising Standards Authority, and now in its 40th year, is a success and should be retained. The White Paper confirmed the ASA's role with regard to advertising in the cinema, on video and on the Internet. That role should continue. The White Paper proposed that Ofcom is to have the principal responsibility for regulating advertising in the broadcast media. However, it also raised the possibility of Ofcom discharging that responsibility through co-regulatory mechanisms.
I hope that the communications Bill will enshrine that possibility in legislation enabling Ofcom at some time in the future to recognise a self-regulatory system of some kind for broadcast advertising. I hope that the industry players will act on that prompt and begin to work out how such a regime could operate. That seems to accord with the Better Regulation Task Force, chaired by my noble friend Lord Haskins, which recently concluded that self-regulation may be a more flexible, cheaper and more effective alternative to statutory regulation. It may also be the only realistic way of maintaining standards across multiplying channels and converging media. It would also accord with the references frequently made by the Government to light touch regulation.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in such a long debate with so many expert speakers, we all have a duty to be brief. However, after the excellent archdiaconal joke made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I am reminded of the most penetrating remark of Screaming Lord Sutch; that is, "Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?"
I should declare an interest, like other noble Lords, as past deputy chairman of the ITC and chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. In that latter context perhaps I may say, with all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and two excellent maiden speeches this evening, how particularly I enjoyed the characteristic trenchancy and clarity of the maiden speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I look forward to hearing from her often in this House. I also declare an interest as an advisory director of NTL, which accounts for 60 per cent of the UK cable connection.
422
I believe that something like Ofcom is desirable and inevitable—so desirable and inevitable that if we were not planning it we should have to invent it. That is because convergence is coming, and in some respects has already arrived, and because the broadband revolution is of the utmost importance to our economic future and to our education and our society as a whole.
I say "something like Ofcom" because at the moment it seems to me—and other noble Lords have made this point in different ways—that Ofcom is rather like a gigantic Rorschach ink blot test on to which we project our hopes and expectations for the future: hopes such as a positive climate for infrastructure investment or a leading role for UK plc at the cutting edge of ITC; expectations like the elimination of duplication and double jeopardy; expectations of cost efficiencies, which I fear may be belied; expectations of greater transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency; all the good things which, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, reminded us, the Better Regulation Task Force set out as desirable for regulation. The hopes may or may not prove to be justified, and the expectations on the whole should end up in operational guidelines, but my plea at this point is to keep the main objective of Ofcom simple and clear.
There should have been a greater clarity of purpose in the White Paper, in which several parallel good points were set out for our inspection. Like other noble Lords, I feel that we have put the cart before the horse. I fear that multiple objectives laid on the new super regulator may result in it falling between two stools. I favour a clear, primary objective for Ofcom, qualified or limited by other objectives: for instance, the promotion of the interests of consumers; that is, viewers, listeners and users, through competition, while sustaining public service broadcasting and acceptable community standards. No doubt the Government will be able to do better than that, but a sense of the priority of the new body is sorely lacking. In other words, in my contention, competition should be explicitly identified as the main driver for consumer satisfaction, subject—and importantly so in this country—to much valued public goods continuing to be secured.
The definition that I have just tried out on your Lordship raises two questions, one about competition, the other about the BBC. I deal first with competition. If we are to have a regulator driven primarily by competition, it is essential to have good market definitions so that competition and market access regulation can work properly. Convergence has made a lot of our traditional thinking about cross-media ownership something of a non-issue, and in that respect I agree with other noble Lords. If teenagers can watch music videos on the tiny screens of their mobile phones between sending text messages to their friends and calling up news headlines, all 1950s ideas of separate boxes and the danger of crossing over between them become obsolete. It is quite apparent that the real economic issue is not cross-media ownership but the total share of voice in the UK

423
marketplace and how to maintain a decent plurality of provision for content and advertising in the UK and the EU, particularly given the formidable weight of the US media industry.
It is a very great shame that the Government have felt unable to address the issue of media ownership in this context at this time. Without wanting to be in any way cynical in your Lordships' House, if it is not addressed in the first two years following an election, it will not be addressed in the last two years, for obvious electoral reasons. I therefore wish the Government would nerve themselves up and, in the context of the Bill, also address the question of ownership.
I turn to the issue of the BBC. Most of your Lordships who have spoken about the BBC have said that you wish it were in Ofcom. I remember that when the BBC was in peril in the 1980s it was quite simple. You were either on the side of the BBC or you were against it, and I was fairly uncritically on the side of the BBC. But I think we now have to acknowledge that the BBC is a fixed point in the ecology of broadcasting and is that important benchmark to us. I wonder whether we could ask for a much crisper definition of what public service broadcasting represents. We do not live in a society in which reference to the past is an adequate justification for the future. The BBC's glorious past does not adequately define the future that the taxpayers expect of it.
I believe that the BBC has made very great and commendable strides in its own accountability, to which we should pay tribute. It is impressive and is an example to other broadcasters. I would say that Channel 4 follows and other broadcasters are still some way behind the BBC. But the moment one accepts, as the BBC has, that you should be accountable, the question is: accountable for exactly what responsibilities? That is the black hole.
I am reminded irresistibly of that great work of literature with which I am sure your Lordships are familiar, The Young Visitors, by Daisy Ashford, in which the heroine, a rather precocious, small girl asks, I think of Mr Salteena, "What is that man for?". I feel that we should ask the same question of Mr Dyke—what is this man for, what is the BBC for?—because we pay his salary.
What I am obviously asking is, what is public service broadcasting? I do not think it is enough for public service broadcasting to be whatever the BBC's management want to do, in the same way as it used to be said—and I hope that this reference does not embarrass noble Lords opposite, because it is slightly old-fashioned—that socialism is what a Labour government do. I think it is an inadequate definition of public service broadcasting.
There has been some very lively debate, in which my party has been much involved, which probably comes down in favour of keeping the BBC out of Ofcom. Being a loyal party man, I do not want to comment on that but simply to say that, whether the BBC is in or out of Ofcom, or half in and half out, as the Government seem to propose, it is absolutely crucial that we have clarity about what is meant by public service broadcasting.
424
I should therefore like to ask the Minister how the Government propose to arrive at a clear definition of public service broadcasting, against which not only the BBC's current and future activities can be regularly tested but which, in an attenuated form, can be spelled out as part of the continuing responsibilities of Channels 3 and 4. Without that, we do not know whether we are getting what we pay for.
I know that some in the BBC are nervous of that sort of clarity, as they are nervous of being brought within Ofcom. I simply point out to them how much better it would be for the BBC to have public service goals, clearly agreed by Parliament, and to report annually how the BBC is achieving them, rather than to be subject to random political interference driven by various pressures and the recurrent fits of moral panic to which even the best governments seem prone.
With regard to Ofcom itself, rather late in my remarks, I was very much reassured by the Minister's assurances in the original debate on the White Paper that this would be a new organisation, fit for its purpose, set up ab initio, with structure and function analysis, not simply the sum of the existing regulators bolted together. It is a very important reassurance that we shall not have a cartel or market-sharing agreement between the existing regulators to carve up a new world of regulation between them.
I pay tribute to the five regulatory agencies, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the ITC, Oriel, the Radio Authority and the Radio Communications Authority, for the way in which they have approached this, in not only quite rightly trying to keep skills and capacities in place at a very difficult and uncertain time for their employees, but also trying to imagine a different organisation for the future; and the Towers Perrin report is a step in the right direction.
However, there is great danger of confusion as regards pre-Ofcom looking forward, in particular with the leadership to Ofcom being announced in the relatively near future. I fear also the prospect of a chilling effect on the existing regulators from the existence of this potentially powerful shadow agency. In summing up, will the Minister say whether in six months or so—we are not sure what stage we shall have reached with the Bill by then—we can have a progress report on the introduction of Ofcom and its work and a reassurance that it does not interfere with or chill the work of the existing agencies?
8.31 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, welcome the Bill—at least, I think I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that it means that when the big Bill comes it will not be a rushed piece of legislation. By putting a framework in place now—we did not do this with the Financial Services Authority, and it caused certain problems—we are giving ourselves time to get the detail right. But I only think that I welcome it because it matters terribly what we do with that time.
On the one hand, the Government could keep the process of refining their proposals tight to themselves. What will then happen is that the outcome will be

425
determined by the clash between the great lobbying powers of the BBC on the one hand and of the commercial broadcasters on the other. Experience suggests that that will not lead to a satisfactory outcome.
On the other hand, we could have an open, efficient, effective and productive debate. The way to do that is to refer the draft Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses, such as was successfully employed under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in the case of the analogous Financial Services Bill. That proposal was put to the Government by the All-Party Media Group and it was supported by many noble Lords in the debate on communications initiated by my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane on 28th February.
Therefore, I was sorry that despite earlier indications in the press the Government did not pledge such a committee. Indeed, we were told that the decision did not have to be made until the spring. The proposal has been about for a year already and the arguments will be no different in the spring. Are the Government going to get themselves into a position in which they will be forced by the will of this House—I believe that they will be—to concede reluctantly, apparently being dragged along, or will they take the initiative and for once put Parliament and its input first?
In, I think, welcoming the Bill, my future attitude towards it—and that of many noble Lords—will depend on the answer to that question. I choose my words carefully when I say that a decision to announce a Joint Committee now would greatly speed the passage of this Bill.
I want to address the rest of my remarks to the central issue which continues to arise in this debate as it did on 28th February; that is, the role of Ofcom relative to the BBC. I regret that the debate has created more heat than light. For ITV in particular and the commercial broadcasters in general, bringing the BBC under Ofcom has been a stick with which to beat the Beeb. It is part of their general campaign of denigration against the corporation and their attempts to insinuate that, because the BBC is not subject to the same regime of standards regulation as they are, its standards are lower. I do not believe that to be the case.
The BBC top brass has reacted—at least, before the change in chairman it did—very poorly. Instead of the calmness and rationality we should expect of the BBC, it has gone into defensive mode; and the BBC in defensive mode demonstrates an inimitable blend of arrogance and insecurity which makes many of us yearn to give it a bloody nose. Tempted though I am, I shall resist. Let us try to be dispassionate.
Two arguments are advanced for bringing the BBC into the purview of Ofcom. The first is that this would create a level playing field with the commercial broadcasters. When I hear the hackneyed, hideous phrase "level playing field"—and I was sorry to hear the great expert on the English language, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, give it houseroom today—I reach
426
for my journalist's blue pen. But at least I could make sense of it when it was first applied to competition between commercial companies. It makes no sense here, for we are talking about completely different kinds of outfits engaging in different kinds of activities. There cannot be a level playing field between a commercial broadcaster in the market-place and a public service licence-fee supported broadcaster. It makes as much sense as putting enormous effort into levelling a playing field so that there can be a match between one team playing football and another playing rugby. Therefore, I reject the level playing field argument and I hope never to let those words again pass my lips.
But there is another argument which has as much force and which we have heard today. It is the argument of accountability. Once upon a time when the good and the great ruled our land unchallenged, the accountability of the BBC might adequately have been protected by the board of governors, and the board of governors alone. I do not believe that that is acceptable today. Nor actually does it preserve the independence of the BBC because in practice a paradox arises. The only outfit outside the BBC which has any powers over it is the Secretary of State, an elected politician. He or she determines its charter, the level of its licence fee, what new channels it may launch and who chairs it. There is no accountability other than to a politician. I do not see why the BBC is so adamant that Ofcom should be kept at bay as a way of preserving its independence while apparently accepting that a party politician should have so much power over what it does.
Therefore, it seems to me that the case for a role for Ofcom vis-à-vis the BBC is a powerful and indeed irresistible one. But what in the cacophony of competing lobbies few people seem to have noticed is that the Government propose that it will have such a role. It will—just read the White Paper. It will have a role as commercial regulator of the BBC's commercial activities. It will monitor the BBC's adherence to what are called "tier two standards"; that is to say, clearly measurable performance indicators, such as adherence to independent production quotas, and on targets for regional output. It will advise the Secretary of State on new services. Now it is done on the say-so of a politician. Furthermore, Ofcom will be taking over the regulatory responsibilities of the Broadcastings Standards Commission, so admirably chaired by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which already has a duty to consider complaints against the BBC. Those are not negligible powers relative to the BBC which the Government propose to give to Ofcom.
At the same time, no one, not even Ofcom's strongest supporters, is proposing an end to the governors. They will continue to exist. The White Paper lists them as one of the bodies which would exist after its proposals are implemented, adding in a footnote—and it is a powerful and important footnote to which we shall give much attention—that they will have "modified responsibilities".

