Sitting of 31 October 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
    Motion made,
    That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
    That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
    That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
    That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Civil Service Recruitment
    Helen Jackson: What steps he is taking to ensure equality of opportunity in recruitment to the civil service. [9279]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government are strongly committed to equality of opportunity and to creating an open and modern civil service that fully reflects the United Kingdom.
    862
    Departments have set themselves challenging diversity targets for their staff at all levels, nationally and regionally. Each year heads of department account personally to Ministers on their progress and on future plans.
    Helen Jackson: I thank the Minister for that answer. May I offer my congratulations? I was glad to see that in October last year nearly half the civil service were women and nearly 7 per cent. were from ethnic minorities, but what goes wrong after that, because fewer than one in five, or 20 per cent. of those female civil servants reach the senior grades? What happens under the internal promotion procedures? I am sure that he will be aware that the Labour party has taken action. Will he ensure that the Government do the same?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend has the statistics down pat. It is true that half of the civil service are women but that only just over 20 per cent. of the senior ranks are female. There is a lot of work to do and we have set challenging targets—35 per cent. of senior grades to be held by women in 2005. A lot of work can be done not only at the stage of encouraging applications, but when we shortlist and assess people for promotion. There is, however, a lot more work to be done, but I take my hon. Friend's comments to heart.
    Virginia Bottomley: I applaud the steps that the Government have taken to encourage and develop the careers of women and of people from black and ethnic minorities. Does the Minister appreciate that people joining the civil service are joining a public not a political service? Will he personally take steps to ensure that fellow Ministers appreciate that the independence and integrity of the civil service are fundamental? Whenever his colleagues develop a blame culture or respond to adverse headlines with "Shoot the manager", they do a disservice to equality in the service as well as to the service at large.
    Mr. Leslie: The civil service is a fine institution and long may it continue to be so and to be independent and impartial. There are a number of ways in which we ensure that. The code of conduct for the civil service is scrupulously observed. It is also important that we get new talent and blood into the civil service to ensure that we have diversity not just for the sake of it but to enrich the talent that can serve and improve public services at large.

    Policy Objectives
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on his role in ensuring more effective delivery of policy objectives. [9280]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Deputy Prime Minister's main role is to support and deputise as necessary for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to help oversee the delivery of key Government priorities.
    Mr. Blizzard: I welcome that new delivery role. I will give my hon. Friend an example of why it is necessary. Earlier this year, because of the crisis in the fishing industry, the Government allocated £5.5 million for

    863
    fishing communities, which was wonderful news. Six months later, however, we realised that the way in which the money had been distributed throughout the country was bizarre. Some of the things that it has been spent on bear no relation to the reason why the fund was set up.
    Although Ministers issued guidelines, which stated that they did not want to be prescriptive, my local council maintains that the rules on spending are prohibitive. When we end up with Lowestoft, which is the country's third largest fishing port and accounts for 10 per cent. of the nation's catch, being offered only £65,000 out of £5.5 million, something is wrong. Will my hon. Friend consider that matter and the accountability of the regional development agencies, which were asked to deliver the initiative?
    Mrs. Roche: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He has raised this issue in the House before. The delivery unit's remit is to deal with key priorities on health, education, transport and reducing crime. I will undertake, however, to bring my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of the Department.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: Can the Minister explain how the Cabinet Office can have any real influence on the delivery of policy when the Treasury sets Government and policy targets and controls the budgets that Departments have to deliver those policies?
    Mrs. Roche: Of course the Treasury has a key role to play, through the usual arrangements, to ensure that all Departments keep to their priorities and deliver. The Prime Minister's delivery unit, which is working successfully alongside the Treasury, in its role of co-ordinator, is ensuring that these matters are dealt with.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Does the Minister recognise that to meet the need to deliver locally we must have excellent public servants? There are many of those throughout the country; however, they are constrained by the level of initiatives that the Government are introducing. Will the delivery unit try to reduce the number of initiatives and the number of forms and applications that have to be completed to implement the excellent policies that need to be delivered to local constituents? Will she ensure greater co-ordination across the board to offer them more realistic opportunities?
    Mrs. Roche: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of my job is to go and talk to local councillors and to people in Government offices. We need to ensure that some of our public funding programmes are much more accessible to local communities and local groups. We need to simplify those programmes, and that is exactly the sort of work on which we are engaged.

    Emergency Planning
    Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on his Department's recent activity regarding emergency planning. [9282]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The civil contingencies secretariat at the Cabinet Office is co-ordinating the work
    864
    of the Civil Contingencies Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Home Secretary, and is comprehensively reviewing the nation's ability to deal with emergencies. The secretariat is also taking forward the review of emergency planning in England and Wales announced by the Cabinet Office in August.
    Sandra Gidley: Is the Minister aware that the emergency planning officers who are responsible for delivering those plans on the ground have received only two communications from central Government since 11 September, one of which was to ask for the confirmation of a fax number? When the Minister's Department was asked whether it had responsibility for emergency planning, the response was, "Kind of." Is that acceptable and does the Minister agree that a Minister of Cabinet rank should be appointed to take charge of civil contingencies until further notice? The current situation is unacceptable. I would like to feel that somebody is taking overall responsibility; I am sure the House would and I am convinced the public would.
    Mr. Leslie: There is a Minister of Cabinet rank in charge of civil contingencies: the Home Secretary, who chairs the Civil Contingencies Committee of the Cabinet. The Cabinet Office helps, through its secretariat, to co-ordinate the activities of all Departments; well worked plans are in place across all the critical elements of the national infrastructure to make sure that Britain stands ready to cope with whatever emergency situations may arise.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend is aware of my interest and that of my constituents in the whole issue of emergency planning and of the work that has recently been done locally. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating the officers of the local authority and the public servants who have delivered their functions so well Can he explain why the role of emergency planning is not firmly established on a statutory basis?
    Mr. Leslie: The review announced by the Cabinet Office in August is indeed examining the question of statutory footing for emergency planning. In fact, the consultation period for that document ends today. The Government will be considering the legislative background to emergency planning. In general, having worked closely on such matters, I believe that the arrangements and structures that are in place are adequate and capable of dealing with a whole series of eventualities.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am genuinely seeking information and help from the Minister. [Interruption.] Does he accept that foot and mouth was an emergency, and will he therefore give some consideration, through his office, to re-establishing the regional committees of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Those committees could have done an amazingly helpful job in reducing the terrible and horrific impact of foot and mouth. The committees were phased out, but if they had been in operation they could have played a valuable role.
    Mr. Leslie: As with flooding, there are lessons for all Departments to learn from foot and mouth. A number of

    865
    those lessons have been incorporated in the contingencies that are now in place to deal with events post-11 September. With specific reference to foot and mouth, I understand that the Government offices in the regions were significant contributors to regional operations centres during the whole crisis. That is certainly an area in which more work can be done and it will be developed in the future.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the role of the civil contingencies secretariat? I greatly welcome the recent consultation on emergency planning, but it is vital that we place it on a statutory basis. Given that the Home Secretary has taken some of that work forward, and although we do not wish to be alarmist about events after 11 September, I still believe that it is important that we give the Cabinet Office all possible support to ensure that organisations such as the Chartered Institution of Environmental Health have an active role in influencing what is placed on the statute book. Such legislation should be properly implemented and properly monitored.
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes several useful points, particularly about the expertise that is available from outside Government on emergency planning; it is not the preserve of Government Departments alone. I believe that it is our duty to ensure that we have plans to detect and prepare against any eventuality as well as respond and recover, and the Cabinet Office will help to co-ordinate that under the leadership of the Home Secretary.

    Special Advisers
    Michael Fabricant: If he will publish new guidelines regarding the conduct of special advisers. [9284]
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the guidance his Department gives on the ethical standards that should be applied by ministerial special advisers. [9285]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): Since the general election, we have published a revised model contract, setting out the duties, responsibilities and terms and conditions that will apply to all special advisers. The model contract incorporates a new code of conduct consolidating the guidance for special advisers, the civil service code and the principles of public life taken from the first Nolan report.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. Ignoring for a moment the question of Jo Moore and ignoring for a moment the question of civil servants who have resigned from the press offices of various Departments, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that there are now 81 special advisers? Is he aware that when the Labour Government came to office there were only 38? Does he accept that people would be
    866
    more satisfied with the Government's performance if they were to reduce the number of special advisers to that which they inherited?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I can confirm that there are 81 special advisers in comparison to 3,500 senior civil servants. Indeed, I can confirm that the number of special advisers has increased from 38—the number in post when we first came to office. That means that the number of advisers has almost doubled—[HON. MEMBERS: "More than doubled."] Well, more than doubled if they like, but it more than doubled under the Tory Administration, when it reached 38. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, in those 18 years, the Tories' record in office was advantaged by doubling the advisers, I leave him to make a judgment about the current number of advisers.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Here is a straightforward question for the Deputy Prime Minister. If a special adviser in the Cabinet Office had put out an e-mail saying that the occasion of an international terrorist disaster was a very good day to bury bad news, would the Deputy Prime Minister have sacked that person or kept him or her in his or her job?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: It has been made clear both by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and by the Prime Minister, and it is my view, that it was a stupid judgment and should not have happened. The woman has apologised for it. She has been dealt with under the disciplinary procedures. Under those circumstances, I think that the matter is now shut.
    Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): May I put it to my right hon. Friend that a lot of nonsense is talked about special advisers? The last thing that we want or need is new guidelines on special advisers. What we really do need is a civil service Act, giving constitutional protection to the civil service. We have long promised it, so surely now we can deliver it.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: We have made it absolutely clear that a civil service Act will be considered. My hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Public Administration, which he chairs, have made several recommendations to which we will reply soon. In fact, the Cabinet Secretary is to appear before the Committee tomorrow, when the members of the Committee will be able to hear some of our responses to its recommendations.
    On special advisers, the House may be interested to know that I happened to look at the membership of the shadow Cabinet. Five of its members are former special advisers, and there are four more on the Tory Front Bench. I do not know whether that adds to the better judgment of the shadow Cabinet; we wait to see.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Whose advice do the Government value the most—that of their special advisers, or that of all the Back Benchers?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: We value the advice of both. The special advisers play a special, useful role in ensuring that Back Benchers on both sides of the House communicate their views to Ministers.
    Mr. Tim Collins: May I say first that I much look forward to crossing swords with the Deputy Prime Minister? I dare say that we will have some clashes, but I freely acknowledge that he is one of the most honest and honourable members of the Government? May I remind him that on 12 January last year, the then Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Neill, said:
    "There is great advantage from the special adviser system. But the numbers have been burgeoning. There should now be consideration given to introducing an overall number."
    So, nearly two years ago, Lord Neill recommended a limit on numbers. What is the Deputy Prime Minister's reaction to that?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and also welcome him to the Front Bench. I think that he should have recorded a special interest, as he was a special adviser himself before taking up his job, nevertheless, I make no criticism, and I look forward to the exchanges across the Dispatch Box in future. The question that he asks has been posed to us by the Select Committee, and we shall give a proper response to that matter shortly.
    Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. It is, of course, very nearly two years since the Neill committee made its recommendation on this issue. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, has said that he wants a civil service Bill to be introduced rapidly. If such a Bill is introduced, will it include such a numeric limit on special advisers?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Again, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be right for us to respond first to the Select Committee, as it has asked us that question. I have made it clear that a civil service Bill will be presented, and the House will then have a chance to debate the issues that he has raised, but it is right and proper for me to give the first response to the Select Committee. I do not know whether it will also deal with what has happened to the Short money—the amount of money given to the Opposition has increased from £1 million to £3 million a year.
    Mr. Collins: As the Deputy Prime Minister is being so honest and forthright in his responses to the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, does he agree with the said hon. Gentleman that Jo Moore's remarks were
    "incompatible with any idea of public service"?
    Why is that woman still in office?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: When I appeared before the Select Committee on the occasion of those remarks I told the Chairman that I did not agree with his judgment. It was his opinion, but I
    868
    have to give a proper response from the Government, and that is yet to come. Was there any time when the hon. Gentleman, as a special adviser, gave a bad judgment?
    Mr. Harry Barnes: This round of questions was started by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), whose questions I have always found fascinating—mind, I have never really thought of him as a Tory; I have always thought of him as more of a Whig.
    Is it not the case that advisers should advise and Ministers should make decisions? Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on advisers, Back Benchers can give good and solid advice on occasion, and is not it a great pity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions did not take my advice on Biwaters when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Had he done so, that plant might still be open. Presumably, he acted on internal advice.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: My hon. Friend has raised that issue several times in the House, and I cannot really say any more than my right hon. Friend told him, but it is our job to take advice from advisers and from Back Benchers as well. I might say that we would give more importance to the Back-Bencher's view, but at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of Ministers to make a decision and then be accountable to the House.

    PIU Energy Review
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the scope and timetable of the performance and innovation unit's energy review. [9286]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The scope of the PIU energy review is to look at strategic issues surrounding energy policy for Great Britain to 2050. The PIU will report to the Prime Minister by the end of the year.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can I draw her attention to the increasing concerns regarding the new electricity trading arrangements, as outlined in the Ofgem report that all Members have received? Will she confirm that the energy review currently being undertaken will consider those concerns and will bring forward proposals regarding those arrangements? If the report comes to Government by the end of the year, what timetable does she have to ensure that they bring forward their response to it in the next 12 months?
    Mrs. Roche: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had a long-standing interest in energy matters. The review will take account of the longer-term potential contribution from all renewable sources of energy and it will also consider how energy investments of all kinds can be reconciled with the concerns of local communities. I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of the review.
    Mr. John Smith: I should like to reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for

    869
    Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in any review, special consideration will be given to older coal-fired power stations, such as Aberthaw? They are strategically important in guaranteeing the security of the supply of electricity to areas such as south Wales and in their ability to burn low volatile coal from the south Wales valleys.
    Mrs. Roche: Any review of energy needs must consider coal. I inform my hon. Friend and the House that a separate review of the potential of cleaner coal technology was announced in parallel with the PIU review.

    Foot and Mouth
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the regional co-ordination of policy relating to the foot and mouth outbreak. [9287]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government offices in the regions have supplied staff at all levels to regional operations centres responding to foot and mouth disease. Policy matters continue to be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with whom my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had a number of informal discussions.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply. Her Department is responsible for regional co-ordination, so has it assessed how policy was handled in the worst affected areas of Devon, North Yorkshire and, especially, Cumbria? Will the House have an opportunity to debate Devon county council's report on the mishandling of the situation by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and will she agree to a full public inquiry into the handling of foot and mouth?
    Mrs. Roche: The Government have already announced the setting up of two national inquiries and they will begin straight away. She is right to say that lessons have to be learned, and the inquiry that took place in Devon will feed through into the two national inquiries.
    I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the Government offices made an enormous contribution, with staff working very hard and long hours to deal with the outbreak. As part of the inquiries and more generally, we will examine how those offices operated. I pay tribute to the Government offices in her region that worked so hard and diligently.
    Hugh Bayley: Will my hon. Friend accept that not just farming, but the whole rural economy, has been hit by foot and mouth? In particular, the leisure and tourism industries have been hit, so when the Government co-ordinate their response to regenerate the economy of rural areas, will they pay adequate attention to tourism?
    Mrs. Roche: We certainly will. It is right to focus on tourism, and that is why I was delighted to spend part of last Easter in my hon. Friend's wonderful constituency.

    Disabled Employees
    Mr. Tom Clarke: What steps are being taken to increase the numbers of people with disabilities in employment in each Department of Government. [9288]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government are committed to employing disabled people, and all Departments have targets to increase the number of disabled people they employ. Good progress is being made, but a lot more work needs to be done.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that all the evidence shows that people with disabilities have an outstanding record once they are given an opportunity to work? Will the Government therefore redouble their efforts to make sure that opportunities are available at every level in the civil service and that those opportunities extend to people with learning difficulties?
    Mr. Leslie: My right hon. Friend touches on the precise point: diversity is not simply about reflecting the nation for its own sake, but about enriching the skills base and experiences across the civil service. Disabled people have a great deal to offer to improving public services throughout the nation. A variety of different tasks are under way in the Cabinet Office to increase the proportion of disabled people in the civil service, but more work needs to be done.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 October.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply.
    The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the middle east. He was in Syria earlier today and is now in Saudi Arabia. His visit to the middle east emphasises the enormous importance that the Government attach to building the widest possible coalition against the scourge of international terrorism. It also re-emphasises the Government's total determination to do all that we can to reinvigorate the middle east peace process. My right hon. Friend has been tireless in his efforts on both those matters, and I am sure that the House will wish him well.
    Mr. Brazier: In the light of the rather complacent reply on emergency planning for terrorism given a moment ago by the Parliamentary Secretary, when will the Government sort out some radios so that the police, fire brigade and ambulance service can talk to each other, and to the military, on the same frequency during a crisis?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: It is undoubtedly true that a number of lessons have been learned from the problems of foot and mouth and, in particular, flooding, when increased communication between the military, the police service and the fire brigade was necessary. Some work has been done on that. It is now being handled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the contingency committee. We will do everything possible to improve communication.
    Mr. Peter Pike: The Government recognise that even in these troubled times problems at home remain important. My right hon. Friend visited Burnley recently and met the taskforce investigating the aftermath of the disturbances in Burnley in June. He also saw some of the 3,500 empty houses in my constituency and will be aware of the redundancies at Michelin as a result of the factory closure and job losses in the aerospace industry. Is it not a fact that the Government believe that the problems can be resolved only by a Labour Government working with local councils? Will he undertake to visit Burnley at an early date to show that the Government give their full support to Burnley borough council in its efforts to resolve those problems?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: How could I possibly disagree with such a conclusion? Indeed, how could I resist an invitation to visit Burnley? I shall certainly take that into account when I am in the area.
    My hon. Friend made his point about the housing problem clear to me when I visited Burnley some time ago. The council has, I think, received £2 million for housing investment. He also mentions job losses at Michelin. That is a concern. Although there have been some job gains in his area, Burnley is worried about job losses, the need to do more about housing and the recent disturbances. Lord Clarke's report is considering those matters and one of my ministerial colleagues is also investigating them, with a view, we hope, to reporting in December. However, I will visit my hon. Friend's constituency if I get the opportunity in the near future.
    Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the first objective of the current campaign in Afghanistan is now the removal of the Taliban?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position as deputy Leader in the House. He has held that job for two different Prime Ministers, which shows he has pretty shifty footwork.
    Our objectives are clear. Yesterday's Hansard shows that the right hon. Gentleman asked about those objectives and that they were confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. They remain the same. In a speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that our objectives are clear. Achieving the removal of the Taliban is not a clear objective, but it is a possible consequence of the Taliban giving protection to bin Laden, because the United Nations resolution made it
    872
    absolutely clear that anyone in that position declares themselves to be an enemy. That is clearly relevant to our objectives.
    Mr. Ancram: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. He shows himself to be highly prescient in predicting the future of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He will indeed shortly become Prime Minister and I shall be pleased to serve him in that position.
    Returning to the current crisis, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the greatest obstacle to humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is the Taliban regime, that the best way to avert humanitarian disaster is to replace the Taliban with a broad-based Administration, and that the military policy is in a very real sense the humanitarian policy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we have humanitarian objectives. In addition, we have always said that the diplomatic action was of equal importance to the military action in restoring to Afghanistan a Government who are acceptable to the people. As he knows, discussions about possible alternatives are continuing in the UN. In the meantime, we have rightly taken military action to get rid of the bases where terrorists are trained.
    Mr. Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that, contrary to some recent comment, the purpose of the air campaign has been to degrade the Taliban's military capability, to undermine their ability to promote or shelter terrorism and to curtail their ability to oppress their own people? Does he agree that the air campaign has been an appropriate first phase in achieving the agreed overall objectives in the war against terrorism, but that the time has now come to set out clearly the specific objectives of the next phase, which will presumably involve the use of ground forces?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I certainly agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has said about the military action and what it has achieved so far in terms of degrading the capacity for terrorist activity in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. The whole House agrees on the need to consider long-term objectives for the long haul. The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday answered some of the questions. He said that we will now begin "a steady process" that will continue over the winter, building up to spring next year,
    "of fragmenting, undermining and eventually destroying the Taliban regime as a serious threat capable of inflicting any more damage on their country and the outside world."
    That answers all three questions to which we have so far addressed ourselves.
    Jim Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recent improvements in school standards in Dorset, while welcome, have been achieved in spite of unfair funding through the standard spending assessment? A child in Dorset currently attracts £132 less than a child in neighbouring Hampshire. Is that fair,

    873
    and are the Government still committed to reforming local government finance and ensuring that all our children in all our schools receive fair funding?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: It is quite nice to answer a question from a Labour Member for South Dorset, where we launched our campaign and gained a considerable victory at the general election. I have no doubt that Labour's record on education finance and the improvements that we were able to make played a major role in that victory.
    A lot has been done, but a lot more remains to do. Reforming our education funding system is an important priority and we must get the new formula right. When I was Secretary of State at the relevant Department, I asked local authorities for their recommendations on SSA formulas. They came up with 24 different formulas. The task is not easy, but at least we can say that since 1997–98 education spending in my hon. Friend's constituency has increased in real terms by 20 per cent. That is a considerable improvement. In addition, Dorset's SSA for 2001–02 has risen by £7 million to more than £151 million. None the less, changes must be made to that form of financing, and we are committed to making them.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: We wish the Prime Minister well in his diplomatic mission, not least because bin Laden poses a threat to just about every Muslim country and every Muslim community in the world, as well as to the west.
    May I turn to domestic issues? Bearing in mind the fact that, over the last few weeks, the Government have reversed their policies on Railtrack, cannabis, vouchers for asylum seekers and possibly even student fees, which are the subject of a review, is their second term going to be devoted to undoing the more misguided policies of their first?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I must say, as someone who was involved with Rai1track, but without going into individual policies, that rail privatisation was quite disastrous; to be fair, that was admitted by Conservative Front Benchers at the time. Railtrack went into administration because it had insufficient resources, not because the Government were not giving it any more—[Interruption.] The Government gave billions more to that organisation, which was constantly asking for more; every year meant £1 billion more in demand. That showed incompetence in handling the matter, which was flawed by privatisation, and we will not take any blame for that. That is the reality. If we change some things, is that so wrong? If we implement a new policy in those areas—on cannabis or on things to do with student financing—we look to see whether it is working, take proper advice and act on the advice. That is what I would call good government.
    Mr. Beith: In thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for that rather refreshing response, I invite him to pay attention to the privatisation of London Underground and of air traffic services and the denial of free personal care to the elderly as three more policies that it would be a good idea to review and change.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: That is so typical of the Tories—I mean the Liberal party. I do not see much difference between Liberals and Tories anyway, so forgive me for that mistake; they are all opposition of one form or another.
    There is no privatisation of London Underground; the assets are to be owned by the people and there will be public accountability. Yes, we are using the resources of private industry to reinvest the assets and rebuild the underground. We think that that is right so, by any stretch of the imagination, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that it is privatisation.
    Of course, a different formula was used for NATS; I think that that decision was right, although I know that Members can tell me to look at those who are lobbying outside. However, we will wait to see whether that produces the investment and modernisation needed by NATS and the underground; we are not ideological about that, but we will make sure that we will more than double the public investment to deal with the massive disinvestment under the 18 years of Tory rule.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Last week's announcement by the IRA and the subsequent response from the Ulster Unionist party has reinvigorated the Good Friday agreement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are extreme minorities that have never supported the agreement and have taken every opportunity in the last year or so to undermine progress? Does he further agree that the next step in finding long-lasting peace in Northern Ireland is for all paramilitaries to decommission their weapons, every last one of them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Indeed, that is a very important objective. The House will recognise that there was a significant, ground-breaking achievement and pay tribute to the leadership not only of the Government but of the Opposition when they were in government. The process started some time ago, and we congratulate all those who were involved in bringing this and the Good Friday agreement about. It shows that politics is working, which is an important lesson to be taken into account, perhaps no more so than in the middle east itself.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the crucial importance of the sustainability of decommissioning, as was required. Of course, we hope that the loyalist paramilitaries will respond by decommissioning arms themselves. Indeed, they were the first to contact the decommissioning commission, and it is vital to the success of the peace process that they continue and complete that process.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the crisis affecting care for the elderly, which has brought about the closure of 48 care homes in my constituency in the past five years, and of the fact that the Isle of Wight council predicts the loss of another 450 beds—15 per cent. of the total—in the next two years because homes cannot afford to implement the Government's Care Standards Act 2000? Does the

    875
    right hon. Gentleman accept that he cannot stop bed blocking in hospitals if there are no residential home beds into which elderly people can move?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I congratulate him on his victory in the Isle of Wight at the expense of the Liberals, about which I shed few tears. The question of how we deal with care of the elderly is a serious one. It may be possible for some of the people in hospitals to be treated in homes. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made available £300 million to improve expenditure in this area. The difficulties that we are encountering have come about partly as a result of the privatisation of care homes by the previous Administration. Many have closed because they find it much more profitable to sell at high property prices than to continue to operate as homes.
    Chris Ruane: What financial, political and military role does my right hon. Friend see the Islamic nations playing in post-conflict Afghanistan?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: We have made it clear that we want consensus on these matters, particularly among the countries that border Afghanistan, which will have an important part to play in a post-war situation. The United Nations has brought the parties together to discuss that. We all want to see agreement and the end of the military conflict. That is why the emphasis is not only on military but on diplomatic and financial aspects, which will all form part of the final settlement.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that 11 per cent. of beds in Suffolk hospitals are being blocked by delayed transfers, causing many cancelled operations, trauma for patients and their families and terrible strains on NHS staff? Our hospitals are at maximum capacity or routinely on critical alert. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the disappointment and concern of my constituents about the current state of the NHS, recall that grotesquely misleading campaign slogan, "24 hours to save the NHS", and apologise for it?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I will certainly not apologise for the fact that the Government have put more resources into the health service than any previous Administration, not only in absolute terms but as a proportion of gross domestic product. Often, the failure to achieve the objectives that we have set is due not to lack of money but to inadequate management. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the beds situation. It is a matter that he has pursued in the past, and under the Tory Administration there was a reduction in beds. For a short period under our Administration, hospitals continued to reduce bed numbers, but for the first time in a long time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been able to increase the number of beds in our hospitals. We know what we need to do, we have provided the resources and we will make it a decent health service, after it was run down by the Conservatives.
    Joan Ryan: I welcome the consultation document launched today on action to tackle
    876
    abandoned cars, which pollute and blight our environment and attract crime. Will my right hon. Friend give me a guarantee that as soon as the consultation is closed he will make sure that rapid action is taken to give local authorities the powers to deal effectively with this blight on our local environment?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The whole House will agree with what my hon. Friend says. Many of us are receiving complaints about the many empty cars that are left in the streets. It is, indeed, a considerable problem. The statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions gives local authorities powers to remove vehicles more quickly. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The measures that have been announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give local authorities more powers to remove vehicles more quickly. They will be able to remove some vehicles in as little as 24 hours. The House should recognise the problem in places such as Lewisham, which previously had about 600 abandoned cars per year but now has about 6,000. That is a problem of considerable difficulty. The House will recognise that our extra powers and consultation, which include toughening up the DVLA licensing requirements, will deal with these problems. I have made inquiries: of the 6,000 cars in Lewisham, none was a Jaguar.
    Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): I am sure that the House was highly enlightened by that answer from an expert. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why he finally decided not to publish an annual report this year?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: It was called the general election, and we had a majority of 167.
    Mr. Ancram: Is not the real reason that there was no annual report the fact that a truthful report would have made extremely uncomfortable reading for the Government? We now know that 50,000 care beds have been closed in the past four years, half of all people wait more than an hour to see a doctor in casualty, class sizes in secondary schools are their largest for a generation, almost half of all teachers leave within three years of joining the profession and police numbers are the lowest for more than a decade. By failing to publicise the report, are not the Government seeking to avoid democratic accountability for all these public service failures?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I recall most of those arguments being put during the election campaign. We put the alternatives and delivered on those promises—and the majority was 167.
    Mr. Ancram: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what he told the House on 30 July 1998? He said:
    "All we have done is put our achievements in a proper annual report, record what we have done and be accountable for it. I call that democratic accountability."—[Official Report, 30 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 542.]
    What I want to know is, whatever has happened to democratic accountability since then? Is it not yet another victim of the Government's obsession with news management and spin? Has not the annual report become another political piece of bad news that they have decided without ceremony to bury?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: There comes a time when one thinks of the phrase, "Stop digging." We put our record in our manifesto, while the criticism was made by the Tory manifesto. The result was overwhelming. It was the same sort of result that we had in our first election, and I am sure that we are heading for a third one that will go the same way.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend, like me and many others, read the newspaper stories about Muslims leaving this country to fight for the Taliban? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to ensure that, if those reports are true and any British citizens are leaving for that purpose, they never set foot in this country again?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: My hon. Friend will recall that we took action last year in the Terrorism Act 2000 to deal with some of these problems. When there has been a breach of law in this country—one can think of a number of areas where that may be possible if such activities can be proven to have occurred—action will be taken by the appropriate authorities.
    Andrew George (St. Ives): Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, despite the fact that Cornwall is the poorest region in the United Kingdom, the Government, according to this month's BusinessAge magazine, still take £300 million a year more in taxes than they put back in services? Local community regeneration efforts are being frustrated by meddlesome Government quangos and mountains of bureaucracy. Is he aware that Cornwall wants not to get even, but to get on? When will we be given the tools and money to do exactly that?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman will know that I visited Cornwall and St. Ives, where I spent a holiday recently, and I know full well how people there feel about these matters. He will know also that they are very appreciative of the negotiation of objective 1 funding brought about by this Government. He will know also that they are very grateful for the regional development agency, which the Opposition would abolish if they ever came to power. The agency has played an important part in redeveloping the Cornish economy. The hon. Gentleman may be able to show some differences in public spending figures, but I am not sure whether they are true. Inevitably, the future
    878
    of Cornwall is a lot more rosy now than it was before, and that is because we have a Labour Government with a few Liberal Democrats elected down there.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the problems caused by heroin in this country are born in Afghanistan? Does he further agree that, once new arrangements are in place in Afghanistan and the current phase in the conflict ends, it will be important that the source of 90 per cent. of the heroin that comes into this country is cut off as much as possible, if not completely?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend. Some 90 per cent. of the cannabis in this country comes from that part of the world. The first condition is that we have a Government there who are sympathetic to dealing with the problem. Clearly, the Taliban are not, which is another reason why we should be taking the kind of action that we are.
    Angus Robertson: I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the key issue of regional air services was debated this morning in Westminster Hall. Does he agree with the majority of people in the highlands and the north of Scotland that air links to Gatwick from Inverness—and to Heathrow, soon—are of key importance? Will he give a commitment that the Government will more than consider a public service obligation order to help secure the vital Inverness to Gatwick air link?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: These are essential questions about airports and aviation policy. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Department is considering and developing a White Paper for production within a short period. These matters have been affected by the debate on terminal 5, and anyone who knows about that subject knows that it has made the production of a White Paper difficult. He makes an important point, but he will know that I cannot say whether we will make a public service obligation order. However, I will pass on his comment to the relevant Secretary of State and I will see that he gets a proper reply.
    Mr. David Lammy: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the Government's strategy for ensuring that local authorities are encouraged, equipped or sometimes kicked into dealing with quality of life issues such as dumped rubbish, abandoned cars, dog fouling and dirty public spaces? Young people in my constituency who are growing up amid such neglect are given little incentive to care for their surroundings.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Since coming to the House, my hon. Friend has made it clear that he finds the issues of the quality of life in his constituency very important and has pursued them with some vigour. My earlier announcement was on the removal of cars, on which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) have been campaigning. What we have announced will

    879
    lead to a vast improvement in the quality of life in those areas where people have been bitterly complaining about these matters. Many things affect the quality of life in local authority areas. One is the numbers of police and wardens, which are being increased, and that should help. Also, the reforms that we have been making to local government will make it much more accountable. The best value principle, which we brought in, is a good way of improving and taking into account quality of life issues in a way that compulsory competitive tendering did not.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that today is the deadline for the Government to apply for £57 million of agrimonetary compensation from the European Union for Britain's hard-pressed arable farmers, which would help farmers throughout the United Kingdom, and not least in my constituency? Given that a recent report suggested that farmers were happier to have the Army than DEFRA officials on their land, would not applying for that compensation go some way towards restoring the countryside's faith in the Government's agriculture policy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: I have no doubt that the farmers did not mind DEFRA officials bringing them the money and support that we give to the rural industry. That did not come with the Army. Both the Army and DEFRA have contributed
    880
    to dealing with the difficulties in rural areas. The White Paper that we produced on rural communities is also a major contribution to improving the quality of life there.
    To be frank, I am not sure whether this is the last day. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I will accept that. A lot of brilliant Opposition Members know that, but I do not. I will make it my business to get on to the Department and see whether we can get a response today.
    David Cairns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Audrey Anderson, who last night won the community nurse of the year award? Will he also reaffirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that our nurses and doctors continue to get the extra investment that they need if they are to make the national health service once again the best in the world?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Yes, I certainly think that everyone in the House would want to congratulate Audrey on the presentation that was made in recognition of the work that she has done. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made the presentation. This serves to remind us of the scale of the increase in nurses and doctors that not only occurred in the first four years of this Administration but continues now. They are all making an important contribution to improving the quality of our health services. Quite frankly, there will not be an improvement in quality unless we get the extra doctors and nurses, because they really make the difference.

Health (Air Travellers)
3.32 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for research and development, and dissemination of information and advice, relating to flight-related deep vein thrombosis and other medical considerations affecting air travellers; and for connected purposes.
The cartoon by Blower in the Evening Standard on 11 January shows a British bomber plane in the second world war under attack from flak from the ground and fighters in the air. The tail gunner is saying to a crew mate:
"Of course what really scares me is the deep vein thrombosis."
In that amusing way, the point is made that the risk of deep vein thrombosis is less than some other dangers, and in a very serious way I acknowledge that it is currently overshadowed by the aftermath of the events of 11 September, but as airlines struggle to persuade passengers to fly again, they could well restore confidence all the more quickly if they adopted the measures proposed in the Bill.
I am grateful to Air Commodore Charles Clarke, retired, for providing me with a splendid copy of the cartoon. I am grateful, too, for the support that I have received for the Bill from hon. Members of all parties, including the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) from the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) from the Liberal Democrats.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) raised the issue of deep vein thrombosis in a powerful and persuasive speech in an Adjournment debate on 16 January 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) deserves more credit than me for his persistence and skill in raising the issue in many and varied ways, including in his speech in support of his own ten-minute Bill on 12 March 2001, and early-day motion 581 of the Session 2000–01.
My two hon. Friends both made reference to incidents of deep vein thrombosis that had come to their personal attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North spoke about his own wife's experience; mercifully, medical treatment was effective and she did not die. Regrettably, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan told the House of the death of his constituent, John Anthony Thomas, at just 30 years of age.
My attention, too, has been attracted to this subject by a constituent's experience. Nick Balmforth nearly died after returning on a flight from Goa to Manchester. Over the weekend he fell ill, and when his GP saw him he was taken to hospital by ambulance. Tests showed multiple blood clots on his lungs, and the diagnosis was pulmonary embolism caused by deep vein thrombosis brought on by the long flight in cramped conditions.
My constituent was an in-patient for two and a half weeks, and relied on anti-coagulant treatment for the next six months. He has had a frightening time—and costly too, bearing in mind his prolonged absence from work. It is small wonder that he wrote to me:
"My overriding concern is to help prevent others suffering what I have been through and I am so very mindful of the many who tragically have failed to survive this illness."
882
What is the scale of the problem of deep vein thrombosis? In a written question, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the statistics on deaths caused by deep vein thrombosis, including how many were related to air travel. The National Statistician replied that about 6,900 people die each year in England and Wales as a result of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, but that figures were not available for how many of those deaths are related to air travel. The Aviation Health Institute, a medical research charity, estimates that worldwide 30,000 air travellers each year suffer deep vein thrombosis. Of those, dozens die.
What can be done to ensure that airlines have regard for the well-being of their passengers? Parliament has the benefit of the fifth report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, published last November, which sets out a number of helpful recommendations. It also reminds us that there is not yet a scientifically proven link between air travel and an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis, and strongly recommends that more research should be done.
I give credit to the Government for their response to that report, because since then there has been Government-sponsored research. That has led in turn to a willingness to collaborate with the World Health Organisation's recently announced global study of deep vein thrombosis.
It is important to refer to the differences of opinion between scientists, because my Bill does not go as far as some would wish.
At this stage I am not willing to put on to airlines the burden of costly adaptations to their fleets of planes. Issues of design such as space around seats, aisle widths and so on should, in my view, await more definitive research findings. Of course airlines should not, however, be able to impede or delay that research. My Bill would require them to co-operate with research, and in particular to keep records of incidents of deep vein thrombosis, which is not done now.
Other steps can and should be taken already. I say that with confidence, because the best airlines are taking those steps now. In their pre-flight communications with potential passengers—websites, leaflets, and when sending out tickets, for example—airlines can alert the public to health considerations. They can also ensure that their staff are trained in flight-related deep vein thrombosis symptoms, preventive measures and treatment. They can give advice to passengers through staff announcements, their video and the health safety card.
What advice should the airlines be giving? That question is all the more pressing in view of the news this week about mass legal action against some airlines in the High Court that will make allegations about flight-related deep vein thrombosis. The Civil Aviation Authority has already produced information approved by the relevant Departments, setting out what is meant by deep vein thrombosis and pointing out that some are more at risk than others—for example, those with a history of thrombosis, those taking oral contraceptive pills, those who are pregnant, those who have recently been hospitalised, smokers, the obese, and some patients with congestive heart failure and malignant disease.
The advice sets out what can be done to reduce risk, such as periodic exercise of the feet and legs, and walking around, where feasible. Elastic stockings may be helpful,

883
and people should drink water, not alcohol. Those who are particularly prone are advised to obtain expert medical advice before their journey.
My Bill would aim to make those measures compulsory for all airlines, bringing all airlines up to the standard of the best and, assuredly, saving many people from a frightening health incident and some of them from death. I assure the House that the seriousness of the problem merits legislation. More research is needed before some steps should be required by law to be taken, but the Bill represents a proportionate response to the risk in question. It is for those reasons that I ask the House for leave to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Mrs. Janet Dean, Ms Julia Drown, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Brian Iddon, Lynne Jones, Mr. John Smith and Bob Spink.