427
The governors' role needs reconsideration. We have that on the highest authority. Gavyn Davies—perhaps I may declare an interest through friendship even before the House's rules require it is—the new chairman of the BBC. He was also the chair of the panel on the future financing of the BBC on which I was lucky enough to sit. On page 146 of its report the panel concluded:
"In regulation more generally a certain tension between regulators and those they regulate is regarded is desirable, since their interests can diverge. It is not clear whether in the case of the BBC such a divergence of interests can become transparent and effective".
Shorn of the verbiage, that means that something must be done about the governors. Here we see the glimmering of a constructive solution to the impasse between the BBC and everyone else. I believe that in the Ofcom legislation, if not in this paving Bill—I have an open mind on this matter—we should provide for Ministers to give Ofcom such powers in relation to the BBC as they may, after due consideration, judge to be appropriate. The time to do that is in the context of charter review which looms. In view of the way that the legislation has dropped back, we shall be in the middle of charter review before we get the main Bill.
Therefore, the correct time to determine the future role of the governors and the relationship with Ofcom is when the charter is reviewed, and when the role of the governors is sorted out in the course of that review. If we get the Bill when we are told we shall get it, that may mean that the status quo will abide for a couple more years than would otherwise be the case. To me, that is a price that is well worth paying to get right the governance of a major national institution in the new world of broadcasting which is dawning on us so fast.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on her excellent maiden speech. She succeeded me as chairman of the amalgamated commission and carried through that difficult process with elegance and success. Although I did not always agree with her, I agreed with her speech.
I must also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who is not here. He once said that he wanted to sack me when my noble friend Lord Baker appointed me. He said that the first act of a Labour government elected in 1992 would be to get rid of Canon Pilkington. Fortunately, that event did not occur and his speech shows a generosity of spirit which he did not show at that time.
As a former chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission I can talk only about content. I confess that I know little about economic regulation. I share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Baker about combining economic regulation with the business of judging content. That said, as to content I welcome the Bill. During my four years with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission I found that there were too many regulatory bodies which could, and did, lead to confusion. During my time there were
428
occasions when they arrived at different conclusions on the same complaint. That is both confusing to the public and makes a mockery of the whole system.
I believe that anyone who has dealt with regulatory bodies will agree that it is difficult for the general public, given the number of regulatory bodies, to know which one they should approach when they have problems in the broadcasting area. Canada has long had a unified system which has proved very successful. Therefore, Ofcom has a model abroad to which I believe we should give some attention.
That said, I should like to make two specific points which underline what many other noble Lords have said in this debate. I believe that these points should be considered when the communications Bill is brought before Parliament. First, my commission, which was amalgamated with the Broadcasting Standards Commission, considered the narrow area of unfairness and infringement of privacy. They were not cases that gained great publicity, but those complaints were by people or companies who felt that their personal lives or business reputation had been injured by a particular broadcast. In many cases they suffered great agony as a result of that situation.
I believe it is important to underline that the role we played was essentially that of an ombudsman. Whatever happens with Ofcom, I believe it is terribly important that within the structure such a role should exist. In some ways, that is what worries me and other noble Lords about the vagueness of a paving Bill. We shall plunge into it before we know the details. In some way the role as an ombudsman should be ring fenced so that its task of providing a just redress is not subordinated to the other issues that Ofcom will have to consider.
In that context, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Baker needs to be underlined. The Government are to create a body that is both economic and also judges individual cases. In part, the old Broadcasting Complaints Commission had quasi-legal status, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, and some of the independence that belongs to a court of law. The noble Baroness is to be congratulated that when she had to combine the divergent roles of taste, decency and quasi-legal status in dealing with individuals who had suffered personal hardship she managed to ring fence the situation so that the integrity of that body was never questioned. I believe that the Government should consider that matter.
Like all other noble Lords, I must turn to the BBC. Like anyone else in the debate, I cannot understand why the BBC is not to be placed under the new body. Perhaps I may reminisce a little over the history. Up until the mid-1950s when the BBC had a monopoly the governors were able to perform their role as guardians of public service broadcasting, impartiality, fairness and much more. But once that monopoly went and ITV began the governors were merely part of a competing broadcasting system and were very concerned for the success of only part of that system which they represented. Therefore, they were not just guardians of the public interest as they were prior to the mid-1950s; they were also directors of a company.

429
That becomes even more marked when one considers the pressure of digital and global broadcasting and so much more. Certainly, in this situation it would be difficult for them to be the best judge of complaints of unfairness, infringement of privacy and so on. That may conflict with their general role as directors of the company. Some group—my ombudsman—external to the corporation is essential in this area. I underline the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that at present the only body that can judge the BBC because of its statutory position created in the early 1980s is the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
The Canadian system places public service broadcasting under the overall body. I remind noble Lords that in the late 1970s the Annan commission, which has been quoted by previous speakers, reported that the BBC had failed to judge complaints fairly. The result was the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Therefore, I cannot envisage that the Government could go back to the situation previous to the proposals of the Annan commission which produced the legislation that established the Broadcasting Complaints Commission in the early 1980s.
Therefore, with qualifications I welcome Ofcom. We see barely bones. It is rather like an archaeological dig; one sees the faint sign of bones and the odd piece of pottery and skull, but little else. But my job and that of other noble Lords is to put flesh on the bones and table amendments in Committee. Gradually, the Government will come to realise that they must put forward more precise proposals. I hope to contribute a few morsels myself.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, like other noble Lords I welcome the Bill. It moves us towards a single regulator in the field of communications. That is a sensible, and perhaps overdue, response to growing convergence in the industry. In many respects, it mirrors the earlier convergence in financial services that led the Government to create the FSA. Like the FSA, Ofcom will regulate a sector that is crucial to economic growth, efficiency and innovation. But, unlike the FSA, it also regulates a sector that is crucial to profound issues of citizenship, democracy and social inclusion. It is crucial, therefore, that we get it right.
Convergence, of course, is slow to come, despite being much talked about, and the bursting of the dot.com bubble will not bring it forward much faster. But it will come and it is essential that we have in place a regulatory structure that can cope with it. We must ensure that key commercial decisions, notably non-investment and products and service innovation in that sector, are not distorted by regulatory gaps, regulatory overlaps and regulatory inconsistencies. That will be more readily accomplished under Ofcom than under the present five-headed structure, however good the co-ordination between the different heads of those five bodies.
430
Moreover, a single body can more easily deploy regulatory resource where it is most needed and withdraw from regulation where it is no longer needed—a key factor in key parts of the telecoms sector. That is more easily done than will be the case with many smaller organisations with more limited individual resource and narrower agendas. Furthermore, I believe that the issues of economic and content regulation are more interrelated, perhaps subtly so, but certainly more interrelated than suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. That again points to the need for a single regulatory body in this area.
I also welcome the Bill because through it the Government are preparing the ground to create the new regulatory body. Creating one single organisation from five is no simple management and organisational task. It will involve vexed questions; for example, where to locate the body, and the creation of a unified salary structure. I do not believe that a single salary structure implies a levelling up and therefore a necessary increase in cost, providing that it is well managed. It requires a unified organisational structure; and it needs to deal with some vexed questions, such as pensions. All those matters can be managed, particularly given the excellent co-operation among the existing regulatory bodies. But it needs to be worked on and it needs time.
The example of Ofgem—I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the new Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—merging the old Offer and Ofgas, and the example of the FSA, which brought together certainly many more than five organisations or parts of organisations, illustrate both the issues and their resolution and merit a study. But what they clearly bring out is that time and careful planning are of the essence. It is key that we do not lose momentum. As outlined by the Minister, any delay in the timetable could easily lead to loss of morale in the existing regulatory bodies and a loss of key talented personnel. As good regulation depends crucially on good people, delay is to be avoided.
I also welcome the board structure proposed for Ofcom. I do not think that that has been challenged in the debate tonight. But it is, one should observe, relatively new for economic regulation. Oftel, Offer, Ofgas and Ofwat were all set up with individual director-generals, individually responsible for fulfilling the statutory duties placed on them by Parliament. The experience of the new Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—I leave it to noble Lords to judge the record of that authority—has been a good one. A board structure depersonalises issues; it allows different experiences and expertise to be brought to bear on difficult decisions; and it provides greater continuity over time. Ofcom will certainly need that experience and expertise as it has to balance the different requirements of regulatory policy for achieving economic efficiency, policies towards content regulation, and policies towards the roll out of, and access to, new technologies; and it has to grapple with the difficult issues of the analogue switch off and convergence and the roll out of broadband.

431
Like the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I should like to see clarity in the objectives that we place on Ofcom, but I fear, although I may be proved wrong, that it will prove impossible to find a single primary duty that we can place on Ofcom in the legislation to follow. Simply rolling together different objectives into a single sentence does not avoid the very difficult questions of choice and trade off that arise in this area.
Much has been said about the position of the BBC. I shall be brief on the point. I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Borrie—perhaps now Lord Competition Borrie—that regulation has its strengths. But a major and inevitable weakness of regulation is that it operates largely by constraints and negative powers. There is great merit in an organisation such as the BBC which has a positive mission to pursue its role in public sector broadcasting, updated, to be sure, for the 21st century. I believe that British broadcasting generally has been the better for that positive influence over the decades that the BBC has exerted in carrying out its mission. We would be unwise to tamper with that too fundamentally. The BBC's mission needs to be defended. The Government's position of partially bringing it within the regulatory oversight of Ofcom, leaving the positive mission for the BBC, is a good one.
Finally, perhaps I may touch on a concern that I have heard expressed by a number of informed commentators but which has not been touched on in your Lordships' debate tonight. The issue of broadcasting attracts many, each with their divergent interests and views. The danger, not so much with this Bill but with its successor, is that as it proceeds through Parliament we will each try to hang our own favoured bauble on this particular Christmas tree. I hope very much that we resist that temptation.
Future regulation will be the better the more that the Bill lays down high-level principles and refrains from detailed prescription. Regulation needs to be flexible and fleet of foot to keep up with rapid technological advance and market changes. We need to avoid building too much prescriptive detail into primary legislation. We need to allow the board of Ofcom to exercise its discretion in pursuit of the high-level objectives laid down by Parliament. That point applies as much to Government as to the rest of us. The Minister will be better served by leaving the detail of regulatory practice to Ofcom and ensuring consistency and clarity in overall objectives. Light touch regulation—I hope that phrase has real meaning—of this kind will serve us best over the coming years, and avoid the need to return to primary legislation within the decade.
8.59 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I want to speak briefly on one aspect of broadcasting; namely, the coverage of international affairs. I declare an interest as a trustee of Christian Aid and as an associate of Save the Children Fund and a number of other aid agencies. Through these organisations I have also had links with the International Broadcasting Trusts, the One World Broadcasting Trust and 3WE, which is the third world and environment broadcasting project.
432
The Minister knows that I have expressed concerns to her in her previous capacity as regards public awareness of international issues. She was personally sympathetic to those concerns. We are now at a time when these matters seem more urgent and the case for more understanding of other cultures is considerably strengthened.
The Government have made genuine advances in the promotion of development education, support for a wider curriculum and the building up of alliances in the voluntary sector for global citizenship and racism awareness. Now that broadcasting has come back into focus, the Minister will recognise that the same policies will be needed in programme regulation. Since the events of 11th September, that has become even more important.
In the debate on Second Reading I wish only to register concern that the new Bill, while obviously welcome to most of us because it reflects a new environment, may not do enough to promote global awareness and to ensure that the public will receive a proper standard of programming in this field. Much of the positive content of the "Tier 3" category of broadcasting applies directly to global citizenship, but as the Bill is currently drafted, the regulator will have little impact on its performance. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some guidance as regards the extent of monitoring and the likely consequences in the event of any failures in this area of broadcasting.
It may surprise some noble Lords to learn that since the last Act of 1990 there has been a significant fall in the television coverage of international affairs. Monitoring of the four main TV channels by 3WE showed that non-news factual broadcasting on international issues fell by 42 per cent in the period from 1992–2000, while coverage of developing countries fell by 50 per cent over the same period. The addition in 1997 of Channel 5 made almost no impact. Those figures have caused great concern among the aid agencies since they show, first, an erosion of the commitment of public service as well as independent broadcasters and, secondly, that the regulatory arrangements put in place a decade ago were not sufficient in themselves to arrest the decline. It is essential that this trend does not continue at home, even as we applaud the success of the BBC overseas.
Finally, as regards Ofcom itself, I suggest that the strength of the interest of the voluntary sector concerned with international affairs surely indicates that its advice, perhaps through the suggested advisory panel to run parallel with the consumer panel, would be helpful to the regulator. In his reply, can the Minister confirm that that proposal will be given serious consideration during the passage of the Bill?
9.2 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, for a short Bill, I shall try to keep my comments comparably brief—a virtue already displayed by my noble friend Lady Blackstone in her excellent introduction. Nonetheless, want to take a little time to pay tribute to the notable maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Corbett and the

433
noble Baroness, Lady Howe. It seems to me that both are good advertisements for, on the one hand, the traditional method of entering this House and, on the other, the new way.
I should also declare an interest as a venture capital investor in or board member of a number of companies already entered in the register whose activities may be affected by the future operations of Ofcom. In the spirit of the future rules of the House, I should add the name of one company, Video Networks, in which I am—to me—a significant shareholder, as indeed are my former colleagues there and other friends.
I welcome the Bill unreservedly, both for the principle of establishing a unitary regulator and for the pragmatic approach of constituting Ofcom through the Bill, so that in its initial incarnation it can both participate in and inform the debate about the subsequent Bill and prepare to implement its provisions once they are enacted. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, complained that the Government were putting the cart before the horse, an analogy which itself seems almost completely topsy-turvy. To adopt that analogy, even if we do not know the precise weight of the future regulatory burden, the sooner we start breeding a thoroughbred to lead it, the better.
I want to touch on four points: competition, concurrency, cost and composition; four C's. In the process, I may flag one or two issues relating to the future regulatory Bill either because of the importance that I attach to them or because they illustrate the huge task that will face Ofcom once it assumes its full responsibilities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, made clear, competition lies at the heart of economic regulation. In an area with external constraints—spectrum, for instance, in particular in the analogue era—the regulator may need to be actively interventionist to balance competitive forces with non-economic objectives such as programme diversity. As constraints such as these are eased by, for example, digital technology, the regulator must judge carefully what measures will allow the most vibrant and responsive markets to emerge through a transitional period into a time when, as the noble Lord pointed out, the lightest of light touches may be all that is needed.
A good illustration of how not to do it has been provided, I am afraid, by Oftel in its handling of local loop unbundling. Five separate approaches to local loop unbundling were identified by Oftel—I am sure that there are countless other variations—which then managed to choose the one, a complete free-for-all, which may have created the illusion of competition but in reality offered the consumer the smallest possible chance of benefit. As the White Paper noted, in countries where local loop unbundling had already commenced, itself an indictment given the UK's early lead in telecommunications deregulation, the process had proved problematic. Oftel appeared to pay little or no attention to the lessons that could be learned from abroad. British business and individuals are the poorer for that. The interests of the consumer would have
434
been hugely better served by the introduction of targeted competition through licensing a limited number of alternative service providers in any one region, combined with a significantly more vigorous and proactive attitude towards BT. It is essential that Ofcom enforces effective competition rather than simply introduces illusory competition.
The realpolitik of competition in the analogue era has to be scrutinised with a fresh eye as digital technology changes the terrain. My noble friend Lord Bragg raised the fragile position of ITV Digital. The partners in the company formerly known as ONdigital have urged the Government to advance the date for analogue switch-off in order to accelerate the take-up of digital, as well as taking other measures to stimulate that process. In principle, now that we have started down the road towards digital switch-over, it is right to continue; and, if to continue, to do so as rapidly as possible, however formidable the challenge, for fear of being stuck with the worst of both worlds.
But if this proves to be the route we take, it may present the partners in ITV Digital with a conundrum, for those same companies own the majority of the ITV network and have loudly declared the desirability of merging fully as soon as possible. Yet the sooner that full digital coverage is achieved and the necessary steps taken to allow analogue switch-off, the weaker the argument is to allow that merger. Why? Because the availability of digital channels would allow Carlton and Granada each to have a national network and, instead of cosily sharing prime-time programming, have to compete to win both audiences and advertisers.
If this scenario, heavily dependent on a determined approach to analogue switch-off, were to become a possibility, we would face most vividly a case of concurrency, my second C. The White Paper sets out very clearly the Government's thinking on the interplay between Ofcom and the OFT—which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Baker, may have forgotten when he criticised the Government's thinking on the whole area of economic regulation—and it suggests that the OFT would have primacy on any merger, in consultation with Ofcom, whereas Ofcom would have primacy in competition issues within broadcasting, presumably excluding mergers. This represents a considerable improvement on the existing position—described by my noble friend Lord Dubs as "double jeopardy"—but I suspect that there may be some further clarification which would be desirable.
Very briefly, on my other two Cs, the creation of the merged office may not give the opportunity to make net savings in cost but it should not be the cause of an increase. Regulators of industries where practitioners enjoy significant financial rewards always have the challenge to induce at least some poachers to turn gamekeeper, so I suspect that an effective Ofcom may need to have a smaller number of people, better rewarded.
Finally, on composition, like my noble friend Lord Currie, I welcome the proposed composition of Ofcom, with a small board as well as a chief executive.

435
Unlike other noble Lords, however, I would favour a board which remained as small as possible indefinitely, with its members, while remaining non-executive, active in the strategic direction of the office and with the resources to do that.
9.10 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I start by declaring an interest as a non-executive director of ITV Digital.
The Bill not only brings together the five regulators involved in broadcasting and radio but also sets the agenda for the future. It will end the occasional turf wars between departments and their regulatory bodies over broadcasting and media responsibilities.
It will be useful to start by looking at the principles underlying a single regulatory regime. In the Government's White Paper, A New Future for Communications, published last December, the Government set themselves the task of introducing clearer and simpler regulation; they gave a commitment that broadcasting will retain a strong public service remit; that they would encourage competition and future market development, and would place the BBC partly alongside the other broadcasters. So the question we must pose to the Government is whether the Bill sets the scene to achieve those ambitions.
The BBC would come under the first two tiers of regulation by Ofcom but not the third. The BBC will account to the standards required under the statements of programming required by the third tier, but will account to the chairman and board of governors. As we have heard, the management board of the BBC and the regulator of the BBC have two roles.
The BBC's charter and agreement has five years to run. I do not believe that a case has yet been made for altering that agreement, but I do believe that these issues will have to be carefully considered before a new agreement can be put in place in five years' time.
There are difficult issues here that put the chairman and the governors in the position of judge and jury. An important issue is the separation between the public service remit, the commercial broadcasting services and, for example, the Internet services of the BBC. The responsibility lies with the board and the auditors but it is not a transparent process.
The BBC has a unique public service remit and constantly reminds us of it. But so do other commercial broadcasters have their own public service remit. ITV's public service remit is enshrined in its licence conditions and covers scheduling and a range of programmes that must be broadcast.
There may be a role for Ofcom and I do not accept the argument that Ofcom's other responsibilities could conflict when it comes to the BBC. Under its charter and agreement the BBC is accountable to Parliament, but it is a cumbersome process. If the present arrangements were to stay, the BBC would need to be accountable also to the Public Accounts Committee
436
and to the National Audit Office. That is the alternative to Ofcom. I believe that Ofcom may prove to be a more welcome alternative for the BBC.
Turning to the commercial sector, I believe that ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 will also benefit from a single regulator. I do not understand the reasons for S4C, the Welsh language channel, being left out and remaining self-regulating. It has a public service remit, but it also carries advertising. Broadcasting is not a devolved matter. If S4C is regulated by a chairman appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the National Assembly for Wales, should not Scottish television and BBC Scotland be regulated in Scotland? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Ofcom will not merely pull together all the functions of the previous five bodies. It will do more, particularly dealing with the increasing number of European directives. Who will scrutinise Ofcom? To whom will it be responsible? It will certainly not be directly responsible to the Secretary of State. Will it come under the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee?
I was interested to see in the report by Towers Perrin published at the weekend, commissioned by the five existing regulators, a warning that the opportunities for cost reductions are small and that Ofcom may require greater funding. It will be a large organisation with over 1,100 people on the payroll and a budget of £119 million. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that Ofcom will receive the funding that it requires to do the job, and that he will explain how its cost controls are to be monitored.
The Minister assured the House that Ofcom will consult with the industry before it sets up its internal structures and working arrangements. Will the Government explain how they see the split of roles and responsibilities between Ofcom and the OFT?
There are now over 250 television channels available to viewers in this country. New services—Internet via the television and interactivity—are developing rapidly. Television is an easy way to bring the Internet into every home. Over 30 per cent of all viewers in this country have gone digital. Sky has 5.5 million subscribers, NTL and Telewest have 1.2 million customers between them, and ITV Digital has about 1.3 million viewers.
More television has not meant less quality television; it has actually produced both better programming and occasionally, of course, worse programming. What it has produced is better choice. More choice enables broadcasters to offer new services and encourages innovation. Digital television has been the main driver of new channels, promoted by the private sector in its terrestrial and satellite forms. The BBC has done little so far to promote digital take-up, except to pay Sky an undisclosed sum for BSkyB to carry BBC on its satellite platform. So much for the new transparency—the BBC will not say what it pays.
Going digital has had a large cost. Pay-to-view is the most important way to drive take-up. Digital television has grown because Sky, Carlton and Granada supported the installation of set-top boxes.

437
Without pay-to-view driving and subsidising the take-up, there is no chance of meeting the Government's goal of analogue switch-off between 2006 and 2010.
The pay-to-view broadcasters, including cable operators, cannot do it all on their own. The Government must put policies in place which encourage take-up and which encourage manufacturers to produce more and cheaper digital televisions. The BBC and Channels 4 and 5 must play their part.
The BBC has been allocated three new television channels and five new radio stations by the Government. These services, which can be seen on digital television, will cost £300 million out of the licence fee over the next two years. So the BBC must promote digital viewing if it is to justify this expenditure out of its licence fee income. After all, the BBC has been given the best multiplex for broadcasting.
The BBC has been required by the DCMS to show that these new services do not replicate existing services. I support the introduction of the new television channels; however, I am concerned that the proposed new radio channels have not had the proper scrutiny that they deserve. They are going to compete directly in areas already covered by independent radio stations.
I welcome the draft digital action plan published jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The accompanying statement by the two Secretaries of State makes it clear that the Government,
"wants every home to be able to enjoy the present and future benefits of digital television"
That is an admirable ambition with which we all agree.
What do the Government intend to do about the ownership of radio licences and local terrestrial television licences by religious bodies? They do not seem to have made up their mind yet.
Perhaps I may say a word about what the Bill does not contain. As many speakers have said, it is disappointing that there is no review of media ownership restrictions. There is clearly room for consolidation within ITV while maintaining the important aspects of regional programming.
Following the emergence of cable and satellite, old rules have been made redundant. It should be the aim of government—I hope that it is—to bring broadcasting and radio and the rest of the media within a normal competitions policy over a period of time. The old barriers do not make sense any more in a global market.
I do not have time this evening to go into the matter, but I am also concerned about bundling, market abuse and about the criteria for "must carry" channels. While some services should be available for all, different platforms should be able to carry their own unique services. The industry needs a main communications Bill. I hope that the Government will stick to their plan and publish a draft of the Bill early
438
next year. Perhaps they will be able to do so before we have finished improving the Bill in this House. It is crucial for the industry that a Bill should be ready for Parliament during the following Session. There will be much to debate during the passage of this albeit rather short Bill, but I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House will be constructive and, I hope, improve the Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, declarations of interest in this debate have been fluttering around like leaves in the autumn, so I had better begin by stating my own. I declare that I have a daughter who is a BBC executive. As a former chairman of the IBA, I should also declare that I am an IBA pensioner and president of the IBA pensioners' association. In the immortal words of the Broadcasting Act, I hope that "due impartiality" will have been satisfied by that declaration.
This Bill starts the process of determining the character and quality of our broadcasting and telecommunications, certainly for the early decades of the new century. I join with others in welcoming the fact—an accidental fact, I believe, but a happy one—that it is a skeleton Bill and that the flesh of what will go on the bare bones will come later. Much of that flesh is indicated in the Government's White Paper, so we are not as ignorant about what is likely to come in the main Bill as some noble Lords seem to fear. However, I believe that this skeleton, paving Bill provides us with a priceless opportunity for pre-legislative consultation, involving both Houses of Parliament. I join the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in expressing the hope that the Minister may be able to be more precise in his response than the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as regards the Government's commitment to having that kind of pre-legislative consultation.
The Bill will establish a huge new regulatory body. It will merge other bodies that have a staff collectively of 1,000 in 20 offices who will be dealing with the issue of 250,000 licences. Inevitably, it recognises the reality of 21st-century technology. When I became chairman of the IBA, which was only 20 years ago, telecommunications and broadcasting were entirely separate and in entirely insulated little national boxes. Today, all the frontiers are down. Satellites, fibre optic cable, computers and the Internet have seen to that. If this requires some kind of super-regulator—an Ofcom—so be it.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, I am bound to confess that I remain rather agnostic about this being the only possible pattern. Some noble Lords have suggested that we could have two bodies. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made that suggestion in his excellent maiden speech. One can be sure of one thing: there may be total convergence in the world of the new telecommunications and broadcasting technology, but there will certainly be two bodies in Whitehall with not