Health (Air Travellers)
  HEALTH (AIR TRAVELLERS)
  Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for research and development, and dissemination of information and advice, relating to flight-related deep vein thrombosis and other medical considerations affecting air travellers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 42].

Personal Statement
3.41 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement. I wish to start by apologising to the House for a failure to register in 1990 a conditional contract entered into, under which I expected a company I owned to be paid, and to apologise also for my failure to recall the existence of that contract and therefore, inadvertently, misleading the Standards and Privileges Committee when asked about a matter that might be considered to be related in 1998, some eight years later. I apologise to the House for those oversights and I accept absolutely the Committee's recommendations.
I want the House to know that I sincerely mean that apology, and I apologise for the non-registration of that contract in 1990. However, I did not receive—nor did any company associated with me receive—the payment as alleged. It is because that payment was not paid to me, despite allegations to the contrary, that I have continued to search the company files, archives and records to prove my case. That I plan to continue to do. I am grateful that the Committee did not accept that there was sufficient evidence to find that I received the money.
On the issue of registration, hon. Members will be aware that in 1990 no Member of Parliament was asked in the rules on registration to register conditional or other contracts between one company and another, far less contracts when payment was not guaranteed but merely anticipated, and no hon. Member recorded any contract in that year or any other year. All of us regarded a statement of our connection with a company as being sufficient. I repeat that I have never attempted to mislead the Committee and have fully—perhaps over fully—co-operated with it. At no point did I represent, lobby for or speak in debates associated with the company involved and I am pleased that the Committee has accepted my position in that respect.
I thank my constituents and my local party, which have given me their consistent and unstinted support throughout this affair. I also wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this apology. In accordance with precedent, and with your permission, I will now withdraw from the Chamber.

Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i) approves the First Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 297); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Member for Coventry North West, from the service of the House for three weeks.—[Mr. McNulty.]

[The Seventh Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2000–01, HC 465, on the Complaint against Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, is relevant.]
3.44 pm
Sir George Young: I rise to support the motion but, for obvious reasons, I take no pleasure in so doing. I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) for his apology and acceptance of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
This is not the first occasion on which I have taken part in one of these debates, but it is the first time that I have done so as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The present Committee has done no more than write the last sentence of the report produced on the eve of the general election by the Committee chaired by Lord Sheldon. I wish to pay Lord Sheldon a warm tribute: he was a good House of Commons man and a doughty fighter in the campaign to raise the esteem in which the House is held by the public at large. I believe that good progress was made in the course of the previous Parliament in restoring the House's reputation, and I hope that we will make further progress in the same direction during the current Parliament.
I should also like to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who held the previous Standards and Privileges Committee together with great skill when Lord Sheldon was absent through illness at a very difficult time, and who remains on the Committee as a powerful voice for good sense.
The Committee's findings are based on the investigation carried out by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin. The report that she has produced on this highly complex and difficult complaint is of a very high standard, for which the whole House should be grateful. Whether we always agree with her conclusions or not, we should recognise the diligence, thoroughness and scrupulous fairness and objectivity she brings to the cases that she has to investigate.
The Standards and Privileges Committee has dealt with this case, as I am sure that it will deal with every other that comes before it, without any concern for the party affiliation of the Member concerned. We will do our best to be fair both to the House, which has asked us to safeguard its reputation, and to the Members who appear before us, to whom we will give a fair hearing. However, my ambition as Chairman of the Committee is not to have to take part in too many of these debates.
The main purpose of the system that we have created should not be the investigation of past offences but the prevention of future offences. We should all seek to ensure that our conduct does not give rise to well-founded complaints. We should be scrupulous in our adherence to
886
the rules. Where there is any doubt in our minds, we should seek advice and give a full explanation of the circumstances in good faith, and then act on the advice that we are given. We cannot control what use other people may make of our complaints system, but we in this House should not use it to do down political opponents by making trivial or politically motivated complaints. Therefore, I ask for the support of the entire House in my attempt to work myself out of a job.
I shall outline the facts of the present case as concisely as I can.
Between 1988 and 1990, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was chairman of a company in the Maxwell group called Hollis Industries. According to the company's published accounts, the chairman was paid £200,000. In 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made a complaint to the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West had failed to register this as a remunerated directorship. The hon. Gentleman told Sir Gordon that his chairmanship of Hollis had been unpaid, that he had never received this money, that he had never expected to receive it, and that the published accounts of the company were in error. Evidence from two firms of accountants supported his assertion that no such payment had been made to him personally. Sir Gordon did not uphold the complaint, and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed with his conclusion.
Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend made a fresh complaint to the present Standards Commissioner on the basis of new evidence which had come to light. Her inquiries revealed that in 1990, while the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was chairman of Hollis, he had negotiated an agreement with the Maxwell interests for his own company, TransTec, to provide management services to a Hollis subsidiary called Lock, in return for a payment to TransTec. The agreement included the provision of the hon. Gentleman's own services as executive chairman of Lock. In October 1990, the hon. Gentleman sent Hollis an invoice from his home address requesting payment of a
"fee for management service provided to Hollis Industries plc as agreed"
in the sum of £200,000. Hollis's finance director wrote "Approved" on the invoice, which also carried a further note saying:
"Paid by PAGB: Recharge H Industries".
"PAGB" is Pergamon AGB, another Maxwell company; "H Industries" is Hollis.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West subsequently made several further attempts to secure the agreed payment from the Maxwell interests. Early in December, the finance director's secretary attached a note to the invoice, recording a telephone call from the hon Gentleman. It stated:
"Geoffrey is not registered for VAT. Proposes make cheque payable to him personally."
At about that time, a payment of £200,000 was made to someone by Pergamon AGB, which then sent Hollis an invoice for the amount. Exactly what happened to that payment is still hotly disputed; the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's statement. The commissioner established that £200,000 went out of Pergamon's bank account, £200,000 went into the account of the

887
hon. Gentleman's company, TransTec, and the debt owed to TransTec by another of the hon. Gentleman's companies was reduced by £200,000.
The commissioner concluded that the hon. Gentleman or his beneficial interests had received the payment. The hon. Gentleman has consistently and strenuously denied that he received the money. The Committee gave him three months to see whether he could find the Pergamon cheque, which would tell us who actually got the money, but unfortunately the cheque has not been found. Although this is a matter of the greatest importance to the hon. Gentleman, it was less important to the previous Committee. The present Committee takes no view on this one way or the other. Indeed, our report says:
"We do not assume that payment was made to, or benefited, Mr. Robinson or one of his companies."
That does not mean, of course, that the Committee cleared him of receiving the payment. In the Committee's view, the payment was agreed, and the submission of the invoice indicated that the payment was expected. The interest was registrable whether the payment was received or not, and the hon. Gentleman failed to register it.
Much more serious than the failure to register the interest was the hon. Gentleman's failure to volunteer information to the 1998 inquiry. He was asked at that time whether he had received or had expected to receive any benefit in respect of his chairmanship of Hollis. He said no, but the reality is that Hollis and its subsidiary company, Lock, were the same thing, and TransTec and the hon. Gentleman were the same thing. However, the hon. Gentleman supplied no information to Sir Gordon Downey about the negotiations involving TransTec and Lock and no information about his efforts to secure the payment which had been agreed. He made available none of the documents, least of all the invoice he submitted. He said that he had forgotten about the arrangement when he was questioned about Hollis in 1998. If the Standards and Privileges Committee had been given the full story at that time, it might well have come to a very different conclusion.
We consider that our predecessors and the former commissioner were misled as a result of what the hon. Gentleman failed to tell them in 1998. Misleading the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is a very serious matter. It is often far more serious than the offence on which the Committee is being misled.
The House is a forgiving place if a Member owns up and openly admits that he has made a mistake. I made that point in the last debate of this kind on 1 March last year. A Member who is not frank and open with the commissioner, the Committee and the House must expect a more serious penalty as a result.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does anybody on this Committee have any inkling of what it was like to deal with the byzantine affairs of the late Bob Maxwell? Just trying to deal with Bob Maxwell leads to difficulties.
Sir George Young: The previous Committee examined this matter at length and took all the circumstances into account, including the byzantine nature of the Maxwell empire.
888
The House will be aware that in the last Parliament the Committee upheld complaints that the hon. Gentleman had failed to register interests in July 1998, November 1998 and March 1999. In November 1998, the hon. Gentleman was required to apologise to the House by means of a personal statement.
The period of suspension that the Committee has recommended reflects, on the one hand, the seriousness of the offence and, on the other, the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his solicitor co-operated fully with the commissioner and the Committee in allowing the matter to be resolved without delay. I ask the House to approve the Committee's recommendation.
3.54 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is now Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support his view that it is important to reduce the number of occasions when such matters come before the House.
I have read both the original and supplementary reports. Within the terms of reference of our inquiry and investigative system, they are undoubtedly persuasive, and I hope that the House will endorse them. However, it is fair to say that the anxiety about this case does not simply relate to the individual and his circumstances.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire rightly referred to the way in which the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges approaches its business. There are concerns in all parts of the House about the operation of our investigative system and, indeed, the practice of the Select Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
I draw the attention of the House and, in particular, that of the right hon. Gentleman, to the report produced by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on which I think the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who has just left the Chamber, and certainly the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) served with me during the previous Parliament. In that document, we considered carefully a number of issues that related to the discipline of Members and the occasions when non-Members confront or affront the way in which the House operates. Those are matters of considerable importance, and not only in the context of privilege.
Now that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has taken command of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, I ask him to look at that report, in particular the section—chapter 6—that deals with disciplinary and penal powers and the part that deals with natural justice, whether that relates to our fellow citizens or to hon. Members. The section on procedural fairness contains matters of concern that have not been dealt with by the Select Committee or any other House authorities as far as I am aware. It is certainly raised in the annexe to the present report by the hon. Gentleman whose conduct is under examination. The procedures that have been followed are at least open to some question. I hope that referring to the work of the Joint Committee will mean that those issues of fairness can be dealt with properly.
I should have mentioned that the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who was then Leader of the House, was also involved in the exercise. I think that she

889
shares the experience of 18 months of studying these issues with great care and with the assistance of a number of legal authorities in the other place and much other legal expertise surrounding us.
I do not object to the conclusion or the recommendation of the present report, but it would be remiss of the House if we did not take this opportunity to record that there is some anxiety in the House and outside it about the way we discipline ourselves in these matters. I share the aspiration of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, the Chairman of the Committee, that progress should be made in restoring the reputation of the House. In that respect, I too share his ambition that we should at least reduce if not remove the need to come back to the House with reports of this sort.
3.58 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I had not intended to speak, but I have been scribbling as I have been listening. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), for his overgenerous remarks to me, which are much appreciated.
I must point out that throughout the previous Parliament every report that the Select Committee produced was unanimous. That is important as it demonstrates the way in which the House is determined to resolve any internal problems, in spite of what the press said about the Labour majority—under the rules of the House every Committee must reflect the numbers on the Floor of the House.
The present shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), was one member of the Select Committee, as was Martin Bell, our former colleague. The present Chairman, when he was shadow Leader of the House, said that if the Conservative Whips could not keep his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst under control, he found it hard to imagine how the Committee could do so. It was a great achievement to get through those four years without a single non-consensual report. I hope that that trend will continue under the present Chairman.
What triggered my speech was the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House. He referred to the byzantine Maxwell empire. That is an irrelevance. However byzantine the empire was, the invoice did not come from Maxwell: it was to Maxwell, and with it was a declaration of expectation. Where there is expectation, there is the danger of a conflict of interest. If there is an expectation of a benefit, it must be declared; that is clearly stated in the rules. As the Chairman of the Select Committee rightly said, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that, as far back as 1998, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), sadly, denied to Sir Gordon Downey that there was any expectation.
May I put a point to the Leader of the House? He knows well that during the last Parliament the Committee on Standards and Privileges tried to address some of the nonsense in the code of conduct. The code had been drawn up in a hurry; it was too detailed and extremely difficult for Members to understand. It is certainly difficult for Members to remember all the facets of the code, so we urgently need a debate so that Members have
890
a clear idea early in this Parliament what is expected of them. May we have a debate on the report proposing changes to the current system issued by the former Committee?
Like the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I also draw attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, chaired so well by Lord Nicholls and of which I and many colleagues were members. Although Ministers have accepted that report, it has never been debated; apart from its initial reception, it has not been significantly addressed. The report contains important issues that need to be addressed in the context of the new human rights entitlement for everyone, including Members of Parliament.
4.2 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: These debates on disciplinary matters and the misdemeanours of hon. Members are somewhat doleful occasions—they are certainly not a time for celebration or glee. I bear no animosity towards the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), although I was the complainant who launched not only this inquiry but several previous ones. This is the fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has been reprimanded by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
My aim throughout has been to try to uphold and enforce the rules of the House—rules that the Labour party, especially in opposition, was anxious to strengthen and make stricter. During the past four years, the Labour Government have themselves become entangled in a number of disciplinary matters. I agree with the observations of right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about possible reforms and improvements to the disciplinary process. The rules on registration have become unnecessarily and even unworkably tight in several respects; they invite many trivial, vexatious and technical complaints that do little to raise the status or reputation of the House. That is perhaps a matter for debate on another occasion.
The matters covered in the Select Committee's report are certainly not technical or trivial; they are serious allegations and I am sure that the House was pleased to accept the apology of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West. Personally, I should also like an apology from the Labour and Government media manipulation units, which constantly rubbished my early efforts to get to the bottom of this complex matter, and in particular to expose the relationship between the late Robert Maxwell and the Labour party.
I am glad to say that the first report of the Standards and Privileges Committee of 2001–02, particularly when read in conjunction with the seventh report of the previous Session, published on 3 May, sheds considerable light on one aspect of that very complex web of undeclared payments between the Robert Maxwell empire and new Labour. To that extent, I feel vindicated.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the report is based on an investigation by Mrs. Filkin, the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is a comprehensive and a fair report. The standard of proof required, at least by the Committee, goes some way beyond what has been required in the past. If I compare

891
the way in which Neil Hamilton was treated by Sir Gordon Downey, who was really satisfied with a balance of probabilities rule of evidence, with the standards required by the present Committee, I find that the rules of evidence have been tightened, and rightly so.
In addition, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was given an additional three months to try to find an innocent explanation for the £200,000 payment. I actually believe that that had more to do with the impending election, and the Government's desire to get the matter pushed beyond the election date, than anything else. That was a mistake; if we had dealt with the matter in the summer, we could now be entering a new Parliament with a clean slate. As it is, this whole matter of what the public media call sleaze is already contaminating this Parliament, and that will do nothing for our reputation in the House—although that has never been much of a concern to the Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire outlined, this is the second investigation into the subject. The first was conducted by Sir Gordon Downey, the previous commissioner, in 1998. We can now see that that earlier investigation was somewhat superficial, and certainly incomplete. As regards the disputed £300,000 payment from the Maxwell companies to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, that was in the audited accounts of the company concerned, and Sir Gordon found some additional evidence by way of inter-company invoices for the same amount.
However, at that time the hon. Gentleman was given the benefit of the doubt by the commissioner and by the Standards and Privileges Committee because no invoice was discovered. There was no piece of paper on which the hon. Gentleman had sought or demanded the £300,000, nor were the cash books recording the payment found. That was because the companies concerned—the Maxwell companies—had collapsed and were in administration and the books of records were held by Arthur Andersen, the administrators. The Committee at that time, for reasons that I do not fully understand, decided not to investigate those records, and when I made a request to do the work I was actually barred from looking at those records, also for reasons that I do not fully understand.
The crucial fact, which really should worry the House, is that those documents and that invoice were found the following year in an investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry, conducting its own inquiry. The real scandal of this whole episode is that that information has been covered up; I use that phrase accurately and in the knowledge of what I am alleging.
At the time, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That DTI inquiry, which was started early in 1999, was undertaken in response to four letters that I had written the year before about the business affairs of that part of the Robert Maxwell empire. I pointed out glaring breaches of company law, pension fund irregularities, undeclared payments to directors and so on.
I specifically and in writing asked the DTI to undertake an inquiry under section 432 of the Companies Acts and to do so by means of an external, independent inquiry,
892
with full publication of the results, precisely because there would otherwise be a clear conflict of interest—one Department would investigate the affairs of a serving Labour Minister. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was then the Paymaster General at the Treasury and therefore intimately involved in taxation and expenditure matters, as I was when I was Paymaster General some time before.
To avoid any suspicion that the Labour party was investigating its own affairs and might be tempted to cover up the matter, I asked for an investigation under a specific section of the Companies Acts, but the Secretary of State replied saying, among other things, that he
"would wish to be as open as possible on these matters."
There is a certain irony in those words in the light of what happened afterwards, but I took that phrase to mean that he acceded to my request. I was wrong, as I shall shortly describe, but the important thing is that that inquiry found everything—in other words, it found all the evidence and documents that the Committee had not found.
The invoice was discovered by the investigators in the DTI, as well as the cashbook entries and so on, but no action was taken. Instead, on the day that the House rose for the Christmas recess at the end of 1999, the Secretary of State answered a planted parliamentary question, asked by a Labour Member, saying that no action would be taken. I was not even given the courtesy of being sent a copy of that reply; I discovered it during the Christmas recess. In other words, the DTI knew that that was the missing evidence, and it sat on it. Of course, the evidence was very embarrassing because it showed the Maxwell links to the Labour party and the misdemeanours of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, who had just resigned as a Minister.
Mr. Nigel Beard: The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to associate Robert Maxwell with new Labour or, recently, the Labour party, three times during his speech. Has he any evidence of Robert Maxwell's link in financial terms with new Labour or the Labour party, as opposed to Robert Maxwell's link to individual people in a private capacity?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am using the term "Labour party" in a rather general sense. Certainly, many serving Labour Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, received money for their private offices from the hon. Gentleman, whose wealth derives from the links and business relationships that are the subject of the report. I suggest that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) reads the two reports and all the appendices, and then he would discover what I am talking about.
The point that I am making is that the information in full is contained in that DTI inquiry report, which today sits in a safe at the DTI. That inquiry was launched in response to the points that I made in 1998. The information exists—and if there is an innocent explanation for the relationship and the flow of payments, let us hear it. Let the Government publish the inquiry or, at least, let us know what conclusion it reached.
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House, but I am not aware of any evidence that the leader

893
of the Labour party or the then shadow Chancellor ever received money from Robert Maxwell. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] Well, I understood him to say that. However, does he accept that when a similar allegation was made in Private Eye about Neil Kinnock, a former leader of the Opposition, it was not only denied but Maxwell received damages?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is precisely to get to the bottom of the matter that I want the Government to publish the information that they have. We know that they carried out an inquiry, because that was confirmed to me, eventually. It is a modest request from me that the information be published.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: It would be of benefit to the House if Members remembered that the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Alastair Campbell, was employed as political editor of The Mirror directly by Robert Maxwell and was clearly a very close associate of him. A member of the present Cabinet was also employed directly by Robert Maxwell and, if I remember rightly, a Member in the other place—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We drifting away from the report. We should confine our remarks to it.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The late Robert Maxwell was the great Labour tycoon. That much is known. We need information to get to the bottom of the relationship.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my right hon. Friend knows, I was involved in the investigation with him and I made a complaint to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I also made a complaint to the chairman of the Inland Revenue, asking him to investigate where the payment of £200,000 had gone. Does my right hon. Friend know whether the Committee on Standards and Privileges asked the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) to produce his tax return, which would show whether he had returned the £200,000 payment? If the hon. Gentleman did not receive the payment, would my right hon. Friend expect the Inland Revenue to investigate where it had gone?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Issues of taxation are rather wider than the responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, but I will touch on tax law before I conclude.
The only reason that the second inquiry took place and the cover-up failed was that an investigative journalist, Mr. Tom Bower, obtained the invoice in question. I do not know from whom he obtained it or how he obtained it, but he did and the invoice was published in a national newspaper. The newspaper and Mr. Bower were both threatened with a libel action by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although that was quite quickly dropped. It was clearly just bluff and bluster to try to silence the press, but the Secretary of State's libel action was undertaken at public expense. When I recently asked how much taxpayers had paid to help the Secretary of State to launch his abortive libel action, I was told that that information was not available. Perhaps another cover-up is in the making there.
After further letters from me, the disclosure of the invoice enabled Mrs. Filkin to reopen her inquiry. The invoice showed beyond any question that, even if one
894
accepts that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West did not receive the money into his bank account, he certainly requested or solicited it. I have a copy of the invoice with me. It appears on his writing paper, is for management services worth £200,000 and is marked "paid". Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire alluded to that in his speech. There is solid evidence that some rules of the House have been broken.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend think it worth remarking on the fact that when the journalist, Tom Bower, published the story that he had discovered the invoice and rang up the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who had prepared it, to tell him that, the response was not one of surprise? Instead—if I remember the words correctly that have been repeatedly quoted in the press—he said something along the lines of, "You're not supposed to have that."
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is how it is recorded in the book about this event. I am reluctant to go beyond what I have witnessed or found in documents. That must remain someone else's version of events, but it does fit into a pattern.
The crucial factor was the discovery and publication of the additional facts, because that allowed the inquiry to be reopened. It became clear that the 1998 inquiry, which had effectively exonerated the hon. Gentleman, was incomplete. The reports by the Committee on Standards and Privileges constantly refer to the Department of Trade and Industry report. They confirm my suspicions about the Maxwell group and show that I was not simply trawling through a host of unsubstantiated allegations about Mr. Maxwell.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned taxation. No one disputes that the £300,000 payment was made, but the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West said that it was not paid into his bank account. However, if the payment was made for management services without tax or national insurance contributions being deducted, that contravened section 311 of the Companies Acts. If the payment was designed to go into a personal service company, value added tax should have been included, and it was not. The DTI did nothing about that. The Government say that they are against tax evasion. Why then, when one of their Departments had evidence that tax was being evaded, did they not pass the matter on to the tax authorities as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold?
Stock exchange regulations are another example. It is serious to breach them, but there is evidence in the voluminous appendices to the 3 May report that the prospectus issued to the shareholders of another Maxwell company, Central and Sheerwood plc, was misleading in a number of material respects.
I pointed that out in a letter to the DTI and asked what action it proposed to take, but it has done nothing. The Government are considering making it criminal for directors to be involved in anti-competitive behaviour, yet when they have evidence in their own report that a shareholders circular was misleading, they sit on it and do nothing. Indeed, a few days before Christmas they used a planted question to issue the statement that they did not propose to take further action. That is why I have no

895
hesitation in calling this a scandal and a cover-up. They do not deny that the report contains that information. I have corresponded with the previous and present Secretaries of State and there has been no denial that the report covered that subject and that the information exists.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: To get the record straight, and as the right hon. Gentleman is hanging out this so-called dirty washing, can he clarify his entry in the register? Some of his hon. Friends who are engaged in moonlighting jobs and directorships include the amounts that they receive. As he is hounding almost everyone in the Labour party, how much has he received? Why has he not put that in the register?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
Mr. Skinner: How much—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am speaking. That intervention is wholly outside the scope of the report that we are debating. To the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I have to say that, as Mr. Speaker ruled earlier, we are in danger of straying too far into the general from the particular matter that is before the House.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I would love to respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but you have a solemn and strict expression on your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the matter being debated.
The latest ploy by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is to say that the whole affair is none of his responsibility—claiming that despite the fact that the Department of which he was Secretary of State was involved, everything was done by civil servants. Why, then, did he answer my letters on the subject? Why did he correspond with me? Why did he answer written parliamentary questions on the subject? It was his Department and he is constitutionally accountable to the House for what went on in his Department. Moreover, it was he—or, to be charitable, someone who reported to him—who decided to instigate an in-house inquiry, rather than the independent external one that I had requested precisely to avoid allegations of cover-up or conflict of interest.
Those are the clear facts. The House has got the report despite the Government's best efforts to suppress the information. To this day, all that information remains secret in the Department of Trade and Industry, which could quite easily launch a new investigation under another section of the Companies Act, with publication guaranteed if it so wished, to get to the bottom of the many issues connected with company law, taxation, pension funds and stock exchange regulations that I have highlighted and to which the reports before the House allude.
We have not got to the bottom of the links between the Maxwell empire and new Labour. That is why we need a full inquiry, a proper inquiry, an independent inquiry, with the results published. If we do not get that, the House will be in the unhappy position of being able to discipline individual Members of Parliament, but not the Government. That has to change.
4.27 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: I rise as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I am a reluctant contributor to the debate, but, given the work that the Committee has been carrying out for the past few months, some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) need to be either put into context or contradicted.
The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), expressed the hope that in future politically motivated and trivial complaints would not be brought to the Committee. I do not suggest that that is true of the complaint that is the subject of our debate, but I find it a bit rich, as well as in poor taste, that the complainant should gloat about the outcome of a report for half an hour. Furthermore, in his speech today the right hon. Member for Wells went far beyond not only the Committee's report, but his original complaint.
Let me give an example. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the Committee for having given the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) a further three months to produce evidence about the cheque and whether he had received it. As has already been pointed out by two hon. Members, whether the hon. Gentleman received the cheque was not an issue for the Committee: the issuing of an invoice and the expectation of being paid was sufficient to warrant a declaration. Although the question of whether he had received the cheque was of great interest to the hon. Gentleman, the Committee did not consider it an issue and it agreed unanimously—with the support of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent members of the Committee—to allow the extra time for the hon. Gentleman to try to determine to his own satisfaction what had happened to that cheque.
The right hon. Member for Wells went on to draw parallels with the Hamilton case. Of course, in that case a large number of allegations were dismissed. Once again, the conclusion that the Committee reached four years ago—I was a Committee member then—did not depend on the receipt of the money. The expectation of receiving it was sufficient to merit a declaration.
My next point is brief and I make it for the sake of accuracy. Several times, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a £300,000 cheque—[Interruption.] He has acknowledged his mistake; a £200,000 cheque was under discussion. However, that repeated exaggeration did not help his case.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about the Inland Revenue. The Committee did not raise the matter with the Inland Revenue to try to establish whether the cheque had been cashed and dealt with in the usual way. Again, that was for exactly the same reason; what happened to the cheque did not matter to us. There was an issue about the invoice and expectation of receipt, so a declaration was needed. Where the cheque ended up was not the most important thing for the Committee to investigate.
I am offended by the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Wells that somehow there was a cover-up to which the Committee was party. That is certainly not—
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have never alleged that the Committee is in any way implicated in a cover-up; it is

897
the Government who are in the dock. I was making the point that the Committee was denied information by the Government—specifically the DTI—which it could have used to come to a much earlier conclusion.
Mr. Levitt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification. The commissioner looked into his allegation, followed by the Committee. We felt that we had all the information that we needed to make a judgment on the allegation which, to use a word employed earlier, did not go into the byzantine connections that may, or may not, have existed between the Maxwell empire and politicians, whether individually or in general. That was not the allegation that the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the Committee; we did not carry out an investigation into it, and it was not part of our conclusion. Whatever the issues around Maxwell's pro quo for the quid, they were certainly not on our agenda for discussion.
I shall take my Committee hat off for a moment. Towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the Government's best efforts to suppress the issues. That has not been tested; it remains his allegation. The Committee had no brief to look into the matter, whether it involved arrangements between individuals or influence that anyone may have tried to exert on a political party. Indeed, throughout our investigations, we found no evidence of any suggestion of political manipulation alongside any financial transaction whatsoever.
The right hon. Gentleman has used our debate to raise an issue that goes well beyond the scope of the Committee's report which, I hope, will be accepted for what it is. I hope that people will look at the allegations that we received and the investigation that we carried out. Under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who has already established himself and taken to his new role like a duck to water, I hope that we will be able to continue our deliberations in future. I trust that we will be able look at issues objectively when there are reasonable grounds for investigation, and that our offices and those of the commissioner will not be used for pursuing party political issues.
4.34 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: That was a most unfortunate contribution from the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), which well illustrates why a member of the Government payroll should not be sitting on the Standards and Privileges Committee. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware that the hon. Gentleman is a Parliamentary Private Secretary. That was clear from the tone of his speech. It is most unfortunate that a member of the payroll, clearly speaking for the Government as a PPS, should serve on that Committee.
The House owes a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). If it were not for him, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) would not have been in the House today, accepting the conclusions of the report and agreeing that he should be suspended for three weeks. That should be clearly recognised.
Mr. Alan Williams: In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman does my hon. Friend the Member for High
898
Peak (Mr. Levitt) a grave injustice by saying that he is on the payroll. He is a Parliamentary Private Secretary. PPSs are not paid. He is an ordinary Back Bencher, like any other Back Bencher—[Interruption.] That is a matter of importance when we are discussing interests and the Standards and Privileges Committee. My hon. Friend is not on the payroll.
Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman was first elected to the House in 1964. That is 27 years ago. He is a distinguished and experienced Member of the House, and he knows that anyone who was a PPS in any of those years was said to be on the payroll when it came to votes and speaking in the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows that full well. He is trying to muddy the water, which is a pity. I should have thought more of him. [Interruption.]
The Leader of the House says that I am muddying the water. I will tell him who was muddying the water a moment ago. He was colluding with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to try to muddy the water by questioning the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House knows full well why there was no answer. The question was out of order, as the Deputy Speaker ruled, and my right hon. Friend would not have been able to give the answer. It is rather sad that the Leader of the House, who is supposed to defend the interests of the House, seems to be colluding in a partisan way in an extremely serious case.
Make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is one of the most serious cases of its type that the House has had to debate. We all know that the late Robert Maxwell was one of the biggest crooks and fraudsters who ever entered the House as a Member of Parliament. We also know that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West has a bit of form. This is the fourth time that he has been reported to the Committee, and the fourth time that he has been reprimanded. On this occasion, the recommendation is that he be suspended for three weeks, so this is no trivial matter.
Whereas I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover is treating the matter frivolously and checking my entry in the Register of Members' Interests—he will find nothing of significance—I should have thought that the Leader of the House would know better and would remember what his position is.
Mr. Skinner: All that happened between me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was that I asked him for the register, as I do not have one here. I got the register from the Front Bench, read it and found out that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) had entered his remunerated directorships, but had not put the money in. I thought that as we had agreed that the money should be entered in bands, and as the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in the business of hounding, he himself should be lily-white. It turned out that he was not. I wanted to know how much money he had made as a Back Bencher moonlighting. I ask the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), too, how much he has made.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have got in through the back door, when I thought that I had bolted the front door. However, he had some encouragement from the right hon. Member for

899
Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). This is a serious occasion for the House, and it is better for us to stick tightly to the report.
Mr. MacKay: I am happy to stick to the report, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I shall, naturally, abide by what you say.
Let us consider the key point in the report: did the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West receive a cheque or not? I think that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that he did so. We have seen the invoice on his own private notepaper. We have seen clearly that it was receipted and paid. In those circumstances, it is a little surprising that the Committee did not follow Elizabeth Filkin's recommendations. If it had done so, we would be talking about a suspension not of three weeks, but a lot longer.
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, unfortunately and regrettably, we have had debates similar to this one in recent years. Previously, hon. Members who have erred have rightly been punished, often by suspension. However, the mere three weeks' suspension in this case is in no way proportionate to the hon. Gentleman's misdemeanour, which has been confirmed by Elizabeth Filkin, Tom Bower and, most important, Mr. Aldous, the completely independent inspector whom the then Department of Trade and Industry asked to look into the affairs of Hollis Industries, the then Paymaster General and the companies of the late Robert Maxwell.
There are serious lessons to be learned. In future, the Committee must take a tougher stance when it is dealing with serious offences. I entirely endorse what has been said by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the need to throw out frivolous cases. I also support what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said about the need for the guidelines to be reviewed. We are, however, considering an immensely serious case. My constituents and most people outside the House will think that our procedures are something of a closed shop and that we have joined together, patted the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West on the head, said "Dear, dear, you made a modest, rather rambling apology; at least it was a little longer than the statement that you made at the Dispatch Box last time" and then suspended him for a mere three weeks. That approach brings the House into disrepute and we will live to regret this day.
What has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire about the report and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry and its then Secretary of State needs to be explained with greater clarity. I should like the Leader of the House to pay a little attention to these remarks, as what happens on the Floor of the House is his responsibility. We need a statement and then a debate. It is intolerable that the independent inspector's report has not been published. It raises questions about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that can be properly resolved, in his interests, only when we see the report and have confirmation from officials about why they did not let him know about its seriousness in respect of the tax allegations and related matters. I accepted his assurance that he knew absolutely nothing about the detail of the report, even up
900
to the time of the planted written question that appeared when the House adjourned for the Christmas recess in 1999.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report should be made public, not least because, until the matter of the £200,000 payment is cleared up, the pensioners and minority shareholders in the companies that were involved—A. M. Lock Ltd. and Hollis Industries plc—cannot be certain of their true position?
Mr. MacKay: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I commend him for the role that he has played in bringing some of this information to light.
I am very cross because, like my hon. Friend, I can remember entering my constituency office and finding Maxwell pensioners in tears. Many had never met or worked for the crook Maxwell, but their companies had been taken over by him after they retired, and they suddenly found that they had no pension to live on. That was a disgraceful state of affairs. That is the sort of man we are talking about; never forget that he was the most evil crook and it is a great pity that he was ever elected to this House for one Parliament.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee members to reflect further on whether they genuinely think that this sentence is long enough. The Committee should reflect on what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about a debate on and a review of the guidelines, because I entirely agree. In the interests of his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that there is a proper debate on the DTI report and that that report is published so that it clears the air.
Mr. Levitt: To put some of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments into context, will he acknowledge that the sentence is the second heaviest that the Committee has recommended since it was set up in 1997?
Mr. MacKay: I would respond by saying that we have seen nothing like this before. In my 20 years of experience, this is the most serious case that I have seen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. MacKay: No, I will not give way. I shall conclude now, as others want to speak.
I do not believe for one moment that we have seen the end of the matter. The fact that the sentence is only the second most serious that the Committee has recommended confirms to me that it is totally inadequate.
4.46 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I rise to support the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the able speech of its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). We have also heard a fulsome apology from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) for the two findings of the Committee against him. That would normally be an end of the matter. This House has a certain dignity in handling such problems. Where an hon. Member has been found