439
much convergence between them: the DCMS and the DTI. That will be a situation upon which Parliament will need to keep a pretty watchful eye.
What kind of Ofcom should it be? Patricia Hodgson, the director general of the ITC, used a vivid phrase in answer to that question. She said that Ofcom should be mean and lean and both things at the same time. It should be lean because a regulator on this scale, covering many diverse, conflicting but clearly interrelated activities, must guard against becoming a bureaucratic monster. Many noble Lords would agree with that proposition. It should be mean, too, because however much Ofcom relies on self-regulation, it must be able to intervene quickly and decisively when it does act.
How to reconcile meanness and leanness will require the wisdom of Solomon. The new body will have to avoid setting itself up simply as a patchwork of the various bodies it absorbs. There has been a good deal of agreement about that in the debate.
Ofcom must establish an integrated identity of its own, but how will it ensure that commercial radio is not overshadowed by the giants of television, as tended to happen in the old MA before there was a separate Radio Authority? I rather welcome the proposal in the document provided for us, which refers to a horizontal radio organisation within Ofcom, which would be extremely important.
Judging from the flood of representations that we have received, Ofcom will have to organise itself to satisfy a wide variety of national, regional, ethnic minority and other functional interests. I do not presume to give any advice about how to deal with that tonight, but it would be wise for Ofcom to start small and compact. It may be that some of these matters can be best dealt with by building up a corpus of effective advisory committees, reflecting the interests and concerns of various outside activities.
The Government's White Paper provided a welcome assertion of the importance of public service broadcasting. But we are uneasily aware that their drive for digital television and radio was driven not by a belief in better public service broadcasting, but by the Treasury's obsession to raise £22.5 billion by auctioning off the analogue frequencies for the third generation of telecommunication purposes. From many of the speeches that we have heard in this debate, it looks as if all this is going a little sour. The bidders are burdened by debt. ITV Digital is in trouble. There are signs that even the natives, among whom I include myself, are becoming restless as we sit before our analogue television screens. The Government's target for switching off terrestrial analogue is 2006–10. The last published forecast by the ITC, which it has never repeated, was that the digital switch-off could not take place until 2018.
In the mean time, the Cassandras among us who took part in the debates on the previous Broadcasting Bill have seen depressing evidence that even the present proliferation of TV channels has put downward pressure on the terrestrial public service channels. ITV still does excellent things in its regional
440
programming. Under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, it preserves the "South Bank Show" as a monument to cultural programming. ITV has undoubtedly, as we forecast and under the pressure of new developments, dumbed down in its general pattern of programming. It is not alone. Soaps are now stripped across the week and even Channel 4, with its unique innovation remit, is showing worrying symptoms. Its first chief executive, Jeremy Isaacs, wrote an interesting article recently in the Independent, expressing his concern about that. The newspaper itself reached the verdict that in Channel 4,
"we have a publicly owned broadcaster that behaves more and more like a privately owned one".
The remit of Channel 4 which enjoys the great privilege of not having to pay for the spectrum it uses—I gather that is worth about £100 million a year—will come directly under the responsibility of Ofcom and will be a good challenge to it in terms of its responsibility for the programme remit of one of our most important television channels.
In that situation, those of us concerned to maintain the range and quality of British broadcasting should be concerned to preserve and strengthen the special remits of the BBC and of Channel 4 and, indeed, of S4C, as has just been mentioned. We must ensure not only that their privileged position is protected, but we must make equally sure that they themselves vigorously fulfil the special responsibilities and duties that go with those privileges. It is against that background that I make my comments about the relations between Ofcom and the BBC. There has been an artificial dichotomy as regards that issue in some of the speeches. The White Paper proposes that Ofcom should establish the general framework far all broadcasters including the BBC—the so-called tiers one and two of the White Paper—and ensure fair competition. It would be good for the BBC to have its separation of licence revenue and commercial revenue scrutinised for transparency by Ofcom as an independent watchdog.
However, there is a difference between Ofcom and the BBC that is central to this question. Ofcom is a regulatory body with the traditional role of the old Victorian headmaster; namely, to find out what the boys are doing and forbid it, whereas the BBC governors have a different role. If they are doing the heart of their job properly—that is a question that we must all continue to be vigilant about—they are public trustees with the positive duty to promote high quality public service patterns of programming. They are riot there to protect their professional broadcasters from public criticism when things go wrong. They are there to make the difficult definition of where the public interest truly lies in the role of broadcasting in society today. I very much agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Holme that the time is right far the BBC to consider redefining rather precisely what we mean by public service broadcasting in the modern world. The governors are free from having a duty to shareholders or advertisers. They therefore have to justify their use of that rare freedom.

441
The BBC, warts and all, is, in the true sense of that overworked cliché, a world-class British institution. Like a great university or a great school, such creative institutions grow up only gradually and can be damaged easily. The BBC is instinctively recognised as a special case by the British people. On that dreadful day of 11th September, 33 million citizens turned to the BBC for the news from New York. That was more than all the other news providers in this country added together. The BBC World Service, which presently transmits to Afghanistan 17 hours a day, is the global standard of impartial, international news.
For three-quarters of a century the BBC has been an essential cement that has given the diverse nations and regions of the United Kingdom their sense of unity. Its mainstream programmes have stretched the interests of viewers and listeners in ways they never knew they could enjoy. It has had an educational and cultural force that the new niche channels can never achieve although they can usefully supplement it.
In conclusion, the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC will be a major matter for debate in the pre-legislative discussion. Perhaps the longer-term future of the BBC and its governors will be a subject for separate debate when the charter comes up for review in the years that lie immediately ahead. However, there will be many more matters than those to be considered in the pre-legislative discussion that I hope we shall have, including the questions of ownership. I hope that we can deal with this paving Bill quickly and move on to discuss the main Bill before its problems are too firmly set in stone.
9.35 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I declare an interest, as other noble Lords have done tonight, as a recent vice-chairman of the BBC and as the sister of an employee of the BBC. However, I speak tonight not only as someone with an interest in public sector broadcasting, but also as a regulator, wearing my hat as chief executive of the Environment Agency. I have an interest above all in effective and proportionate regulation.
I support the principle of the single regulator represented by Ofcom. In the new digital age it will be even more vital to avoid the current complexity and duplication, as convergence of technologies blurs the lines that currently differentiate regulatory areas.
We also need to overcome the rather ridiculous situation that we find ourselves in from time to time when different regulators dealing with the same case can come to very different decisions on taste, decency or impartiality. That must be abundantly confusing for the poor complainant and for the public.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, I think that it is an excellent idea for a regulatory board to head up Ofcom rather than the heroic one-man band regulatory regimes that we have seen in some other areas of regulatory life, when regulatory decisions have been rather over-sensitive to the personal quirks of the incumbent. I do not think that
442
I am mis-stating the case to say that that was true with the previous water, gas and electricity regulators before we had Ofgem.
Speaking as a regulator, I think that modern regulation must be effective and proportionate. In the case of communications regulation, "proportionate" definitely does not mean that one size fits all. Regulating a music service delivered through a third generation mobile telephone service, a subscription-based digital TV channel for which people have chosen to pay, an advertising-funded free-to-air channel with an element—but only an element—of public service broadcasting, and the BBC, whose sole role is public service broadcasting, will be very different jobs. It would be madness to assume that the regulation of all those very different services should be carried out in the same way.
I support the principle of tiered content regulation, setting down basic content standards for services with small groups of niche viewers, listeners or service takers who are free to choose and to come and go, rising through higher programming obligations and quotas up to the highest requirement to account against statements of programming for broadcasters where there is little choice.
The roles and objectives of diverse ranges of providers with diverse sizes of audiences are very different, so the markets in which they operate need to be clearly differentiated, otherwise we risk having all providers regulated on the basis of issues of competitiveness. Public service broadcasting should not be about competitiveness, but about content, and above all distinctive content.
The development of BBC1 as a mass market channel over the past few years is a present example of the risk of over-emphasis on competition. I am sure that not many of your Lordships sit glued to BBC1 on a Saturday night. I believe that the very competitive environment that existed in the run-up to the last licence fee settlement, in which the determining factor was seen very much as audience share, meant that the focus was on what was popular and, eventually, on what was populist. That is what results from insisting that the BBC competes for audience share.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on head-to-head scheduling provided just such an example. However—it is unfortunate that the noble Lord is not here to receive this excellent piece of advice from me—if he wants to hear the news at nine o'clock, he can tune in rapidly to News 24, available on the ring main here in your Lordships' House for occasions such as this when we are bound to miss the ten o'clock news. Not only can he have the news at 9 p.m., he can have it at 9.15, at 9.30 and at 9.45 p.m. That is what digital news provision is all about.
I believe that the BBC is different, even from the advertising-funded "free to air" broadcasters who have an element of public service remit, because its sole role is public service. Therefore, I believe that it would not be appropriate for it to be wholly regulated by an Ofcom under which competition would drive its regulatory ethic.

443
An example of that is the Government's recent decision to support the BBC's launch of new digital channels for children. The commercial broadcasters got themselves into a stew about that. They were very against the idea that the BBC should be able to launch those children's channels. They saw it and predicated it as direct competition. They said that a range of children's channels are viewed actively by children in this country.
However, the issue rested on the fact that, although there was a range of children's channels, there was no channel of the type proposed by the BBC. The type proposed was one with distinctive and creative programming, originated primarily through those channels and primarily of UK provenance, not a cartoon-based or American-based children's channel, and not one interrupted by exploitative advertising where My Little Pony is pushed harder than heroin up the All Saints Road on a Saturday night. That is what parents said that they wanted. They wanted a channel with original content, one that was UK-based and one that was very much free from advertising. The Government recognised that and approved the BBC's children's channels because they were different. It was not a matter of competition but of distinctiveness. I believe that that would be a virtually impossible decision for an Ofcom to take, charged with regulating across all the providers, including the BBC.
The BBC is different from other broadcasters. Its sole role is public service broadcasting. The governors of the BBC have a duty to direct the BBC in the public interest, free from political or commercial bias, and to ensure impartiality and independence. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, talked about great steps to ensure enhanced accountability of the BBC through its governors. That is very true. The BBC's governors have changed considerably over the years, and successive charters have introduced new requirements. Indeed, the BBC has improved its own accountability systems internally. It now has clear duties to consult the public and to seek government approval for new services. There are clearer duties on the governors to safeguard the remit and accountability, and there are new responsibilities for new institutions such as the national broadcasting councils.
The governors do hold the BBC accountable. In addition, it is proposed that Ofcom will have two key roles in respect of the BBC. It will have an absolutely appropriate one, as is the case with all public sector broadcasters, in the areas of basic content standards and programme obligations and quotas. Of course, the BBC will be subject, as, indeed, would be any commercial operator, in the areas of its purely commercial activities to competition law and competition regulation. However, Ofcom will not—appropriately, I believe, under the current proposals—have a role in deciding the range of BBC public service broadcasting activities on the basis of its place in a competitive market.
444
I believe that communications regulation should be proportionate and should not be about what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, called the level playing field, which he abhorred. To use a phrase of which I am sure he would approve—I know that he is a horseracing man—we should have horses for courses. Tonight a few of us have argued for distinctive and unique regulation for our distinctive and unique public service broadcaster, the BBC. We, the few, hope that the Minister will find us persuasive.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association. The success or otherwise of Ofcom will have a powerful impact on the future of members of the association and on the whole radio industry. My remarks tonight represent my own views but they have inevitably been influenced by the prospective fate of the radio industry as a whole.
As many noble Lords have noted, there is a certain incongruity in discussing a paving Bill for the creation of an organisation the scope and content of whose activities are as yet not precisely defined, although we had a broad view of them in the White Paper. That has not stopped several noble Lords opining this evening about what those activities might most appropriately be, and I am afraid that it will not entirely stop me.
First, however, I want to focus on the basic issue before us; namely, whether there should be an Ofcom at all. Is its existence really a good idea? So far as broadcasting is concerned, will it contribute to access, choice, diversity and the efficient use of scarce spectra? All of those issues are fundamental to the success of broadcasting in this country.
It is well known in relation to the economics of regulation that if there is more than one regulator for an industry the result is wasteful duplication and inefficient utilisation of scarce resources and the consumer is badly served. Those were some of the reasons why the Government rightly decided to opt for a single regulator for the whole of the financial services industry. The creation of the Financial Services Authority was the rational response to convergence in financial services, just as Ofcom is a rational response to convergence in the communications industry. That involves in part convergence in the delivery of services, although that has been somewhat over-hyped, and, most importantly, convergence in the common demands that are placed on scarce spectra. The selfsame logic that supported the creation of the FSA supports the creation of Ofcom. That makes sense—the fact that it makes such good sense is the reason why I welcome the Bill.
It is worth noting that support for the creation of Ofcom is not unanimous throughout the broadcasting industry. We have heard much this evening about the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC but not much about the BBC's view of Ofcom. The creation of Ofcom was discussed fully by the director-general in a speech that he delivered at the radio festival in July. Mr Greg Dyke argued that there should be not one

445
regulator but a plurality of content regulators that could match the plurality of content providers. He went further and declared:
"It has been recognised from the beginning of mass media in this country that plurality is fundamental to the basic values of democracy".
There we have it—the charge is the serious one that Ofcom is a threat to democracy. I presume that we can be confident that the Minister does not agree with Mr Dyke.
Mr Dyke argued that there should be many regulators, but just how many he did not make clear. Nor did he make it clear how the multiplicity of regulators could relate to one another or to different parts of the industry. If the multiplicity of regulators is to be the defence of democracy, surely broadcasters should be able to choose their regulator. Individual radio companies should be able to escape from beneath the heel of an oppressive regulator and search out the sunny uplands of the more liberal regulators. BBC radio, for example, oppressed by the governors, should be able to opt to be regulated by the Radio Authority. Mr Dyke's argument is nonsense, which is why everybody is laughing. It is designed for one purpose only, to disguise the fact that there is no real argument for the BBC not to be regulated by Ofcom. That is what he is afraid of.
I would argue that to establish a single regulator and to leave one broadcaster outside its scope is a recipe for serious inefficiency. It would be as if the Government had gone to all the trouble of creating the Financial Services Authority and then decided that one major firm—shall we say Goldman Sachs—should be exempt from the regulatory regime and allowed to regulate itself. I should like to ask the Minister why, if self-regulation is not good enough for Goldman Sachs, is it good enough for the BBC?
On that topic I make a further point. If Ofcom does not regulate the BBC, the integrity and independence of the corporation are placed in serious jeopardy. History has shown that it is not possible for the BBC board of governors to avoid being sucked into the management as well as the regulation of the BBC. That point has been made by many noble Lords. That is why the governors do not have the power to determine which services should be provided by the BBC and why the Secretary of State determines the content of such new services.
However, in the long run surely it is not right that the Secretary of State should be the arbiter of the content of radio services. We do not want state radio in this country, yet that is exactly the slippery slope down which the absence of independent regulation is pushing the BBC. The creation of Ofcom by the Bill provides the Government and the BBC with a means of escaping from that dilemma.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out that certain aspects of BBC activity will be regulated by Ofcom. However, the crucial issue of format and content will not be. That is particularly vital as an economic issue and in the case of a corporation which
446
in its recent annual report demonstrated that it is driven by the desire to maximise market share. I realise that this is not the Bill in which to discuss the issue of scope and content. Hence the question of regulation of the BBC is a topic to which we shall turn on another date.
I return to the structure of Ofcom as envisaged by the Bill. Clearly, Ofcom involves the amalgamation of four regulators together with the Radiocommunications Agency. I would ask the Minister in winding up to answer two questions about the nature of the single regulator. The first question has been raised by other noble Lords: what is the relationship between Ofcom, the Competition Commission and the various competition authorities? That is a question of enormous importance to the commercial radio industry, which needs to know now where it will stand after Ofcom takes over as its regulator. As my noble friend the Minister will be aware, at present the Radio Authority exercises economic regulation over the radio industry. She will also know that in anticipation of this Bill and the succeeding Bill, the commercial radio industry has joined with the Radio Authority to draw up a blueprint for a simplified economic regulation in future.
The new simple rules define the minimum number of companies which can provide radio programmes within each area of the country. However, the question still remains, what will be the relationship between any economic regulation by Ofcom and the role of the competition authorities? The Competition Commission has an overarching brief in all industries. Perhaps in winding up the Minister could answer that question, first as regards local radio and secondly as regards the national franchises.
My second question is whether the Minister is confident that when five organisations have been incorporated into Ofcom there will be less regulation, not more. If she is, what is the basis of such confidence? We have heard much about light-touch regulation. However, as other noble Lords have asked, what exactly is "light"? Is it lighter than what we have today? The Minister will be aware that despite all the talk of convergence—much of it is just that: talk—communications infrastructure and broadcasting continue to be two quite different things. By bringing the communications and broadcasting regulations together, it appears that Ofcom will face a more massive and complex task than is currently faced by any of the individual existing regulators.
The Minister will also be aware that the Towers Perrin report states that in the short run more work is likely to start than stop and that,
"it is difficult at this stage to make an assessment of the level of resources Ofcom will need".
Given this statement by the independent consultants, is the Minister still confident of the assessments of cost set out in the explanatory notes?
Throughout the progress towards Ofcom, commercial radio has made it clear that having its own regulator has worked well. The progress of the commercial radio industry since 1990 has been more

447
rapid and more beneficial to listening choice than anything achieved under the aegis of the IBA between 1973 and 1990. The attention of the IBA was concentrated for most of its time on television. Will this recur? What will be the position of radio within this new amalgam? Does the Minister accept the Towers Perrin recommendation that there should be,
"a horizontal Radio Group, to ensure the integration of broadcast radio regulation",
throughout Ofcom?
If Ofcom is not to become an unwieldy, sclerotic barrier to progress, its regulatory activities must be transparent, flexible and reduced to the essential minimum. If the organisation established by this Bill is to play a role in the creation of a highly competitive, prosperous, creative and diverse radio industry, it must bring to the twin tasks of content and economic regulation a new spirit of openness and enterprise, a new approach to regulation. If it achieves that, its creation will have been thoroughly worth while. I hope and believe that it will.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, like previous speakers, I begin by declaring my interests. I am a non-executive director of the CN Group, which has a number of commercial radio interests, and I have in the past, but do not now, advised the BBC and the ITV Association.
I recall in early 1996 standing where the noble Baroness was standing earlier this afternoon and introducing the previous Broadcasting Bill. Before delivering my speech on that occasion, I well remember the discussion in the department about its content, especially the more general opening section. Not only did the description of how the digital world might develop stagger me, a non-scientist, I was very concerned not to paint a picture that your Lordships would dismiss as fanciful.
Whether I succeeded then, I do not know. However, in the intervening years it has become clear that the political and social implications of what is happening are far more wide-ranging than many people thought at that time. I have recently tried to clarify in my own mind what the digital revolution is doing and what it has created. I have to admit that I am finding it very far from straightforward.
One analogy is with the Age of Faith. In a way that appears different from the view of contemporary theologians, the Kingdom of Heaven was believed in those days to be immediately at hand and invisible. After all, in quattrocento paintings angels are to be seen almost everywhere, obviously invisible to the human, but there none the less; and the painter, who clearly never saw an angel as he depicted them, knew that they were there and so painted them in, rather like the person who carved the bosses on the roof. In parallel with the physical world, there was a heavenly world that was very real and very close. In a somewhat similar way, the digital world has developed very close to the physical world in which we now live.
448
A different, more contemporary analogy is with the world of Harry Potter. In J K Rowlings' books there exists the wizarding world and the muggle world; the muggle world is our world. They exist in parallel and those who are wizards can move between them.
It seems to me that the revolution of the digital world is that there is existing in parallel with the traditional physical world of our daily lives a world of digital codes and electrical impulses which we have harnessed for a whole variety of separate purposes and which in a real sense changes our traditional relationship with space and time.
The digital world's physical form is a network of cable, wire and radio waves permanently pulsating with binary code transmitted by electrical impulses. What had previously been distinct networks—that is to say, television, telephone, Internet or radio—are now becoming fused. Technology gives entry and exit to the primal soup of digital bit stream out there in cyberspace contained in the networks.
Of course, in the old analogue era it made sense to have different regulators for television, radio and telecoms because they were distinct networks each with their own separate problems. But now they are not; they are fused, or at least fusing, together in a single whole and as such the logic for a single system of regulation is, in my view, overwhelming. That is what this Bill is intended to do and why I support it.
It seems to me that the important political question is how that regulatory system will operate. I do not believe that you can simply separate form and function, as the noble Baroness suggested in her opening remarks. The way the system operates determines what the system as opposed to the structure on which it is based does; whether it will run with or against the grain of public interest; and how it might be answerable or accountable both to the public and to Parliament. Only by looking at those together can we judge whether it is doing the right thing.
I believe that what is needed was put succinctly and emphatically by Patricia Hodgson, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. She is chief executive of the ITC and she gave a speech to the European Media Forum on 26th September this year in which she said that the three vital priorities for regulation were investment-friendly policies, competition and a new settlement for public service broadcasting. I believe that she is right. The way in which Ofcom works must align with these priorities, for if it does so the industries affected by it will flourish and if it fails they will not. The form of Ofcom must enable it to deliver the priorities.
As has been said by a number of speakers, the Bill is not the answer to all the problems facing the sector. It is merely a precursor of the forthcoming communications Bill, which must provide a settlement for the next few years, just as the Broadcasting Act 1996 has done for the past few. Paradoxically, in the case of this kind of legislation, it can only be deemed successful if it creates conditions which make it out of date a few years later.

449
As we know, the world of telecoms and the media is changing very fast and changes are needed to the regulatory regime in response to that. As has already been mentioned, some of them such as those relating to cross-media ownership do not necessarily require statutory change. What are the Government proposing to do about that? Will they do something now or do they want to wait?
I want to concentrate on two of the many aspects of this area because I believe that one cannot separate form and function in the debate. I want to talk, first, about access and, secondly, public service broadcasting. The interface between our physical world and the public networks of binary code is via a series of gateways which are the bottlenecks in the system. Those who control these gateways, whether it be through software, ownership of hardware or by other legal means, are in positions of great power. In my view, perhaps the most important role of Ofcom will be to police those gateways which are under our national jurisdiction in order to ensure that there will be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to enable those of us in this country to draw down through them what it is that is outside.
The proper regulation and policing of that aspect has been one of the major priorities of Ofcom's predecessors and I very much hope that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in responding will be able to confirm that it will be at the centre of Ofcom's workload and that what will be done will be compatible with the provisions of the electronic communications package currently going through the European legislative process.
If one moves through the gateway the corner of the digital world one first enters is that part which is under the UK's jurisdiction. Beyond it there is the equivalent, in digital terms, of international waters where our jurisdiction does not extend. In the area within our jurisdiction are to be found our national public service broadcasters.
As a number of noble Lords have said this evening, public service broadcasting is a vexed and topical question. In this country it comes in a unique and, some would say, rather idiosyncratic form, but, in the best traditions of British institutions, it all works. I believe that that concept has served this country and its citizens well and enabled them to enjoy probably a better choice and range of good quality broadcast services in a whole range of different milieus than is the case elsewhere. In a world of increasing choice and pluralism it provides a benchmark that its commercial competitors must match to capture audiences.
The rationale for public service broadcasting and the form that it takes is bound to be changed by the technological changes of the past few years. It does not matter that the old arguments may have died or are less relevant. I believe that there are cogent new ones to replace them. It is important that nobody becomes a prisoner of nostalgia for form. Anything that is worth its salt must adapt as the world changes and that applies to public broadcasters as much to everything
450
else. Between them they must provide a body of high quality material for our countrymen not only on television and radio. I have always been a strong supporter of the BBC's news activities and online business. I believe that the BBC was right to put effort and money into that.
Just as we have a tradition of art galleries, museums, public libraries and subsidised music and theatre—after all, there are none better in the world—so we have evolved a series of arrangements for television and radio wherein within its genre we have top quality. It may to some extent have happened by chance, but so be it. It improves the quality of life in this country. No doubt it is possible to make some ready money by dismantling the system, just as the proceeds of the sale of the Victoria and Albert Museum or the National Gallery could be used to pay off the national debt, but they would be silly things to do. But it is not silly to review critically and thoroughly what is done and how it is paid for. Are the right things being done by the right people in the right way and in the right quantity? For example, perhaps we may have too few or too many channels providing public service broadcasting on the digital multiplexes. Do we need channels 3 and 5 in their present form? Should they be different? What, for example, should the relationship be between public service broadcasting and e-commerce, or the cross-referencing of public service broadcasting to commercial organisations?
Already in their response to the consultation following the launch of the communications White Paper the Government have begun to propose adjustment of the relationship between these various organisations via the way in which Ofcom will handle them. As has been said this evening, perhaps the most contentious is the position of the BBC for, like the Church of England—an institution with which it has a number of similarities—it operates under a different legal regime from the rest of society. No doubt when the BBC was established its arrangements represented the way that things were done. As the number of commercial broadcast offerings increased the subordinate system designed to regulate them grew and grew, so that now the BBC's arrangements may appear to some to be a minority anomaly. Faced with such a state of affairs it is tempting to try to force a perceived anomaly into the wider more general framework, which I believe to be a mistake. It is much better to examine the general role, status and legal character of the BBC and its relation with the putative regulator, other broadcasters and society as a whole as part of the process in the run-up to the communications Bill.
Over the years the BBC, governed by charter and agreement, has changed as their provisions and the arrangements put in place beneath them have evolved. Having debated the matter in this Chamber, I am aware that it is not a straightforward business, but I believe that a serious examination of all the options will be called for in due course. It cannot be left until the end of the year 2006 when the current charter and agreement expire. It should, therefore, be brought forward for consideration with the other matters to be