901
wanting, accepts the findings of the House and apologises, we move on and trust that all of us have learned and are wiser as a result.
Today we are faced with a rather bigger conundrum, which is deeply unsatisfactory for the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West and for the rest of the House. We heard the hon. Gentleman state categorically, as he did when he appeared before the Committee on several occasions, that he did not receive the payment. We read in the Committee report that it cannot rule out the fact that he might have received the payment, but that it did not have the overwhelming weight of evidence that it would have liked to be able to determine the matter one way or the other.
That means, unfortunately, that this debate today, and whatever may ensue, does not draw a line under all of the issues that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been voicing. For the sake of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West and the rest of us, the Government owe us a fuller statement on all the circumstances surrounding the Hollis company and the Maxwell group of companies with which it had a working relationship so that we can get to the bottom of the issue.
It is possible that the answer is already known to the Department of Trade and Industry. It would be normal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said with considerable force and eloquence, for the DTI to sanction a full inquiry under section 432 of the Companies Acts. I remember when I was a Minister responsible for such matters in the DTI, when I had to make difficult judgments, and advise the Secretary of State accordingly, as to whether we should go for a full public inquiry into a set of problems or one of the private inquiries available under another section of the legislation. The overwhelming case against section 432 was always and only that it could damage a live trading company which might not be guilty of the charges that were being investigated, but could suffer severe commercial damage if it were widely known publicly that it was being investigated.
Clearly that does not apply in this case. We are talking about investigating companies and events from some time ago and things have moved on, so that these companies' reputations or trading could not be damaged further by knowledge of a full public inquiry.
I urge Ministers, for the sake of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West and of the rest of us, to publish what they know already, especially if it answers the $100,000 or £200,000 question at the heart of this debate, or to order a full public inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has urged more than once, with the express intention of getting to the bottom of this issue and the many others that remain on the table in relation to the pensioners, the other trading companies in the Maxwell group and the various rights and wrongs.
Many people think that wrongs were committed, but there are no wrongdoers. That is very unsatisfactory. A proper Government inquiry could establish with acceptable certainty whether wrongs were done, and then go on to say who was responsible, so that other action could be taken if necessary. It is certainly important for the hon. Member at the heart of this debate that the DTI should assist us in answering the £200,000 question: whether the money was receipted into an account operated by him or one of his companies.
902
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, the case would be much more serious were it to be established that the hon. Gentleman had misled the House over a payment, in addition to the two charges that he has accepted today. I am prepared to accept his word, in the spirit adopted by the Committee, but I understand that the Committee was unclear about the exact nature of the payment and where it went. We need to clear that up to lift a shadow from someone or some company and attribute the blame where it belongs.
It would not be wise, following this problem, for the Government to ask Elizabeth Filkin to step aside and to find someone else to take on her role. She has established a reputation in—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is outside the scope of the debate.
Mr. Redwood: I stand suitably chastened, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The House needs to establish its reputation for probity by the way in which it handles such issues, which it must do with continuity, fairness and firmness. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells was right to warn us of the danger of too much trivia, with too many unimportant cases cluttering up the system and giving the impression that many Members are not as honourable as they should be, which is untrue. With a serious case such as this, we need the help of the DTI to crack it, so that the public can see that we really have got to the bottom of the issue.
Sleaze was a weapon fashioned by Labour in opposition. It is in danger of becoming a boomerang, causing them endless problems as allegations surround Ministers and former Ministers. I urge the Government to clear up those allegations through a full inquiry into the former Maxwell operations, because many of them stem from that awful web of connections between the late Robert Maxwell, his business empire and Ministers past and present.
4.53 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who made a very seductive and persuasive argument for further inquiries into the Maxwell empire and how it might be linked to the Government or to Ministers. While he did not want to speak too dishonourably of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), he said that the question of the cheque and the proceeds had not been cleared up.
To my recollection, the Department of Trade and Industry spent 10 years investigating the Maxwell empire, and published a report. I cannot see how more reports could possibly be helpful. I have read Tom Bower's books. I declare an interest, because Mr. Maxwell went to his grave owing me £500. I will not detain the House on how that came about. I may have been luckier than many.
From personal knowledge of Maxwell, I know that if ever someone was capable of writing a cheque on the Friday and letting it bounce on the Monday, it was he. He reputedly funded the Commonwealth games in

903
Edinburgh, but the cheques were never paid. He also did a deal in the City of London on the Friday, when the law firm—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the report, not the history.
Mr. Bell: I was aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I took my eye off you for a minute, and then realised that I was wandering somewhat.
To go back to the point that is relevant to the debate, the fact that a cheque was written out is no proof that it was ever endorsed or cashed. I ask the House to take my hon. Friend's apology in good faith, and to accept in good faith that he did not receive the money. As for the report before the House, I accept that such debates are important for the House and its reputation, but I would not advise the Government to order more investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Redwood: I was drawing attention to the fact that the Committee could not wholeheartedly resolve the issue; that is why it needs clearing up. If things are as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we have to explain why the accounts seem to imply otherwise—and we need to know what other items in those accounts are misleading.
Mr. Bell: Again, questions about the accounts go wider, because we are talking about the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West, and the particular question before the Committee on Standards and Privileges. How the auditors did their work is something different. All that I am telling the House is that Mr. Maxwell had a reputation for issuing cheques on a Friday that bounced on a Monday. Therefore the House should accept my hon. Friend's apology and statement in good faith, accept the Select Committee's report, and leave the matter where it is.
4.56 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I should declare an interest at the outset, in that I was at one time Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I salute him for the work that he has done, and I am delighted that he has taken over that role. I was not paid by him—or by anybody else, sadly—when I was his PPS, but I must tell the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) that a very strong convention applied when we were in government, that a PPS was part of the payroll, even if not actually on it, and did not participate in House of Commons matters except formally. I am surprised to see that the hon. Gentleman is still serving on the Committee.
I shall now take up a point first made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and then taken up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). We run a risk of allowing trivial cases, however defined, to gain currency outside the House and give the impression that this House is made up of a great number of people who are venal and do not take their parliamentary responsibilities seriously.
904
Rightly or wrongly, there has emerged the idea—and in some people's view the debate may reflect it—that we are engaged in party political point-scoring over reports from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I have said to Labour Members, some of whom hold high office in this Government and some of whom are no longer in the House, that in my view the Committee has in the past been partisan in favour of the Labour party, and that if we are to have a Committee that works, and does not merely feed stories to the newspapers with which to undermine public confidence in this place, they will have to act responsibly and resist the opportunity to make partisan accusations.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster rose—
Mr. Howarth: I will give way in a moment.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is not now in his place, but I merely wish to say that, as he knows, in the last Parliament I complained that he had complained to Mrs. Filkin about John Major and said that the former Prime Minister had received remuneration for undertaking speaking tours in the United States. I make that point because the report raises issues of comparative treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned general points that arise from the report, and I hope therefore that what I am saying bears on those remarks.
The House must resist the temptation to be partisan in these matters, because the only institution that will be damaged is Parliament and the only beneficiary will be the media, which like to write salacious stories about our activities. They write no salacious stories about their activities and their private lives would not stand the scrutiny of a candle, let alone a searchlight.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster rose—
Mr. Howarth: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going way outside the scope of this debate by making those remarks. I hope that he will come back to the point after the intervention.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Members of the Committee may be offended by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that they are partisan in their quasi-judicial role, especially those who are members of the legal profession. They would be most offended if it were suggested that they were not capable of fairness in their decision-making. How can the decisions be partisan when they are unanimous? Or does the hon. Gentleman wish to suggest that Conservative Members on the Committee are so timid that they cannot stand up for themselves?
Mr. Howarth: The idea that lawyers are uniquely virginal in such matters will strike the public as somewhat curious. Any of us who have had any experience of lawyers will know that they are very much part of this world, although some of us may wish that they were part of the next world.
You have rightly suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should address my remarks specifically to the report and I happily do so. I have a great deal of time for the hon.

905
Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I share his religious convictions as a Christian gentleman. He suggested that we should in good faith accept the word of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), in so far as he did not receive the £200,000. The hon. Gentleman, in his personal statement today, made it clear that he still protests his innocence of the charge of receiving those funds. My problem with that is that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has just pointed out—the Hollis accounts, which were signed by the hon. Gentleman himself as chairman of Hollis, showed the payment of £200,000 to him. Taken together with the invoice that Mr. Tom Bower has uncovered, the evidence appears to be overwhelming, and certainly more than the balance of probabilities, that the hon. Gentleman received the money or that TransTec received the money on his behalf. That is the difficulty.
I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will permit me to contrast and compare the treatment of one hon. Member against that of another, because I believe that that is a legitimate approach in a debate on such a report. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) is indignant at my suggestion that the Committee is partisan, but I hope that he will accept the following points. In the last Parliament, the Committee did not show the good faith and indulgence that the hon. Gentleman thinks should be shown to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West to my former hon. Friend, Mr. Neil Hamilton. Few hon. Members will be surprised that I mention that name, because the House knows that he is one of my very closest friends. He was served a grave injustice by the Committee, on which several current hon. Members served in the last Parliament.
Evidence was provided for the payment of £200,000 to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West—the company accounts and the invoice—but the Committee failed to find any such evidence relating to Mr. Hamilton. The Committee could not determine how much he had received, or how or when he had received it. It effectively convicted that man on the basis of no empirical evidence whatsoever.
Such was the overwhelming case that Neil Hamilton made that the Inland Revenue has accepted entirely his accountants' claim for signing off on his accounts. In other words, there was no money from Fayed. Everyone
906
knows that Fayed had an axe to grind because Hamilton would not do his bidding. That is why he went after Hamilton. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: No, because I do not want to stretch your courtesy to me too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West has been given a rap over the knuckles and three weeks gardening leave from the House, when Mr. Hamilton and others—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was about to say—have suffered a disparity of treatment that is acutely evident to the House.
Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: Not to the hon. Lady, on any account.
It is unfortunate that the Committee has not accepted Mrs. Filkin's findings in total. The House will know that I hold no brief for the lady, but she was painstaking in this investigation. It is not a good omen for the future, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, must prove his Committee's robust independence in these matters. He must ensure that hon. Members brought before the Committee receive parity of treatment.
However, I want to end on a note of agreement. I hope that under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire the Committee will be much more robust in sweeping aside complaints that are of a partisan nature and which do not involve serious misdemeanours with regard to the House. Such complaints merely serve to undermine the House's status in public confidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved
That this House—

(i) approves the First Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 297); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Member for Coventry North West, from the service of the House for three weeks.

Orders of the Day
  Election Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Election Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
    New Clause 1

      VOTERS: SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS
      '(1) From 1st April 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to elections in Northern Ireland, imported into Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c.2), is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
      (2) Sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) are omitted and the following are inserted:

      "(a) the plastic photographic card which is, or forms the counterpart of, a current licence to drive a motor vehicle;

      (b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Government of the Republic of Ireland;

      (c) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass issued by the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development;

      (d) a current electoral identity card issued under section 13C of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Blunt.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.7 pm
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 4, page 5, line 6, after "may", insert "be obliged to".
      No. 18, in page 5, line 28, leave out from "documents)" to "a" in line 29 and insert—
      'for sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) there is substituted'.
      No. 10, in page 5, line 29, at end insert—
      '(4) In Schedule 1 (parliamentary election rules), in rule 37(1E) (specified documents), sub-paragraphs (c) to (g) are omitted.
      (5) Subsection 4 shall come into force on 30th April 2003, or 15 months after the coming into force of the rest of this section, whichever is the latter.'.
      No. 17, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, leave out from "appoint" to end of line 39.
      Mr. Blunt: In rising to speak to new clause 1, I wish to make it clear that I do so in the spirit that has accompanied the Bill in its progress to date. Hon. Members of all parties support the Bill's objectives. Like all other amendments tabled for debate today, the new clause is designed to help the Bill.
      I shall begin by recounting to the House a statement made in Cabinet by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is reported by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to have said that the aim in Northern Ireland is to achieve the politics and the practice of politics that are normal in a liberal democracy. If that remark has been slightly mistranslated in its passage from what was originally said
      908
      in Cabinet, I am sure that the House will forgive me. I am sure, however, that all hon. Members can sign up to that objective.
      The new clause deals with the identity of voters in polling stations and the timetable for the introduction of the legislation. As the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee:
      "The aim of the legislation is to make only secure photographic identification, such as a driving licence, passport, voluntary ID card and probably the Translink card acceptable as proof of identity at the polling station. There will therefore he four acceptable forms of identification."
      The new clause would give effect to the Minister's aims. It would also reinforce the removal of non-photographic forms of identification by putting a timetable on the process that is in line with the Minister's intentions. As he explained in Committee:
      "The target of the May 2003 elections has been at the forefront of my mind since I took responsibility … I am doing everything in my power, as are my officials, to meet that target".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 93–96.]
      This first group of amendments is important in the historic context of bringing trust into the process of democracy in Northern Ireland, but it is perhaps not the most important in addressing head on the worst causes of electoral fraud there. Historically, the stories and accounts of personation in Northern Ireland have been legion. When the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs took evidence in 1998, it heard about people changing clothes and putting on wigs outside polling stations so that they could go in and pretend to be someone else. We heard such stories in Committee as well. It is essential that we support the Government and that voter identity in the polling station be as far as possible beyond reproach.
      There is evidence of counterfeit medical cards being used as forms of identification. That is why these provisions are required and the Minister's objectives must be supported. The Committee was told of the Royal Ulster Constabulary raiding the offices of a political party and identifying a production line of counterfeit medical cards.
      The new clause would assist the electorate if they were confused about the form of identity required in the polling station. The Northern Ireland Office commissioned research on the general election; it took into account the experiences of members of the public and polling clerks as well as considering polling station precedents. The evidence showed that a number of people were turned away from the polling stations because they had brought the wrong form of identification. Many had come with some form of photographic identification that was not listed; some had come with the wrong part of their driving licence, as the Northern Ireland driving licence is in two parts.
      New clause 1 would give effect to the Minister's objectives by listing four types of photographic identification. The hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that the measures could be introduced by regulation. However, if the House supports the Minister in his objectives, it will be appropriate to put this measure into primary legislation now. That is what is behind new clause 1(2). There was no dispute in Committee that having voters produce these forms of photographic identification was a desirable objective.

      909
      The timetable that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have suggested in new clause 1 is the Minister's own. He has told us that his objective is to get this system up and running for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections due in May 2000, and we have taken him at his word.
      The transfer from non-photographic forms of identification to a completely photographic system offers great advantages in terms of certainty. The public information campaign in Northern Ireland can be undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office and also by the political parties there. It will be in their interests to ensure that all their supporters can take part in the election and that they obtain some acceptable form of photographic identification.
      5.15 pm
      The inclusion of concessionary fare passes for senior citizens as an acceptable form of identification after 2002, when I understand that the new photographic passes are to be introduced in Northern Ireland, will deal with the larger part of the population who do not have a driving licence or passport and who would otherwise need one of the new electoral identity cards. It would reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland Office and the chief electoral officer of producing electoral identity cards. Only a small proportion of the population would not have one of those three forms of identification.
      On the timetable in the legislation, the Minister may find that part of the electorate or a political party that wants to retain non-photographic forms of identification—so that they could continue to produce counterfeit medical cards, for example—organises to resist the introduction of an electoral identity card. The Minister made it clear in Committee that he would be influenced if there were such a body of opinion in Northern Ireland and if people did not take up the necessary electoral identity cards or have other acceptable forms of identification. If the legislation contains a date, as it would if new clause 1 were accepted, the Minister's hands would be tied, as would be the hands of the Department and the chief electoral officer, and they would have to ensure that the scheme was a success.
      I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with this matter in his reply. Did he say that it was impractical to introduce these measures for the May 2003 Assembly elections? He said that he was concerned that some of the electorate might resist taking up the identity card. If there are practical objections and it is difficult to meet the timetable for administrative or bureaucratic reasons, it would of course be appropriate to reconsider the deadline set in the legislation. If the Minister makes that point, I would not want to press the new clause in its present form. The date in the new clause is not immutable. It is meant to reinforce the Minister's position.
      I thoroughly respect amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has stuck to the view that he and the other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee took in 1998 when they recommended a new, universally issued electoral card. In Committee, the Minister raised an issue of principle, saying that the people of Northern Ireland should not be subject to impositions that were materially different from those imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom. The electoral identity card that the chief
      910
      electoral officer will introduce under this legislation is to be voluntary—one could also use a driving licence, a passport or, hopefully, a Translink card.
      The proposals of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would impose an identity card on the whole population of Northern Ireland. The debate about identity cards and their compulsory imposition on the electorate in a particular part of the United Kingdom should not be held in isolation, however. I thus tend to support what I assume is the view of the Minister: in these circumstances such an imposition would be wrong.
      Furthermore, to issue identity cards to the whole population of Northern Ireland would create a significant administrative burden. However, if one was dealing only with that small percentage of the electorate who do not have some suitable form of photographic identification, the proposals would be achievable, and at much less cost to the taxpayer—although we have been assured, throughout the Bill's proceedings, that resources are not an issue.
      Amendment No. 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), gives a timetable, but one that remains in the gift of the Secretary of State. Under the Bill's current provisions, the Secretary of State can choose when individual sections of the measure will come into force. The amendment thus does nothing to reinforce the Secretary of State's position; it merely imposes on him a 15-month waiting period once he has decided that he is ready to implement the provisions—unless, of course, that date happens to be before 30 April 2003.
      That is not necessarily the best way to proceed. If things slide to the right, as they tend to do in the course of time, we should find, if we accepted the amendment, that the Minister was stuck with a 15-month notice period when he had decided he was reasonably ready to implement the legislation. It would be preferable to work to a fixed date.
      If measures to combat electoral fraud are to be subject to acceptance by the electorate, as they would be if new clause 1 is not accepted, the Minister would be left open to undesirable pressures and persuasion from those parts of the electorate and political parties who want to continue to cheat the system. It would be better if the Minister's declared aims were reinforced by the acceptance of new clause 1.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 18. The amendments are linked so as to produce the result I want. Amendment No. 19 provides that people would be "obliged" to obtain a photo-identity card. Amendment No. 18 would ensure that the card was universal for the electorate of Northern Ireland, so that it was the only form of photo-identification used at the polling station. Under the amendments, the card would be compulsory and universal.
      The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) argued that new clause 1 would prevent confusion, because it would restrict the forms of identity to four. That is a good argument. My amendment would prevent further confusion because there would be only one method available—only one method would be publicised.
      In the United Kingdom, voter registration—apart from overseas voters—is not voluntary; people are obliged to register and can be fined £1.000 if they fail to do so.

      911
      Although far too many people are missing from the electoral registers, people are none the less legally obliged to register. I am in favour of improving electoral registration so that we achieve electoral registration of 100 per cent., or as near it as possible, so that everybody has the opportunity to exercise the rights to which they are entitled.
      In Northern Ireland, however, because of the special circumstances there, identification is required, correctly, at the polling station in order to exercise the franchise. To exercise the franchise in Northern Ireland, one needs to be on a register and one needs a form of photo-identification. I am arguing that one form of photo-identity card should be issued to everyone.
      Universality is a fundamental aspect of the operation of a democracy. Registration is voluntary in some countries, but that system is by no means as good as the system that we have in the United Kingdom. It is possible for overseas voters who qualify to register voluntarily, but that is mainly because we cannot impose compulsory registration on overseas residents. I do not believe that overseas residents should have voting rights in this country, but that may be a matter for another debate. However, I believe that it is particularly important that the photo-identity card should be provided universally, and that people should be obliged to apply for one.
      Amendment No. 18 applies particularly to the universal requirement. In 1997–98, the second report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland was on electoral fraud. Many aspects of the report have been adopted in the Bill, which is generally to be welcomed as being in line with its provisions. Paragraph 64 of the report records:
      "The Secretary of State"—
      at the time, it was Mo Mowlam—
      "rightly expressed dislike for a system which provided for different types of documentation according to whether a voter drove a car or had travelled abroad. She felt that this was divisive and we agree … Any new system of identification should be common to all voters in Northern Ireland … We, therefore, recommend that the present list of documents which prove identity should be replaced by a new, universally issued electoral card".
      I believe that the Select Committee was correct in making that recommendation. It is divisive to call on some people to seek to obtain a card while others may make use of passports, driving licences or other forms of identification that may be added to the list, such as cards for travel purposes. Many people would be missed, and the others would have to respond to the efforts of the Northern Ireland Office in order to register. It is much more likely that those people would apply for photo-identity cards if the requirement to obtain one were universal. In those circumstances, there would be a greater response from the public, the publicity would have much greater force and the social pressure to register would be considerable. So I believe in compulsory application for cards and the universal provision.
      5.30 pm
      I agree that the proposals represent a form of identity card for electoral purposes in Northern Ireland, and I support the notion of having identity cards in the United Kingdom. In fact, I believe that those identity cards should be linked with electoral registration, and a change
      912
      in the law may be necessary to ensure that everyone is covered by such arrangements. For example, residents from overseas, who do not come from Commonwealth countries or the Republic of Ireland, are not entitled to register for elections, but it would be valuable if they had identity cards. As residents of the United Kingdom, they should be entitled to vote, but the Bill does not affect the whole United Kingdom.
      A special problem exists in Northern Ireland, so separate identification arrangements already exist there, and they will be developed and extended, or clarified, under the Bill. I simply want to clarify the arrangements on a better and more substantial basis than will be done under the Bill. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs knew what it was doing when it produced the report—it realised that those principles were important and should be responded to.
      I appreciate that amendments Nos. 18 and 19 may not reach the statute book and that I am pressing the Minister on them, but I should like to know whether the Government are thinking along these lines. That might have an affect on cards in Northern Ireland and then have some knock-on consequences for United Kingdom electoral arrangements.
      Lembit Öpik: I rise primarily to speak to amendments Nos. 10 and 17, both of which were tabled by myself, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) correctly said, amendment No. 10 relates to the creation of a deadline by which time all this needs to be done. We suggest that that deadline should be 31 April 2003, or 15 months after the provisions are implemented, whichever comes later. Although the hon. Gentleman touched on part of this issue, let me explain why I feel that that is a more satisfactory arrangement than that proposed in new clause 1.
      The first powerful argument is that that arrangement would take account of the concerns that the Minister expressed in Committee, and we are seeking to help him and to provide flexibility, by ensuring that the target is achievable. In simple terms, the Government said in Committee that they envisage removing the non-photographic identity cards by the time that the next Assembly elections take place at the beginning of May 2003. That is why we have chosen the end of April, instead of the beginning of April, as is suggested in new clause 1.
      The 15-month leeway represents an insurance policy or backstop to ensure that, if something unforeseen occurs, the Government will not be held to have failed in their commitment to achieve something that we all wish to achieve. Unless the Government have very clear targets in the Bill, as was said in Committee, they will rob themselves of an opportunity to ensure that the changes that we have described come into force.
      Let us be realistic—some individuals will not be happy with the legislation, exactly because it prevents them from conducting electoral fraud, which, as we know, has taken place so often in Northern Ireland until now. Those people will do everything in their power to give the Government strong reasons why it would not be fair to introduce the legislation by any particular date. If we include such

      913
      targets in the Bill, we will make it clear to those people that it is outside the Minister's or the Government's discretion to renegotiate those deadlines. In so doing, we would significantly strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Office in ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are brought into force.
      Amendment No. 17 would ensure that the Bill is brought into force as speedily as possible and that it is not cherry-picked in the process. There is no reason why the Government cannot implement the whole Bill at the same time. There is provision for the Bill to be introduced at different stages and at different times, but the amendment would remove the words
      "and different days may he appointed for different provisions and for different purposes"
      from page 6, line 37. The reason for that is simple. The enemies of an honest electoral system will seek to prevent the Government from implementing the provisions that are most disadvantageous to the fraudsters. They will provide all sorts of reasons for that and dress up their arguments by claiming that citizens will be disfranchised by the Bill.
      If the Bill is explicit and it is clear that it is a package that will be implemented as a whole, it is much less likely that individuals will be able to prevent the Northern Ireland Office and the executors of the Bill's provisions from carrying out their work. Executors will be able to say that it is not in their power to delay some parts of the Bill while implementing others. We hope that the Minister will consider our amendments sympathetically, because they are designed to strengthen the Government's ability to implement the Bill.
      I have concerns about amendment No. 18 because, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) rightly pointed out, it would result in the compulsory use of an electoral identity card. It is a judgment call, but it appears to me that such a provision would be a little too prescriptive.
      In effect, the amendment would introduce an identity card that is likely, over time, to become a smart card that carries a great deal of information about individuals. I have an innate concern about identity cards, and such a proposal would be a bridge too far. I am determined that we should replace non-photographic identity with photographic identity for elections in Northern Ireland, but we should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
      I look forward to the Minister's remarks, and I hope that he will think seriously about amendments Nos. 10 and 17. Their sole intent is to strengthen the Government's ability to ensure that the Bill has teeth.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: It was evident from the contributions made in Committee that both sides supported the concept that identification for electoral purposes should be restricted as soon as possible to photo-identity. I and others tabled amendments to ensure that people could no longer use the non-photo identity documents that are most used for electoral fraud. For example, the medical card has been replicated in its thousands in Northern Ireland in an orchestrated way. Although social security benefit books are less easy to obtain, they are also used to perpetrate electoral fraud.
      I have great sympathy for the intention behind new clause 1. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has considered the remarks made in Committee about
      914
      aged persons' ability to use the Translink photo-identity as an electoral document. He gave the proposal fair wind in Committee, but I would like him to reaffirm that such a proposal will appear in amending rules and regulations.
      My problem with new clause 1 arises from something that the Minister said in Committee. Indeed, it is why I withdrew my amendments. In the second sitting, he clearly said that it was his intention by 2003
      "that the new cards will be issued to those who do not have a passport or driving licence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 51.]
      Anyone who has not got a passport or a driving licence—or a Translink card, if the Minister accepts that suggestion—will be issued with the new electoral photo-identity card. That will enable all non-photographic forms of identification to be withdrawn or designated invalid for electoral purposes.
      I was happy and content with that assurance until unfortunately, in the third sitting, the Minister stated:
      "It is the Government's intention not to remove non-photographic forms of identification that are presently permitted until everyone has a passport or a driving licence with a photograph, or has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a photographic identification card for election purposes".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 84.]
      I quote that carefully because I want the Minister to respond to it. In the same paragraph, he said that the Government intend to remove all non-photographic forms of identification as soon as possible, hopefully before the anticipated Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2003—if not before then, of course.
      I want complete clarification of that. Does the Minister think that the electoral officer has sufficient resources and that it is practical to impose the withdrawal of non-photographic identification by, say, spring 2003? That is germane to the debate. I sympathise with the thrust of the new clause and would want that reflected in the rules and regulations that are imposed.
      If the Minister is able to reassure me on that, I will take on board his other caveat about the danger in the process. The lack of time, resources, technology or techniques could mean that a significant number of people will not have photo-identity cards by April 2003 and will be disfranchised if new clause 1 comes into effect. That is a subjective judgment. I need assurances about the resources and the technicalities as they relate to implementing the Government's intent, rather than worrying that the Bill's measures are not capable of being implemented by spring 2003.
      Mr. David Trimble: It seems that there is a broad consensus on this issue. New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17 would achieve the same objective—to ensure that the identification for voting includes photographs. The second objective is to have the arrangements in place by 2003 in time for what we expect will be the next Assembly election. The Minister says that they are also his objectives. On that basis, I expect him to say that he is prepared to accept the new clause and amendments.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)indicated dissent.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister may want to consider the exact form in which the amendments are drafted, but it is

      915
      very much in his interests to accept them. I am rather disappointed to see the Minister shake his head when I say that. I advise him that it is greatly in his interests to adopt that course of action.
      5.45 pm
      In Northern Ireland, it has for a long time been clear that there is substantial abuse in respect of identification documents. They were introduced with the wholly laudable objective of preventing personation, and they succeeded in eliminating personation by all parties bar one. Personation in Northern Ireland is now committed by only one party, because only one party has the resources necessary to contravene the current system. Those resources should not be underestimated. The Minister knows that in financial terms, if not in manpower terms, that party's resources far exceed his party's. The Minister's party would have great difficulty matching it in terms of effective political organisation, because his party cannot match the resources of a party that runs rackets on a huge scale in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
      There is a serious problem because that one party has the resources needed to contravene the current arrangements and it does so through non-photographic forms of identification, especially the medical card. The abuse has been known about for ages, and for ages Members of Parliament and members of the Northern Ireland parties have urged successive Governments to deal with that abuse. I remember six or seven years ago speaking to Northern Ireland Office Ministers and being assured by them that they would tackle the problem and do so promptly. I was told that legislation would be in place in time for the next general election—the one held in 1997; that legislation never appeared. In 1997, the new Labour Government assured us that they would tackle the issue and that legislation would be in place before the next general election; no legislation was in place by the time of this year's general election.
      Finally, the legislative process has started, but can the Minister assure us that he will achieve the objective of having only photo-identity by May 2003? I hope that he can, but I know that there has been bureaucratic resistance to such a measure for the past half dozen years or more. I strongly urge him to accept in one form or another amendments that would put on the statute book the requirement that the measure must have been implemented by May 2003. Without that discipline and that argument to use against those who adduce reasons to delay, I greatly doubt his ability to deliver.
      I do not doubt the Minister's intention, but I doubt whether he will be able to deliver in the next 18 months—the issue is delivery. We shall of course listen to what he has to say—what promises and undertakings he makes—but I repeat that to ensure the objective is achieved, it would be better for the provision to be on the statute book.
      New clause 1 and the other amendments set out various forms of photographic identity document. Some of the proposals point towards the establishment of a system of identity cards for the whole population. The Liberal Democrat spokesman echoed the reservations voiced by the spokesman for the official Opposition. I have never understood why some people do not like the idea of identity cards, and I have never been able to find any coherent reason for opposing such a system.
      916
      Identity cards do not cause a problem anywhere else in Europe—this is one of the few occasions on which I recommend practice in the rest of Europe as a guide for us. Compulsory ID systems elsewhere are a convenience—it is quite a disadvantage not to have an identity card system. I see hon. Members turning around, and I do not want to open up an entirely different debate; I merely observe in passing that I do not understand the objections.
      I should like the Minister to respond to one point relating to identity documents and the proposals before the House. On Monday, the Home Secretary made a statement in which he said that he would introduce by January a system of identity cards for asylum seekers that would use fingerprints, signatures and biometric techniques. All those bits of information would be on a smart card that would be available by the end of this year. I think that I am right in saying that, in Committee, the Minister said there would be difficulty in producing smart cards in that time scale. Evidently, progress has been made since the Committee reported, but I urge the Minister to look again at including that range of material on the appropriate cards, as we are dealing with people who are adept at forgery and manipulating the system.
      There is a consensus in the House on the need to move to photo-identification alone and for that to be in place by May 2003. The only argument is about the details and ensuring that there is a statutory obligation; we urge the Minister to accept that there is a statutory requirement for such identification. That way, we might at least have some confidence. However, if we weighed the Government's pronouncements against the background of pronouncements by previous Northern Ireland Office Ministers stretching back over several Administrations, confidence would be in short supply.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: For the most part, I walked the same path as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in Committee, but we parted company on the issue of identification. The Minister is not being unreasonable in resisting the new clause; I trust that he will continue to do so.
      The general consensus in Committee was that, while we were keen to have a Bill that would be powerful and effective in limiting the activities of electoral fraudsters, we did not want to do anything that would deter a significant number of people in Northern Ireland from being able validly to register and vote. If we are to succeed in the interests of democracy, we must ensure that whatever good we achieve in deterring the fraudster is not offset by deterring people who are genuine and want to exercise their franchise, as it is intended that they should. The Committee considered that balance as, indeed, must the House; the Minister had to consider it when the amendment was tabled in Committee, and he must consider now that it has been tabled on Report.
      As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is desirable to have an entirely photographic identification card system in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Whether that identification is a driving licence, a passport, a custom-made ID card, or, hopefully, if the good intentions of the Minister are followed, the concessionary pass produced by Translink and the Department for Regional Development, the inclusion of which came about as a result of good, sound Democratic Unionist party policy, that is the way forward. However, we must

      917
      recognise that, at the moment, the most popular forms of identification at elections in Northern Ireland are probably benefit books and medical cards.
      That is the reality; those of us who have attempted to carry out an investigation which, if not scientific, at least helped us to get some feeling of the use of identification at polling stations, came away with the clear view that those were the main identifiers in use. If that is the case, the burden is on the Government to ensure that those identifiers are replaced by photographic identification. The Minister should therefore delay any statutory requirement to take existing identifiers out of use and employ only photographic identification until he is sure that there is a sufficiently high uptake of the new identifiers.
      I would not vote for the Bill—this is how important the matter is to me—if I thought that the end result would be a significant number of genuine people being unable to vote and if, correspondingly, an unspecified number of people, whose total is probably hard to determine, were able to abuse the system. The political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government must therefore be satisfied that the uptake is sufficiently high. That does not remove the requirement that the Government should have a clear goal, nor does it remove the requirement that the Northern Ireland political parties should ensure that they keep to that goal and timetable as far as possible.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman recall points made outside the House about the vulnerability of the Government to pressure caused by intimidation of the republican population, which may be threatened and attacked for using photographic ID cards? The Minister gave an opaque response in Committee, but those are the people who will be vulnerable. If republicans are intimidated by their so-called representatives into refusing to use photographic ID cards, it will be impossible for the Minister to meet his deadline, unless it is included in the Bill.
      Mr. Robinson: That is a judgment that the Minister and, indeed, the political parties in Northern Ireland will have to make. If there is a campaign by a particular political party, that may very well be to the detriment of it and its political future. Every party should be consulted by the Minister periodically so that we are satisfied that progress is being made. There are other mechanisms in the House to call the Minister and Government to account if we believe that they are dragging their feet. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which championed the need for legislation, will undoubtedly want to observe its progress and receive periodic reports from the Minister to ensure that he is on course for the deadline which, I believe, everyone in the House, wants to be met.
      None the less, it would be irresponsible of the Minister to include in legislation a requirement for the removal of key identifiers for what is probably the majority of voters in Northern Ireland without being satisfied that they had taken the opportunity to get new ID cards, whether concessionary passes from Translink and the Department for Regional Development or cards produced by the chief electoral officer. In this case, it is right to support the Government because they are acting both sensibly and responsibly.
      Patrick Mercer: I want to underline the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and pay tribute to many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). Furthermore, I admired the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), especially his comments on the timetable for the legislation.
      Many of my constituents in Newark and Retford are currently serving in Northern Ireland with the Sherwood Foresters; they have been there for almost two years. Last weekend, I spoke to one of their company commanders, a personal friend with whom I served in precisely the same camp—Omagh—12 years ago, performing the same duties in that part of world. The battalion's life has changed very little in the interim. When I asked my friend what he was doing, he said, "Guess what? I am on election training again."
      To most people, the idea of forces serving in Northern Ireland probably sounds exciting, but alongside the dreadful upsurge of troubles in places such as north Belfast, there is a routine part of operations for the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and all ranks in the Army, Navy and Air Force who serve over there.
      6 pm
      I recall first having to protect a polling station back in 1975 in Dungiven. I was told that that would be the responsibility wholly of the electoral officers and the RUC, but it did not turn out that way. The RUC was stretched, as it is now, and the Army ended up taking a hand. Again, in 1977 I was faced with the same duties. In my nine tours in Northern Ireland, I do not think that I once avoided getting involved in an election protection scheme of one sort or another. Slowly, over the years, the duties have become more and more formalised, so poor old Tommy Atkins is faced with all sorts of complications in trying to avoid election fraud, support the RUC and support the electoral officers.
      There was a funny side. I remember a tractor coming backwards to a checkpoint that I was holding. It was polling day, and we were protecting a polling station; I cannot remember where—Fermanagh, probably, in the middle of nowhere. A tractor backed all the way into the checkpoint. It turned out that the occupants were going to vote, but all the forward gears on the tractor had given out. So intent were those people on voting that they used just the reverse gear.
      In west Belfast in 1982, we were warned that any number of attempts at personation would be made and that disguises would be used. We found a young man who looked curious, his cheeks puffed out with cotton wool. It turned out that he had a boil on his gum. Such were the difficulties of trying to understand what was going on and the various modes and means of personation. Now, training for polling protection has become formalised as a lengthy package for every unit serving in Northern Ireland and for the police, who do their best over there.
      As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, there are people and parties who want the legislation to be delayed. It is in their interests that photographic means of identification should not be adopted speedily and that the target date of 1 April 2003 should not be met. In view of the considerable amount of time that is wasted by the security forces, particularly the Army, whose duties should be far less complex and technical, I urge the