451
dealt with before the Communications Bill finally passes through Parliament. Not least of my reasons for this is my belief that it is likely that the best way in which the BBC can deliver a series of strong public service programmes for this country is by being a major global player, which is desirable for other reasons as well. In the contemporary world television in the English language is a global commodity, as are those who create it. Already we see BBC Worldwide generating sales of £587 million and contributing just under £100 million to the corporation's cashflow.
In the future the key to a successful domestic BBC will be a successful global business. In turn a successful domestic BBC will be the driver of a successful global business. We must find the appropriate legal basis and constitutional framework to do that, which is fair both to other broadcasters and to the corporation, as well as being transparent, because a failure to achieve that will impoverish us all in more ways than one.
However important that may be, it is just one part of Ofcom's wider task. In conclusion, because it is important to be clear about the overall approach of this new organisation and the way that it looks at matters, I repeat the remarks of Patricia Hodgson that I quoted earlier. The three vital priorities of regulation for Ofcom should be investment friendly policies, competition and a new settlement for public service broadcasting.
While structure is important, it will all come to naught if this is not achieved. If we get these priorities right the rest will follow; if we get them wrong it will not.
10.11 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this debate and not to have to declare any interests at all. I must be unique among noble Lords who have spoken in being completely free from interest in this respect. I am not only free from government responsibilities, but also free from the corporate interest had my summer pursuit of the BBC chairmanship turned out differently. In that context, I take this first opportunity that I have had publicly to congratulate Gavyn Davies on his appointment to the BBC chair of governors. I am sure that the House recognises that he will be a formidable champion of public service broadcasting—the issues that we have heard discussed this evening—and a very powerful leader of the corporation in today's increasingly complex broadcasting environment which the Bill begins—everyone has emphasised that—to address.
The Minister earlier urged your Lordships to approach the Bill as a beginning, as the start of a wider debate which we hope will lead fairly rapidly to the much fuller communications Bill. I hope that the Minister, like me, has been interested in the very wide-ranging comments and contributions which have been made by noble Lords from such a variety of backgrounds and with such authority. We have gone back to first principles and in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, back to the world of fantasy. My contribution will be somewhat more mundane as
452
I intend to make some brief remarks about the regulation of public service broadcasting and, in particular, the BBC.
As has been all too often repeated this evening, the BBC is not included in the Bill. That is an omission which has been roundly criticised by distinguished speakers on this side of the House, notably, and perhaps most recently, by my noble friend Lord Eatwell who was devastating in his humorous attack on the fact that the BBC had been excluded. But the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the first speaker from the Opposition Front Bench, spoke about putting forward an amendment to the Ofcom Bill to correct the omission. That issue will come up shortly. It is appropriate to think about the matter in some detail. Therefore, I make no apology for perhaps going over some of the ground about which some of my noble friends, and other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have already spoken.
I should like to go back for a minute, even though it is now after 10 o'clock, and assert—perhaps this will be controversial—some of the fundamental characteristics of the BBC which make its place in broadcasting unique and therefore make it right that it should be uniquely regulated. In my view—I do not necessarily expect to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on this matter, but I have to say it satisfies me—the corporation maintains the gold standard of quality in public service broadcasting which, because its core services are funded by a licence fee, means that it can provide the most extensive range of original programmes and, very importantly, use its resources flexibly.
We have seen a very powerful illustration of this special capacity in the last month, since 11th September. My noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have already referred to this.
I think it is a point worth emphasising. Surely no one can doubt the scale and seriousness of the BBC's information gathering, its reportage and its flexible programming during this period. For example, when last week air strikes began in Afghanistan, the BBC had a team of 25 people inside the country who were using new technology to send live reports to the evening programmes. Senior correspondents reported from the neighbouring capital cities, and there was extended capacity throughout the Middle East, in Moscow and in Washington. The peak audience for BBC1's special news programmes last Sunday week was 11.5 million. Over the whole evening the average audience was a little over 8 million, compared with just over 3 million tuned to ITV. As we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Borrie, throughout this time, the BBC World Service has done what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister called "a magnificent job". The World Service has sustained a uniquely difficult role of impartiality and responsibility in its extended broadcasts made in the Arabic, Pashto, Persian and Urdu languages, as well as many others. Since 11th September, I would assert that

453
overall the BBC has consistently demonstrated that it is the nation's prime provider of high quality, well resourced news information and analysis.
Noble Lords have already pointed out that the BBC remains the place to which people instinctively turn in times of crisis and uncertainty. As we know, in the 20th century it was traditional for all of us to rely on the BBC, both in good times and in bad. In the 21st century, at least in the bad times, we really do still rely on it.
At the same time, however, the broadcasting environment has been transformed. So what should be the role of the broadcasting corporation now, and how should it be regulated? In the White Paper the Government state that:
"We will continue to rely on public service broadcasting for one clear reason—it works".
I would say that that is slightly mealy-mouthed, but I wholeheartedly agree with the subsequent paragraph which points out that the success of public service broadcasting is not an accident in this country. It is founded on the economic, demographic and cultural characteristics of our broadcasting. It is for those reasons that I believe we should confront and dismiss the argument that the existence of the BBC, along with its separate governance and regulation, distorts some—albeit theoretical—perfect competitive UK market in broadcasting. I hope that the economists in the House will not think it superficial or nave if I say that it is almost as inappropriate and inaccurate to argue that the existence of the National Health Service distorts the private health market.
If, in the future, the BBC continues to justify the funding of its core home services by a licence fee, as I am sure it will, and if in the future we see the same trends in commercial broadcasting ownership that have been seen over the past few years, it seems extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the UK will ever provide a conventional "true market". The White Paper assesses the situation correctly when it states that:
"It would be foolish to frame our policy for a potential contentious future rather than the current successful reality".
But of course none of this suggests or even seeks to propose that everything today is perfectly set in immovable stone. In the past it has certainly been a legitimate criticism of the BBC that its somewhat iconic status has at times produced a curious indifference, almost a complacency, about its own governance. I say that with one of the successful vice-chairmen of the BBC sitting behind me. However, I believe that on occasion that sense of distance from the realities of the world and even from the realities of the audience has been noticeable.
For that reason, I am pleased that under the proposals for the three-tier regulation to be administered by Ofcom there will be significant external regulation of the BBC. Contrary to the assertions of speakers such as my noble friend Lord Bragg, this will become a reality: external regulation will take place. However, at the same time, I believe
454
that the corporation must itself act speedily to introduce internal reforms which do not simply conform to the letter of the White Paper proposals, but enthusiastically develop their spirit.
The noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have gone over some of the detail of the organisation of the three-tier regulation and the way in which it embraces the BBC, but, given the balance of the contributions from noble Lords today, I believe that it is perfectly legitimate for me to go over some of it again and, perhaps, to reinforce some of the points they made about the way in which the BBC will indeed be included in Ofcom.
As has been pointed out, the first proposed tier of regulation will cover all broadcasting comprehensively. In the second tier, for all public service broadcasters, Ofcom will monitor independent original production and regional programming. In addition, for the first time, the BBC will be required by Ofcom to provide news and current affairs programmes at peak audience times.
All of these second-tier touchstones of public interest can, of course, be quantified, and to that extent this is the easy end of regulation. Nevertheless, on the question of news, for example, I can foresee vigorous debates between the BBC and Ofcom about news and current affairs in prime time. The BBC has recently published a first-year review of moving the main TV news bulletin from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. The review seems to show that the move has been very successful for both audiences and broadcasters, but I think that it is at least questionable that external regulators would have judged 10 p.m. as prime time if they had been making a judgment about that move in advance.
However, the broad point is that the general and the specific oversight of the BBC by the new requirements of Ofcom, combined with the back-up powers of the Secretary of State and the existing statutory and charter obligations, creates a fairly exacting framework of external regulation for the organisation. The controversy which seems to have emerged from the debate today, the concern which noble Lords have expressed, really focuses on the distinct residual responsibilities of the governors to self-regulate, to safeguard the public interest, the so-called "third tier".
Under the proposals in the White Paper, BBC governors will continue to do this by maintaining the general quality of programming, maintaining editorial independence and calling the executive management to account. This must be the trickiest part of regulation because it often needs subjective judgment rather than objective benchmarking.
But here, too, it is not intended that the governors are set loose on their own. The White Paper insists that public service broadcasters must develop agreed policies and mechanisms with Ofcom, and must do so before the legislation reaches the statute book. The BBC's latest report demonstrates that internally the governors are already setting strategic objectives against which performance can be judged.

455
In addition, the report publishes four promises to licence holders by the governors. The 12 objectives from the promises are all laudable in themselves and range from a commitment to make the BBC more open and accountable to improving sports coverage at an affordable cost.
My anxiety, my query, about all of this concerns the governors' ability to deliver. Do they have the tools and the capacity to be effective in the new tough environment which has been set both by themselves and by Ofcom? Let me make it clear though that I—perhaps unlike some earlier speakers—want them to succeed; I want them to retain their independence. I do not want ineffectiveness in the future to become a justification for sweeping all BBC regulation into Ofcom.
To avoid that particular fate, the governors will need more dedicated resources to do their job properly and, as several noble Lords have mentioned, a clearer and more precise analysis of their role and functions. I believe that there is a strong case for the BBC to create a secretariat, and possibly some kind of research capacity, which will work exclusively for the governing body so that the governors have a source of information, advice and data separate from, and independent of, the managing executive. Common sense suggests that it must be difficult for the governors to exercise effective oversight of management if they depend on management to advise and brief them. The governors must work hard to avoid the impression of rubber-stamping executive decisions. To mix the metaphors, they must be given more teeth.
Similarly, the governing body needs to develop more obvious mechanisms to improve its own accountability and the transparency of its deliberations and decisions. For example, the governors could set up a more direct interface with the licence payers, perhaps using interactive technology. At the parliamentary level, one good suggestion is to hold formal committee hearings on the corporation's annual report rather than the present, somewhat casual presentations to Members at Westminster which many noble Lords have attended.
These kinds of changes are essential if the BBC is to continue to convince the Government, Ofcom and the public that there are areas of regulation and governance that must remain its alone. It may, of course, mean more of a commitment by individual governors as well as by the chairman. But in the new framework of responsibility this seems entirely appropriate. I am sure that we all agree that the days of perceiving governorship of the BBC as being almost like receiving an honour are certainly over.
To return to the point at which I began my remarks, I believe that there remains a wide consensus in Britain that the unique nature of the BBC contributes uniquely to our national life. In today's complex and commercially dominated communications world, the challenge for all of us who value the BBC is to maintain support for that consensus. Personally, I believe that there is a problem about extending that viewpoint to
456
younger generations of viewers and listeners. The BBC needs actively to build brand loyalty among children and young people, and thus continue to build support for licence-funded public service broadcasting. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone about digital programmes for children. But in that context, and given the Government's position as expressed in the White Paper, I have been slightly surprised by the decision to block BBC3 and by the slow development of the BBC's digital curriculum for schools. Both of those decisions seem to be somewhat at odds with the Government's determination to maintain a dynamic consensus for BBC broadcasting. However, I am acutely conscious of the time and of the Minister's wish that we should not have an all-encompassing debate today. So I merely refer briefly to those points.
I conclude by welcoming this paving measure. In general, it seems to me both far sighted and sensible to establish Ofcom now so that there is minimum delay once the communications Bill comes into effect. In particular, I hope that the Government will maintain their position towards the BBC as stated in the White Paper, and that Parliament will support it. This position seems to me to combine what has been called "proportionate", but none the less effective, regulation with a proper understanding of the special character of public service broadcasting produced by the corporation. I look forward to the next stage of the Bill.
10.27 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is thinking: "If only I had not uttered that throw-away line about Members feeling free to broaden the debate beyond the terms of this particular Bill. If only I had not said that, I could have been at home drinking my cocoa at this very moment". Let me reassure the Minister. I have studied the list of speakers carefully, and there was not a chance of this debate remaining restricted to the terms of the Bill. Therefore, the Minister should not blame herself for the fact that we are still here at 10.30.
Perhaps I may begin by paying tribute to the two maiden speakers. I agreed in particular with the reminder from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, of the importance of broadcasting to the workings of our democracy. I strongly endorse the call by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, to retain the existing regional structures within our broadcasting ecology. Both are very important.
Like 90 per cent of the speakers in this debate I have interests to declare. I worked for one of the largest public relations companies in the world. I am sure that if the Guardian is assiduous it can find one of our clients who is likely to benefit from the legislation. I have recently retired from the presidency of BREMA, the television manufacturers trade association. But I am not aware of any plans for the company for which I worked to pay for lobbying. What the House will hear are my views plus those of my party's study group on broadcasting, of which I am chairman.

457
The reason why we have had such a broad debate is that this is the first piece of a larger puzzle. We all know that we shall have a series of pieces of legislation over the next five years that will shape the quality, diversity and choice in communications for decades to come. In so doing—this was clear from the various conflicting remarks that have been made—Parliament will have to solve a kind of Rubik cube: if we get one part right, we might look around and find that we have caused a problem elsewhere. It will be a difficult task.
In trying to solve that task, I start by quite consciously using the mantra, "quality, diversity and choice". Those words will be recognised as having featured in the title that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, used for his 1989 White Paper on broadcasting. However, I still believe that it best sums up what Parliament's objectives should be in the task with which we are now faced. We should aim for a communications industry that offers quality, diversity and choice. As for the BBC, I am still old-fashioned enough to believe that it should cling to the old Reithian objectives; namely, to inform, educate and entertain. Noble Lords will notice that I put quality, diversity and choice and to inform, educate and entertain as objectives ahead of the Minister's priority of creating the most competitive communications industry in the world—or, indeed, the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for that mythical level playing field.
I fully accept that it is important that investors and entrepreneurs who wish to operate in our communications industries should be assured that we wish to create a system of light-touch regulation that ensures full, fair and transparent competition between operating industries. But it should also be clear that Parliament reserves the right to tilt the level playing field to ensure that British broadcasting retains a strong and robust public service element.
A strong nerve will be needed by government and by Parliament to resist powerful vested interests, not least powerful vested interests who seek this opportunity to weaken and undermine the BBC as the bench-mark provider of quality broadcasting. As has been said, there are grounds for optimism. The BBC is well funded above inflation over the next few years. It has been given the go-ahead for the new digital channels. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that the right man, Gavyn Davies, was chosen as the BBC's chairman. However, I understand why she may think that the BBC could have been even more radical and have picked the right woman.
There is a need to drive the message home, perhaps even to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is not present in the Chamber at the moment. It is simply not a question of the regulation of markets, as is the case with the Financial Services Authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, reminded us, society has a right to insist that the forthcoming legislation underpins both the cultural and democratic strengths of our country. The BBC is the iron pole around which the public service commitment can be built. It is no use commercial interests complaining that the BBC distorts the market. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey,
458
seemed to understand this in a way that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, does not: the whole idea of having the BBC is that it distorts the market in favour of quality. If it does not distort the market in that direction, it does not have a reason for existing.
I understand the emphasis or desire of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to see the BBC define "public service broadcasting", but I do not wish to give the noble Lord, Lord Baker, any encouragement that he already has the votes in his pocket to force the BBC into the Ofcom remit. I say that even though the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, gave his usual 200 per cent support for the BBC, rather like a rope supports a hanging man.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield also asked where were the supporters of the BBC. They were a little thin on the ground during the previous debate, but tonight on the Labour Benches we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Young of Old Scone. The reason why is not only that the BBC is different and should be different but also that people worry that some of the strongest advocates of this move are the very vested interests who would like to see an emasculated and ineffective BBC confined to a public service ghetto.
It is reported that the Secretary of State will look again at the relationship between the BBC governors and Ofcom. Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and a number of other speakers, we want to see much more clearly the size, shape and temperament of the beast that we are creating in Ofcom before we consign the BBC to its tender mercies.
We need more persuasive arguments than those of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that it will give greater regulatory efficiency. In turn, the BBC must address the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that it is vague about what is meant by public service. It should be showing much more vigorous promotion of digital television. It seems to be taking a passive role at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, wants to see the shape and content of the main Bill on communications—we all do. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, suggested a sunrise clause, which is an interesting idea, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested that we should report back in six months on how Ofcom is performing.
All those suggestions show the real doubts that have emerged throughout the debate. Ofcom is too large and all-embracing. It is too technology-biased. It has come too early in this legislative process. The Minister admitted that it is a child of the dot.com boom rather than what is needed now. There is now a mood of much more caution about the pace and direction of change. If we are to be given a legislative pig in a poke, we are going to poke the Ofcom pig firmly to find out what it is about.
There is the suspicion and the fear that the issue is the culmination of the 20 year-old turf war in Whitehall between the DTI and the Home Office, at first, and then the Department for Culture, Media and

459
Sport, about who controls broadcasting. The contradictions have been shown time and again. The noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Eatwell, referred to the fact that 11 years ago Parliament, in its wisdom, said that radio needed a separate regulator because in the big IBA radio did not get a fair share of interest. What will radio get under the mammoth Ofcom? There are contradictions, and the acceptance that big is beautiful is far from convincing.
A concern was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others, that content will become the poor relation of technical and commercial interests, especially as Oftel and the Radio Communications Agency will be the dominant players in terms of regulatory know-how and total staff numbers. If we accept the logic of a single regulator—I suspect that the Government have enough votes to get their way—we must ensure that it is a new and fresh regulatory body that truly reflects the new shape of the communications sector and is not just an amalgam of old prejudices and old vested interests.
Although the ultimate aim, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is for an Ofcom that will be a lighter regulatory regime, it is important in markets where there is still only one, or at best a handful, of dominant players that the regulator must be proactive in promoting competition and addressing abuses of dominance. Ofcom also has a major duty to the consumer. It is interesting that both BT and the Consumers' Association agree that Ofcom needs a membership that has the support of both the industry and the consumer. It is important that from the start there should be an open and consistent approach on Nolan principles in the appointments to Ofcom.
There should be a clear and effective way of reporting to Parliament. I was interested in British Telecom's view that the present procedures failed to deliver accountability and in its call for the establishment of a parliamentary communications committee as part of the process. That, together with the proposal to establish a communications consumer panel, which was welcomed by the Consumers' Association, should ensure that Ofcom does not become too introverted or industry oriented in its work. A number of other issues have been raised tonight to which we shall have to return.
As regards cross-media ownership, frankly the Government seem like a rabbit in the headlights. The leaks that they cannot make up their mind on that issue are an increasing disgrace. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned overlap, double jeopardy and the multiplicity of agencies concerned with advertising. The noble Viscounts, Lord Chandos and Lord Astor, mentioned the need for proper funding and proper technical staffing. Clearly there are conflicts here. There is a need for hard thinking. Can we solve this Rubik's cube? Can we ensure that Ofcom is both Patricia Hodgson's lean and mean regulator and at the same time defend what a recent ITC study called our cultural citizenship? We shall see.
460
Finally, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and my noble friend Lord Thomson said. It would help if we could be given a firm commitment to establish a pre-legislative committee of both Houses to consider the matter. We have seen from the amount of briefing that has been produced and the lobbying that has occurred that that would be far the cleaner way to obtain a variety of views before Parliament as the legislation rolls forward. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might this evening perform as the first cuckoo of the spring we have been promised. However, I suspect that he will mimic the old owl in the rhyme who, the less he said, the more he heard, hope that the noble Lord will have heard much tonight to make him think.
10.42 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I shall try to be brief and avoid taking up too much of your Lordships' time by repeating some of the observations made by my noble friend Lady Anelay or indeed in the excellent contributions made by everyone this evening, especially the two maiden speakers whom we are all pleased to hear. However, I believe that there are a few points that I should reiterate. Although I have slashed away with my pen, I hope that I have not slashed the important points; otherwise, I suspect that I shall be "for it".
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes, my Lords, I suspect that I shall. As my noble friend has made clear, broadly we accept both the need for the Bill and for its general principles. But that is where the problem lies. The Bill deals in generalities, not in detail. In the current cliché the devil is in the detail—details of which the Government have failed to communicate to us in a Bill about communications. The Government's White Paper, which is subtitled in paragraph one,
"The government's vision and objectives"
was published as long ago as December 2000 That was 10 months ago. It was debated for two hours by your Lordships on 28th February when no fewer than 23 noble Lords made important and constructive contributions in a debate excellently initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. But what has happened in the intervening eight months? Not much. We now have this small piece of legislation, a paving Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there has been an election in the meantime.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I suppose the Government should be congratulated on that even if I do not care for the result. However, the fact remains that a communications Bill was promised in the 1997 manifesto. Nothing as yet has appeared. We are being asked to spend time considering this little Bill when we do not know what it will deal with. The Government admit in their Explanatory Notes that the Bill is a

461
preface to a real communications Bill which will be published at some unspecified date in the future and, one assumes, will carry out the Government's real objectives in the important field of communications. That is legislation which the debate on the White Paper and today's debate show will largely be uncontroversial—assuming, that is, that the Government stick to what they have already published about their objectives and intentions. I say that with hesitancy, because we have some reservations about certain aspects of the Bill, particularly as it affects—or rather does not affect—the BBC.
Leaving aside that small reservation, perhaps the Minister will tell us why the substantive legislation is not ready after this long lapse of time. He said a few moments ago that it was due to an election, but the Government must have had some idea of what they were going to do. When will we see the Bill—in what part of the spring that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to earlier this afternoon?
The Labour Party promised a communications Bill in its 1997 manifesto. We appreciate that there has been an election, but that manifesto was produced four years ago. We have had only the White Paper and this small Bill.
We also recall the fiasco in the last Parliament, when a utilities Bill was introduced in January 2000, but by February the Government had tabled 359 amendments to it and the telecommunications part of it had to be dropped. It seemed to us then that the Government may have wanted to delay disclosing their true intentions until after the recent election. It was possible that at the time they did not wish there to be any discussion about cross-media ownership—a subject that many noble Lords have mentioned this evening.
Perhaps the Government hope that, by taking the legislation in two stages, Parliament could be presented with a fait accompli. I sincerely trust that the Minister will be able to allay those suspicions by explaining to us what at the moment seems to be an inexplicable timetable.
I share the concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Anelay about the disclosure in the Towers Perrin report that final decisions on the structure will rest with the paving Ofcom Bill. A quick read of the summary, which I found on my desk today, suggests that the nature of Ofcom has already been decided. Given that the Minister who opened the debate restricted her remarks to the bare bones of this Bill and said that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would do the same when he wound up, it is all the more necessary that we should examine the Bill with great care and diligence. The final decisions on the structure of the industry and the method of overseeing it should rest with Parliament, which must have some say. Such vital decisions should not be pre-empted by this new and powerful quango. We must not give it that power without knowing what the final communications Bill will say.
462
We have already made it clear that we support the creation of a single regulator to replace the current patchwork of regulators. We entirely agree that that is a desirable objective. Apart from avoiding having too many cooks, it will prevent different regulators approaching similar problems in differing ways and applying different criteria. Even more importantly, with the rapid advances in communications technology, many aspects of communications now overlap. The need for a single, powerful regulator who will not get tangled up in demarcation disputes with other regulators covering overlapping jurisdictions is unanswerable.
However, the Bill does not give specific details about what the regulator will do and how he will do it. The Bill says that Ofcom shall,
"do such things as they consider appropriate for facilitating the implementation of, or for securing the modification of, any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications".
What does that mean? As now frequently happens, we are being asked to give the Government a blank cheque for the substantive legislation, when it comes.
Talking of blank cheques, I refer again to the Towers Perrin report, which suggests that the cost of Ofcom will be considerably more than the £119 million already received by the five regulators that it is to replace. And it appears that it will be considerably more than the extra £5 million which the Explanatory Notes to the Bill suggest will be the case. Returning to this legislation, at least we can be grateful that the real legislation, when it comes, will be a primary Act and not a ministerial decree in the form of a statutory instrument, slipped in as unobtrusively as possible.
We are extremely concerned that the Government propose to leave the BBC out of the new regulatory regime. We consider it to be totally illogical—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, made a very similar point—that when Ofcom is created to deal with the dual issues of content and free competition, somehow the largest broadcasting organisation of all should be outside the remit of the independent regulator, Ofcom.
The White Paper had claimed that the BBC would be placed alongside other broadcasters, creating for the first time a level playing field for British broadcasting. What sort of level playing field is it when the two teams have different referees and one of the teams is the referee itself? In its briefing notes, the BBC claims:
"The BBC will be subject to the same set of obligations as other broadcasters. Ofcom will monitor BBC compliance with industry-wide obligations".
But there is one major difference. If, when the substantive Bill is unveiled, it follows precedent, Ofcom will have the power to inflict penalties on an offending broadcaster's turnover. Will the BBC fine itself? I do not think so. Will the Secretary of State, exercising what the BBC's brief describes as his "backstop powers", fine it? I do not think so. There is no level playing field not only so long as the BBC is judge and jury but while there is no executioner.
Where is there a definition of public service broadcasting? I believe, as do many other noble Lords, that that should be the major function of the BBC.