      919
      Minister to look closely at the timetable and to introduce a universal photographic means of identification. Above all, the timetable must be adhered to, so that by April 2003 there is watertight legislation that will enable electoral fraud to be minimised in situations that are always difficult and fraught with problems.
      Mr. Browne: I am pleased that the debate in the Chamber today has continued on from the constructive and helpful way in which the Committee conducted its affairs. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
      I shall resist the new clause and all the amendments. I shall deal first with new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17, which all seek to impose a timetable on the removal of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. The other amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) explained, are intended to make the electoral identification card compulsory for all voters in Northern Ireland.
      As I said repeatedly on Second Reading and in Committee, the next scheduled Assembly elections in Northern Ireland are in May 2003. That has always been and will remain our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. However, for reasons with which I will deal in detail and which have already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I must retain a degree of flexibility.
      The people of Northern Ireland must be informed about—but, more importantly, they must accept—the electoral identity card. I have no intention of creating circumstances that inadvertently disfranchise people who do not have confidence in the system. The electoral identity card will be a voluntary card, but it will be in the interest of all the political parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that their voters obtain a card if they require one. We all have a duty as parliamentarians to explain that to the people of Northern Ireland and to help instil confidence in the process, as there is cross-party support for the measure.
      A major publicity campaign will be necessary to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of the changes and aware of the photographic identification that they will need to exercise their franchise. It is not an unreasonable position for the Government to take to leave open the timetable for removing the existing prescribed documents which are not photographic, until we are satisfied that there has been sufficient uptake of the new electoral identity card.
      There is no advantage to us in passing legislation that will make electoral fraud more difficult if, at the same time, we disfranchise legitimate and valid voters. Obviously, we will have to make a judgment as to whether people are volunteering for the identity cards, and a decision must be made as to what effect that will have on the poll. I repeat again that May 2003 is our target date for removing all forms of non-photographic identity from the list of specified documents, but I will not take the decision lightly.
      I must retain the flexibility to assess whether there has been sufficient uptake of the electoral identity card, and to consult fully with the political parties in Northern Ireland
      920
      before I make that decision. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the Bill realise that flexibility is crucial. That is no doubt why the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Belfast, East—the only two Northern Ireland Members who were present when we last voted on the issue—voted against the amendment during the Committee stage.
      Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister understand that at the core of the argument for setting the deadline is the recognition that the Government are not passive in the matter? They do not merely react to the circumstances. The deadline would oblige people to get photographic identification. My concern is that the Minister is taking too passive a role for the Government in the matter.
      Mr. Browne: My understanding is that I had been criticised for taking too active a role and for retaining the decision to myself. I intend to consult all the political parties in Northern Ireland—not all of which are represented in the House—about our progress in implementing the plan that I have set out. I have no intention of deviating from the objective of May 2003, but at various stages I will have to make a judgment on whether the people of Northern Ireland are being taken along in that process.
      That responsibility is not mine alone; it is the responsibility of other politicians in Northern Ireland who support the change. We will all have to work together towards that objective. If any party decides to spoil the process, that will be a consideration, but it will not deflect me from the decision that I intend to make, if it is appropriate. The decision will be made in the circumstances, and it will not help the process if we impose an unrealistic timetable at this stage—[Interruption.]
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) says that the timetable is mine—yes indeed, but to impose it by statute would make it unrealistic, as that would deny the reality that a considerable number of people who are not represented in this debate—the voters—must be taken along with us.
      Mr. Blunt: Can the Minister reassure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and me that his arguments are based on considerations of practicality—whether it will be possible for him to introduce the cards in time for 2003, and whether the public information campaign to which he referred will achieve his objective in terms of take-up of the card? If he can run a public information campaign and introduce the measures, surely it would be in his interest to reinforce his position in statute.
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to set his mind at ease on the practicalities. I am confident that we can meet, in practical terms, the objective that I have set. Earlier, he invited me to tell him whether practical difficulties would arise and he said that he would not insist upon the amendment if that was the case. I do not seek to use that excuse, however, as my understanding is that the measure can be achieved practically. The one element that I cannot assess is the valid response of the ordinary voters of Northern Ireland, on which I shall have

      921
      to make a judgment. That is the only reason that I have ever given for the need to retain flexibility. I am not alone in holding that view, which has support. Hon. Members who represent significant parties and a substantial number of voters in Northern Ireland agree that that is the appropriate approach. There is a difference of view about the matter, but that is my position and has been since the issue was injected into the debate.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Putting it bluntly, the Under-Secretary appears to have handed Sinn Fein a veto on the process by refusing to include a deadline in the Bill. What will happen if it can blackmail, bully or intimidate its supporters into not carrying the card? I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that they have no interest in doing so, but he is wrong. The Under-Secretary has said—he can correct me if I am wrong—that he could not introduce it without evidence of widespread support from all the parties. Is not that handing the bullies a veto?
      Mr. Browne: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. I have never said that any party has a veto. Contributions to the debate suggest that one party may seek to obstruct implementation. If that happens between now and May 2003, it will be a factor that must be taken into account, but in no circumstances am I suggesting here or in any debate that if a party chooses to cause such difficulties, it will be a reason for not introducing the photographic identification cards. I am saying that we cannot introduce a change if an accidental effect is to disfranchise people who wish legally to exercise their vote, as would happen if they had no confidence in the system. It will be my responsibility as a Minister, and the responsibility of other politicians who vote for the change and operate within politics in Northern Ireland, to work together to achieve confidence. If we achieve that confidence, we will achieve the objective. There is no practical reason why we cannot do so.
      Lembit Öpik: I intervene a second time only because the issue is so important. Everyone seems to agree with the desired outcome, but the Under-Secretary seems to need some flexibility just in case his desired deadline is not achieved. Will he at least consider including in the Bill a deadline that he is pretty certain can be achieved, even if it is May 2005 or 2006? That would at least enable everybody to know there is a date after which it would not be acceptable to use inappropriate identification
      Mr. Browne: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he asks me to put certainty into uncertainty. I am suggesting that there is one uncertain element in the process: the response of the voters. Until that element is tested, we will not know its effect. As I do not know how the electors will respond, it is pointless to include a deadline at all. I cannot attach certainty through uncertainty.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Trimble: I am slightly confused about the point that the Minister is trying to make. Is he saying that he cannot introduce the measure if there is an insufficient take-up of cards, or that he will not do so if people lack confidence in the system? Most of his comments suggest that he holds the latter position. If that is the case and he
      922
      is concerned only about whether people have confidence, will he explain on what possible grounds they might not be confident?
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. If I was not making myself clear, I shall try to do so now. I was trying to explain that if the small proportion of people who may need the card do not have confidence in the system and do not claim it, that will lead to a lack of take-up. One is a consequence of the other. He shakes his head, but as neither of us has asked voters to come forward for voluntary or compulsory identity cards, he can be no more confident that his assertion is any better than mine in respect of whether a lack of confidence will lead to a lack of take-up. With all due respect to him—these are his voters and he may know them better than me—he has never before asked the electorate to do this. We should work together to inspire confidence in the system and to get people who do not have this new form of photographic identification to come forward for voluntary cards. We must secure sufficient take-up, so that we can pass the test that we have set ourselves and ensure that everybody has a reasonable opportunity to obtain the card. With confidence, we can then remove the non-photographic forms of identification.
      Mr. Trimble rose—
      Mr. Browne: Obviously, that is not clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman; no doubt I have confused him even more. We will soon find out.
      Mr. Trimble: I think that I am beginning to understand the Minister. He is using the word "confidence" when it would be better not to do so. He appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He said that we had not asked people to do the same thing before, but that is not true. We successfully introduced the concept of identity documents for elections, which is novel to people outside Northern Ireland, just as we introduced different forms of voting long before any other part of the United Kingdom. The electorate of Northern Ireland are capable and intelligent enough to cope with the situation, as they have proved time and time again. The Minister appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He also used the word "confidence", but that is a different thing. Lack of confidence could be a factor in any failure to take up the card, but it would not be the only one. I was trying to find out whether he would take the decision purely on the basis of whether there was a lack of confidence or whether the matter is simply one of take-up. It appears that he is talking more about take-up than anything else.
      Mr. Browne: If the right hon. Gentleman now knows what I am talking about, I can move on.
      I regret to say that I shall also resist amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. I express regret because he knows the regard in which I hold him on these issues. He has made a valuable and consistent contribution to debates about them for many years.
      The amendments propose that the electoral identity card should be mandatory and the only form of identification that is acceptable at the polling station in Northern Ireland. As we said in the White Paper, the Government's ultimate aim is for every voter in Northern Ireland to be

      923
      issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. I think that that answers another question asked by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. In a moment, I shall deal specifically with his point about Home Office proposals. As I told the House on Second Reading, the introduction and use of an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier is an aspiration. If every voter in Northern Ireland had to be issued with such a card, we would effectively be requiring all adults who wished to vote to carry a mandatory identification card.
      There would be no point in introducing a mandatory smart card unless we could be certain that it was more secure than the existing forms of photographic identification. It would therefore need to contain biometric data about the holder, be that an iris scan, fingerprint or hand geometry scan.
      The Government would be foolish to rush into such a radical new scheme before we could be confident of the practicalities or that the voters and political parties in Northern Ireland were happy to accept such a scheme. I hope that I have used the word "confident" properly in that sentence. We will continue to give further consideration to when it might be possible to initiate such a secure electoral identity scheme. However, such a scheme would not be introduced without wide consultation with all interested parties, and primary legislation would be required to introduce such a card. Hon. Members who seek an assurance from the Government should be aware that it remains our intention, as expressed in the White Paper, to proceed to such a system.
      Mr. Barnes: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. The point about take-up has some relevance to my amendments. If a situation is reached where the take-up of identity cards is inadequate and the other forms of identification have to be used—if the legislation has not bitten—we may have to look closely at a system that is universal and compulsory. However, I welcome the Minister's comments about potential developments.
      Mr. Browne: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will use words similar to his later in my speech. If the system proposed in the Bill is not successful, we may have to look at proceeding more quickly to some form of compulsory card with the benefits that I have described.
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked about Home Office plans for biometric identification cards—to be known as the application registration card—for asylum seekers. This is an extension of the current asylum application system. The Home Office already collects the fingerprints of all asylum seekers when they make their asylum application, so there is already a database of the fingerprints of all asylum seekers in this country. Immigration officers use mobile quick-check units to check asylum seekers' fingerprints against the database.
      At the moment, asylum seekers are issued with a standard acknowledgement letter. The application registration card is designed to replace that letter. There has been concern at the ease with which those letters are being forged. A smart card containing a biometric element would make forgery virtually impossible.
      That new system is very different from one in which we would require every adult who wanted to vote in Northern Ireland to provide us with their fingerprint or an iris scan.
      924
      Not only would that involve mandatory registration, it would raise important questions of civil liberties—whether it was appropriate to require a person to provide biometric data about themselves before they were able to vote. Much discussion and consultation has to take place before we could proceed to a position where we could require people to provide that level of data about themselves before they were able to vote.
      The electoral identity card proposed by this Bill will be freely and widely available to all those who require it. It represents the quickest way to create a situation in which we can remove from use the medical card and the other non-photographic identification. Our objective is to stop personation. We believe that requiring voters to show secure photographic identification at the polling station will meet this objective and, so far, no one has argued that that will not be the case.
      Although I have cautioned that we must move steadily on the introduction of the electoral identification card and that we must take the electorate with us, I acknowledge that we have to take action as quickly as possible and reasonable. Introducing the electoral identity card as a stepping stone towards an electoral smart card allows us to act more quickly to remove all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. That is why we are proposing the legislation in the first place, and why we intend to take advantage of the fact that other people can use alternative forms of photographic identification, such as driving licences and passports, that cannot easily be forged.
      This brings me to the Translink smart card, which is mentioned in new clause 1. I have said that I am willing to add the new Translink smart card, to be issued to all those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland from April next year, to the list of specified documents. However, it would be entirely inconsistent with what we are trying to achieve in the Bill to allow the smart card to be added to the list of specified documents before both the chief electoral officer and I are certain that the card will be secure proof of identity.
      As I said in Committee, my officials are working with those at the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development to resolve the outstanding problems about the security of the Translink smart card. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, East on his recent appointment as the Minister for Regional Development. I am sure that the outstanding issues will be resolved all the more quickly with him in command. Once these problems are resolved—I am sure that they will be—I will happily add the Translink smart card to the list of specified documents. That can be done by secondary legislation at the appropriate time.
      Our target has been and will remain 2003 for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. I would not have continued to state repeatedly that May 2003 was our target if I did not believe that it was possible for all those in Northern Ireland who require an electoral identification card to have one by that date. However, we must maintain a level of flexibility, for all the reasons I have outlined.
      Mr. Blunt: This debate has mirrored the one that we had in Committee, in that the longer the Minister went on defending his proposal, the less convincing he became. As the Minister went on, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I became more and more incredulous at the case the Minister was attempting to put. I noted that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) shared my reaction.
      Having listened to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), one can only admire the intellectual consistency and clarity that his solution would bring. However, because of the points that have been touched on earlier, I would continue to resist his amendments. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I share his concerns about the practicality of introducing the cards and about whether the Minister can, in practice, meet his own deadline.
      The hon. Member for South Down asked about the resources for the chief electoral officer, and that remains an issue. It is clear that the officer is overstretched in a number of respects. That was shown by his inability to check the absentee votes at the last general election. Those have not been tested fully because the officer is now engaged in putting together the new register. That is merely an example to show that there is at least a question mark as to whether he has sufficient resources.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that what we are putting forward is entirely in the Minister's own interests. Without the discipline of having a date in statute, the Minister is likely to fail to get the Bill on the statute book. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire challenged the Minister to agree that if the deadline could not be 2003, it could be 2005 or 2006. There should be a date in statute to ensure that the legislation will definitely come in.
      If we had the certainty of a date—even if it is not April 2003, as the Liberal Democrats have suggested—the actions of the Minister's officials and the public information campaign in Northern Ireland to achieve take-up of the card would be reinforced by the fact that the scheme was to come into effect, so that there was no point in any organisation seeking to obstruct it.
      Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's claim that he cannot put a deadline in the statute because he does not know the rate of take-up could be applied to all kinds of legislation—for example, the introduction of mandatory use of rear seat belts? On every other matter, we seem to have deadlines, but on this one very important matter he is resistant.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Blunt: It is odd. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my perplexity.
      I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He supports the Government on this issue, and we must agree to disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made a telling contribution about the historic importance of personation in electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and stressed the importance of a timetable, not least to give members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces, as well as the electoral officers, some certainty about when the transfer is to take place.
      926
      The Minister may come to regret resisting the assistance that we are offering him. He should have a chance to think again on the issue. We will want to examine his arguments in another place to determine whether it is appropriate to return to the matter. We are about to discuss more important causes of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, so I will not insist on the new clause at this stage, but it may be appropriate to press the matter in another place. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that his arguments have not convinced the House, and that he and the Government will think again.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      REGISTRATION: NOTIFICATION OF MULTIPLE REGISTRATIONS
      '(1) In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (maintenance of registers: annual canvass) there is inserted—
      "(5A) The information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purposes of a canvass in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered."
      (2) In section 10A (maintenance of the registers: registration of electors) and in section 13A (alteration of registers) of the 1983 Act there is inserted—
      "(). An application for registration in respect of an address in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered."
      (3) Any person knowingly giving false information in response to any requirement of this section is guilty of an offence with liability on summary conviction to—

      (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or

      (b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,

      or to both.'.—[Mr. Blunt.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause, as new clause 8, was withdrawn in Committee, following the Minister's welcome statement that he had been influenced by our debate and wanted to give the matter further thought. He said:
      "I am coming to the view that there might be some value in including in a canvass return a question such as: 'Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?' Since we shall be using individual canvass forms rather than household forms, that might have additional value."
      He went on to say:
      "I give the Committee an undertaking to discuss the issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer and to consult the parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, if that is appropriate, so that we have a clear position on Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 126–27.]
      If there was consultation with the official Opposition, it did not include me. I waited with hope until Monday evening, the deadline for tabling amendments, to see whether a Government amendment on the matter would appear. Sadly, none did, which is why I retabled the new clause.
      I speak with a slight sense of foreboding, because I fear that the Government have not decided to accept the argument. Multiple registration is an extremely important issue. I draw the attention of the House to the Select

      927
      Committee report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland, which has been the origin of many of the proposals in the Bill. Paragraph 23 says:
      "An accurate Register is vital. Without a trustworthy Register, there can be no secure confidence in the electoral system. At present, it is not absolutely clear how reliable the Register is. We do not share the confidence of the Interim Review Report that 'while there may be some scope for minor adjustments to the current system for the registration of electors in Northern Ireland, in actual terms the accuracy of the register is not seriously in question.' On the contrary, in our view the evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland."
      The Minister will be enormously familiar with that, as he was a member of the Committee and signed up to its report, as did all the other members.
      In addition to the Committee's statement, and no doubt influenced by it, there is the experience of the party of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), which undertook an exercise to identify pairs of people with the same name. The largest concentration found in Britain was 6,000, yet in a constituency in Northern Ireland—presumably Belfast, West—there were 18,000 people with the same name as somebody else. That is a serious ground for suspicion that there may be considerable multiple registration and illegal multiple voting.
      There has been no evidence to challenge the Select Committee's conclusion in 1998:
      "We acknowledge that registration in more than one place is a useful right for students and others."
      We had that debate in Committee, and that was our conclusion, although the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) took a different view and thought that any form of multiple registration should be against the law. The Select Committee continued:
      "Those who have a legitimate reason to register in two or more places should be allowed to do so, but should be under a duty to indicate that they are doing so and where the other registered addresses are."
      In our previous debate, the hon. Members for South Down and for Belfast, East expressed reservations, but on this issue there is cross-community support. I hope that I am not prejudging the issue, but the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down in Committee and the fact that the hon. Members for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and for Belfast, East have put their names to new clause 2 make it clear that there is such support. I hope that I have correctly interpreted the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down in Committee at column 122.
      The Government have an opportunity to reinforce an area in which there is welcome cross-community agreement. Our proposal gained the support of all the parties in Committee other than the Government. As he took the same view in 1998, I hope that the Minister, too, will offer us his support, as he suggested in Committee that he might. I look forward to his response.
      If national insurance numbers were used on the register, which is the subject of our next debate, the new clause would not be needed, as we would then have a method whereby the register could be properly tested, but if the Government intend to resist the inclusion of national insurance numbers—which our Committee debate clearly
      928
      suggested that they would—it becomes extremely important to address the issue by obliging voters to notify if they are registered in more than one place.
      Mr. McGrady: Again, we are liable to repeat the arguments made in Committee, where the Minister said:
      "I am coming to the view that there might be some value in including in a canvass return a question such as: 'Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?'"
      The Minister added that, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said:
      "Since we shall be using individual canvass forms rather than household forms, that might have additional value. If the hon. Member for Reigate is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I shall undertake to consider that possibility between now and Report stage"—
      that is, tonight. He continued:
      "I shall consult with the parties in Northern Ireland, and with the chief electoral officer, and I shall come back with a clear position on Report. I am more persuaded now than I was before I listened to the debate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 126.]
      I hope that he will be, as we say in Northern Ireland, even more more persuaded after tonight's debate.
      I believe that in response to some of my questions in Committee, the Minister suggested that it was a simple administrative matter to pose such a question on either the household or the individual registration form, whichever one we decide to have, and find out whether the person registering has registered at another address or addresses. I went on to suggest for the Minister's consideration that if that were the case, the would-be elector could simply say on the form which of the addresses he proposed to use in the election to which the new register would be germane. That is a simple administrative consideration, concerning the layout of the form. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has been further persuaded since our debate in the fourth sitting of Standing Committee D.
      Lembit Öpik: I would oppose the new clause if it took away people's right to choose where to vote, but as it is formulated, it can be regarded only as a matter of common sense. After an election, it would help to work out much more quickly who is who and who has done what. We have already heard the strong rationale for making sure that we can "de-duplicate" potential multiple voters who have used different addresses. I, too, was encouraged that the Minister seemed to share this concern and, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, gave a strong indication in Committee that he saw the sense of what is now being proposed in new clause 2.
      We know that the Minister is passionate, as we all are, about getting rid of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. I also know that he, with his commitment to cross-community relations, will accept a good thing when he sees it, even if it originates from the Conservative party. [Interruption.] I could not resist saying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is especially true if the idea has the support not only of Opposition Members but also of those who sit on the Government Benches. On the assumption that he will accept the amendment as a sensible and not very onerous addition to what we require of voters when they register, I thank him in advance for his good sense.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I join those who have confirmed that there was a consensus within the Committee that

      929
      requiring people who register to supply that further piece of information was not an onerous hardship to place on anybody. I do not think that it would do any violence to the Bill, or to the Minister, to insert it.
      The Minister certainly did not consult me, as has been suggested. I can only assume that that means that he does not require any legislative force—
      Mr. Browne: I myself signed letters to the leaders of all parties in Northern Ireland, so although I did not consult the hon. Gentleman himself, I wrote to the leader of his party. I know that the post was delivered, because the leader of the Alliance party responded to my letter. That is the only response that I have had.
      6.45 pm
      Lembit Öpik rose—
      Mr. Browne: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, if he can contain himself.
      My position has not changed from the position that I stated in Committee; it is not conditional on parties in Northern Ireland signing up to it. None the less, I wrote to all the parties in Northern Ireland at the same time.
      Mr. Robinson: The House will judge whether that lives up to the expectation of the consultation that we were promised. I am surprised that the Minister could determine who the leader of the Alliance party was in order to send him the letter, so he must be congratulated on that.
      The requirement would put little pressure on anybody filling out their registration form, and would supply information that would be useful in the electoral office for determining on the foot of the marked register whether people had voted illegally during an election. That information could also be used for the same purpose as some of us have suggested the national insurance number be used, if it were included as a further mechanism. It would allow us to look into multiple registration and multiple voting with a lot more information to hand.
      It is right to say that in Committee I opposed both multiple registration and multiple voting. I did not express the same opposition in the Select Committee, for a reason that I explained in the Standing Committee. I said that I felt that in our proceedings on the Bill we had done much to overcome a number of the existing weaknesses in the system, but that as soon as we strengthened those parts of the system, we could be certain that the purposeful fraudsters would look to see where the new weaknesses were. If they do that, they will be thinking about multiple registration and multiple voting.
      If that is the case, the Minister should, at the very least, identify those with multiple registration, because it would be an offence in itself not to fill in the form fully and properly. If the Minister is saying that he is not prepared to include the question on the registration form, I regret that. Is he saying that he is still looking at the issue, and has not ruled it out? He needs to satisfy the House on that issue.
      I believe that the registration form should include the question, and I hope that the Minister can go further than he did in his intervention in meeting what seems a legitimate point of concern. It would not drive a coach and horses through the legislation.
      Mr. Trimble: I shall not keep the Minister long, but will let him clarify his position. His body language earlier
      930
      suggested that he would accept the idea, and I hope that he does. I shall simply express our support for the new clause, and say that I do not doubt what the Minister said when he intervened. Had I seen his letter, he would have received a positive response. Where the letter went is an interesting question.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the fraudsters, balked at one point, would move on to other areas, and he thought that multiple registration was one of those. The fraudsters also move on to entirely false registrations—registering the names of people who do not exist. The next set of amendments contain measures that try to cope with that problem.
      7 pm
      Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this vital debate, and to underline many of the points made by other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I thank you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part tonight.
      I want to give my broad support to the Bill, but I have a number of specific concerns. After listening to the discussion so far, my greatest worry is the apparent weaknesses in the Bill. In so many areas, there appear to be loopholes and issues that are not being addressed in the way in which I believe most Members in the Chamber this evening would like them to be addressed.
      In the past, there has clearly been much electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, and that will continue if checks are not introduced. That is not questioned on either side of the House tonight.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I hesitate to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder if he is making a Third Reading speech on the Bill in general. Is he speaking specifically to new clause 2?
      Mr. Rosindell: Yes, if I may continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the most significant deficiencies of the Bill is the failure to compel those registering to vote at more than one address to declare that information at the point of registration. The Government are right not to prevent individuals from registering at more than one address. Indeed, in many cases, doing so is necessary. For example, Members of Parliament probably register at their addresses in London and in their constituencies, which is a reasonable thing to do. However, the situation in Northern Ireland needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentioned that some 18,000 names are registered twice on the same electoral register in the constituency of Belfast, West. That arouses many suspicions and therefore I hope that the Minister will consider supporting new clause 2.
      The situation in Northern Ireland needs tightening up for many reasons, some of which have already been outlined. There is no evidence that simple monitoring alone will solve the problem. The system currently operates on trust and while that is acceptable for the majority of decent, law-abiding citizens who would not dream of trying to defraud the system, it allows for widespread abuse. A declaration from those registering to

      931
      vote about the number of addresses for which they intend to register would go far in clarifying those who are genuinely registering for multiple addresses and those who are not.
      Some may argue that the system would not work, because declarations would be signed only by honest people, and those who sought to pervert the course of democracy would evade making them. Nevertheless, with the right level of efficient and competent administration and a good use of technology, declarations would provide clarity for those who are genuine multiple-address electors, leaving the chief electoral officer and his staff free to monitor and catch offenders. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the situation. The Bill has many holes, but I hope that he will address this specific problem.
      Mr. Browne: I looked forward to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) revealing his thoughts on the many holes in the Bill, and he is welcome to the debate at this stage. One or two issues were considered in Committee and on Second Reading and, with respect, it is a gross misrepresentation of the Bill to describe it as the hon. Gentleman did.
      In Committee, I gave an undertaking to discuss this issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer, to consult the political parties in Northern Ireland and to come back with a clear position on Report. I have not, in the short time since the Committee stage, been able to ascertain the views of all the Northern Ireland political parties, and it is important that I do so. As I said earlier, I wrote to the leaders of all Northern Ireland political parties, as far as I could ascertain them. Whether all those letters have been delivered is not my responsibility, but they were certainly sent and I have received one reply. It is incumbent on me to give the other leaders a reasonable time to respond, and we have not had much time between Committee and Report.
      The hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) are owed an apology. The circulation list for the letter was based on my contribution to the Committee on 18 October, recorded at column 126. Column 127, as the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out, includes a reference to the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. They were not included, due to an administrative error, and for that I apologise. The error will be corrected tomorrow. Thanks to this debate, of course, I know what the Opposition's position is, but I will consult them as I agreed to do.
      I am minded to agree with the chief electoral officer that a mandatory question on application to the electoral register, as suggested in new clause 2, would prove a useful tool in tracking multiple registration. However, I will resist the new clause as I do not believe that the penalty is proportionate to the failure to answer the question properly.
      Furthermore, on advice, I believe that a question such as, "Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?" could be put to electors on application to the electoral register by regulation rather than by an amendment to the Bill. Under paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, regulations may authorise the chief
      932
      electoral officer to require persons to give information required for the purpose of his registration duties. Paragraph 13 enables regulations to make it an offence to fail to comply with, or to give false information in pursuance of, any such requisition of the registration officer as is mentioned in paragraph 1. The regulations may set a penalty not to exceed level 3 on the standard scale, which in Northern Ireland is £1,000.
      Therefore, it is possible—I am happy to give an undertaking to do so, subject to the consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—to give the chief electoral officer the power by regulation to ask people if they are registered at another address on their application for electoral registration. Any person knowingly giving false information would be subject to a fine not exceeding £1,000, which is consistent with the penalty that applies to giving false information on other forms.
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister gives an undertaking subject to consultation with the political parties. Five of those parties are represented tonight, and hon. Members from three of them represent constituencies in Northern Ireland—and those are the three largest parties wholly committed to democracy in Northern Ireland, which is the subject of the debate. The Minister knows the views of those parties so why cannot he give the assurance in terms now?
      Mr. Browne: Because there are other parties that are not represented in the House. If we are to change the electoral system, we should consult those parties. The hon. Gentleman knows who those parties are and he may not wish to consult one of them but, as a Minister, I have to consult them all. There are at least five other parties. I have written to their leaders, but I have not yet had a reply. Indeed, I have written to the leaders of the political parties represented in the House tonight and I have not had a reply.
      Mr. Trimble: That is a coincidence.
      Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman earlier called into question my desire to see this matter through and is now, by implication, calling into question my honesty about the letters I have written. I have evidence that one of the letters received a reply, and that all the letters went out in the same post.
      I am not concerned that I have not yet had replies from all the people to whom I wrote, but courtesy requires me to wait and allow them the opportunity to reply to me.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: We must clear this matter up, as hon. Members may have to decide how to vote on the amendment. No one has impugned the Minister's honesty, or the good faith in which he gave that assurance. We accept the apology that he has given to the House, but we are perhaps impugning the efficiency of his Department. We leave it to him to sort that out.
      However, we have to draw the conclusion that the Minister is much more conscientious about consulting parties outside the House—a need that he has laboured at length—than about consulting parties in the House. I am sure that he would not want to take up such a perverse position.

      933
      If the Minister has not completed consultation with the parties that he has mentioned by the time that the Bill reaches another place, will he assure the House that the Government will not seek to block this amendment, or its equivalent, in the other place? I do not know on what date the Bill will be considered there, but will the Minister assure us that there will be no further obstacle to his issuing a regulation in accordance with the procedure that he has outlined?
      Mr. Blunt: I am partly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not have my own honesty impugned, and neither will I allow the efficiency of those who have served this process faithfully and well to be impugned in this House. Those people have worked very efficiently up to now, and that includes the way in which they have serviced requests from other parties on this matter. In fact, all letters were all faxed and posted on 25 October, and in my hand I have a copy of a reply, dated 29 October, that I have received from the leader of one of the parties.
      An error was made in regard to the Conservative party. I have accepted responsibility for that, and apologised for it, but that error does not affect my view. The two parties affected by the error are represented in the House and have expressed their opinion on the matter.
      Mr. Quentin Davies indicated dissent.
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) appears irritated that I am replying to his intervention. I have apologised for the error, but that does not change the fact that I have written to a number of people for their views on this matter. Common courtesy requires that I give them a reasonable time to reply.
      I anticipate that in a fortnight from today I shall have had a reasonable time in which to reach an informed decision based on the views of the Northern Ireland political parties. I shall then write to all the parties to which I have written previously—and to the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—confirming what I intend to do. At the moment, I am minded to introduce the question by regulation. No one has yet advanced an argument as to why I should not do that, and I do not anticipate that such an argument will be advanced.
      I am minded to act as I have described, but I have embarked on a process of consultation by letter, and common courtesy requires that I give the people to whom I have written the opportunity to reply.
      Mr. Blunt: Clearly, this has not been a shining moment in the way that the matter has been handled by the Minister or his Department. I tabled a new clause in Standing Committee on the matter, and withdrew it when the Minister gave me an undertaking that he would consult me. I regarded that undertaking as an obligation, but I have accepted the Minister's apology in that regard.
      However, the Minister also gave the Committee an undertaking that he would be able to clarify the position on Report, yet the letters were not signed out by the Minister's officials—or by the Minister himself—until a week after he gave that undertaking. It is therefore impossible for him to be able to say that his position, following consultation, is now clear. That is not acceptable.
      Mr. Browne: My position is clear.
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister, from a sedentary position, says that his position is clear. However, it is clear that he
      934
      has yet to consult and come to a conclusion. That is certainly not the implication to be drawn from what the Minister told Standing Committee D, when he said:
      "I give the Committee an undertaking to discuss the issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer and to consult the parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, if that is appropriate"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 127.]
      I thought that the words "if that is appropriate" applied to the Minister's auxiliaries on the Liberal Democrat Benches, rather than to anyone else, but they now seem to apply to everyone.
      I wish the debate to return to the co-operative and good humoured mood that has characterised most of our deliberations so far. I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that the regulation that he has promised will be formulated and proposed before the Bill is considered in another place. However, if by that time there is no sign that the Government are proposing a regulation that resolves the problem of multiple registration—the Minister has accepted the chief electoral officer's recommendation that there must be registration—we will revisit the matter in another place. I am certain that the support for the measure evident in all parties means that the necessary provision will appear in the Bill. If the Minister wanted to reverse that, he would have to return to this House to do so.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      REGISTRATION: PROVISION OF SIGNATURE AND DATE OF BIRTH
      Mr. Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after "completed", insert—
      '(aa) the National Insurance number of each such person, if they have one'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 7, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
      'and
      (c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.
      No. 8, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
      'and
      (c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.
      No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out—
      'both his date of birth'
      and insert—
      'his date of birth, his national insurance number if applicable,'.
      No. 9, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
      'and
      (c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.
      No. 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
      '(3A) In section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) and in section 7 (absent vote at a particular election), there is inserted at the end of paragraph (1)(c) the words—
      ", which shall include the date of birth and the national insurance number of the applicants, if applicable".'.

      935
      No. 6, in Title, line 2, after "signatures", insert ", national insurance numbers.".
      Mr. Blunt: Amendment No. 1 is designed to assist the Minister to return to the conclusion that he and his colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee reached in 1997. He was not at that time burdened by the cares of office, nor by the need to negotiate with the Treasury to ensure that the necessary resources are available for the actions that he has promised.
      This group of amendments is the most important to be debated this evening. In relation to the previous group of amendments, I hope that we shall in the end learn the considered position of five of the six parties involved in the Standing Committee. The Minister will know, however, that all the Northern Ireland parties support the proposal that people should supply their national insurance numbers when they apply to join the electoral register in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Barnes: Some members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs adopted a position that was not a knock-down argument in favour of this amendment. Had they not done so, I assume that the amendments that I tabled earlier would have been supported by the Opposition spokesman.
      Mr. Blunt: Of course, unlike the Minister, I was not a member of that Select Committee and did not take part in its proceedings. I am perhaps therefore not entirely bound by the terms adopted by that Committee and do not feel a loyalty to them. But in connection with the first group of amendments—which would have required that everyone in Northern Ireland had an electoral identity card—I paid tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for his clarity, and for his consistency in sticking to the Select Committee's conclusions. I am therefore puzzled that the hon. Gentleman appears now to be inconsistent in his stance on national insurance numbers. He may of course have been influenced by the debates. The Government widened the membership of the Committee to include representatives from the SDLP and the DUP, which was extremely welcome. However, it meant that the Committee was, unusually in this Parliament, on a knife edge. On that occasion, every party except the Labour party supported making national insurance numbers a requirement to register. The majority in Committee was only nine to eight. The hon. Gentleman's vote was clearly of immense significance to the Government.
      Paragraph 58 of the 1998 Select Committee says:
      "Registration forms should contain more identifying details to overcome the problem of illicit multiple registration and to make fraudulent applications in another's name harder. These should include date of birth, a signature and the National Insurance number of the voter."
      The Select Committee was heavily influenced by the evidence of Mr. Pat Bradley, who had been a chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland for nearly 17 years when he came before the Committee and who was clearly an expert. I should like to quote his responses to questions from the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). When asked by the hon.
      936
      Member for South Down about his canvassers collecting and confirming information for putting the register together, Mr. Bradley replied:
      "The officers collect the data from each household. They collect the information on the registration form. They are not able to confirm the information—and that is what the system is set up for at the present time—or to turn round and be convinced on the spot that each person on that form has shown to the canvasser some sort of documentation to show they are who they claim to be and they live there. If you like, that is the weakness of the system, the fact that it is the householder's responsibility for putting down the names of those who are eligible and that information is then taken on board."
      The hon. Member for East Antrim then asked Mr. Bradley:
      "Would the inclusion of National Insurance numbers, which are individual to everyone, not help that situation for your records?"
      Mr. Bradley replied:
      "I would welcome either a National Insurance number or a date of birth, and that is common in many countries."
      His next point was crucial:
      "If one has the two parameters, i. e. the date of birth and National Insurance, it is a very easy matter to run a search through the computer database and that would solve the problem and I would welcome that very much. It would make life much easier and reduce the scope for abuse considerably."
      We had a lengthy debate about this in Committee. Indeed, the subject took up the whole of the Committee's first sitting, at the end of which the Minister replied to the Committee. I do not think that he convinced himself. Indeed, he was so unconvinced by his own arguments that he returned in the afternoon to put forward further objections to including national insurance numbers. I will deal with these in turn, and if I am being unfair about the arguments I am attributing to the Minister I hope he will correct me.
      The Minister's first argument was that people do not know their national insurance number or how to find it out. That argument does not stand up to analysis. The Minister was particularly concerned about the elderly. Elderly people receive pensions and therefore have their national insurance number immediately to hand in their pension book.
      In the process of registration, canvassers call at people's houses up to three times to get the information. The Minister shakes his head, but I received that information directly from the chief electoral officer. People have up to three weeks, if not longer, to complete the forms. To argue that people are unable to obtain their national insurance number in that period does not stand up. There are any number of forms of assistance open to them if they are unable to do so.
      7.15 pm
      The Minister also argued that people who did not pay tax or receive benefits might not have a national insurance number. He gave the example of a student who had come back from South Africa. The fact that the Minister was having to grub around for such examples showed a degree of desperation in his attempts to convince the Committee of the merits of his argument. My amendments and those in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) address the matter by saying that the very few people who do not have a national insurance number cannot be required to give it. They hardly represent an overwhelming number of electors.