463
I was gratified to learn that, during the hours following the events in America on 11th September, the BBC gave free access to its television broadcasts to many countries which did not have the facilities, including, for example, India and New Zealand. That, I believe, is certainly an example of public service.
However, it seems to me—again, noble Lords have referred to this—that the main objective is ratings. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made the point about "EastEnders" now coming head to head with "Coronation Street" on Friday evenings. The BBC is a publicly subsidised operation financed by the licence fee, which is a tax levied on everyone who owns a television set, whether they watch the BBC broadcasts frequently, rarely or possibly even never. It earns a portion of its income from commercial activities. However, the bulk of its finance, equivalent to more than many major companies on the Stock Exchange, comes from the public. It is in no danger of losing its financial support and business, however badly it performs, which, incidentally, I do not suggest that it does. I simply make the point that it is unlike any ordinary commercial programme maker.
My view that the BBC should come within the remit of Ofcom does not detract in any way from my admiration for it and for the work that it does. It has made many fine programmes recently; for example, "The World of Dinosaurs" and "History of Britain". Those are world-class, to say nothing of old favourites, such as "The Proms", "Question Time", "Crimewatch" and "Songs of Praise".
I now come to the matter of appeals procedures. The present Bill merely provides for the setting up of the office of Ofcom with no real day-to-day functions as yet. But when shall we learn about the accountability of the regulator—this powerful, all-embracing regulator? To whom and how can appeals be made against his decisions? In short, who will regulate the regulator?
In their White Paper the Government invited comment on the cross-media ownership rules. I was most interested, incidentally, in the views of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, on this matter. The subject certainly provides food for thought. His view was one that I had not considered previously and I have not heard anyone else articulate it. However, unless I have missed something—I shall appreciate the Minister pointing it out if I have—where are the results of that consultation and what will the Government do about it?
In the absence of current facts, before the publication of the operative communications Bill and in the light of the rapidly changing technology, we on these Benches reserve our position. However, it is right to give the Government fair warning that, when they publish their Bill, this matter will receive careful scrutiny. We do not wish to have legislation in the blank and not know what will come afterwards. That is dangerous and should not be necessary with such a Bill.
This Bill involves creating a powerful regulator. When we discover what he will do—apart from, to use the words once employed by the noble Lord, Lord
464
Steel of Aikwood; that is, to go and prepare for office—we trust that his powers will not be so great that he will be tempted to over-regulate an industry whose very basis is, within the bounds of the law, freedom of expression, 'whether in print or on screens of all shapes and sizes.
My remarks have been about as long as the text of the body of the Bill, and for that I apologise. We will, as I said, support the passage of the Bill, but we are unhappy that Parliament's time is being taken up with a proposal that should have been included in a substantive Bill that should have been introduced some time ago, but which as yet is not in sight.
10.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have very much enjoyed this debate because it has been full of wise words from people who know their subject intimately and who speak with a great deal of authority, and because I do not have to respond to much of what they said. Many comments that were made very legitimately represent the beginning—or the continuation—of consultation on the substantive Bill. My noble friend Lady Blackstone invited such a response.
I shall begin by defending and propounding the procedures that we are going through in this regard, from the Green Paper through to the final implementation of proposals to reform the system for regulating telecommunications. I shall then defend the specific element contained in the Bill; namely, the single regulator, which is called Ofcom. Then I shall deal with those issues that refer to the Bill—this little Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, called it. Finally, I shall deal briefly and without commitment with some of the worries that have been legitimately expressed in this debate. In particular, I shall conclude by referring to what the Bill says and the Government's approach to the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC.
I start with the process. We have had a Green Paper, which involved consultation and which was followed by a White Paper, which appeared in December last year. That has now been followed by a paving Bill, which will be followed in the spring of next year with a draft Bill, which will allow for consultation. Several noble Lords rightly said that the quality and nature of the consultation will be critical to the success or otherwise of the Bill. I shall come to that in a few minutes. At the end of that process, a Bill will go before Parliament and it will have to be approved by Parliament before reform can be implemented.
That process is both transparent, in the sense that we are consulting at every stage and allowing for informed public and parliamentary opinion to play a role, and it is efficient, in the sense that the paving Bill will, when the consultation process and the legislative process are complete, allow implementation to take place at least six months—possibly as much as 12 months—earlier than would otherwise have been possible. The structural processes that are provided for in the Bill will now be concurrent with the policy

465
decisions rather than follow on from them. That does what the noble Lord, Lord Chandos, referred to as illuminating and informing debate and it provides for a significant saving in terms of time. The other substantive element of the Bill is that it proposes a single regulator, who will cover both regulation of content and economic regulation. I have listened carefully to the debate and would say that about two-thirds to three-quarters of the speakers were unequivocally in favour of the single regulator principle and that the others expressed their views in perfectly legitimate ways. There is an argument about whether a regulator is the same thing as a consumer representative. I think not, but much regulation is based on the supposition that it is.
Clearly, from all that comes the conclusion that if we are to have a single regulator of that kind, it is difficult to see how we could define the objective of that single regulator, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and others would wish, in a single word or phrase. One may wish to say that the core is competition or that it is public service broadcasting and then to seek a definition of that. Nevertheless, it is difficult to do that because we propose here, deliberately, explicitly and openly, a regulator which covers the wide spectrum of communications and broadcasting. We do that because the structure of the industry when those regulators were set up many years ago is changing. It may not be changing as fast as some people thought it would. It may be some years before the convergence between telephony and television, broadband and narrowband and all the technological elements is achieved. Nevertheless, it is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, expressed that particularly well. He said that our proposal for a single regulator is a rational response to that convergence.
Another feature, which is explicit in our proposal of a single regulator, is that it must have an independent status, as stated clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in her admirable maiden speech. I am able to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, not in several months time but now. Ofcom will be an independent regulator accountable to Parliament. It will have to make a report to the Secretary of State, which the Secretary of State will have to lay before Parliament and which will be audited by the National Audit Office. That is not a new definition of independence of a regulator. It happens in many spheres of government and public life. There is nothing startling, difficult or innovative about it. It provides the guarantee of independence rightly called for by noble Lords.
I turn to the elements of the structure of Ofcom, which arise from the provisions of the Bill. It has to be a lean and efficient organisation, able to operate flexibly with a light touch. But a number of elements about its constitution and the way it is organised are yet to be determined. I was able to see the Towers Perrin report only over the weekend. I understand that most noble Lords have probably seen only the executive summary. Certainly, it raises many questions which it does not answer. It is legitimate for the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to say, as he did, that
466
what is said in the Explanatory Notes about the cost of regulation is open to question. Paragraph 25 of the Explanatory Notes states that in the longer term there may have to be a more detailed assessment in the Explanatory Notes to the substantive Bill, and that it may well be that the figures on cost are for only the transition period.
I was glad to have support from the noble Lord, Lord Currie, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, for the provision in the Bill for a board rather than a single regulator. Having been involved rather more closely than I would have wished with the establishment of a lottery regulator and then a lottery commission, I think that is entirely right.
The size of the board has deliberately been kept small, and that has been widely welcomed. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who first raised the issue, although others raised it later, I say that ways will have to be found of dealing with the interests of regions and countries, because they, of course, are essential elements of public service broadcasting. The White Paper referred to the need for Ofcom to establish close links with the devolved assemblies. We are committed to that, and ways will have to be found of achieving it.
With regard to the timetable, we have made it clear that the chair of Ofcom will not be appointed until the spring. The other non-executives will choose a chief executive, which may take until the early autumn of next year. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, I honestly do not believe that anything would be gained by setting up the board only at Second Reading of the substantive Bill. I do not see any advantage in that delay. It would leave us with many administrative and structural changes to make after Parliament had made its decision on the content of the final Bill. However, I am perfectly prepared to say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that we will report back in six months' time, or at such time as seems appropriate to him, on the progress of the setting up of Ofcom under the terms of the Bill.
Of course, the issue of coverage involves the question whether we should have two regulators rather than one. I have already referred in general terms to why I think we have to combine economic regulation with content regulation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to the fact that the primary purpose of Ofcom is to manage the industry. She did so in order to put a perfectly legitimate argument, with which I agree, about the necessity for adequate regulation of content. I do not think that that is its primary purpose. The two go hand in hand and, as convergence proceeds, it will become clear that one cannot be considered without the other.
I have already dealt sufficiently with the issue of costs and the Explanatory Notes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a particular point about what the costs would be if Clause 4 were invoked and the whole process aborted. The literal answer is that the Government and the

467
taxpayer would have to pay. There is provision for Ofcom to levy charges, but I do not think it could quite be used for that purpose.
I turn now to the issue that has concerned many noble Lords: pre-emption of future decisions and in particular the pre-emption of decisions of Parliament. The Bill includes specific measures in Clauses 2(5) and 3(4) to ensure that none of its provisions should be construed as dispensing with the need for any parliamentary approval that would otherwise be required. In other words, nothing in the Bill will pre-empt Parliament's role in considering the future regulatory regime. Ofcom will not have any regulatory functions until Parliament has had an opportunity to consider those functions and decide what they should be.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made the legitimate point that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament proved to be invaluable in the run up to the Financial Services and Markets Act. Having been involved in the passage of that Bill, I certainly agree with that. I hope that we have enough time for a Joint Committee. It would, of course, be a decision for Parliament rather than for government. Both Houses of Parliament, rather than the Government, would have to demand it. It would be impertinent of the Government to impose it. But if there is time to do it, and if both Houses of Parliament ask for it, I cannot imagine that the Government would wish to resist it.
I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who spoke of final changes in the structure. These are not changes in the structure of the industry, as she seems to believe, but they are changes in the structure of Ofcom itself. It is simply not a case of Ofcom coming into full flower as the regulatory body when the final legislation has been passed and not having the ability to change its own structure. What is provided in the Towers Perrin report and in the regulators steering group is some valuable thinking that is designed to cut short later unnecessary delay about the way in which such a regulator could work.
Despite what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and others, I simply do not see that anything in the work of the regulators pre-empts the future role of Ofcom. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Notes relating to the provision for committees. That is the power only to set up committees; it does not demand that committees should be set up or what they should be. The main decisions will ultimately be for the Ofcom board and not for any preliminary steering group of the existing regulators.
A number of noble Lords asked legitimate points about the relationship with the competition authorities. That is a difficult area and it always will be, but it is not a new difficult area. We stated in the White Paper that Ofcom will have concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading under the Competition Act and the fair trading legislation. That is normal in the case of concurrent jurisdiction. Ofcom and the
468
OFT will have to decide which of them is best placed to deal with specific issues or concerns in which both may have reason to be involved.
I know that that is not a satisfactory answer to give the noble Lord, Lord Baker, because I know he wants me to commit myself in much more detail about the relationship than is possible at the moment, but it is the answer that has been given by governments successively whenever there is concurrent jurisdiction. There is, after all, the cheerful thought that a lighter touch in regulation implies that there should be less regulatory overlap than would otherwise be the case.
Similarly, while I would like to fall into the trap of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, of giving specific answers about local radio and the national radio network, I cannot do so. I believe that that must be subject to the normal concurrent jurisdiction rules.
The concerns which noble Lords expressed were particularly and understandably about content regulation. A number of speakers saw the economic regulation as leading the pack, so to speak. The White Paper recognises that the freedoms and responsibilities in broadcasting go hand in hand and Ofcom will have as one of its principal duties the protection of the interests of consumers and citizens, including those of children.
That goes with the regulator being independent. It means that the regulator, being independent, will have to make a meaningful decision about the issue of what is timely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, rightly suggested. It means, as was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, that the regulator will have clout to enforce its regulation. The White Paper goes into a great deal of detail on the way in which we approach content regulation and it is not unreason able for me to suggest to the House that we should rely on the White Paper for the time being and see the policy develop under the supervision of Parliament. Similarly, I resist the temptation to define "public service broadcasting". I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I do not believe that "definition" is necessarily equal to "clarity". When one has an organisation of this kind with complex objectives one does not necessarily benefit from extensive definitions of what is meant by "public service broadcasting".
I believe that in his wise maiden speech my noble friend Lord Corbett had some very relevant comments to make on this matter. In case there is any doubt about it, of course religious broadcasting is part of any such definition that I could recognise. The same is true of education, coverage of international news and many of those matters which over the years we have come to expect as part of public service broadcasting. The same is also true of regional broadcasting which has been an essential element in all the ways in which public service broadcasting has developed in this country. As is well known, it is an important part of the remit of the ITC and so it will continue under its successor.

469
Finally, I should like to say something about the BBC and Ofcom. I have heard both sides of the argument. I believe that in expressing their views too many have sought to show that there is something in the Bill which predetermines the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. There is not. All of these matters are for the main Bill which will be fully consulted upon when it is published in draft in the spring. This Bill is about the structure of Ofcom before it takes on its regulatory powers. It is of no structural importance to Ofcom whether it does or does not regulate the BBC. The Bill deals with the structure of Ofcom at this preparatory stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, quoted Clause 2 and the transfer from existing regulators. The clause refers to,
"transfer from the existing regulators or otherwise".
After all, there is an agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC which is approved by Parliament. That agreement must be amended to accommodate the
470
White Paper regulatory regime, whatever final decisions are taken about the BBC. If thought appropriate, it could well include an obligation to co-operate with Ofcom.
This debate has shown that there are many valuable thoughts on the value and role of the BBC. I have in mind in particular the very well informed, authoritative and persuasive arguments of my noble friend Lady Jay. All of these will take their place in the final consultative process.
I congratulated myself on not having to respond to all the points made in the debate, but I have still taken 22 minutes, for which I apologise. However, I am sincere in saying that, like the debate at the end of February, this one is a valuable contribution to public thinking on issues which will concern all of us, including Parliament, in the months to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Asylum Seekers Voucher Scheme
  Asylum Seekers Voucher Scheme
  Paul Wright and Zahid Mubarek
  Paul Wright and Zahid Mubarek
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Gibraltar: Ministerial Level Talks
  Gibraltar: Ministerial Level Talks
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Antarctic Treaty Secretariat
  Antarctic Treaty Secretariat
  Lord Ashcroft
  Lord Ashcroft
  Electricity from Renewables
  Electricity from Renewables
  Children's Education: Parental Responsibility
  Children's Education: Parental Responsibility
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
  Heart and Lung Transplant Service
  Heart and Lung Transplant Service
  Health Service Comparisons
  Health Service Comparisons
  Millennium Bridge
  Millennium Bridge
  Royal Parks Agency Review
  Royal Parks Agency Review
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Report
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Report
  Northern Ireland: Plastic Bullets
  Northern Ireland: Plastic Bullets
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Chief Commissioner
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Chief Commissioner
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights Abuses
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights Abuses
  Omagh Bombing: Victims' Relatives
  Omagh Bombing: Victims' Relatives
  Northern Ireland: UFO Crash
  Northern Ireland: UFO Crash
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Sentence Plans
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Sentence Plans
  Public Sector Ombudsmen Review
  Public Sector Ombudsmen Review
  Broadband in the UK
  Broadband in the UK
  Old Palace Yard
  Old Palace Yard