      937
      The Minister argued that a chief electoral officer had to check records held at the Treasury, where all the national insurance numbers for the United Kingdom are held. He said that members of the Committee might say that that could be resolved and that no doubt, in terms of computer technology, it could be. We all say that, and as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, sifting Northern Ireland national insurance numbers would hardly be at the cutting edge of technology. To find a software programme that would distinguish between the national insurance numbers of people registered in Northern Ireland and those of the rest of the United Kingdom would not be terribly difficult.
      Mr. Barnes: It would not solve the problem entirely, because people are entitled to move from Britain to Northern Ireland. Presumably it would be difficult to find their registration numbers during that period.
      Mr. Blunt: That was one argument. The Minister was adducing arguments under data protection legislation that it would be inappropriate for the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland to search the whole United Kingdom database. I do not see why it is remotely inappropriate for the chief electoral officer to search the whole United Kingdom database to check that a national insurance number belongs to the person who has claimed it. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, that would indeed be appropriate. I was trying to address the arguments that the Minister put forward later. The last refuge of a Minister in trouble when proposals are being made to simplify and clarify the system is the argument that there are problems under the data protection legislation.
      Mr. Barnes: It may well be reasonable to argue that all the United Kingdom national insurance registration numbers can be investigated and discovered, but it shifts the ground. The hon. Gentleman argued earlier that all one would need to do would be to look at the Northern Ireland numbers.
      Mr. Blunt: Both arguments hold good. If the Minister says that it is inappropriate to check the whole register of national insurance numbers—that is his argument, not mine—it is perfectly possible to separate them. However, I do not see why it should be a problem to check the national insurance numbers of the whole of the United Kingdom.
      The Minister's next argument concerned practicality. He said that whether the issue could be resolved against the deadlines the Government and others had set for the changes was a different matter. The deadline is of the Minister's own making. We have just had a debate about deadlines and he has so far refused to be bound by them. He has not been prepared to put one in the Bill. Had he done so, there might be a modicum of merit in his argument. Even then, I do not think that there would be when it comes to deadlines.
      Checking national insurance numbers is simply a question of passing the necessary legislation, complying with the Data Protection Acts if necessary, and having the computer capacity to enable the chief electoral officer to undertake the checks. There is no reason why national insurance numbers cannot be put on the return that people have to complete.
      938
      The Minister's argument about data protection is the final refuge of people who oppose simplifying any of our bureaucracy. I do not accept that the data protection legislation would necessarily apply if the software program were written so as to include only national insurance numbers in Northern Ireland. If, as he suggested, primary legislation were necessary to effect that change and include the numbers as part of the process, that should be enacted.
      I assure the Minister that he would have the wholehearted support of the Opposition to achieve that objective. There is no reason why such legislation could not be put in place to make the register as reliable as it must be. If the register is unreliable and we do not get it right, there will be a question mark over the conduct of democracy in Northern Ireland. We attended to those arguments in Committee, where the hon. Member for South Down made it clear that the future of Northern Ireland and the development of politics there were being affected by electoral fraud. At some stage, there may be referendums on the future status of Northern Ireland. Under the present arrangements, an individual vote can carry huge weight in local elections and can decide which parties will represent people on councils.
      In Committee, the Minister did not even convince himself with his own rhetoric. There is cross-community support for this proposal. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was in alliance with the hon. Member for South Down and united with the Ulster Unionist party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives.
      The amendments can only further the aims of the legislation. They are aims that the Minister and everyone in the House shares—tackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. In the main, the Minister has conducted himself with grace during the passage of the Bill. If he wishes to spare himself embarrassment in another place, I hope that he will have the grace to accept these amendments.
      Mr. McGrady: As the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), said, my party and I have supported the inclusion of national insurance numbers as a form of identification for all electoral purposes—registration, postal voting and, in the appropriate circumstances, casting votes. The reason is simple. We understood the national insurance number to be unique to each individual and to be universal. Including that identification number on a registration form would enable other counter-checking measures to be used in the fulness of time. We would have three telling personal identification details—the date of birth, the signature and the national insurance number—all or some of which could be a means of identifying a fraudster.
      The difficulty is that national insurance numbers are not universal, as the Minister explained well in Committee, which was an instruction to me. He gave some strange examples, one of which has been referred to—the teenage girl returning for education from South Africa. I confess that in the short time since our debate in Committee, I have searched my constituency for a childless French woman who has never worked or received benefit. I am not unoptimistic that I will achieve my objective, with all sorts of consequences perhaps in due course, but to date I have failed to identify such people.
      The difference between the debates in Committee and this evening is that the amendment states that national insurance numbers should be used when they are

      939
      available. I will not go into the cause and effect, but that is a reasonable proposition. In some genuine cases, they may not be available to people—by that I mean that they do not have such a number, not that they do not know it.
      In my simplicity, I understood that every boy and girl was issued with a number at the age of 16. I may be wrong. I do not know how long the system has been in vogue, but it must be some considerable time—at least a decade. People who do not have a number must not have a pension and must never have worked, paid tax or filled in a tax return. That narrows the gap considerably.
      The proposals in the amendments would seem to allow an exception for people who genuinely do not have a national insurance number—be they returning expatriates or European or Asian men or women who have not worked but have come to reside and at times to vote in Northern Ireland, where they are most welcome. It would not be an onerous task for the electoral officer, when he receives such an application, to see that the person seeking registration has not got a national insurance number and to telephone to find out why. One could ascertain the validity or the invalidity of the reason.
      The important thing is that the majority of people—perhaps 97 per cent. or 98 per cent., although that is pure guesswork—have a national insurance number. It is an individual identifier, it is held on a common database and it is readily available to everyone on all sorts of documents that are carried daily—a tax form, a pension book and, I think, the Translink card, although I am not sure yet.
      Using national insurance numbers would offer a great opportunity to create a significant database for the electoral system. At this stage, we cannot use signatures. They will not be digitised for some time. However, that does not prevent us from seeking the information. Initially, it will be used for the postal vote comparisons, which will presumably be manual until computers have the necessary sophistication.
      We would be building a database. The national insurance database is enormous and can be checked, and I think that it would throw up any irregularities, which is all that we are concerned about. I am sure that we could cope with that with relative ease using computer technology. For that reason, I support the inclusion of national insurance numbers in the information given at registration, which can then be deployed for other purposes. The amendments propose a pardon for people who do not, for good reason, have a national insurance number. A simple inquiry would resolve that problem, which wipes out most of the arguments for not including the numbers as a personal identifier.
      Lembit Öpik: I could say that of all the debates in Committee, this was the most weakly argued by the Government, but I am a positive chap and I will say instead that of all the debates it is the one that provides the Minister with a shining opportunity to demonstrate the listening ear of the Government. I am sure that he is all ears as he listens to this debate and will show, once again, that the Government are primarily interested in doing the right thing rather than offering what at times seem to be specious arguments and setting their face against a common-sense proposal that is recommended by Northern Ireland parties on a cross-community basis, as well as by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.
      940
      Despite a long debate in Committee, the Minister failed to convince anyone—apart perhaps from himself and some of the loyalists in his party—that the argument against the inclusion of national insurance numbers was reasonable—[Interruption.] I realise that I may have just offended some loyalists and I apologise for doing so.
      7.30 pm
      The arguments have already been set out clearly by previous speakers in the debate, but I have some brief points to add. The restrictions of the Data Protection Acts have been cited as a reason why the Government cannot include national insurance numbers. However, it would indeed be ironic if legislation to protect the public from corruption actually prevented the Government from introducing an electoral measure that would also protect the public from corruption in the form of electoral fraud. I do not believe that that is a reasonable argument behind which to hide. The Data Protection Acts were introduced to help us, not to hinder us. Certainly it cannot be strategically beyond the wit of the Government and their employees to ensure that the legislation is not a barrier to the change that we propose.
      There was reference to the possibility of needing to check through 50 million or 60 million national insurance numbers. As the Minister knows, any computer could do that job in seconds—or minutes at most. That would not be a restriction. Furthermore, with a little creative thinking it would be easy to establish a list of those who were eligible to vote in Northern Ireland. The use of a tactical, technical defence to oppose the strategically important proposal to use national insurance numbers as a unique identifier does not stand up to scrutiny.
      The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) gave us an entertaining description of his research to show the small number of people who might be in the same category as the student whose family moved to South Africa—the example used by the Minister. An even more extraordinary example was that of the childless French woman, who was not working, not claiming benefit and was married to a Northern Ireland resident.
      Mr. Browne: It got a laugh.
      Lembit Öpik: Yes, but the point is that we would know that fraudsters were using that approach because there would suddenly be a huge rise in the number of childless French women who were not working or claiming benefit, were married to Northern Ireland residents and were attempting to vote in elections in Northern Ireland. Once there were so many obstacles to cheating the system, the fraudsters might take the radical step of campaigning on the streets, handing out leaflets and canvassing rather than finding such exotic and elaborate means to continue their electoral fraud.
      The Government have an opportunity to help themselves through the amendment. They should not regard the cross-community support for the proposed change as being based on a wish to beat the Minister into submission or as suggesting that he is not committed to doing the right thing. However, as we debate this point, it becomes increasingly difficult for those of us who support the use of national insurance numbers to understand the substantive opposition to the inclusion in Northern Ireland elections of what amounts to a human

      941
      bar code. There really seems to be no more reliable means than the national insurance number to ensure that each person has a single, unique identifier. It already exists and does not need to be created especially for the election.
      If the Minister has come up with genuinely new and significant arguments, I am sure that we could be persuaded by them. However, he has had a substantial amount of time, in Committee and afterwards, to explain the reasons for the Government's resistance to the inclusion of national insurance numbers.
      With a little effort, everyone can find out their national insurance number pretty easily. They do not need to keep repeating—
      Shona McIsaac: What is yours?
      Lembit Öpik: I am being challenged to read my number, but obviously I would not like to see it in Hansard as it might cause me unforeseen problems—people might forget my name and would just refer to me by my national insurance number. However, I assure the hon. Lady that if the matter was important enough, I could leave the Chamber and find out my national insurance number, even though I was not prepared for that question. Furthermore, I am sure that for individuals in their own homes who are willing to play an honest and constructive part in the electoral process in Northern Ireland, such a matter would be no more difficult than it would be for me.
      I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the change is not being proposed as a blanket, all-pervading necessity. The amendments allow for the fact that it may not be possible to provide a national insurance number. I appeal to the Minister to acknowledge that the amendment is a common-sense proposal that has significant support from both sides of the House, and to show that the Government are willing to listen to sensible ideas and, in the process, ensure that Northern Ireland has a much more reliable system than anything we have so far debated for checking that individuals are who they say they are.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the whole House realises that the electors of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) have much for which to be thankful in having a Member who is so dedicated in his pursuit of issues that arise in Committee. Where that research might lead the hon. Gentleman, should he discover the person he seeks, only he can tell us. However, although he might have enjoyed that aspect of the Committee's business, I doubt that the Minister is enjoying this moment.
      The Minister has been squirming for some time as we have debated the amendment—and so he should. He had a difficult time in Committee because his past was brought up, dragged before the Committee and thoroughly inspected. Once, the Minister was open minded; he was a free thinker who was allowed to reach conclusions based on his own judgment, but now he bears the heavy burden of office. Now, he has his civil servants around him. Now, he has the benefit—enjoyed by many—of having others to prepare the words he has to utter at the Dispatch Box.
      The reality is that when the Minister was able to consider in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs the merits and demerits of proposals such as those in the amendment, he knew where the argument lay. He knew on which side the weight and burden of the issue came down. He concluded—as did everyone on the Select
      942
      Committee, even those of his colleagues who are also in denial tonight—that the right thing to do was to include the national insurance number on the registration form.
      The Select Committee was not alone in reaching that conclusion. Others held the same view. The Northern Ireland Forum set up a committee to consider the issue and made the same recommendation, realising that the proposal made good sense. The Northern Ireland Office published a review paper which noted that it was worth investigating the inclusion of the number on the form. The paper went even further, by proposing not only that the number should be on the registration form but that people could be asked to give it at the polling station. That is a step beyond my proposal in the Standing Committee and that in the amendment. The proposal is much more moderate than that which the Minister and others have been prepared to align themselves with in the past.
      In the past, people have considered and judged the proposal and found it worthy of merit, but on this occasion it has found the fulsome support of every Opposition party in the House. It managed to unite all the Northern Ireland parties in Committee, and I presume in the House as well. I thought that it was Government policy to achieve cross-community support. If such a consensus were achieved on any other issue, the Minister would almost die for it, yet here he has the Northern Ireland parties jumping up and down in front of him and he waves the proposal away; he does not want it. Why is it that when the Minister has, on a Northern Ireland issue, the Northern Ireland parties all saying, "Go in this direction!" he decides to turn his back and go another way?
      Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman is posing a puzzle to the House. He suggests that the Minister, when he was a Back Bencher, was a seeker after truth and that the burdens of office have borne down on him and he has changed his mind. Might it not be that he is still a seeker after truth and that, as a Minister, he sought the advice of his colleagues in the Government and they said, "Above all you must not concede this amendment; the national insurance scheme is in chaos, but you cannot admit that in the House because some English Members also hold that view, and would like to hear it expressed from the Treasury Bench so that they may use it in campaigning to secure the national insurance system so that it is a safeguard of people's identity and can be used in a way that people on both sides of the House tonight wish it to be used in Northern Ireland"?
      Mr. Robinson: The House has heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. Given the right hon. Gentleman's history, I am sure that the Minister will want to be not only a seeker but a teller of the truth, and will want to respond to what has been said. The question is more for the Minister than for me, so I will pass it back to him and listen eagerly to his reply.
      As the hon. Member for South Down said, the national insurance number is a unique identifier. Unlike the signature, unlike the name, unlike the date of birth, it is one for which there is a database, and it is something that can be extracted by the chief electoral officer to identify instances of multiple registration. If the chief electoral officer sees the name of John Murphy in the register half a dozen times in a street or an area, he has no real way of determining whether it is the same John Murphy, but

      943
      if the national insurance number is to be given, very quickly he will be able to determine whether there has been a multiple registration by the same person and whether action needs to be taken. If the marked register is examined and it is found that someone with the same national insurance number has voted several times, it will identify where multiple voting has taken place, perhaps illegally in the context of anything other than a local government election. The mechanism will allow cross-checking to take place.
      Re-reading the report of our debate in Committee, I was led to believe that the Minister's response did not amount to much more than what in Northern Ireland we refer to as waffle. There was no real substance to the argument that he attempted to marshal against ours. After he had had lunch and a regrouping—no doubt of those civil servants who give him advice, of whatever variety—the Minister came up with two points. One was that not everyone has a national insurance number, but he did not say how small was the group that did not have one, and he did not quite overcome the problem that we had posed by suggesting that the question on the form could end with the words "(if any)". It seems to me that no one will be punished if they do not have a national insurance number and do not write it on the form. The words "(if any)" appear elsewhere on the registration form, and it would not be inappropriate to insert them in this instance if there was any problem with people not having a national insurance number.
      7.45 pm
      The second defence that the Minister put up was that not everyone can remember, or find, their national insurance number. The answer to that was simple. Potential electors will not be asked to fill out a form on the doorstep. A matter of weeks will pass between receipt of the form and the date by which it must be submitted, and that will allow people plenty of time to discover their national insurance number.
      The defences put up by the Minister in Committee did not have much substance, so I hoped that he would reflect on the position and be prepared to meet the whole of the Opposition on the matter on Report. I hoped that he would be able to concede to the wish of the parties in Northern Ireland, and I regret it if, as his earlier remarks suggest, he intends to continue to resist it.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will press the amendment to a Division. I believe that in future the Minister will look back at that Division and be saddened that he allowed himself to be whipped by his civil servants into taking the stand that he is taking. I know that it is not his own inclination. I know his true inclination because I shared with him those amendments in the Select Committee when, in comradeship, we went down the same road together, and I hope that once again, when he has the opportunity to be freer in the way that he acts and speaks in the House, he might return to his former principled position.
      Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has had some good fun at the expense of my hon. Friend the Minister, because my hon. Friend now adopts a different position from that which he signed up
      944
      to in the Select Committee report—a report which I also signed. If the hon. Member for Belfast, East is so keen on consistency with the Select Committee report, it is unfortunate that when he was given an opportunity to support my amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were taken from that report, he did not do so. I do not really condemn him for that because people's ideas alter according to their experiences. My position may have changed since I signed the Select Committee report; the Minister's certainly has.
      I am keen on the argument that there should be an identifier, such as a national insurance number. It might be the case that the smaller the nation, the easier it is to sort things out. In Malta, which has identity cards, the identity card number appears on the electoral register. Moreover, a card is issued to an elector, through the police, at each election, and is handed in when people vote. A fresh card is issued afterwards. Therefore, it is possible to develop techniques that make use of good organisation in order to tackle some of these problems.
      In Committee I expressed concern—and was taken to task by the hon. Member for Belfast, East—when the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) accepted that the national insurance system was less than perfect. How much less than perfect is it? If some people give their national insurance numbers and their numbers are not confirmed within the system or are not seen to be those that are supposed to relate to them, those people can be disfranchised, or temporarily disfranchised, until the problem is sorted out.
      Mr. Blunt: The national insurance system might be in chaos, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, but the suggestion is not that people have no national insurance number, but that they have more than one. That is what needs to be sorted out. Any check of the cross-reference, such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, in which the correct national insurance number was included, would almost certainly involve a cross-check to that person.
      Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that the national insurance system was in chaos. If that were correct, there would be many serious problems in using the system as a check. If the chaos merely involves people having more than one number, it might he possible to sort out the problem if records are kept showing all the different numbers. Something that lies between being less than perfect and being chaos may be the type of problem we have to consider. If problems exist with national insurance numbers, there is a difficulty with the amendment. In Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate alerted me to that.
      Mr. Mark Hoban: All the Opposition parties view the date of birth system proposed by the Government as inadequate. We have a better system—the national insurance system. Surely it is better to use that system, even though it is flawed to an extent, than to rely on a date of birth system, which most Opposition Members believe to be inadequate?
      Mr. Barnes: I understand that signatures and dates of birth will be used, and it is being proposed that national insurance numbers should be added. The date of birth is

      945
      relevant because electors will be asked their dates of birth in addition to having to show their cards when they turn up at polling stations. Some people might get that wrong and some people might be disfranchised as a result, but that is very unlikely. It is much more likely that there would he difficulties with national insurance numbers.
      People would have to complete forms and provide their national insurance numbers, signatures and dates of birth, and the one that they would be liable to get wrong is their national insurance number, so the electoral returning officer would have to return to the constituents to check whether an error had been made. When looking at national insurance forms and details and writing them down, how many people would get them wrong, especially in households where several people have to do that? Even if only 1 or 2 per cent. of the population get those numbers wrong, those people would be disfranchised, or they would have serious problems.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East was eloquent in saying that he did not want a system that actually disfranchised people who were entitled to be on registers, and I am keen not to introduce a measure that would remove people from the franchise.
      Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman is skating on such thin ice that he could drown at any moment. The logical extension of his argument is that the Government should never produce any sort of form in case people fill it in wrongly. His argument is nonsense on stilts.
      Mr. Barnes: The Bill deals with voting arrangements, not the others things in which Governments engage. If people apply to the Benefits Agency for benefits and fill in their national insurance numbers wrongly, it is possible to go back to them to get the correct numbers, and it may also be possible to use other records to find the right numbers. That will not be so readily and easily the case with electoral registration. Under electoral registration law, people have a right to be on the registers, and they are technically subject to a £1,000 fine if they are not. That is a fundamental building block of our democracy, and we must ensure that, whatever system we use, we do not disfranchise people even though we are doing other beneficial things. Much in the Bill will get rid of fraud but, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, we cannot get rid of fraud at the expense of removing people who are on registers legitimately.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman made that point extensively in Committee. I was not convinced then and I am not convinced now—and so far as I can tell, neither is any other Opposition Member. He has not established why it is impossible for the returning officer to go back to those who may have made a mistake and ask them to check. Will he explain precisely why that is so impossible?
      Mr. Barnes: If 1 or 2 per cent. of the electorate are involved, the electoral registration officer would be involved in quite a task. He would have to contact people directly himself, or he would have to send canvassers or other people around to discover information about the small number of people who have been missed. Those people are likely to be among those who are also expected to choose identity cards. We would be in danger of
      946
      creating a group of people who would be deprived and depressed in society. They would find it difficult to obtain identity cards, or they may not be keen to do so. They may be the very people who would get such information and details wrong.
      We should not make the system too complicated. I wanted to make it universal, so that everyone would be involved and have to get a card to vote, but that could be achieved without the problems that the amendment would involve. I am simply saying that it is not beyond peradventure and absolutely clear that that system would work in the way that some of us, with our naive nature, and having listened to Mr. Bradley addressing the Committee, believe that it could.
      Lembit Öpik: First, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the system will involve a big job just once—the first time that everyone has to fill in the form—and that that is a small price to pay to reduce fraud? Secondly, will he note that the amendments states, "if they have one", so we do not want to change the national insurance system? We would merely create a data collection expectation, and the task would diminish massively when we had completed it once.
      Mr. Barnes: Fresh people will appear on the registers, so they will have to go through the system themselves. Perhaps it would be easier to work with young people who come into contact with their national insurance numbers and their electoral registration rights for the first time, and perhaps few difficulties would occur. People move in and out of Northern Ireland from the Republic and are entitled to vote—and from Great Britain as well. So such a system would not be automatically ready and easy.
      I am in favour of modernised electoral registration systems that use all types of new technology. That is why I advocate the rolling register, and we have something like a stopping, standing still and crawling register, which has improved things. However, there is still a tremendous amount to be done, but much of that has to be done on a United Kingdom basis, and I believe that it should be tied in with identity cards, so that we could operate a nice clear system. I am worried that we may spatchcock some ideas on to the existing arrangements and that that will not work well.
      Mr. Trimble: I wish to put a couple of things on record. First, my colleagues and I fully support the amendment, and if it is pressed to a Division, we will support it. It is a sensible measure, and we note the strength of support for it on both sides of the House. I shall return to that point later.
      8 pm
      In Committee, the Minister pleaded that one reason for not accepting the proposal was that some people do not have national insurance numbers. However, I draw Members' attention to the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who asked
      "how many and what percentage of United Kingdom citizens have a National Insurance number"?

      947
      The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), replied:
      "The vast majority of the approximate 48 million UK adult population have a National Insurance number".—[Official Report, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 643W.]
      Therefore, most people are covered by the requirement.
      I express my disappointment at the way in which the Government are conducting business. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) focused his comments on the Minister and on the inconsistency between his past and present positions. However, the Minister is a member of the Government and he is now adopting their position. I am disappointed at their approach because when the measure was first suggested, we strongly expressed the view that although particular provisions were good in themselves, the Bill needed to be strengthened.
      The Government assured us that they would give us a sympathetic response if we came forward with proposals that were, in particular, supported by both sides of the House and the main parties in Northern Ireland. If arguments against the amendment had carried any weight in Committee or in this debate, I could have understood the Government's reasons for rejecting it. However, we are faced with their stock response. They have published the Bill and decided to put up the shutters by fighting any amendment tooth and nail, irrespective of the merits of the argument.
      The merits of the argument are clear. I greatly respect the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I know that he has done much good work. He made a valiant attempt to defend the Government's position, but I am afraid that although we give him credit for doing so, he was not convincing.
      Mr. Barnes: I am not sure whether the terminology is appropriate given the position in Northern Ireland, but I am not usually considered to be a Labour loyalist.
      Mr. Trimble: Indeed, and I notice that, at the end of his comments, the hon. Gentleman came towards what will be the eventual solution, namely, an identity card system. I am sure that, in time, we will come to that, but how long will the luddites in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office prevent us from moving towards that solution?
      It is ironic that the current national insurance number system developed out of compulsory wartime identity cards. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested, over the years that system may have fallen into confusion and may need to be overhauled completely. That overhaul will come when we move to a nationwide system of compulsory identity cards—the issue can be resolved then.
      I do not wish to delay our proceedings, because I know that other Members wish to speak. I simply wish to put on the record the fact that we support the amendment. I have read the Committee debates and I have not seen any reason why we should not. The House has had a little fun at the Minister's expense, but he could put an end to that and do himself and the Government much credit by undertaking seriously to consider our proposal.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke eloquently in Committee about the nature of elections in Northern Ireland. It is well worth repeating some of his sentiments, to explain—particularly to those outside the House—the widespread support for the amendment.
      For some political parties, elections in Northern Ireland have for many years been an extension of the armed struggle. They are now a substitute for the armed struggle. They are militarised and they are conducted by men with guns who will fight, intimidate, bully, kneecap and sometimes murder to make sure that people turn out to vote in the way that those men want—not once, not twice, but as many times as they can get them to the polling station in whatever guise they can be bullied into adopting. That is the nature of an election in Northern Ireland, so it is no surprise that the turnout in elections there is continually high: it is the result of widespread militarised fraud conducted by paramilitaries.
      It is splendid that the Government have introduced a Bill which at last attempts to tackle the problem of fraud in Northern Ireland elections. One party in particular undertakes such fraud. It is trying to squeeze out the party of the hon. Member for South Down, and it is in danger of doing so.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a general speech rather than addressing his remarks to the amendment.
      Mr. Turner: I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall move straight to the amendment, but I wanted to put it in context. I thank you for your indulgence in permitting me to do so.
      The amendment would prevent people as far as possible from registering twice when they were not entitled to do so. For example, they might register two different versions of the same name, or the same name in two or three different locations. They might even register in the same name at the same address, in the expectation that the returning officer or his assistants could be persuaded that there was an older and a younger man—or an older or younger woman—of the same name at the same address.
      The amendment would require that when people registered to vote, they not only furnished their signature, date of birth and name and address but provided their national insurance number. A national insurance number is a unique identifier. There may not be many Lembit Öpiks in Montgomeryshire; there may be more Harry Barneses in North-East Derbyshire; there is certainly more than one Andrew Turner on the Isle of Wight; and I wager that there are many Peter Robinsons in Northern Ireland. However, the national insurance number is a unique identifier that the returning officer can use to check against the name.
      If there were no unique identifier or the name did not match the national insurance number, the returning officer could undertake further inquiries. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) objected to that because he felt it might prevent people from registering in time for an election. However, in these days of a rolling register, it takes just 30 days between filling in the form and appearing on the register. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, that should be time enough to allow any returning officer furnished with the right resources to check whether the applicant for registration does or does not exist.

      949
      My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) ably related the proposal's history. The Select Committee on which the Minister sat agreed that such a provision was necessary. The hon. Gentleman changed his mind at some point before the Bill was drafted, and he explained his reasons in the Committee that considered it. They were feeble. He said that the difficulties involved in recalling a national insurance number at the time of registration might make it more difficult for people to register. He said that, on balance, it was unwise to proceed with the proposal.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, the Committee was so unconvinced—and more important, I suspect the Minister was so unconvinced—that the Minister went away and, between lunchtime and the beginning of the afternoon sitting, came up with new reasons. But they were not reasons to exclude the national insurance numbers proposal from the Bill. He had already given those reasons which, as I have said, he recognised were feeble. All the Northern Ireland parties supported an amendment similar to this in Committee, as did the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and although it was defeated, I do not believe that the arguments were defeated.
      The only mildly constitutional party—if I can use that phrase—from Northern Ireland that opposes the inclusion of national insurance numbers chooses not to be represented in the House, and it is the greatest beneficiary of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. It is a scandal that its wish is being pushed through by the Government in the Bill against the advice of all the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and the people whom they represent, who have suffered so long at the hands of the bullies, gunmen and terrorists whom Sinn Fein represent.
      A date of birth can be duplicated, a signature may be inconsistent and names are frequently repeated, but a national insurance number cannot usually be duplicated. The amendment makes provision even for that tiny minority who do not possess a national insurance number. It would also enable greater scrutiny of postal votes. As we know, many people apply fraudulently for postal votes in Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire repeated the assertion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the national insurance system is in chaos. The Government have not relied on that argument yet, and unless they are prepared to do so, I see no reason why the House should reject the amendment.
      Mr. Hoban: The amendments would allow the use of national insurance numbers. That would add a great deal more protection to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland than the measures set out in the Bill. The vast majority of people have national insurance numbers. They are a prerequisite for paying tax and obtaining benefits. National insurance numbers are probably the most complete and easily accessible record of adults in the United Kingdom that we have, and we should not dismiss them lightly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's arguments on why he opposes the amendment because the arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) did not persuade many hon. Members.
      It is right to collect the numbers at the time of the canvass and cross-check them against the national insurance database prior to publication of the draft
      950
      electoral roll. It is an important check on the validity of the voter's identification. I believe that there is sufficient time between the canvass and the publication of the register to undertake a proper check.
      We should consider three questions in connection with the registration phase: will people know their national insurance number or have access to it; what happens if an elector does not have a national insurance number; and how will we manage access by the chief electoral officer to the national insurance database? Most people either know their national number or have access to it. I cannot say offhand what mine is, but I know that it is on my P60 and my payslip. People who receive benefits will know their national insurance number from their records. The argument that people do not know their number is neither watertight nor valid.
      8.15 pm
      What happens in the rare instances when people do not have a national insurance number? I have seen the examples that the Minister gave in Committee. Some people may not have a national insurance number, but we will have enough time to go back to them to establish why. I appreciate that, in the first year of the register, additional time may be spent checking out people's arguments, but once the register is in place—it will have a relatively small turnover from year to year, and relatively few people will lack national insurance numbers—the practical long-term arguments against checking them out make that concern invalid.
      On how we manage access by the chief electoral officer to the national insurance database, we have heard about the restrictions that the Data Protection Act 1998 places on access, and about the swathe of data to which he will have access and whether or not that will be irrelevant. Notwithstanding the myriad problems that seem to affect information technology projects commissioned by Governments, it is not beyond the wit of man to cross-check national insurance numbers against a database. It would be helpful if the database of national insurance numbers could cross-refer to the computerised records of tax and benefits. That would allow us to check not just the national insurance number and its uniqueness and validity, but the address that is given on the electoral registration form, so we can ascertain that it is the same.
      I do not accept the argument that the Minister used in Committee. He said the law would have to be changed, which would not be feasible in the time scale. In response to the events of 11 September, Departments have moved quickly in recent weeks to the pressing need to change legislation.
      The amendments offer a powerful way to improve the integrity of the electoral voting system in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will not simply say no and employ flimsy arguments, because so far the arguments have lacked validity and do not stand him in good stead.
      Mr. Rosindell: Having listened to the debate, I wonder how serious the Government are about cracking down on electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Much could be done to improve the Bill, including the use of national insurance numbers, as set out in the amendment. It is astonishing that, despite the broad agreement of all

      951
      constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the Government oppose that. Having read the Committee proceedings, I know that the Minister's arguments were weak.
      Of course, not everyone can say off the top of their head what their national insurance number is; I certainly could not. However, to suggest that it is not possible within a 30-day period for someone to produce their number is pathetic. Either the Government are serious about tackling electoral fraud or they are not. There is an opportunity to improve the Bill, and I should like the Government to take that on board.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have followed the Bill's progress from some distance, but my interest in Northern Ireland is well known, as the Minister is aware. Following the excellent speeches made by some of my hon. Friends, will my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) speculate in greater detail about why the Government are resisting what are clearly sensible amendments? My hon. Friend makes it amply clear that the proposals are supported by all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, so why are the Government resisting good sense and good policy?
      Mr. Rosindell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Government have yet again shown that in certain instances when dealing with issues relating to a part of our kingdom, Northern Ireland, they appease rather than take the action necessary to get a grip on the situation and ensure that democracy prevails against those who have turned to, and continue to employ, solutions that are outwith the democratic arena.
      Although it is important that sensitive information is not disclosed unnecessarily, it is a typically public sector approach to admit that the technology to prevent that is achievable but to discount its use because of artificially imposed deadlines. I have read that in other reports. If something is likely to strengthen a measure, it is worth ensuring that it is included and delivered on time. It is typical of the Government's haphazard approach that they dismiss potentially useful ideas because they would be difficult or inconvenient to implement.
      It has taken some time to produce the Bill. I am astonished that it has taken the Government so long, but judging by comments made earlier in the debate, it appears likely that it will take even longer to be implemented—yet another example of the Government's appeasement. The Government are being hypocritical: it is hardly credible to use as an excuse lack of time or the fact that people might not know their own social security or national insurance number. Few complain of not knowing their national insurance number when claiming benefits, so I do not understand why it should be such a problem when they want to vote.
      There is no question but that the Bill will enable significant headway to be made. That is welcome. However, I urge the House to support the Opposition amendment to include national insurance numbers as additional identification markers for electors registering in Northern Ireland. I see no good reason why any of the obstacles that the Government claim exist should prevent the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral registration process.
      952
      Of course it will take time to construct a workable system, but in the long term the ability to cross-check national insurance numbers against those registering to vote—and later, if necessary, those voting—will provide an extra layer of security against electoral fraud. Simply giving dates of birth and signatures may prove to be insufficient to stop those who are determined to get around the system. National insurance numbers might not make the system foolproof, but they are unique pieces of information, specific to individuals, that are too valuable to ignore. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Browne: If the few years that the Government took to consult widely on our proposals and to draft and introduce the Bill can be described as appeasement, I wonder what 18 years of refusal to address the problem can be called. Perhaps the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) can provide a suitable description before the end of the debate.
      Amendment No. 1 requires electors to state their national insurance number, if they have one, on their annual canvass return. Amendment No. 2 terminates an elector's right to remain on the electoral register if they have a national insurance number but fail to provide it. We established in Committee that not everyone has a national insurance number, nor is everyone entitled to one. I acknowledge that the amendments are worded to get around that difficulty, but I remain concerned that they would disadvantage legitimate voters who simply do not know their national insurance number. Faced with the problem of finding out, people—.especially the more vulnerable members of the community—might simply return their annual canvass form without including their number. Moreover, the amendments would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the chief electoral officer, who would be required to check all those cases in which an annual canvass form was returned without a national insurance number to determine whether the elector actually had a number or was entitled to one.
      Amendment No. 5 would require people to state their national insurance number, if they have one, when applying for an absent vote for either an indefinite period or a specific parliamentary election. It is possible, whether legitimately or not, to have more than one number. If someone gave a different national insurance number on their application for an absent vote from that which they had provided on registration, that would be a reason to deny them their vote, even if they held the two numbers legitimately. As I have said before, the chief electoral officer should be given as much useful information as possible to enable him to check absent vote applications against the information that an elector will be required to provide on registration, but the chief electoral officer does not consider that a requirement for electors to state their national insurance number on registration or on their application for an absent vote would be of any additional value to him if he is already able to check the signature and date of birth of electors against his records.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have immense respect for the Minister, who is, from time to time, very amusing. Will he state how an individual can legitimately have two national insurance numbers? I might have misheard him, but I think that that is what he just said. Will he explain?
      Mr. Browne: My understanding is that in certain circumstances individuals can be given temporary

      953
      national insurance numbers. and that they can therefore have two national insurance numbers for different purposes.
      Lembit Öpik: The Minister gave the same explanation in Committee, and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. However, is he going to list a series of practical problems as the Government's justification for not accepting national insurance numbers as a form of identification? If he is, does he not accept that those are points of detail and that we are in fact discussing an extremely important strategic opportunity to identify each potential voter using what is, for the overwhelming majority of people, a unique identifying number?
      Mr. Browne: My concern, which I expressed repeatedly in Committee, is that we may inadvertently disfranchise people because of changes in the rules that we make. We had to strike a balance between interdicting fraud and not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of legitimate voters, and identify where in the use of national insurance numbers such difficulties might be found. However, I am conscious—this was forcefully pointed out to me in Committee and on more than one occasion today—that all the Northern Ireland political parties represented in the Committee and in the Chamber today are as one on the issue. Mindful of that pressure and consistent with my approach throughout proceedings on the Bill, I have put a number of options to the test again, including data protection aspects, which are not minor, to see if the national insurance number can be used for electoral purposes in a way that does not disfranchise legitimate voters. However, as presently advised, I am not satisfied that they can; until I am, I have no alternative but to resist the amendments.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister concluded his explanation on a wholly inadequate note; his arguments have been similarly inadequate throughout Committee and on Report.
      First, I want to take up the Minister's point that the previous Government did nothing for 18 years. If that had been the case, there would not be a need for consolidation of the legislation now. There are so many different pieces of legislation floating round the system, which, from memory, were introduced in 1983, 1985 and 1989 to try to address the issue of identification in polling stations and elsewhere in piecemeal stages, that there is now a desperate need to consolidate them. The Minister knows well that that is the position of the chief electoral officer.
      Of course, the Bill is welcome, but it only goes so far; on that issue, it could go much further to ensure that the register is, as far as possible, and given the limitations on the current national insurance system, beyond reproach. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) amused the House with an account of attempting to find a person who qualified as someone who does not have a national insurance number. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made it clear that there was no more reliable way of establishing an individual's identity. It was a joy to see the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) put the Minister through his paces and make him relive his past as a free-thinking member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Indeed, in attempting to reject the amendments, the
      954
      Minister should bear in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to give him a flexible timetable on the introduction of identity cards. He might ask himself why, on this issue, the hon. Gentleman does not want to give him flexibility.
      The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a noble effort to defend the Minister. He confessed that, in 1998, when he was a Committee member, he was naive to accept evidence given to the Committee. I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as naive, and he was certainly not naive when he agreed with every other Committee member, from every party, in reaching his conclusion in 1998. That conclusion is still shared by all the other parties that have taken part in consultations on the process.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) properly drew attention to the level of intimidation and the issue of a unique identifier. He said that if the chief electoral officer were furnished with the right resources, there is no reason why national insurance numbers cannot be introduced. I wonder what advice the Minister has received from the Treasury. When he concluded his contribution, he said that he had received advice that led to his not being satisfied. He left it at that, leaving the House in the dark about the detail of advice that was so overwhelming that he could not accept the proposals.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) asked just how serious the Government are about the proposals. I must tell him that I take what the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill at face value. It would be wrong of the House to impugn his general motives. However, why are the Government resisting the amendment? They should consider just who their allies are. There are none in the House, but my hon. Friend will see that, in its evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 1998, Sinn Fein said:
      "Sinn Fein believes that there is a compelling and logical argument to ensure that the electorate have the maximum freedom to exercise their vote as freely as possible. We would therefore argue for an end to the current identification regulations because we believe they restrict the electorate's freedom and impose an unnecessary burden on them."
      Well, that is a surprise. Why is it that, on the issue of electoral fraud, the Minister finds himself in alliance with Sinn Fein, rather than all the other parties in Northern Ireland? He should ask himself that question.
      Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman and others have impugned the Government's intention as being in some way an appeasement of Sinn Fein and other groups. Has he any evidence whatever that that is the case? I, who reside in Northern Ireland, have no such evidence. It would be wrong to make such assertion if there was not a reasonable certainty of its validity.
      Mr. Blunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to what I said. I did not say that. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford used those terms, but I have taken some trouble to dissociate those on the Conservative Front Bench from that suggestion, and to make it clear that we take the Minister's intentions at face value. I am not suggesting that he is in league with Sinn Fein in his proposals. I am merely pointing out to the House that it so happens that on this issue he finds himself at one with Sinn Fein, which would no doubt resist the proposal. It is

      955
      the only other party that would do so. The Minister should consider the position in which he finds himself. I am not saying that there has been some arrangement or that a direct effort has been made to appease Sinn Fein on other issues. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.
      Mr. Frank Field: Is not the truth of the matter that the Government are in league not with Sinn Fein, but with the Treasury, and that the Treasury has told the Government that the proposal is unworkable because the national insurance system is a shambles?
      Mr. Blunt: Having listened to the Minister's arguments in Committee and on Report, it is almost impossible to resist agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. The Treasury has been behind many inexplicable decisions, when Ministers have been forced to explain the unexplainable to the House and put the case to protect the Treasury. Given the weakness of the Minister's arguments in Committee and on Report, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is the one that most appeals to me.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good case. If the Government seek to justify the introduction of identity cards for the security of the state, and such an identity card could well include a national insurance number, why should not a national insurance number serve to safeguard the country's democracy?
      Mr. Blunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general point. We have yet to see the Government's proposals for identity cards for the security of the nation. My hon. Friend's point about the security of democracy is extremely important.
      Lembit Öpik: On the suspicions directed at the Treasury, does the hon. Gentleman accept that however much of a mess the national insurance system might be, it is not a factor in the debate, because as long as someone could find his number, it could be entered and used in a database in Northern Ireland? The state of the national insurance system is probably not the explanation, but that makes the Minister's seeming intransigence on an eminently sensible idea even more confusing.
      Mr. Blunt: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am still attracted by the explanation from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Government would have to admit that the entire national insurance system was in chaos. If it is in chaos, it is imperative that the Government sort it out. That is no argument against a cross-reference system to help protect against electoral fraud.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) suggested that the Government were putting the shutters up; that they had produced the Bill and were too inflexible to consider change during the proceedings. That is one explanation, which we have encountered too often in the House, when the Government have been defeated on the detail of the argument. In this case the Government have been defeated strategically and
      956
      in detail. We will press the matter, and if we are not successful this evening, the Minister will not have heard the last of it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: 175, Noes 262.

      Division No. 47]

      [8.39 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hammond, Philip

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hancock, Mike

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bacon, Richard

      Hayes, John

      Baker, Norman

      Heald, Oliver

      Baldry, Tony

      Heath, David

      Barker, Gregory

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Baron, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Barrett, John

      Hoban, Mark

      Bellingham, Henry

      Holmes, Paul

      Bercow, John

      Horam, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brady, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Annette

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Keetch, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burns, Simon

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Burnside, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burt, Alistair

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Butterfill, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Laws, David

      Cameron, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cash, William

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter

      Clappison, James

      McGrady, Eddie

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Collins, Tim

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cran, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maples, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Mates, Michael

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Dodds, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Mercer, Patrick

      Doughty, Sue

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Norman, Archie

      Evans, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fallon, Michael

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Paterson, Owen

      Francois, Mark

      Pickles, Eric

      Gale, Roger

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Price, Adam

      Gibb, Nick

      Prisk, Mark

      Gidley, Sandra

      Pugh, Dr John

      Goodman, Paul

      Randall, John

      Gray, James

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Grayling, Chris

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Rendel, David

      Greenway, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      957

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Ruffley, David

      Thurso, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Trend, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Selous, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Watkinson, Angela

      Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

      Whittingdale, John

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

      Wiggin, Bill

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Spink, Bob

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Streeter, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Stunell, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Swayne, Desmond

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Swire, Hugo

      Syms, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Mr. Charles Hendry.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Colman, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Corston, Jean

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cox, Tom

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cranston, Ross

      Banks, Tony

      Crausby, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Borrow, David

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dowd, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Drew, David

      Bryant, Chris

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Burden, Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Etherington, Bill

      Caton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Challen, Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Galloway, George

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Clwyd, Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      958

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Havard, Dai

      Morgan, Julie

      Healey, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hesford, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hill, Keith

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Olner, Bill

      Hope, Phil

      Organ, Diana

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Owen, Albert

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Perham, Linda

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hurst, Alan

      Pope, Greg

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jamieson, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Purnell, James

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rooney, Terry

      Kidney, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Salter, Martin

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Sawford, Phil

      Lammy, David

      Simon, Siôn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Laxton, Bob

      Singh, Marsha

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lepper, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Love, Andrew

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Lucas, Ian

      Squire, Rachel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Stringer, Graham

      MacDonald, Calum

      Tami, Mark

      McDonnell, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      MacDougall, John

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McKechin, Ann

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Timms, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Todd, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Trickett, Jon

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Truswell, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mann, John

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Meale, Alan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Merron, Gillian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Wareing, Robert N

      959

      Watson, Tom

      Woodward, Shaun

      Watts, David

      Woolas, Phil

      White, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Angela Smith and

      Wood, Mike

      Dan Norris.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      ABSENT VOTES AND DECLARATIONS OF IDENTITY
      Mr. Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, after "application", insert—
      'is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine,'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 47, at end insert—
      '(2A) In section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) after subsection (1) there is inserted—

      "(1A) Any application under subsection (1) for an absent vote must be by means of an application form provided by the Chief Electoral Officer; and

      (1B) Any application form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection (IA) shall be marked with a bar code unique to each form.".'.

      No. 4, in clause 3, page 4, line 4, after "application", insert—
      'is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine.'.
      Mr. Blunt: It is quite an evening when we reduce the Government's majority to 87. That is indicative of just how badly the Minister lost the argument on new clause 2, in this Parliament of such unhappy numbers.
      I am grateful for the progress that we made in Committee, when the Government changed the Bill to include a requirement to put the date of birth on applications for absent votes. Yet again, I am here to help the Minister. He has accepted our help, to some extent, on one occasion. In Committee, he said:
      "Our aim is automated processing of absent vote applications—that is, by computer—in the time period available, which is different from the time period in Great Britain".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 71.]
      The amendments would achieve precisely that.
      This is an area of key importance in addressing electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 38 of the excellent 1998 report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs concludes:
      "Absent voting provides a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland—a view with which the Interim Review agrees."
      The extent of absent voting in Northern Ireland and the potential for abuse, which was predicted in the report, was confirmed by the statistics that emerged from the 2001 general election. The seats that were contested most fiercely and resulted in gains by Sinn Fein, which has
      960
      been associated and identified with a fairly ruthless and, in the words of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), a paramilitary organised approach to these issues, included West Tyrone, where the astonishing number of 2,012 proxy votes and 3,427 postal votes were granted. There was a total of 5,443 absent votes. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, 4,664 postal votes and 1,116 proxy votes were granted, and there was a total of 5,784 absent votes.
      The number of proxy votes granted in West Tyrone is fabulous, and I do not think that any other constituency in the United Kingdom can come remotely close to that figure. Certainly, no constituency in Northern Ireland does, because the next highest number of proxy votes is about half that.
      The constituencies of West Tyrone, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and Mid-Ulster, all Sinn Fein held, were the ones with the highest number of absent votes. To say that there is a coincidence between those figures and the fact that Sinn Fein is on the receiving end of accusations about an organised approach to the abuse of the electoral system is to take coincidence one step too far.
      The prediction that was made by the Select Committee in 1998 appears on the basis of the statistical evidence to be borne out by what happened in the last general election. Unless the amendments are accepted, as the law stands—and will continue to stand under the Bill when it is enacted—only the information with an absent vote application has to be delivered to the chief electoral officer. The Bill does not specify in which form that information is to come.
      If the Minister wants to meet his aim of automated processing of absent vote applications, those application forms will have to marry up with the computer system for the information to be read in the appropriate place. So far, the House has not agreed to include the requirement for national insurance numbers, but if we require the signature and date of birth as factors to be tested between the absent vote application and the register, the forms must enable that to happen. Otherwise, we will be in the same position as we are today.
      In the general election in Northern Ireland, 31,048 postal vote applications and 10,000 proxy vote applications were made, which gives a total of more than 40,000. The chief electoral officer was not able to check, even after the event, whether those applications merited further investigation. In the 1997 general election, the chief electoral officer was faced with a tidal wave of up to 10,000 applications that were produced at the very last moment. There was a only a short time between the presentation of those applications and the general election, and given the way in which the forms are constituted, there was not a cat in hell's chance for the chief electoral officer to check them properly. That is known, so people who wish to abuse the system have an opportunity to do so.
      9 pm
      In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that we should not advertise the opportunities to defraud the system by explaining that it was sufficient to provide the necessary information without using the official form, but I am sure that those who wished to do so could work it out for themselves. The abuse of the electoral system is sophisticated and if we leave a loophole, it will be exploited. It is our job to ensure that that cannot happen.

      961
      The Government resisted similar amendments in Committee and squeaked through the Division nine votes to eight, which means that all five Opposition parties were united in their view, including all the parties representing Northern Ireland. The Minister said that the change would be an unnecessary restriction on normal activities as part of the political process. I do not accept that. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the chief electoral officer—who has been in post for 17 years—believe such fraud to be the commonest form of vote stealing in Northern Ireland and it must be addressed. The most effective way to address it is to ensure that the forms on which people apply for absent votes are those issued by the chief electoral officer.
      My amendments would leave it to the chief electoral officer to decide the format of the form, but the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats would require the form to be bar-coded and would place a duty on the chief electoral officer to ensure that the forms could be individually identifiable. It is the chief electoral officer's intention to bar-code the forms, if possible, but I have been convinced by the arguments for flexibility and would leave the decision to him. However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and I differ only slightly on the issue.
      The issue is important and the Minister needs to address it. He was able to give some comfort to us earlier tonight and I hope that he will be able to do so again.
      Mr. McGrady: The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) suggested that the absent vote system—for the sick and disabled, and for proxy votes—presented the biggest opportunity for electoral fraud and I can but agree with that statement. However, statistics are wonderful things and I shall give a few figures from the table mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
      In 1997, before the 1998 report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the percentage of absent votes in West Tyrone was 7.5 and it went up to 9 per cent. in 2001. For Fermanagh and South Tyrone, in 1997 the percentage was 9.3 and it went down to 8.7 per cent. in 2001. In Mid-Ulster, it was 8.6 per cent. in 1997 and fell to 6.7 per cent in 2001. High figures for absent votes are not a new phenomenon but have been going on for many years. I should like to attribute great insight to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but modesty and the statistics forbid me.
      However, this is a serious issue, and one with which we have wrestled for many years at hustings in Northern Ireland. The difficulty is that it has been traditional for the political parties, in the most honourable and trustworthy way, to help people to vote who otherwise could not go to the polls for one reason or another. The people thus helped have included those permanently on the sick list because of disablement, or those temporarily affected by sickness or injury during an election. Some people, of course, are unable to vote in elections for other reasons, or are elsewhere when election day comes around.
      The phenomenon of trusted proxies is relatively new, but their use as a way to represent people at the polls is valid and is increasing. However, I think that imposing on the electoral officer and his assistants the requirement that each postal vote application form issued should be coded individually would cause practical difficulties.
      962
      Moreover, I believe that the proposal would diminish the ability of people to secure a postal vote when there are genuine reasons that render them unable to vote in person on the day of an election. Perhaps that is its purpose. In my experience, it is very difficult to get the electoral office to issue postal applications in time for people to return them, and requiring the applications to be allocated on a one-to-one basis would make that process even more difficult.
      If all the people unable to get to the polling station on election day had to apply for a form permitting them an absent vote, I believe that the system would break down, as they would have to complete the form, get it attested, and send it back in time for inclusion in the poll. I am fully aware of what goes on in certain areas, and that means that I am reluctant to make the process so difficult. The danger is that many people would be disfranchised if numbered and traceable application forms were introduced.
      It has been suggested that block applications could be given to the existing accredited representatives of political parties, and that those block applications could have a single, identifiable code number that would allow the person or group to whom the block application was issued to be identified. In other parts of the country colours could be used to identify the block applications, but that could cause all sorts of difficulties in Northern Ireland.
      Although the use of a code number would not be foolproof, as no doubt the number would filter out somewhere down the line and duplication could take place, it would be a step towards what is proposed in the amendments. On balance, however, I am unable to support what is proposed in the amendments because I judge that many people who are legitimately unable to vote because they are ill or absent on election day would be disfranchised. In addition, I consider that the proposed system would be unnecessarily complicated.
      Lembit Öpik: As in the last group of amendments, when I made common cause with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), so also we make common cause on amendment No. 15. This has already been touched on, but let me outline the key reason why I believe, along with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, that bar codes are an important evolution in reducing fraud.
      I have been concerned about the opportunities for fraud with regard to absent votes in United Kingdom elections as a whole. Some of the important check steps are absent if people are absent themselves. As such, the people in Northern Ireland for whom the legislation is intended are most likely to go to the point of least resistance once other changes have been made. Even with the Bill's limitations, given that the Government have not accepted our amendments, there will be some improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland. However, if the Government do not accept the proposal in amendment No. 15, we still have the Achilles' heel of absent votes.
      The principle of the proposal was debated in Committee. We stipulated that applications for absent votes must contain a bar code, which are easy to scan and difficult to reproduce. The basic principle is to have each application form for an absent vote marked in a specific way so that applications cannot be photocopied wholesale

      963
      many times over, as has been the case in the past. Each code will be unique to its particular application form and, by direct implication, to a particular person.
      The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that about 40,000 absent votes were recorded in Northern Ireland in the recent election. Even if that figure were 80,000, the cost of specifying a particular bar code for each paper would be relatively small, perhaps a few pence per sheet. Given the benefit that would be gained, the investment of a few thousand pounds would surely not be prohibitive. So cost is not an issue. The logistical challenge of creating these forms is well within the Government's technological capabilities, so there is no logistical barrier to having a supply available.
      The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who is resistant to amendment No. 15 and this group as a whole, can be reassured by the fact that we would not have to maintain the existing limitations on availability of forms. We could streamline it and speed it up and still maintain a cohesion as to who gets which form. We could track where large blocks of forms go and ensure that there was no concerted effort to duplicate the applications, which would show up with the bar codes.
      In terms of the cohesion of the system as a whole, bar codes would enable us to spot patterns if a large block of forms was completed in the same handwriting in a suspicious fashion. We could trace patterns much more easily if each form was observed afterwards as having come from a particular block given to a particular grouping.
      There is no absolute certainty, even with bar codes. A fraudster who was inventive and determined enough could still be responsible for a limited degree of fraud. However, it would get much more difficult as the circumstantial evidence would mount up until the people behind the fraud could be identified and prosecuted.
      If bar codes are not introduced, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that we would be unable to make significant progress. As right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, at present one can use any piece of paper in Northern Ireland or in any election in the United Kingdom with which to apply for a postal vote. When I was a councillor in Newcastle upon Tyne, the incidence of requesting postal votes on anything other than a proprietary form was fairly small. The political parties active in the Newcastle area were assiduous in using the readily available forms from Newcastle council. If we can be sure that honourable individuals and their associated political parties are willing to use these forms at council level, I would like to think that the same would apply to Northern Ireland.
      Sadly, we have just rejected the case for the use of national insurance numbers, which are unique to individuals as right hon. and hon. Members will recall. I fear that we will have to return to that matter in another place. In their absence it makes it even more important that individual absent vote forms are traceable. In that way, we can ensure that forged signatures and so forth can at least be tracked as I described.
      What is the Minister's view of the desirability of tracing individual forms and has it changed since the Committee? If he accepts that there are no logistical or significant costing negatives to introducing bar codes, will
      964
      he at least consider the case that we have put forward and respond in kind to the many hon. Members who are interested in ensuring that each form can be traced?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Trimble: At this stage I wish merely to direct the Minister to the comments that he made in Committee at columns 68 and 70, where he said of having bar codes or some other number on the forms:
      "The chief electoral officer will in future ensure that applications … will be given a unique identifier, be it a serial number or a bar code."
      Evidently the object, as I understand it, is to move to a position where such applications will be processed automatically.
      The Minister went on to say with regard to that processing:
      "I cannot stand in front of the Committee and claim that all of that can be done now, because none of it can be. The purpose of the Bill is … to match the plans for computers and software so that we will reach a point in 2003 when we can interdict the dishonest use of votes".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 68–70.]
      Will the Minister elucidate on whether he is any closer to realising those proposals? Can he assure us that sufficient resources will be provided to ensure that a system in which an individual identifier is put on the application forms is introduced, and that they can be automatically processed by 2003, in time for the next Assembly election?
      Mr. Browne: I can assure the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the resources are available and will be made available as necessary to achieve the objectives that have been set out in the planned programme of change for the introduction of the necessary computers and software in the electoral office. That will enable the very things that I spelled out in Committee, on Second Reading, and today to be done in time for the planned elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly in May 2003. As currently advised, we are still on course to achieve that objective. I intend to consult the parties in Northern Ireland and to find a mechanism to keep them involved in discussions about progress towards that objective.
      We had detailed discussions in Committee about many aspects of absent voting—properly so, as there is clearly great concern about abuse of the electoral system. It is not merely a matter of statistics although, interestingly, when one aggregates the statistical evidence for Northern Ireland, the rate of absent voting is not significantly greater than the overall rate for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is concentrated in certain constituencies. The statistical evidence given us by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is also of some interest, in that there has been no consistent rise in the number of absent votes used in certain constituencies.
      Whatever the explanation for these shifts—perhaps we need not dwell too much on an explanation of why there may have been shifts in individual constituencies—there is well justified concern about the potential offered by the absent voting system for fraud and about evidence that suggests that fraud is being perpetrated by the use of absent votes.
      Apart from that very general concession to the points properly made by contributors to the debate, I shall concentrate on the specific amendments for the remainder

      965
      of my speech. The intended effect of the amendments would be that any individual application for an absent vote would have to be made on an original form provided by the chief electoral officer. It is on that point that I part company with the supporters of the amendments. I believe that the proposals would hinder individuals who wanted to apply for an absent vote.
      As I said in Committee, the current law does not require people anywhere in the UK to apply for absent votes on a particular form. There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of that opportunity has been exploited by anybody intending or attempting to commit fraud in the electoral system anywhere in the United Kingdom.
      In Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the UK, an applicant for an absent vote is required to give the chief electoral officer certain information. Until now, the law has been that it is the information that entitles the applicant to the vote—not the form on which the information is presented. However, it is currently the norm for applications for absent votes in Northern Ireland to be submitted in the main on forms—or copies of forms—that are provided by the chief electoral officer. The chief electoral officer already plans to take administrative measures to ensure that applications for an absent vote will be given some kind of unique identifier—be it a serial number or a bar code—and that can be achieved without either primary or secondary legislation.
      When it comes to tracing to whom the original form was issued, it will not matter if an application for an absent vote was made on an original form or on a photocopy, because the bar code would be copied on the copy. We do not have to insist that all forms are original to find out who took them out of the office. The chief electoral officer has only to record to whom he gave the individual forms. Although electors will not be required to submit their applications on a form from the electoral office, I suspect that it will continue to be the norm for most people to do so. I have no reason to believe that in future there will be a sudden flood of applications on odd bits of paper. However, I am not inclined to remove the possibility that people currently have to make an application in a form other than on an original form or a copy of an original form provided by the chief electoral officer. We live in a democracy and I shall not put into legislation any measures that could disfranchise people.
      Lembit Öpik: In that case, will the Minister explain why he said in the Standing Committee:
      "The chief electoral officer will in future ensure that applications for an absent vote will be given a unique identifier, be it a serial number or a bar code."?—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001: c. 68.]
      Surely that means that if two forms came in with the same bar code they would not be accepted by the electoral officer.
      Mr. Browne: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reads my whole contribution, he will see that I made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion during that Committee debate that it would still be open to parties to copy those forms. Although the form would be unique when it was provided by the chief electoral officer, it would still be open to parties to copy those forms as they do at present.
      Earlier today, I made the point that as long as the original form that is copied includes the bar code it will be possible to identify to whom it was given. As I
      966
      explained in Committee and now repeat, it is not my understanding that the effect of any of the amendments would be that parties would not be able to pick up more than one form from the chief electoral officer. That would defeat the objective of being able to identify to which specific voter a bar-coded form was sent or given. Those who tabled the amendments in the group are not suggesting that parties will not be able to go in and pick up forms in hundreds, or even more, if they are available. In those circumstances, how does amendment No. 3 achieve the objective of making it possible to trace a particular form to an individual voter?
      Lembit Öpik: The Minister makes a fair point. After reading the fuller contribution that he made in Committee, I recall his views on the subject. However, will he at least recognise that there is a difference of view here—on one side a concern that it is easier if each form genuinely is an original, and on the other the argument that he is making—and will he accept my concern that if any photocopying is allowed, it significantly weakens the opportunities to trace voters who exercise absent votes? I do not want to pursue the matter further; I believe that we have both made our points.
      Mr. Browne: I accept the objective that the hon. Gentleman has now set up, but that objective, which the official Opposition may share, could be achieved only by an amendment that required an individual voter to make application individually to the chief electoral officer for a form and to obtain that form from the chief electoral officer, so that in the first place the chief electoral officer knew which voter was asking for the form and could give a bar code to that individual voter.
      Lembit Öpik indicated dissent.
      Mr. Browne: Failing that, those who apply for more than one form will need to have in advance the names of the voters who will use those forms. It seems to me, with respect, that we are in danger of creating a level of bureaucracy in relation to absent votes that will be calculated—I use that word advisedly—to defeat the opportunity for many people to vote, either by proxy or by post.
      Mr. Blunt: There is an issue about the traceability of the forms that are going out from the CEO to individuals. The Minister's argument that the process would be too bureaucratic is well made, and he talks about the opportunity for parties to photocopy the forms and make application on photocopied forms. That in a sense is not, as I understand it, precluded by amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
      The Minister must still address the fact that the reason why at the moment the forms are in pretty much the same format as those issued by the chief electoral officer is that they cannot yet be checked by computer, but by 2003 he wants to be able to computer-check these things. Unless the applications come in on a specified form once the computer-checking is up and running, the whole point of that computer-checking will be negated.
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes my point precisely. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 do not prevent parties from collecting one form from the chief electoral officer and photocopying that form, because that would

      967
      still be a form that had been provided by the chief electoral officer and an application would be made on that form. They are therefore consistent with what we are putting in place administratively, and there is no need for the amendments to achieve the objective that we can achieve administratively.
      The hon. Gentleman is arguing that unless the information is submitted in a format that is identical to the format of every other application, it cannot be checked by the chief electoral officer using a computer. I do not accept that that is necessarily so. In my view, the information provided on the form can be checked against a simple keying process on the computer, but in any event the bulk of the applications will come in—I expect that they will continue to do so—on forms that have been provided by the chief electoral officer and then copied, or on the originals of those forms. The comparatively small number that may arrive in another form will still entitle people to vote. I do not accept that a flood of applications will suddenly come in on odd bits of paper.
      9.30 pm
      The requirement for electors to provide additional identifiers in the registration and in any subsequent application will improve the efforts to authenticate absent vote applications. Applications and declarations of identity will require the elector to provide a signature and a date of birth, and those data can be compared with those that an elector provided on registration. That is how the system will operate, and in the light of those remarks I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Blunt: I shall reply briefly to this short debate, in which we have dealt with absent votes. The Minister has gone round the same course as in Committee, and we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to the issue that I raised in an intervention. The behaviour of parties that want to abuse the process will change when they realise that to avoid automated checking—the position that the Minister wants to reach—they need to supply the information on a large scale on forms other than those issued by the chief electoral officer.
      The Minister is entitled to say that, so far, there has been no suggestion that people will not use the forms, or copies of the forms, produced by the chief electoral officer. Plainly, that is all right at the moment because it is convenient. However, rather than make their own forms, parties that want to abuse the process will give 10,000 applications to the chief electoral officer at the last possible moment, so that he is totally overwhelmed and unable to check them because it has to be done manually. The moment the system is computerised, the way to stop computer-checking will be to ensure that the information is presented on a non-standard form. That opportunity exists, and the House should prevent that loophole from being exploited by parties that might be determined to do so.
      Mr. McGrady: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a question not of identifying the form, per se, but of determining that the form has been returned by the applicant. That will be based on the signature and the date
      968
      of birth identifiers—and, we hope, on the national insurance identification in future—not on the actual piece of paper, so individual application forms need not be bar coded.
      Mr. Blunt: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I think that we agree, but the form must be standard if the signature is to appear in the right place to be read by the computer and then to be cross-referenced to the information on the signature that is held on the register, so that people can check that they are the same. I presume that the same is true for the date of birth, as well as for the name. I imagine that it would be impossible for the computer to read that information if it did not appear in a standard place.
      The Minister has said that a simple keying process would deal with that problem, but manual keying processes should be avoided as far as possible, given that 10,000 application forms may have to be checked at the last moment. The Minister will want to consider the issue further. He has had a fairly rough evening so far and I rely on him to reconsider the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.33 pm
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill has remained largely unchanged since its introduction. [Interruption.] For the edification of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I was merely stating a fact. The Bill will give effect to the proposals in the White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland", and will provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud.
      In recent years, there has been growing concern about the perceived level of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. Electoral fraud is a crime and the Government are determined to combat it wherever it occurs.
      The Bill represents a broadly acceptable, workable and fair set of proposals to combat electoral fraud. It is the culmination of a great deal of work by, and extensive consultation with, the Northern Ireland political parties and the chief electoral officer.
      I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for his work on this issue in his time at the Northern Ireland Office. I also pay tribute to all my former colleagues on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Its report made an important contribution to the thinking behind the Bill, as did the work of other bodies such as the Northern Ireland Forum. However, it should not be a criticism of the Bill that it does not implement all the Select Committee's recommendations.
      The Bill is the result of extensive consultation. When taking measures to prevent electoral fraud, we have to ensure that we do not put obstacles in the path of genuine voters. Only if we do that will the measures that we take be acceptable to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland.

      969
      As I said earlier, the Bill's purpose is to provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud there. In the debate on Second Reading, in meetings with political parties before the Committee Stage and in Committee itself, I have continued to listen carefully to all proposals and suggestions that have been made to me and that hon. Members have argued will improve this Bill.
      I thank colleagues for the hard work that they put into tabling amendments and for the robust and civilised debates that we have had on a wide range of topics. I know that colleagues are as keen as I am to tackle successfully the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.
      We amended the provisions relating to absent voting. Originally, the Bill stated that applications to vote by post or by proxy must be signed and that the signature on the application must correspond with the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration. Now an application for a postal or proxy vote for either an indefinite period or for a particular parliamentary election will have to include an elector's signature and date of birth. Both will have to correspond with the signature and date of birth supplied by the elector on registration. Similarly, a postal ballot paper will have to be signed and an elector will have to state his date of birth or that ballot paper will not be deemed to be duly returned.
      I will continue to reflect on a number of points that hon. Members have made during the Bill's passage and I will consider carefully, with the chief electoral officer, whether those suggestions would help our efforts to combat fraud and improve the electoral system in Northern Ireland.
      I have already indicated my willingness to explore other possible forms of photographic identification that may be used at the polling station. I hope that the Translink smart card, which will be issued to all those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland from April next year, will meet the security requirements that will enable me to add it to the list of specified documents.
      I have written to the political parties in Northern Ireland to ask for their views on whether there might be value in including in the annual canvass form—or any other application to be included on the electoral register in Northern Ireland—a question asking an elector whether they were registered or intended to register at another address. I will continue to explore further ways in which data held by other organisations might be used to combat fraud.
      We will consider all these issues, and others that are suggested to us, carefully and with an open mind. The Bill and other measures that have already been taken by the chief electoral officer respond to calls from within Northern Ireland itself and from parties across the political spectrum.
      The Bill sends a clear signal to those people intent on committing electoral fraud that it is a crime that the Government are determined to combat. We have a duty to protect the electors of Northern Ireland's right to free and fair elections. The Bill does that by countering electoral abuse directly and at every stage of the electoral process. However, we will not prevent genuine voters from making their voices heard.
      Tonight, I have heard people arguing that a strict timetable should be imposed for the implementation of certain features of this Bill, but I hope that they now see
      970
      that such a measure would not necessarily assist the joint aim of interdicting electoral abuse while not preventing genuine voters from making their voices heard.
      I am happy to reassure the House yet again that the measures in the Bill will be implemented as soon as is practicable, and our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification will remain May 2003. However, we will take all the necessary steps to ensure that no one is disfranchised because of the proposals contained in the Bill.
      In all our discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties, we have been constantly reminded of the need to proceed in a careful and considered manner. The Bill has maintained cross-party support thus far because it contains carefully thought-out, workable measures to address the specific problems in the Northern Ireland electoral process. It strikes the right balance between limiting the opportunity for abuse and putting obstacles in the path of genuine voters. I commend it to the House.
      9.40 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister began by saying that the Bill had been largely unchanged since its introduction. That does not merit self-congratulation, let alone complacent self-congratulation; instead, it is of considerable concern to everyone inside and outside the House who cares about how this place works.
      The Government have used their massive majority to override the combined suggestions based on the separate wisdom and experience of every other party in the House, including those from Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland parties rarely find a consensus, but they have this time, and the Government will not listen to them because they have a massive parliamentary majority and do not care. That is shameful. This is not an attractive episode or an edifying moment in Parliament. The phrase that the Minister used should weigh on his conscience.
      I do not think that the Minister is personally responsible for the way in which the legislation has been treated. It is not a case of his being personally arrogant or obtuse; he merely reflects the culture and frame of mind into which the Government have fallen after more than four and a half years of taking for granted a massive parliamentary majority and using a regiment of spin doctors who believe that they can manipulate the press with impunity. They believe that they can close their minds to every other influence and insight that is available and that should be brought to bear in the formulation of legislation. It has not been a good evening for Parliament or the Minister. He was having to thrash around to find excuses for the position that he is forced to defend.
      The first group of amendments dealt with the deadline for introducing photographic identification in Northern Ireland. A deadline is not a matter of principle or even substance; it is an administrative matter. However, the Minister was forced to concede that there were no administrative objections to having a deadline. He said that he had to consult before he could accept the proposal. As the Government consult only on matters of substance and principle, the consultation is immaterial to the acceptance of deadlines. He lost credibility by taking that line.
      We also debated the declaration of multiple addresses when someone chooses to register at different addresses for the purposes of an election. The Minister got out of

      971
      an awkward spot in Committee by promising to consult in time for the debate on Report, but he told us today that he did not have time to consult properly, so he has contradicted himself.
      We also discussed using national insurance numbers to protect against electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. We were told that the Minister took a different view when he was a Back Bencher on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Once again, he has contradicted himself. That is a serious state of affairs, especially for someone in public life and with accountable responsibilities. To manage to contradict oneself twice during the proceedings of the same Bill in the same evening is unfortunate. I can only feel sorry for him, but when he accepted the role of spokesman for a Government who act in such a fashion, he committed himself to suffering those humiliations. None of us feels the same degree of personal sympathy for him as we would for any other human being in similarly invidious circumstances.
      Despite the fact that I sincerely mean everything that I have said so far, I want to end on a serious but positive note. It would be perverse of the Opposition to vote against Third Reading. If we can get a whole loaf of bread, we will take it, but we will accept half, three quarters or one quarter of a loaf if that is all we can get. We shall continue to battle here, in the other place and elsewhere, but for now we will accept the Bill as a positive contribution to the workings of democracy in Northern Ireland.
      The Bill has appeared at a moment of high drama in the Province. Last week, we heard encouraging news of the first act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA. Although there is a constitutional crisis, we hope that it will be resolved this Friday—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are discussing the Bill, not other matters. We cannot go wide of the Bill.
      Mr. Davies: I was only touching briefly on the context in which the Bill will proceed to the other place and thereafter—in an improved form, we hope—on to the statute book.
      Now is an opportune time to reflect on the way in which democracy works in Northern Ireland—its mechanisms and safeguards. We all hope that from the context that I briefly described will emerge a rosier future for democracy, and that people will have greater confidence in the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland and their ability to meet the aspirations of the electorate. Now is a good time to debate such a Bill as this.
      It is obvious that among Northern Ireland's many problems is an unfortunate tradition of electoral abuse and fraud more prevalent than is usual elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland Members on both sides of the House have, with their characteristic frankness and honesty, accepted that fact. It lies with us to do something about it, and we are doing so. We are improving the system, albeit not as fully as we wanted to while the Bill was in the Commons. I believe that today we have made a contribution to improving the prospects for the people of the Province and their public life to which the whole House is strongly attached.
      9.48 pm
      Mr. Trimble: The Bill deals with electoral fraud, so the objective should be to introduce measures to curb electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that fraud exists, nor about some of the ways in which it is perpetrated.
      Toward the end of Committee stage, figures were given on the abnormally high—in relation to other constituencies—number of absent votes cast in certain constituencies in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt, too, that in those constituencies—I have in mind Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid-Ulster and West Tyrone—a significant proportion of the absent votes cast are fraudulent. It is likely that the fraudulent votes in those three constituencies are sufficient to account for the results, and that if we had honest voting and honest elections in Northern Ireland, fewer Sinn Fein Members would be returned to serve here—although, of course, they do not serve here.
      I am sure that if there had been an honest election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Sinn Fein would not have won, and that the person who ought to be and is the true Member of Parliament for that constituency—my colleague Mr. Cooper, who fell victim to the fraud of Sinn Fein, which was assisted by the Democratic Unionist party's choosing to run a candidate in that constituency—would be here tonight.
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) mentioned the election petition that was then outstanding in respect of that case. Of course, the matter could not be pursued because the case was sub judice. Since then, the election court has made its decision, and I want to share with the House just a few phrases that it used about the conduct of the election and of Sinn Fein in that constituency. The judge referred to "extremely reprehensible" incidents. He said that
      "nothing can excuse the scenes of threatening intimidation which took place … Such behaviour"—
      meaning that of Sinn Fein—
      "is the negation of a parliamentary democracy."
      He then referred to the disturbance in St. Martin's school, Garrison, a polling station where votes were cast well after 10 o'clock. The court said that the disturbance was
      "serious and intolerable, but it was an isolated incident".
      That last phrase was accurate in terms of the evidence given to the court, but it is not true. It was not an isolated incident.
      After the election petition was lodged within 21 days, as it had to be, in the first week of August, there was reliable and credible information that voting had continued at the polling station at St. Joseph's primary school, Ederney, for a period of approximately 10 minutes and that one of the police personnel present was prepared to appear in court and confirm it. However, because that information was not available earlier, it could not be included in the election petition, and consequently it could not be presented to the court. There is every reason to believe that if that evidence had been given to the court, the result of the petition would have been different.
      I referred to that incident to bring out two simple points. First, the rules about election petitions inhibit the giving of evidence. Evidence could not be given in that case because the rules were unduly restrictive. Secondly, and more importantly, the information that became

      973
      available after the petition was made should have been available beforehand; it was known to the electoral office, but was not conveyed to anyone. We are considering a Bill on electoral fraud that tries to strengthen the law. The primary responsibility of the electoral office in Northern Ireland ought to be to ensure that the system operates properly and fairly but, disturbingly, when we tried to deal with clear misconduct in the election, our experience was that it was not concerned with bringing out the truth or exposing wrongdoing. It was more concerned with trying to show that everything had been okay and that nothing had really happened. Indeed, its attitude was one of trying to cover up the bad behaviour of Sinn Fein and breaches of electoral law.
      Will the Minister reflect on that? If he likes, we can give him more detail about what happened. Will he consider carefully what measures can be introduced in the Bill to ensure that the electoral office carries out its duties properly and sees its first duty as ensuring that the law is observed? If that means ensuring that information is put into the public domain that assists the making of a petition, the office should do so and not try to cover up matters, which was the approach taken in this case.
      There is an opportunity in another place to strengthen the Bill further. The Minister congratulated himself on the minimal changes that have been made, but he should try to consult the parties properly, listen to what we have to say and introduce proposals that ensure that electoral law is observed properly and that we get honest results. That would be a significant achievement, and the Minister could then congratulate himself.
      9.53 pm
      Lembit Öpik: As I said at the beginning of the Committee stage, in my many years as Liberal Democrat Northern Ireland spokesperson, I have seen Ministers come and go, each more brilliant than the last. Looking at the Minister, I can honestly say that I see a very nice man. Frustratingly, however, he does not listen. As other Members have said, I heard him congratulate himself on the fact that the Bill has changed very little; that made me think of an iron fist in a velvet glove, frightening Labour Back Benchers into supporting things which, if they had reflected for a moment, they would not have supported.
      In the Chamber, the majorities in votes on this matter have been large, but in Committee, many Divisions were nine votes against eight. In terms of political parties, the Minister was losing votes by five parties to one on many of the arguments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the point that cross-community support has been garnered for many ideas which the Government have rejected. As a consequence, the Bill will not be as good as it could have been with the benefit of that input.
      With regard to national insurance numbers, the Minister once again failed to justify his refusal to adopt the proposals made by so many people and so many parties. We had a debate on bar codes, then he had the audacity to say that we should now see that our proposals were unhelpful, but his arguments were not particularly robust. On time scale, his desire for flexibility made him inflexible in dealing with our proposals. Any business would set a time scale and regard that as a proactive gesture that would focus the team to achieve the launch date that had been outlined.
      974
      I have learned a great deal in the debate. I have learned that although she challenged me on whether I know my national insurance number, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) knows hers by heart. I hope that the shame that she must now feel will cause her to encourage the Minister to think again. I have learned that our winning some of the arguments was insufficient to cause the Minister to think again. That is a matter of concern. I have also learned that there is cross-party support for the essence of the Bill. On occasions, that cross-party support, at least on the Floor of this House, has not been sufficient to convince the Minister to think again.
      On balance, the Bill is good, but it could be even better. On balance, the Bill will have an impact, but not the full impact that it could have had with those further proposals. There is work to be done in another place, and no doubt the Government will be challenged on some of the familiar territory that we covered in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I congratulate the Minister on his ever-patient and ever-pleasant demeanour. In the words of Arnie Schwarzenegger, "We'll be back."
      9.57 pm
      Mr. McGrady: This is an important Bill to eradicate the scourge that has persisted for many years in the democratic system in Northern Ireland. It could have gone a wee bit further, but it is difficult to achieve a compromise between securing the integrity of the voter and not preventing legitimate voters from exercising their right. We will revisit many of these matters.
      I do not agree with the Minister's comment at the start that no change has been made during the passage of the Bill. There may be no change in the wording of the Bill, but the Official Report of the Committee and the debate tonight is riddled with promises and undertakings, which the Minister will have to live up to, after he persuaded us to withdraw our amendments. We will hold him to that.
      I offer the Minister, his predecessor and their current and past staff a great deal of thanks for the many, many hours of consultation that they gave us and other parties. However, the Minister did not take on board the fact that we and other parties in Northern Ireland had a unity of purpose and a unity of mind that were unique. He should have grasped the historic moment when it was available to him.
      9.58 pm
      Mr. Nigel Dodds: This has been an important debate on an important Bill. I am only sorry that despite the many promises that were made by the Government and the previous Government to bring the matter to the Floor of the House sooner, and the consultation that was carried out, we have had to wait until now for the Bill to appear. We may need such legislation much sooner than envisaged in view of some of comments about the Assembly elections that are due in May 2003. Many people in Northern Ireland would welcome that prospect.
      It is important that as well as new legislation to strengthen provisions against fraud, the necessary resources are made available to the chief electoral officer. We may have new provisions, but if we do not have the resources to implement them, we will be no better off.

      975
      Lack of resources for the chief electoral officer has been one of the problems in tackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. One of the things that has struck me—
      It being 10 o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [10 July].
      Question agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Third time, and passed.

  DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Ian Stewart be discharged from the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform and Mr. Dai Havard be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  Civil Service (Maladministration)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: In this short debate, I wish to concentrate most of my remarks on one example of maladministration in the civil service: the Government's regulation of Equitable Life. I want to comment on the welcome decision of the parliamentary ombudsman to begin his investigation and I also wish to address issues of financial compensation.
  When I first wrote to you on 17 October, Mr. Speaker, seeking this debate, it was immediately after publication of the Financial Services Authority report on the review of the Equitable Life Assurance Society from 1 January 1999 to 8 December 2000. That report disclosed clear prima facie evidence of maladministration by the regulator. I intended to use this debate to examine the decision that the ombudsman had communicated to all MPs in September, which was that he did not intend to investigate until after publication of the Penrose inquiry. Fortunately, that is no longer necessary following the ombudsman's announcement on Monday evening.
  It is worrying that the ombudsman seems to have been given the impression by the Government when they announced the establishment of the Penrose inquiry in August that they were not going to publish the FSA report until after Penrose had reported in the second half of 2002. However, I do not blame the ombudsman, because I suspect that he was the victim of Government spin and that the Government intended not to publish the FSA report until after Penrose but then had to change tack in the light of pressure from the Opposition, the engineering union and other union interests to which they sometimes listen.
  I am delighted that the parliamentary ombudsman reconsidered his position when the FSA report was published and that he has now announced the terms of his independent inquiry, which are set out in his letter of 29 October to all MPs. The ombudsman's announcement came shortly before the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury. Naturally, the members of that Committee pressed her on the issue of redress for policyholders. After considerable prevarication—I quote not the official record, which is not yet available, but today's press—the Minister eventually said:
  "If the Ombudsman reports that an injustice has been carried out to policy holders, then of course it is something we will look at."
  Today's newspaper headlines went much further: "Treasury boosts hopes for Equitable payout", said The Guardian; "Treasury may help victims of Equitable", said the Daily Mail; and "Minister to consider redress for policy holders", said the Financial Times.
  The Financial Secretary's statement to the Committee was a very welcome advance on the answer that she gave to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 15 October. He had asked whether the Government would
  "establish a scheme to compensate policyholders of Equitable Life for losses sustained by them as a result of regulatory failure."
  The Minister replied:
  "We have no plans to do so."—[Official Report. 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 850W.]

  977
  However, she did not offer policyholders anything yesterday that went beyond that which she is required to do under the Treasury's own rules on financial compensation for redress where it is recommended by the parliamentary ombudsman.
  I shall quote some of the key paragraphs of the rules set out in the Treasury's own document, "Government Accounting 2000", at chapter 18, which is entitled "Losses and Special Payments". Paragraph 18.7.4 states:
  "The question of whether financial redress should he paid may arise (a) as a result of a recommendation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman following investigation of a complaint referred by a Member of Parliament".
  Paragraph 18.7.5 states:
  "If the Department concerned accepts that maladministration has occurred and that financial redress is appropriate, the general principle should be to provide redress which is fair and reasonable in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case".
  Paragraph 18.7.24 states:
  "Claims for compensation may arise on grounds other than actual financial loss or costs. These include the following …
  (d) Compensation for the loss of a physical or financial asset, or a reduction in its value: an example might be where it is claimed that the department had failed to carry out a regulatory function properly or that its action or inaction had resulted in the creation of a false market."
  Obviously, that is the paragraph under which the policyholders who will be seeking redress for maladministration will be looking.
  Paragraph 18.7.27 states:
  "Claims arising under 18.7.24d are likely to be particularly contentious and the amounts speculative. Such cases are therefore particularly difficult, potentially very repercussive and should be approached with particular care. If financial redress is felt to be justified, the approach might be a payment in general recognition of the detriment suffered as a result of official failure rather than to put the complainant into the position it is argued he or she might have been if the official failure had not occurred. Such a position is inevitably highly uncertain."
  The paragraphs that I have quoted should ring alarm bells among policyholders who may have had their hopes raised by some of the headlines in today's papers. I hope that the Minister will be able to state clearly and unequivocally that if the independent parliamentary ombudsman recommends financial redress, the Treasury will pay up. Otherwise, people will rightly think that the compensation regime for maladministration is grossly asymmetrical with the penalty regimes operated by the Treasury and by the Financial Services Authority.
  As ever, the Treasury is quick to take but slow to give. By way of an example, this week we have seen reports that the FSA has imposed fines on Prudential amounting to £650,000. That money is to be taken from the with-profits fund of Prudential and will go straight to the Treasury. It is extraordinary that the burden is being borne by the with-profits fund of Prudential rather than by the shareholders, but that is a separate issue. That £650,000 will go straight to the Treasury as a penalty.
  Every day, individual taxpayers and VAT-registered businesses pay fines and penalties imposed by the revenue-collecting arms of the Treasury. Surely the least the Treasury can do is to accept that where its own maladministration leads to loss, those losses should be met in full.
  Another example of asymmetry came out before the Select Committee on the Treasury. The Economic Secretary, when asked a series of questions about what
  978
  the Treasury had been doing in relation to Equitable Life in 1998, said that all the papers relating to that period had been passed on to the Financial Services Authority as part of the service level agreement, and that she did not have the information to enable her to give an answer. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that we are required by the Inland Revenue to keep our tax records going back seven years. It is a pity that those same rules do not seem to apply to the Treasury itself, so that when the Economic Secretary is asked questions, she has the resources to enable her to answer them.
  The next aspect on which I hope the Minister can help is the time scale for the investigation by the parliamentary ombudsman. We are told that the average time that it takes to carry out an investigation is 43 weeks. That is for an average case. In the case of Equitable Life—where the issues are complex and the potential compensation very significant—the time scale could be far longer. The parliamentary ombudsman is so far limiting his investigation to the period from 1 January 1999 to 8 December 2000. I hope that he will extend that period in both directions.
  Nobody, least of all those policyholders who took out policies in 1999 and 2000, would want a decision on their cases to be delayed because of the limited resources of the ombudsman. That is why the Government—indeed the Treasury—should give the ombudsman all the resources he needs to do his job. Last year, the ombudsman had his second-highest work load ever and, from my constituency correspondence and my experience of rapidly plummeting standards of administration under this Government, I know that this year's referrals could be at an all-time high. Individual learning accounts, naturalisation, attendance allowance, war pensions, the Public Guardianship Office, housing benefit administration, foot and mouth, the Valuation Office; all of those feature in my constituency case load.
  I do not believe that a Member of Parliament's role should be that of an expensive progress chaser for Government Departments. Surely our proper role should be to scrutinise policy and legislation. In all the years that I have been in the House, we have never been so overloaded with routine administration affecting our constituents. I spoke informally to the Minister earlier about a constituency case that has involved one problem after another. I hope that, if nothing else, he will be able to tell me that that has been sorted out and that such a case will not arise again.
  The parliamentary ombudsman is understandably concerned about overlap of effort between his investigations and the work of Lord Penrose, but it is becoming clear that the Treasury neither expects nor wants the latter to apportion blame or consider issues of redress. Yesterday in the Treasury Committee, the Economic Secretary used the words:
  "If Lord Penrose decides that issues of compensation are within his terms of reference".
  She spoke as if she had not given him those terms of reference in the first place. Why did the Government specifically not instruct him to investigate allegations of maladministration and consider compensation?
  Yesterday, the Economic Secretary even made the ludicrous suggestion that individual policyholders might take legal action against the regulators? Was she serious, one asks. It was pointed out to her that from the end of

  979
  November it will not even be possible to sue the Financial Services Authority for negligence unless it can be established that there has been bad faith. The Government are putting this regulator beyond the law, and in so doing they are making the role of the parliamentary ombudsman even more crucial.
  In my submission, one key issue that Lord Penrose and the ombudsman need to address is the letter issued by the Treasury insurance directorate on 18 December 1998. That guidance letter endorses Equitable's decision to seek to solve its problems by charging the costs of the guaranteed annuities to the with-profits bonuses of clients without guaranteed annuities. That was clearly a high-risk policy, given that there were two separate contracts covering with-profits bonuses and guaranteed annuities. Had the Equitable board decided in 1998 to follow a similar course of action to other mutuals with guaranteed annuity problems, such as Scottish Widows and Clerical Medical, its policyholders would now be substantially better placed.
  While Scottish Widows and Clerical Medical decided to sell out to a major financial group capable of standing behind their businesses, the Equitable board decided not to do that. To what extent was that because of the Treasury guidance, which remained in place until it was suspended on 20 July 2000? It remained on the Treasury website right up to that date.
  The 1 January 1999 start date for the period being examined by the parliamentary ombudsman seems increasingly artificial. The same people were regulating Equitable Life in 1998 and 1999, but from different locations. It must surely make sense to widen the ombudsman's area of inquiry.
  I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will look into the following specific issues that have been raised with me by policyholders. They are only some of many. Is it right that the Personal Investment Authority ombudsman should refuse to deal with complaints of mis-selling, as there may now be a compromise? The person who raised that with me invested almost £500,000 in Equitable during and mainly towards the end of 1999. He was assured by the Equitable Life field representative that he need do nothing to protect or preserve his investment. He wants his case considered by the PIA ombudsman. Does the Minister think that a reasonable request?
  Is it right that the FSA should be giving no advice to individual policyholders about whether to accept a compromise? Is the FSA certain that, in the event of a compromise being accepted by the policyholders, Equitable Life will be able to withstand large class actions alleging general mis-selling of with-profits policies, brought by those who have left the society? Unless there is some certainty about that, even if the compromise is accepted, Equitable Life might go into insolvency.
  What is the Minister doing about all those civil service pensioners who made investments under the civil service additional voluntary contribution scheme when one arm of Government, at least, knew that there were serious problems with solvency at Equitable Life?
  One civil service pensioner has written to tell me that, as late as October 2000, Equitable Life was described in the relevant Home Office notice as a leading life
  980
  assurance company. The Home Office permanent secretary told him that when his inquiry was raised with the Cabinet Office, as managers of the civil service AVC scheme, the reply was:
  "It would be wrong and inappropriate to seek to provide information on the basis that the Cabinet Office or employing Departments are in some way entitled to privileged information that is not available to the pensions industry more generally. There is a clear difference between the role of the Cabinet Office as managers of the civil service AVC scheme and the regulatory role carried out elsewhere in Government."
  That may well be so, but—and this goes to the heart of the matter—why did the regulator keep to himself information that should have been shared with policyholders and investors?
  The latest annual report of the parliamentary ombudsman highlights his concern at
  "the length of time it takes Departments to respond to inquiries and to the statement of complaint which is the preliminary to an investigation, and also to resolve issues, especially issues of redress, after we have sent them a draft report on our investigation."
  Paragraph 1.9 of his annual report says:
  "Among my own concerns is that Departments are putting increasing burdens upon citizens (for example, through self-assessment of income tax) with severe penalties if those burdens are not discharged, while allowing themselves generous periods of time to carry out their own functions and with perhaps only token redress if they overstep those periods".
  What guarantee can the Minister give that the Treasury will co-operate enthusiastically with the ombudsman's inquiry, and that the ombudsman will be allocated sufficient resources to enable him to reach proper conclusions within a reasonable time scale?
  I shall stop there, because otherwise the Minister will not have time to respond. However, this is an extremely complex subject, and I hope that he will lobby his colleagues to ensure that we can have a fuller debate on it in Government time soon.
  10.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The title of this evening's debate is extremely broad, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on securing parliamentary time on the subject of maladministration in the civil service—a big area to investigate. I welcome the opportunity to present the Government's views to the House.
  The process of scrutiny of public service delivery often involves criticism of policy, and the assertion of different opinions and views. However, it is important at the outset to distinguish between a debate on the merits or otherwise of a particular policy, and the examination of whether a given policy has been effectively executed and administered.
  Parliament has a long tradition of holding the Executive to account for administrative shortcomings, and in many ways this is as valuable as scrutinising changes in policy. Maladministration, whenever it occurs, can not only tarnish the reputation of public services in general, but cause harm and disadvantage to individual consumers, taxpayers and citizens. It is therefore vital that administrative systems are sufficiently robust and well conceived to prevent, or lessen the likelihood of, failures.

  981
  I shall touch on the existing methods by which complaints of administrative failings can be pursued, and also briefly on how the Government are working to improve both complaints procedures and the capabilities of the civil service in general.
  First, however, the hon. Gentleman may find it helpful if I address specifically the points that he raised, focusing primarily on Equitable Life. I would like to express my sympathy for all the Equitable Life policyholders who have been affected by recent events. My colleagues in government and I fully understand the distress and anger that they feel. Equitable Life raises important issues that deserve consideration by a full independent inquiry, and that is why, as hon. Members will know, my hon. friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced on 31 August that such an inquiry had been set up under Lord Penrose.
  The inquiry will consider what lessons can be drawn for the conduct, administration and regulation of the life assurance industry. We recognise that it is important that lessons are learned from what has happened. The inquiry will allow us to do that, and Lord Penrose's terms of reference will enable him to consider events from all angles. They are:
  "To enquire 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 learned for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business: and to give a report thereon to Treasury Ministers."
  It is clear that the problems at Equitable date back many years. By virtue of its wide-ranging remit, Lord Penrose's inquiry will be able to look back as far as necessary to ascertain the origin of the problems and investigate those issues that he thinks have a bearing on the subject regardless of where and when they arose. In particular, he will be able to look carefully into the actions of Equitable itself, the regulators and other key players over the years. We expect Lord Penrose to report in the second half of next year.
  I understand that the investigation that the parliamentary ombudsman has announced will be limited to looking at the actions of the Financial Services Authority between 1 January 1999, when the FSA took over responsibility for regulation, and 8 December 2000, when Equitable closed to new business. The Government and the FSA will, of course, co-operate fully with the parliamentary ombudsman's investigation into the regulation of Equitable Life. I shall have more to say later about the parliamentary ombudsman, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have the resources at his disposal to conduct an efficient and effective inquiry.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of compensation following any conclusions by the ombudsman. It does not make any sense to anticipate the findings of the investigation, but if the ombudsman were to make such a recommendation the Government would consider it carefully. The hon. Gentleman raised several other specific issues connected with Equitable Life and the FSA which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary.
  Mr. Chope: Does the Minister understand that the Penrose inquiry has a remit to consider issues of maladministration by the regulator and issues of compensation and redress? The Economic Secretary
  982
  yesterday was ambivalent on those points. If there is doubt about whether the terms of reference go that far, will he put pressure on the Economic Secretary to ensure that Lord Penrose has a specific remit to include those issues in his inquiry?
  Mr. Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those are primarily matters for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, but my understanding is that Lord Penrose's remit is broad and he will be able to consider several specific issues. In the course of his inquiry, I am sure that he will address many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the specific case of a constituent of his. I am grateful for the notice of that issue that he was able to give me earlier today. It is a complicated case and I shall try to give a brief outline. I understand that an appeal was due to have been heard by the War Pensions Appeal Tribunal on 6 October 1998, but that that hearing was adjourned because the pensioner concerned had presented several new pieces of evidence and the chairman wished to give the War Pensions Agency the opportunity to consider them.
  Because of the complexity of the associated medical issues, the agency took some time to consider the new evidence carefully. In parallel, the appeal hearing was rearranged for 27 October 1999, but was postponed at the request of the pensioner concerned. A new date was set but the hearing had to be adjourned, again at the request of the pensioner concerned. In the interim, the pensioner lodged a separate appeal, on different grounds, but the hearing on that had to be adjourned because the War Pensions Agency had not provided full documentation to the tribunal. I understand that the agency's chief executive has apologised for that omission. He did, however, take steps to ensure that full documentation was available to the tribunal when it heard both of the appeals on 10 July 2001. The tribunal's decision was reserved, but the pensioner concerned has now been sent a copy of its decision.
  I have been assured that the hon. Gentleman will receive a direct response in the near future to the particular points he raised with the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  I come now to the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. Most public services have well developed complaints procedures, through which members of the public can pursue a grievance of maladministration and seek redress. Increasing numbers of organisations follow consumer-oriented policies, and the Government must be no exception to this.
  Progressively, many more public services consult their users and publish the standards of service that they aim to achieve. By accepting the principle that people who use services have a right to information and a right to complain, the public sector is endeavouring to focus on achieving greater consumer satisfaction.
  It is clear that more work needs to be done, but proper handling of complaints is central to the Government's programme to modernise and improve public services, and greater responsiveness to people's needs is a key objective. There are also a number of statutory bodies through which the public may raise complaints even if internal departmental complaints processes have been exhausted without satisfaction. The Parliamentary

  983
  Commissioner for Administration—normally known as the parliamentary ombudsman—is such a body, and assesses claims from members of the public who complain that they have suffered injustice because of maladministration by Government Departments or certain other public bodies. The ombudsman also deals with complaints about problems in obtaining access to official information.
  The ombudsman is independent of Government and is not a civil servant. He is an Officer of the House of Commons, appointed by Her Majesty, and reports directly to Parliament. Complaints to him are confidential. His investigations are private, and he does not charge for his services. At present, complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman must be made through a Member of Parliament.
  In general, the term "maladministration" is taken to mean poor administration, or the incorrect application of rules. For example, maladministration can usually include avoidable delay, faulty procedures or failing to follow correct procedures, and the term can also include the failure to tell individuals about any rights of appeal that they might have. It can cover unfairness, bias or prejudice, the giving of advice that is misleading or inadequate, and the refusal to answer reasonable questions. Covered too by the term are discourtesy, the failure to apologise properly for errors and mistakes in handling claims, and not offering an adequate remedy where one is due.
  The ombudsman does not investigate complaints that are about Government policy or the content of legislation. Policy is for the Government to determine, and legislation is for Parliament to decide. Criminal investigations, the decisions of courts and public service personnel matters are also outside the remit of the ombudsman
  In 1999, following representations from the members of the ombudsman's office, we announced a review to determine whether the present arrangements were in the best interest of complainants and others. That was against a background of moves towards more integrated public services, and an increasing focus on the needs of the people and organisations that use these services.
  984
  The review team consulted widely and its report was published in April 2000. We published a consultation paper on the report a few months later. In July this year, I announced that the Government's conclusions would respond to the consultation paper. We were satisfied that there was broad support for the review's main conclusions, and that we would therefore replace the existing arrangements with a more unified and flexible ombudsman body for central Government, local government and the national health service, other than NHS pensions. In due course, we will publish proposals for the precise powers and accountability of the new body—to which the public will have direct access—and on whether its jurisdiction should be extended beyond the bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the existing ombudsmen.
  The effective design and specification of administrative systems to deliver Government policies is crucial, and there is a constant process of learning the lessons from the mistakes of the past. Clearly, Ministers have always relied heavily on the capabilities of the civil service to ensure that policies are implemented effectively, efficiently, transparently and fairly. In order to improve the capacity of the civil service to deliver improved outcomes for the public at large, a reform programme is under way, building on the firm foundations of the impartial and competent service that has served the nation so well for so long.
  Under-achievement and poor performance can be tackled in a number of ways and it is clear that the parliamentary ombudsman, Parliament and the Government's reform programme all have a part to play. There have been many examples of maladministration in the past. Although we all strive to ensure that the machinery of service delivery is as perfect as possible, there will no doubt be problems in the future as well. The best that we can do is to try as hard as possible to improve our systems, learn from the past, and reform and modernise public services so that they match as closely as possible the aspirations and needs of the people whom we all represent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

London Magistrates Courts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Mr. Edward Davey: A colleague once accused me of asking for debates on obscure matters, because I led consecutive debates on inflation indices, hedonic pricing, volunteering and time banks. My colleague was spot on, if the lack of prior outside representation on those subjects was anything to go by. That charge cannot be made today, because the debate has sparked an almost alarming number of representations from external bodies. I thank them, and everyone who has provided me with helpful briefings; I do not think that I can do justice to them all.
I asked for the debate because many of my constituents are concerned about Kingston magistrates court. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman on London, I am aware that the issue is London wide, and I am not surprised that Members from all parties are here today to raise concerns about their constituencies, and the impact that the issues may have on the capital. The representations that I have received show the urgent need for debate on the future of London magistrates courts. Ministers must heed the representations because a political storm is brewing that may soon wash up on the shores of Whitehall.
The combination of recent Government policy initiatives and proposals could produce drastic changes in the bedrock of London's legal system, the magistracy. In a few years' time we could wake up to realise that we had undermined something precious because we did not realise its true value. I shall give a flavour of the changes that London magistrates courts face with three examples of recent initiatives and proposals. First, last April, the administration of London's 22 former magistrates courts was centralised under the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority. That was a major administrative change.
Secondly, GLMCA has introduced a wide-ranging consultation on London's 40 magistrates courthouses, which covers everything from which courthouses are to close, to whether the post of justices' clerk should be widely maintained. Thirdly, a recent review of the criminal courts of England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld proposed a unified criminal court system, including a new district division consisting of a district judge and two experienced magistrates. There are many other proposals that would have an impact on London's magistrates courts.
The GLMCA consultation is not yet complete, and the Auld review is not yet published, but if all such changes were combined, their extent would be huge. The changes exercise the minds of court staff, magistrates, lawyers and many others. Many worry about how the changes add up; they worry not just for themselves,
252WH
but for the nature and quality of London's justice system, the prime task of which is to serve the people of London, our constituents. The democratic arm of government should focus on the scale of what could happen to the legislative arm of London. We must question such changes and demand explanations from the Government.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), to take careful stock of the changes, and proceed with considerable caution. Many of the changes should be prevented or altered before the political die is cast.
The GLMCA has been something of a success story. That may surprise hon. Members and those who read the report of the debate. Some people see the GLMCA as the cause of all their woes. However, some of what it has been doing is quite good and the administrative change has yielded dividends.
Hon. Members may have examples of the new authority's teething problems, but since its creation earlier this year, the GLMCA has done at least two things that bode well for the future. The authority provides a better focus for much-needed co-ordination of London's criminal justice system, bringing together the top management of the different arms of London's criminal justice system. The chief executive of the GLMCA now regularly meets senior managers from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and others throughout London, and that is producing some good results. It has reduced delays in dealing with persistent young offenders, and has breathed new life into London's criminal justice board.
A range of cross-agency initiatives is under way to crack some of the perennial problems affecting London's criminal justice system. There are, for example, ideas for improving the enforcement and collection of fines, extending court hours, and, beyond that, for improving the co-ordination of spreading best practice. We should welcome those initiatives.
The GLMCA is already making better use of its capital assets before the conclusion of the widespread consultation on its document. Individual magistrates courts committees had squirreled away courts' assets in case they might need them. By taking a more strategic view, the GLMCA can decide not to buy a car park or a building that it does not need and that is not fundamental to the operation of the court, and to recycle the money instead.
Richard Ottaway: Is it not the case that the people best placed to decide how a car park should be used are in the local courts, and not in a body that is a long way away and is insensitive to the local requirements?
Mr. Davey: It is possible that local people should have a role in such decisions, although I understand that the GLMCA is at least consulted. The hon. Gentleman would surely agree that sometimes court committees and local authorities have held on to capital assets unnecessarily. I stress that the assets in question are not fundamental to the operation of the magistrates courts and are not core to the function of the justice system. There is a case for better use of assets, and the GLMCA is making that case well.

253WH
I do not want to wax too lyrical about such achievements—these are early days—but they show that there are huge potential benefits from the relatively minor reform of establishing the GLMCA. Ministers should focus on that success and on the potential from that reform without proceeding too rapidly with some of the other ideas that are being proposed, about which I will be more critical.
The tome "Delivery of summary justice in Greater London: the GLMCA's strategy" was launched last June. It has provoked much sound and fury throughout the capital, which does not surprise me. I was taken aback when I read the executive summary—a thinner volume—as were the local magistrates in Kingston, mainly because some of the options included either a partial or even a full-scale massacre of the capital's courtrooms. The options would imply the total demolition of the idea of local justice in London. Local justice is important, and not for sentimental reasons, nor because that is the way we have always done it. Local justice means justice that is as accessible to low-income citizens as it is to the better off, and where local magistrates understand the local area.
The document's more extreme proposals, which attack the very notion of local justice, seem unlikely to go much further. Indeed, it seemed that at the time of publication—and certainly on reflection—some of those proposals were included as Aunt Sallies, intended to draw fire and tease out the arguments. My research has reinforced that impression. In debating the future of London's magistrates courts, we should not focus on that document. The situation has moved on significantly and most courthouses in the capital are likely to survive the exercise. That might be welcome news for some hon. Members.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department may be able to enlighten the House about the current state of play, although I expect that he is waiting until the GLMCA advances its conclusions later this year. The GLMCA is listening to many representations, and closures may prove to be more limited than some expect.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. He has obviously researched the subject carefully. Has he come to any preliminary conclusion about the number of courts that will remain in London when the reform process is over? Currently, there are 40 and, as I understand it, 29 may be closed, although it may be fewer. Does the hon. Gentleman have a figure in mind?
Mr. Davey: Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure. The GLMCA will meet on 21 November for consultation in the light of Lord Justice Auld's report, so it has not yet reached a final decision. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to suggest a figure because no one knows of such a figure. It is certainly my view that the number of closures will be small.
The need for this debate follows on from what the hon. Gentleman said. We cannot be sure that my research is correct. It is possible that more courts may be
254WH
closed than has been suggested to me, which is why I wanted to have the debate. The democratic arm of government should make it clear to the GLMCA and the Minister that we will strongly oppose a major closure programme. When the GLMCA makes its recommendations, I hope that it will take this debate into account. I hope that the GLMCA executive will ensure that all authority members receive a copy of the debate so that they can read what we, as elected representatives, have to say about London's justice system.
Mr. John Horam: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the uncertainty that he describes about the number of courts in London is not a good example of joined-up government? There are at least three initiatives: the Auld committee, the GLMCA and the proposals for fewer courts. That is exactly what we do not want in the provision of justice for London.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the combination of all those initiatives and proposals is causing huge uncertainty and great anxiety.
We must consider some of the details in the strategic consultation document. The argument for larger closure programmes is predicated on the idea that there is massive overcapacity in London's courtrooms. That is the basis of the policy consultation and many aspects of policy in the Lord Chancellor's Department. We must challenge the proposition that there is huge overcapacity. Currently, it is believed that there is 30 per cent. too much courtroom space in London, which is also a national average figure. The Lord Chancellor's Department is demanding that authorities such as the GLMCA cut that overcapacity by one third by the end of next year, which means selling off 10 per cent. of the estate by the end of 2002. That is worrying as we cannot be sure about that overcapacity, especially if one third is to be removed in one year. Let us remember that London performs well in not leaving courtrooms empty. In the capital, we use our courtrooms well, especially compared with other areas and the Crown courts. For example, in the last quarter, London was almost 16 per cent. above the national average in courtroom utilisation, and only three percentage points lower than the very best.
We must factor in the need for spare capacity. Sometimes courts are busier than at other times, and we need to ensure that peaks can be dealt with. We must also factor into the analysis that capacity should not be measured simply by courtrooms. What about interview rooms, custody suites and witness rooms, for example? They should be part of a capacity analysis.
We need to remember that we want to improve the quality of justice. We have initiatives such as the London magistrates court witness service, which is promoted by, among others, Victim Support for London and the Government. In trying to secure better courtroom facilities for witnesses, that new service is already absorbing some spare capacity, even before new training facilities and more refreshment facilities, for example, are considered. Some of that space could be absorbed in other ways.
We should also remember that a courtroom sometimes stands empty for reasons entirely outside the court's control. Perhaps the failure of the CPS is

255WH
involved, perhaps a witness fails to turn up, or perhaps London's chronic shortage of probation officers means that proceedings cannot continue. Whatever the reason, the courtroom will be empty due to reasons beyond the court's control. Does that count as overcapacity? When consultants talk of overcapacity, I am reminded of what happened more than a decade ago in the national health service, when consultants' calculations told us that there were too many expensive beds throughout the NHS in London, and bed numbers were slashed. We have still not recovered from that.
I urge members of the GLMCA and the Minister to examine closely the figures for overcapacity. The Lord Chancellor's Department and those at Marylebone road should question the figures and data sources, ask for definitions and cross-check the findings. Those who take major decisions based on those figures should ensure that they analyse them properly.
Linda Perham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to move on to this point. If spare capacity exists, could it not be used by other agencies? The court in my constituency lets out space to the Inland Revenue—I do not know for what purpose. It might be used for tribunals, for example.
Mr. Davey: I had not considered that. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. What she and I are saying boils down to the fact that the GLMCA should not be rushed into a massive closure programme and the Minister should give it directions to that effect.
There is another major reason why the GLMCA should be ultra cautious about proceeding with rationalisation. The Minister may want to provide some assurance on this, but as far as I know, the Government have given no public assurance that the GLMCA will be able to retain the financial savings derived from closing courtrooms. That is surprising, as surely only one sensible argument could support the sale of a courthouse given the inevitable negative effect on local justice in the area—the possibility that the funds could be recycled, freed up and ploughed back into other magistrates courts, to refurbish them and pay for a modernisation programme that raised the overall quality of justice for London. However, if we do not know that the GLMCA can keep the capital receipts, that argument does not get off the ground. Let us make no mistake: usual Treasury practice is to claw back such money in some way or other. Unless Ministers can guarantee publicly, preferably today, that the Treasury is not about to mount a smash-and-grab raid on London's public legal system, the GLMCA should not be conned.
I know that the Minister is widely regarded as helpful and accommodating on the matter, so I do not mean to slight his intentions. In many ways, my arguments focus on another Department. However, I hope that he understands the crucial point that, without a promise that 100 per cent. of realised capital can be retained for reinvestment, with no hidden penalties or grant regime, the GLMCA would, on financial grounds, be foolish to undertake more than a limited estate rationalisation. It would hardly be outrageous of the GLMCA to request that. This year, its budget represented a cash freeze, so it is hardly imposing extra costs on the Government. Frankly, it would be reasonable for the GLMCA to ask
256WH
not only for such a guarantee, but for an above-inflation settlement in the new comprehensive spending review, at least for the early years, because it is often important to invest up-front in order to make savings down the line. I will listen closely to the Minister's remarks on that particular point, and I hope that he will reassure us.
I return to the details of the GLMCA's consultation document and, for a moment, I will be parochial and argue the case for Kingston's magistrates court. In the document, Kingston is one of 18 courthouses included for closure in option D, and is mentioned in option C as a possible additional closure within the so-called "moderate rationalisation" option.
The closure of Kingston's magistrates court would be a serious mistake. It would affect not only Kingston, but the wider London magistrates network. Kingston may have a relatively small court, but it is a good, efficient performer. I pay special tribute to the justices' clerk, Andrew Vickers, and his dedicated staff for their hard work over the years, which has been central to that excellent performance. I also mention the work of the chairman of the bench, Dr. Alan Vincent, and his fellow magistrates who have contributed to the performance.
Small can be beautiful, and can help to make justice more accessible. I have attended open days at the Kingston courts when schoolchildren are shown how the courts work and are shown mock trials. That may seem a minor example, but it is just one instance of how a locally minded bench can be proactive in its work with the local community. It can promote active citizenship and, in a roundabout way, contribute to crime prevention.
Kingston's case, however, is based on much more than efficiency. The court's location is in the centre of town, next to the police station. That is a real advantage. It is extremely easy for local people to access, and professionals are on hand, whether they are the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. Moreover, south-west London's probation service is just across the bridge. Therefore, the courtroom is more convenient than others.
Kingston's court is a unique case. Its closure would not yield capital receipt because the local council owns the courtrooms and the administration headquarters is leased. Yes, there would be savings on staff costs, but they would be small because the court is relatively small. Therefore, there is a weak financial case for closing Kingston's court. Moreover, there is room for expansion because the council has already designated a site immediately adjacent to the court's entrance. Building there could modernise the overall facilities and reduce total leasing costs.
Finally, the GLMCA must think of its public duty. The courts are in a grade 2 listed building, within the Kingston old town conservation area. They are in the basement of the Kingston guildhall, which is a neo-Georgian building that was built in 1954 and designed by Maurice Webb. The courts are in good condition and retain their original layout and fixtures. Our court building is of significant historical and architectural value. As the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) will recall from his days with English Heritage, that means that if the GLMCA closes the court, it will be

257WH
extremely difficult for consent to be granted for the existing courtroom fittings to be stripped out, or even significantly altered. However, there is a much greater chance that permission would be granted for enhancements to the building that develop its historical usage.
Kingston council would be left with a costly white elephant that could, at best, serve as an expensive storeroom, and would require assistance from the Minister's colleagues in local government. Alternatively, and more cost-effectively, the GLMCA could include the historical courtrooms in its strategic plans. I urge the Minister and the GLMCA to examine Kingston's case, which is strong even before general points about local justice are considered.
Of course, there is a factor that could change all the calculations—for Kingston, London and throughout England and Wales. That is the Auld review. This is not the time for a full-scale analysis of Lord Justice Auld's review, not least because it goes far wider than London's magistracy. However, it is germane as there can be no doubt that some of its key recommendations would impact on the future of London's courts in a very big way.
The GLMCA has delayed final recommendation on its strategic consultation document pending the extraordinary meeting in November, to which I referred, for consideration of the impact of Auld. I know that the Minister has already told the authority that it should not wait for the Government's response to Auld before finalising and implementing a strategy. However, I am sure that he would agree that it would be imprudent for the authority not to be mindful of Auld, at the very least, in the timetabling of strategy implementation. It is well known that Auld's key recommendations of a unified criminal court with a Crown division, a magistrates division and a new district division could have major implications for the management structure of the courts and the courtroom needs of the criminal justice system.
Equally, if Auld and the Government get their way and abolish the automatic right to a jury trial, the whole work load of the lower two divisions could be significantly increased, with longer trials and more of them. That is not a change at the margin; it is a revolution at the core. The GLMCA and the Minister might wish to press on regardless, but it is a prudent and sensible body and the Minister is rightly well regarded, so Auld must be a consideration. It would be irresponsible madness to sell off any more than a tiny number of courtrooms given that reality. What is the Minister's public guidance, not just to the GLMCA, but to other court authorities? Would he advise them to go ahead with rationalisation utterly regardless, as if Auld did not exist? If not, what recognition of Auld should they build in to their strategies?
Before I conclude, I want to make a few final points about the magistracy in general. The Government's views on the matter are important for the capital. What are the Government's long-term plans for the lay magistracy? That might seem an odd question—the Government might think that it is a trick question—but it has been put to me by many justices of the peace. Magistrates are worried, and the more suspicious ones
258WH
think that the Government want to get rid of them totally. I do not say that in jest: magistrates regard Auld's proposals for a district division as a stalking horse. They regard the proposal that lay magistrates should not be involved in decisions on matters of sentencing as deeply corrosive. If the district division proposal is implemented, and the district judge sits as the chair, the incentive for magistrates of chairing a bench and being authoritative in reaching conclusions will be taken away and the role of some of our senior magistrates will be reduced. Undermining the purpose and incentive to do the magistrate's job might undermine the whole magistracy.
Worse still, the more suspicious magistrates fear that the unified criminal court, and the Court Service that will manage it—although we know that those proposals are not finalised—will mean that the administrative side of the magistrates courts will disappear into the Court Service, and will therefore be accountable to the Lord Chancellor's Department. They fear what could be regarded as a wholesale takeover of the magistracy by the Crown courts. I am afraid to say that such fears were not calmed by the recent and pre-emptive decision by the Lord Chancellor's Department to transfer the head office magistrates courts service staff to the Court Service. That seemed like a lightning raid to take away the magistrates courts civil servants, and, before any decision had been taken, put them into the Crown court. That decision, which was almost presented as a fait accompli, annoyed a lot of people throughout the wider judiciary. As the Minister will know, it led to the granting of a judicial review application. I am told that, in the short term, the matter may be sorted out before that judicial review is heard. I welcome that, and I hope that the Minister will confirm it. I refer to that because magistrates have many reasons to be rather jittery, and I am not surprised that they are nervous.
Even those who are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt are nervous because they do not see them worrying about recruitment to the magistracy. Why is that? The Government should want to recruit more people, but magistrates do not see them making a big deal of telling employers, "Give your employees time off to serve as magistrates." The Government do not seem to understand that the magistracy is made up of volunteers who undertake 95 per cent. of the administration of justice and without whom the whole edifice would crumble. The Minister might accuse me of exaggerating those fears, but that is what people are telling me.
I want to end with a plea. The Government should put the brakes on and think. Do they really want to press ahead with their combined reforms and end up with a highly centralised, professional, lawyer-based legal system or do they want a system in which ordinary people are involved in the administration of justice as jurors and magistrates? I want to live in a society that makes it possible for citizens to get involved and to serve their communities. I want to encourage active citizens and healthy communities and, in respect of their other policies, the Government say that they do too. However, when it comes to their policy on magistrates, they do not seem to value the work of volunteers and do not encourage active citizens.
The Liberal Democrats believe that individuals can deal with responsibilities in the justice system and should be encouraged to do so for the good of their

259WH
neighbours and communities. It is better that they should be involved in the magistracy. That is not a plea for the status quo—far from it. We can get better value for money, improve the service that we get from the courts and introduce a wider spread of lay person into the magistracy. However, let us make those changes by building on the strength of our existing institutions, not by undermining them.
10.1 am
Mr. Mark Field: I apologise that I will not be around for the Minister's winding-up speech, but I have a constituency arrangement. However, I want to say a few words as a London Member of Parliament.
I took on board the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in particular the concerns that he expressed at the end of his speech about a centralised, lawyer-based legal system. I come from the legal fraternity and spent four years as a solicitor, although the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is a more distinguished lawyer. None the less, volunteers play an active and important role in the legal system, particularly in the magistracy. There is also the role of justice of the peace, which goes back to the 13th century. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that people have serious concerns about the proposed changes, and several constituents have expressed them to me.
Above all, I am concerned about the fact that the rationalisation takes no account of several local factors. One must be careful to bear it in mind that any rationalisation will involve much special pleading. That is particularly true for the City of London, which has had its own magistrates court for as long as there have been justices of the peace. It will now be one of the 22 areas to be swallowed up into the single, Londonwide court, although I appreciate the fact that Westminster has been part of an inner-London bench for some time.
We should also consider the redundancies that are involved in the rationalisation. Everything seems to be up in the air in that regard. We are still at an early stage and have had only a small summary of a very large document, but I hope that we shall hear more detail today and in the coming period. Uncertainty about many of the changes is causing great concern.
It is somewhat curious that we are considering rationalisation at this juncture. As has been said, that is partly because of Auld's wholesale recommendations. Furthermore, in 1997 the Labour party promised to crack down on persistent young offenders. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 set out the fast-track provisions, which had been much heralded. I wonder whether some of the proposals, particularly for central London, will fly in the face of the Government's aim of securing a fast-track procedure, notwithstanding all the purported overcapacity in London as a whole.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was right to say that a political storm is brewing over the matter in question, and that the drastic changes proposed will upset the bedrock of the magistracy. Local justice is important. There is always a tendency to look on London as one large amorphous entity, but London Members know that it was, and is, a series
260WH
of villages. In the Cities of London and Westminster, even a five-minute walk takes a person from one village to another: from Soho to Covent Garden, for example. That applies equally to the suburbs. For example, Kingston has a guildhall, which is part of its history. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) will know that there are several old London villages in her area.
Locality is of key importance. Dealing with London as a large, amorphous mass will remove some of the local links that are, and should be, the bedrock of the justice system.
Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend has touched on an important point. He will notice how many hon. Members are present whose constituencies cover parts of outer London such as Croydon, Barnet, Kingston and Surbiton, and Ilford. That is important. Bromley has a very new court, in contrast to that in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is five years old and was purpose-built at a cost of £10 million. That will be closed under the proposal.
Mr. Field: I take that point on board. I am sorry that I do not know all the facts and figures about the London borough of Bromley; my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) will recall that Orpington was previously a district council in its own right, as part and parcel of Kent. Those loyalties and ties remain strong and, as far as possible, they should be encouraged.
I doubt whether the proposals will achieve the goal of improving the performance and consistency of court services. They seem to be in part an asset-stripping operation. According to the documents there is a 32 per cent. overcapacity across Greater London, yet we all know that the much-vaunted fast-track arrangements have not really become established. I am thinking particularly about youth justice. Much of the relevant activity in the City of London concerns the youth justice bench. I am well aware of concern about the current arrangements and the sense that there is massive overcapacity that could be rationalised. I am concerned that that will do less to help justice than it will to provide a one-off capital gain, and that the magistracy and legal system in London may never recover.
I ask for a complete rethink of the entire package. Above all, we know as politicians that all politics is local. We must realise that issues of locality are of keen importance in the dispensation of justice, even in what might seem to be a faceless capital city.
10.8 am
Linda Perham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. I declare an interest at the outset, in that I have been a justice of the peace since 1990 and served as a magistrate in my area until I was selected as a parliamentary candidate. The Redbridge courthouse is in my constituency.
I appreciate the wide-ranging consultation process in which the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority is engaged. I understand and support its priorities, which I paraphrase from the strategic consultation document as follows: to ensure consistency across the criminal justice system in London; to deliver

261WH
improved services to all court users in London with efficiency and effectiveness by joint working with other agencies; to fund investment and reinvestment opportunities and provide value for money; to respond to national policy priorities; to be a good employer providing job opportunities, training, development and flexibility, and to support magistrates in their work.
I also recognise the GLMCA's concerns about the costs of administering justice in London. However, by focusing on the courthouse in my own constituency, I hope to demonstrate that closing down many courthouses throughout the capital will not necessarily save money or achieve the strategic aims.
I pay tribute to the Justice for Redbridge campaign. Thanks to the efforts of the present chairman of the bench, Councillor Richard Hoskins, and the immediate past chairman, Ron Jeffries, a formidable case against closure has been presented. The campaign enlisted the support of all four local Members of Parliament, all the political groups on Redbridge council and the GLA member for Havering and Redbridge, the Metropolitan police, Victim Support, the secretary of the Legal Aid Board and local solicitors, the youth offending team, the citizens advice bureaux, the North East London mental health trust, the Redbridge Pensioners Action Association, the Redbridge trade union council, local school students who signed petitions, and readers of local newspapers, including 880 people who returned cut-out forms printed in the Ilford Recorder.
All those groups stressed the importance of local accessibility, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also mentioned. That comes through time and again in the representations that I have received about rationalising the courthouse estate. They all concentrate on the potential loss of access to local justice for all court users.
I wrote to the chief executive of the GLMCA, Ashley Truluck, in September saying:
"I am particularly concerned at the threat to the delivery of local justice with the closure of a large number of court houses; accessibility for all court users will be seriously compromised and I believe will lead to more cases being delayed or adjourned because of travelling difficulties, including longer and more costly journeys for victims, witnesses, defendants, magistrates, advocates, court staff, police and other agencies. The clustering of court services at out-of-borough locations will severely damage local links with safer community partnerships, victim support and other groups and will affect police/probation liaison".
The Metropolitan police borough commander wrote to me:
"The Metropolitan Police service would seek to ensure that court hearings and services are accessible and the closure of local courts would involve additional travelling/time costs for both the MPS and private witnesses, which is not desirable. Additionally, the waiting time for police officers and witnesses could increase and this could impact on the availability and attendance rates of witnesses and possibly on witnesses' willingness to come forward in the first place. Therefore, I would seek to ensure that local accessibility remains a key consideration when the GLMCA makes its final decision."
The chairman of the youth court also makes points about the difficulties of transferring the youth court from our area into London. She mentions the fact that the youth offending team can produce the specific case worker within 10 to 15 minutes to the Barkingside courthouse. She states:
262WH
"Redbridge youth magistrates are concerned not to put further pressure on vulnerable victims, witnesses, defendants and their families. The thought of elderly victims who are already traumatized by the very need to attend court gives very real cause for concern. Increasingly, youth crime is directed at the elderly and vulnerable residents of this Borough. The thought of an 80-year-old lady who has had her handbag snatched in Ilford Town Centre and having to make the long journey by public transport into London to give evidence appals me. We cannot allow this to happen at the behest of so-called efficiency."
The question whether fewer courthouses would save money was addressed in the remarks of a long-serving local solicitor, David Diamond:
"So any savings they make on the use of one court full time will be off-set on paying solicitors and lawyers millions of pounds for waiting around. It is also going to cost more traveling—there are lots of hidden expenses and I don't think the government has taken account of this."
In a letter to me, a constituent who works for the Lord Chancellor's Department said succinctly:
"I hope the court will not close. It's not as if there are not enough local criminals to fill it."
My other main point concerns local contacts and networks, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned. A locally based courthouse with magistrates living in the area can build and maintain a range of links with the community that it serves. The courthouse in Redbridge is no exception. Indeed, it has taken a proactive role in spearheading local initiatives in some sectors.
The clerk to the justices is one of 12 members at chief executive level of the Redbridge safer communities partnership. He also chairs the steering group on racist crime. The court was proactive in setting up the Redbridge domestic violence forum, the town centre steering group—it tackled violence in clubs and pubs—and a group to deal with violence on buses, which worked with the route operators. Under the mentally disordered offenders diversion scheme, representatives of the mental health trust, social services, police, probation and the court monitor the work of the on-call court-designated community psychiatric nurse.
There is also the Redbridge court drug initiative. Following the Government's launch of borough-based drug action teams and drug reference groups, there is magistrate representation on both Redbridge bodies. With funding from the Government Office for London via the probation service, the court was one of the first to appoint a full-time court-based drug referral worker.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned open days for community groups and schools. My local court had a drug awareness day, which I was pleased to attend. Local courthouses build up many networks, which would he a great loss if they were closed.
On efficiency, Redbridge magistrates court performs far better than average compared with Greater London and nationally. Cases are heard at Redbridge 11 days faster than the Greater London average and 16 days faster than the national average. In fact, according to the latest performance indicators, which were released in the first week of October by the GLMCA, the court is so efficient that it is already meeting next year's targets. That places it second in the list of the 29 courts in London. It completes all types of cases, from first listing to sentencing or acquittal, in 17 days, against a Government target of 29 days.

263WH
The court is also well ahead on fines paid. Courtroom usage is 10 per cent. better than the national average, and user satisfaction is 14 per cent. higher than the Greater London average.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) speak about his local courthouse. We have had a modernisation programme in Redbridge. In recent years, well over £1 million in capital costs has been spent on projects to enhance facilities for victims, witnesses, legal representatives, criminal justice agencies, disabled court users and at-risk offenders. One project involved the installation of a lift for disabled magistrates.
It is important to bear in mind the Auld report, which has been mentioned. I am pleased that the chief executive of the GLMCA says in a letter to those who responded to the strategic consultation document that
"the original options have been redefined considerably".
That gives me some hope. It is important that the Government bear in mind the proposals in the Auld report when they consider the rationalisation of courthouses. Using the example of my local courthouse, I hope that I have shown that there is a case for not proceeding with the draconian rationalisation of the courthouse estate, as is set out in several of the options in the strategic consultation document. Once again I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on securing this timely debate, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the importance of these issues is borne in mind by those who take the decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook: We are hoping to start the wind-ups from the Front Benches shortly after 10.30 am. I therefore ask hon. Members to be as concise as they can.
10.20 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Cook. I can considerably shorten my contribution because many of the points have already been made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I congratulate him on the timely manner in which he has raised the issue.
The Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority was set up in April this year. It replaces 22 magistrates courts. That authority is now the largest in England and Wales. It has a budget of £75 million, 1,800 staff, over 3,000 magistrates and 40 courthouses. That is centralisation of some magnitude. In their White Paper of December 1998 the Government rightly said that magistrates courts should provide local justice dispensed by local people. I would add "locally", and I find it significant that that word was left out.
We start from the basis of section 83 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which set up the GLMCA. I am worried about the strategy that that new authority recently published. It examines estate options ranging from no change and minimal rationalisation, to significant rationalisation and, at the far extreme, a central courthouse or courthouses. I make no apologies if this seems a parochial point, but even under the moderate rationalisation option, Barnet and Hendon
264WH
courts would close and their caseload would move to Brent. Under the significant rationalisation option, 18 courts would close, including Harrow and Highgate, the next nearest to my constituents. Under the clustering system 29 would close and Brent court would effectively serve the whole of the north of outer London. I would find that quite unacceptable.
I should be grateful if the Minister could also deal with the effect that the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to European Court of Human Rights decisions, will have on the design and costs of local courts, whether there are 40 or only 11. I take this opportunity to praise the work of lay magistrates. It has been an integral part of our justice system for hundreds of years. They give a considerable amount of their time and they are not paid. As the hon. Gentleman said, they deal with 95 per cent. of all court cases. Quite simply, if we are not to maintain the two existing courts in Barnet we must have at least one court in the borough even if that means closing those two courts after building a new one more centrally.
Finally, and I know the Minister will appreciate this, the public transport routes, and indeed the road networks, in London radiate out from the centre. It is difficult for those above the north circular road to get across London. That would be a particular problem for my constituents if they had to go to Brent court. That is a vital consideration.
Local accessibility is vital in the administration of justice and even more vital in the administration of local justice.
10.24 am
Richard Ottaway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. I have sparred with him over many years on London matters and Treasury matters, and have worked with him on the issue, and it is a pleasure to meet him in debate again. I take his word for it that the absent ranks of Liberal Democrats support him on the issue. As a solicitor, I declare an interest: my wife is a magistrate and many of the points that we have heard today are often forcefully made to me over the breakfast table.
Magistrates make a huge contribution to the community. I hope that the Minister will take away from the debate the fact that the magistracy is a locally and community-based activity. If we are to support the community, which is the glue of society, the magistracy must remain local and we must have a local structure to support it. The proposals threaten and jeopardise that local structure. Justice must be dispensed locally. We cannot have the Croydon courts shut down, for example. Croydon is the largest borough in London and the Sutton courts could not cope if Croydon courts were shut down. There would be a gap between Kingston on the one hand and Bromley on the other—entire swathes of south London would have no courts. The thought of witnesses and magistrates having to travel 10 or 15 miles across London is terrible; it would destroy the local dispensation of justice. In rural areas, 10 or 15 miles is not much, but in London it is a huge distance. Magistrates, witnesses, police and all the officials would be in alien territory.
My second point is important and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will also make it. Justice cannot be finance-led. The hon.

265WH
Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly said that he was addressing a different Department on the issue. All Departments have to face the Treasury. Every hon. Member would like to scrum down behind the Minister in his battle for funding from the Treasury, but he has right on his side. The Treasury cannot decide how justice will be dispensed in this country. Justice, the jury and the magistracy are the cornerstones of our local democracy and of everything that we believe in. One cannot require that justice be tailor-made to fit a budget.
My next point is on the overcapacity of London courts. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton dealt with the point well by pointing out that London is outperforming the average. However, the magistracy is not responsible for empty courts. I am reliably informed that it is often the inability of the Crown Prosecution Service to have cases ready that is to blame. The magistrates are waiting, ready and willing, as is everyone else, but problems in the CPS mean that cases are not ready, so everyone sits around twiddling their thumbs. Such cases are entered on the records as vacant courts and overcapacity. It is not overcapacity. There is a tremendous backlog; some cases take six, seven or eight months to appear. Magistrates are ready and willing to dispense justice.
Mr. Horam: This is precisely the point that was made to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) when we recently visited Bromley magistrates court. The fact that courts are empty is a reflection of the competence not of the magistrates, but of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Richard Ottaway: It is interesting that the experience of courts in my constituency is reflected elsewhere. Indeed, it is probably reflected by courts around London—the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) is nodding.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said earlier, we are suffering from initiative fatigue and uncertainty about the magistrates courts. For better or worse, we have the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority, and I am less keen on it than the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Schools and hospitals take devolved decisions about the maintenance of buildings; they get their priorities right and run things properly. To remove the management of the logistics of the magistrates courts to a London wide authority is anti-devolutionary; it takes away the responsibility that should properly be devolved down to the clerks and to people locally.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that there may be improvements in co-ordinating the collection of fines, which I welcome, but the use of assets has not been a great success, although it is early days and there may be teething problems. I ask the Minister to consider devolving management of the assets as far down as possible, which would be widely welcomed locally.
This is not the moment to debate the Auld report, but I hope that the Minister will persuade the Whips Office to allow a full debate on that important subject on the Floor of the House. The thrust of the report is welcome,
266WH
although we will obviously find some nit-picking points when we read it more closely. The magistrates welcome it, and it provides for an enhanced role for them—I am pleased to see the Minister nodding in agreement—and enhanced powers when two magistrates are sitting with a judge, although I do not know what type of judge. Will it be a stipendiary? The magistrates welcome the recognition of the importance of their role. However, the question about the long-term future of the magistracy remains. If the Minister cannot spell out what it is today, we hope that he will do so in the future, as it is so important to the community.
10.32 am
Mr. William Cash: We have had an extremely interesting debate, and we await the Minister's reply with interest. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate.
I declare my interest as a solicitor. When I was appointed, one newspaper asked, "Is this man a lawyer?" The answer is yes, and he has been for a long time—since 1967. Hon. Members from every part of London and from all parties have made a powerful case, although it would have been desirable if even more hon. Members had been present.
The central theme of the debate has been the impact on the system of justice, especially in the London area, if the proposals go ahead. The present state of affairs could fairly be described as transitional, or a watershed. The GLMCA report stated that the authority was considering options, and had a problem because the Auld committee was about to report. It therefore put forward its views with some uncertainty, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, does not help in situations relating to justice.
We now have the Auld committee report, which deals with extremely important matters that will need to be considered. The debate is useful as a pointer to the future; it shows the necessity for a major review of the ideas generated by the GLMCA and the Auld report. Chapter 4 of the Auld report begins:
"No country in the world relies on lay magistrates as we do, sitting usually in panels of three, to administer the bulk of criminal justice … magistrates courts deal with 95% of all prosecuted crime. Lay magistrates—about 30,400 of them—handle 91% of that work."
That gives us a good idea of how important the system is.
Another issue mentioned in speech after speech was that of locality of justice. On that question, the observations—I would not call them recommendations—in the Auld report do not tend to point in a happy direction. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. For example, Auld quotes from a report by Messrs Seago, Walker and Wall that he states was seminal in compiling his compendious report. The quote is on page 108:
"And most controversial of all, in the absence of any practical need for, as opposed to abstract ideology of, localism, why is there a need for lay justices to reflect local connections?"
In paragraphs 36 and 37, Auld says:
"'Locality' of justice also has its downside in the wide inconsistencies to which it leads between MCC areas and between individual benches in their patterns of decision-making, particularly as to bail and sentencing.

267WH
Another disadvantage of 'locality' of justice, whether in the form of magistrates or a District Judge, is that the tribunal may, on occasion, know too much about accused persons, whose guilt or sentence they should determine only on the material put before them in court."
A consistent theme of the debate is that we want locality of justice. I believe in it profoundly and support hon. Members from all parties who have made that point. I hope that the Minister will consider some of the concerns that have now emerged.
Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that too much emphasis can be placed on consistency? One understands why the Government are concerned about it—rightly so. However, if one places too much stress on it and looks for solutions through centralisation alone, big mistakes will be made. Many centralised bodies in the public sector do not deliver consistency across their agencies. Furthermore, consistency can be achieved by many routes other than the centralised, professional approach that Auld proposed and towards which the Government seem to be inclined.
Mr. Cash: I am strongly in favour of the volunteer ethos that lies behind the magistracy. I would be deeply concerned if we ended up with an overly centralised and professional system, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, particularly in light of the statistics that I gave, the strong endorsement in some of the reports on which Auld relies as to the efficacy of the system and the lack of significant criticism about the quality of justice that comes out of his report. I think that that is another point to bear in mind.
I am slightly puzzled by some of the statistics about the weighted case loads in different areas as compared to annual budgets. This is directly relevant to what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said about whether the Government will seek to centralise and/or try to contain and/or reduce costs. For example, in the west midlands, to which my constituency of Stone is fairly near, the weighted case load is 703,000 with 89 courtrooms and an annual budget of £16 million. According to the Auld report, the GLMCA has a weighted case load of 1.58 million with 193 courtrooms and an annual budget of £77 million. The actual amount allocated to the Lord Chancellor's Department is £75 million, which I find curious because that is slightly less than the amount of money that was predicated in the consultation paper.
The significance of the example is that the west midlands has about half the case load but is nearly five times less expensive. That must be taken into account, but it worries me that it should be used to bolster the argument against locality of justice. Somehow the Government have got to find a means of maintaining the locality of justice and saving the courtrooms where they are at present, for the most part, while at the same time reducing costs.
There is another problem with regard to greater London, which has not been mentioned so far. An interesting article by Joshua Rosenberg on the question of unpaid fines, which appeared in the The Daily Telegraph in May points out:
"In greater London alone the figure for uncollected fines now stands at £116 million. Fines totalling £92 million were imposed in London last year; less than £42 million was collected."
268WH
According to Judge Fabyan Evans, chairman of the London criminal justice strategy committee, little more than one third of the fines imposed in inner London were paid last year. On the enforcement of fines, Joshua Rosenberg says:
"The situation is particularly bad in London. Until the end of March, fines and other penalties were enforced by civilians employed by the Metropolitan police. The police did not want this responsibility and began running down staffing levels".
The GLMCA's new authority has been given only £3.37 million for the enforcement of fines. The authority has told the Government that it needs another £1.23 million. According to a spokesman, it is considerably understaffed. These figures make it clear that the authority needs only an extra £1 million or so, added to the total budget for the London magistrates courts of £75 million, to deal with this problem.
The Government are attempting to centralise the courts, which—unless we hear to the contrary from the Minister—will deprive people of the local justice to which they are entitled, but they are not dealing with the problem at the hard end: collecting the fines. We are in considerable difficulty. I urge the Minister to have regard to the powerful arguments that have been made by Members from all parties and all parts of London and to put justice and locality of justice ahead of ideology and centralisation.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in what I hope we will all agree has been an informative and useful exchange on these matters.
Let there be no doubt about the fact that the Government attach as much importance to the lay magistracy as anyone else. It is significant that Sir Robin Auld also arrived at the view that the lay magistracy was centrally important to our system of justice. His independent report took a radical and far-reaching look at the criminal justice system—those who have read it will be aware of how independently minded he is. We have often made our views clear in the Chamber. I want again to stress the importance that we attach to the lay magistracy, for all the reasons that have been adduced today.
This is an important time for the criminal justice system. Over the past four years, there have been significant achievements; much is still to be done and we intend to do it. Sir Robin Auld's report is part of that process. The work of the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority also forms an important element. Before I deal with more general issues, I shall address some specific points. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised the matter of the judicial review proceedings; I am happy to tell him that they have now been withdrawn. He also asked about the relationship of the GLMCA to any funds that it realises by disposing of any part of its estate. The GLMCA owns its estate; any assets that it acquires through disposal of its estate are for it to use at it sees fit according to its remit.
Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister's words will be partly reassuring to the GLMCA—he is right to say that

269WH
the legal position is that the authority will be able to keep all its proceeds. However, before he moves away from the financial issue, will he give an assurance that there will be no change to the grant from the Lord Chancellor's Department as a result of capital realisation?
Mr. Wills: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the allocation of grants is subject to a variety of factors that we negotiate with the Treasury. I can give no guarantee of what factors will be taken into account, but the straightforward position is that the estate is owned by the GLMCA, which can dispose of it and realise its assets. I will mention later how, over the past four years, we have secured increased funding for magistrates courts to improve the facilities that are offered to those who use them. We intend to ensure that funding continues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also recognise the increased funding have secured for the coming years.
I shall briefly deal with the point about the Human Rights Act 1998—a matter raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). With respect to him, and others who have raised the matter in the past, I must say that there is much misunderstanding about the impact of that Act. The Act leads to court closures only in exceptional circumstances, such as if the court were to rule that it was unacceptable for a court to be used at all, according to article 6 of the convention. For example, having no interview rooms would be a clear breach of article 6. We think that that is highly unlikely. The driving forces behind the process are modernisation and the aim of delivering an acceptable service to those who use courtrooms. I will return to that point shortly, although I am conscious of the time.
Several hon. Members have asked us to rethink and reconsider—something that I am always happy to do—but before one does that, a considered view must be reached. We are undergoing extensive consultation on the Auld report. The GLMCA is still consulting on its strategic plan, so it is a little premature to ask us to reconsider before we have reached a considered view.
Let me clarify another matter. Magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees as set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each committee is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area, which means that in the case of the Greater London area we are talking about the GLMCA.
I recognise that we are undergoing a programme of considerable change, about which hon. Members will clearly have concerns. I hope that everybody here today recognises that these concerns, many of which are legitimate, are not an argument for doing nothing. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pay graphic tribute to the achievements of both the GLMCA and his local courts. When I have visited courts I have noted the excellent work done by magistrates, and that has also been the experience of other hon. Members. I do not want there to be any doubt about that, but it is not an argument for doing nothing. We must make progress and ensure that everybody gets the service that they have a right to expect from their courts.
270WH
I do not intend to spend a great deal of time discussing the consultation document. There has already been a long discussion, which produced a strategic consultation on three management options and six estate options. It is a complex and wide-ranging plan that went out to consultation with all interested parties. The GLMCA is considering the responses that it has received, and it anticipates publishing its plan in December 2001.
The relationship between the plan and the Auld report, which is a matter for the GLMCA to decide, was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The Auld report is under consultation, and its proposals may require further consideration after the consultation period, or legislation. While that process is going on, the authority remains responsible for providing an efficient and effective service across London, and it is expected to take the necessary action to achieve that.
Mr. Cash: The Minister mentioned the Auld report. I hope that he will discuss the Government's attitude to the remarks in the report regarding locality of justice.
Mr. Wills: I am happy to address that issue immediately. We shall of course make our views known on the Auld report, but only after we have completed the consultation process, which will continue until January next year. It is important that we hear the views of everybody concerned with this radical and wide-ranging report, which we have welcomed. Lord Justice Auld has done a remarkable job, but we must hear the views of everyone involved, and we shall do that before we make our views known. Furthermore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make our views known in the House.
Richard Ottaway: There is a point that does not need review, consultation or consideration. Does the Minister support the principle of locality of justice?
Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman deftly anticipates my next point, which concerns the central question of local justice. There are many other matters on which I should like to touch, but we are running out of time.
Local justice is something that we can all happily sign up to because it is fundamentally important, but we must be clear about what we mean, because it will mean different things to different people. We must keep in mind that local justice is not only about providing justice through a particular courtroom in a particular locality and maintaining the status quo, come what may. That is not what we mean by local justice. It is about making sure that there is an effective and efficient service for all those who use it. Everything that I have heard today about the importance of local justice goes to that central point. How we achieve local justice will obviously vary from locality to locality. Greater London's needs will be completely different from, for example, the needs of Stone and Stafford or of rural areas in Shropshire and Cornwall. We must take account of those differences.
A criminal justice system must be effective at preventing offending and re-offending, efficient in the way in which it deals with cases, responsive to the needs of victims and the law-abiding community and

271WH
accountable for its decisions; these are fundamental propositions. The locality of justice is, of course, an important element, but we must never lose sight of those core objectives. The criminal justice system must deliver justice for all, and it is not only local magistrates courts but all the criminal justice system agencies that are involved in delivering such justice. I pay tribute to the great amount of work that those two agencies have done to join up their work so that they function much more effectively as a single, coherent system. That was one of the reasons for establishing the GLMCA in the first place. If we are to have a system whereby all magistrates courts users get an efficient service delivered in well equipped and secure buildings, without the delays to which hon. Members have referred, we must consider—sometimes radically, sometimes in a way that inevitably involves local opposition—the system that we have inherited.
Most of the magistrates courts that have been closed were those that magistrates courts committees no longer felt able to justify keeping open because they lacked necessary facilities such as secure accommodation, separate waiting areas for victims and witnesses away from defendants, and access for disabled people. If courtrooms cannot manage to provide those basic standards of accommodation, which all court users expect from a modern 21st-century service, there must because for closure:
Any such improvements must be balanced against other factors such as local transport difficulties, which vary in different parts of the country. We must ensure that courtrooms are best suited to enable cases to be listed so as to achieve our aim of reducing delay in the criminal justice system. All users want their case to be heard on the day that it is listed, and it is in no one's interests—certainly not in the interests of local justice—for that not to happen. Transferring cases to better equipped centres is one way of modernising and improving the overall service provided by the GLMCA. It will have the local knowledge and be best placed to make judgments on how best to make use of all its resources, whether they be finance, buildings or staff. The Lord Chancellor becomes involved only if a decision is challenged by the paying authority.
Mr. Edward Davey: I offer the Minister a practical example of the need to get right the balance between
272WH
local justice and travelling to justice. It is important to enable witnesses and victims to be separated from defendants, but if they all have to travel to the courtroom—which may some distance away—by public transport, they may all end up queuing at the same bus stop or sitting in the same tube carriage. Making justice more remote may jeopardise an objective that has been achieved in the courthouse. The Minister must consider the practicalities of ensuring that the Government's policy hangs together coherently.
Mr. Wills: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, which was well made. However, I ask him again to think about the matter in the round. The various factors must be balanced to provide an effective and efficient service. It is not in the interests of local justice for any part of it to be ineffective or inefficient or for cases to be delayed.
I shall use my last two minutes to talk briefly about funding. As I said, magistrates courts committees make the initial decisions, but central Government have a responsibility to ensure adequate funding. We are spending nearly £20 million in 2001–02 on improvements to magistrates courts, in addition to the on-going court-building programme procured under the private finance initiative. The amount that we spend on such improvements will more than double over the next two years.
Let me give some detail on the improvements that are under way in London. Since 1999–2000, the Department has provided capital funding amounting to just over £2.75 million to carry out more than 100 projects. Security has been improved in the custody areas at Richmond and Redbridge; other improvements include the introduction of archway metal detectors and handheld wands at the guildhall in Kingston and the Merton and Bexley courthouses. Works to improve disabled facilities have been approved in Kingston, Haringey, Barnet and Harrow.
I hope that I have made it clear that we are determined to continue our programme of modernisation, putting the interests of local justice at the forefront. We are engaged in an extensive programme of consultation on the Auld review, and I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by our commitment to funding the improvements that are necessary.

Regional Air Services
11 am
Mr. David Stewart: I welcome this opportunity to speak on the very important subject of regional air services. I also thank the many hon. Members present for the interest that they have shown in today's debate.
I want to touch on a number of issues. I want to define regional air services, to look at current issues and problems, to consider the debate held by the former Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, to analyse the role of Government not just here, but in the United States and in France, and in particular to examine the prospects for Government intervention. In my conclusion, I shall call for the ring fencing of vulnerable routes.
What are regional air services? They could be defined as routes from London in its broadest sense—Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, London City and Stansted—to domestic UK airports such as Inverness, Aberdeen, Newquay, Belfast, Plymouth, Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh and those on the Channel Islands. Of course, the two primary hubs in London are Gatwick and Heathrow. Journeys tend to be of two types: point-to-point or "interlined", by which I mean domestic flights that continue to international destinations. Heathrow is undoubtedly top of the interlining league, Gatwick is mid-table, and unfortunately, Stansted and City, to continue the football analogy, are very much in the relegation zone.
What current trends and problems are evident in UK regional services? Mr. Laurie Price, from Aviation and Travel Consultancy Ltd., analysed daily services from Heathrow to regional airports between 1986 and 2001. In 1986, 19 regional UK airports had direct flights to Heathrow, with an average of 106 flights daily. However, in the summer of this year only eight regional airports had direct flights to Heathrow, and the daily average of flights had fallen to 88. In 1986, 15 airports had direct flights to Gatwick and by 2001 that figure had fallen to 11. To be fair, Gatwick's daily flight average is now slightly higher, in part because of the transfer of domestic flights from Heathrow, including my own route. In 1997, we in Inverness lost our direct service to Heathrow.
Which airports have lost out? Heathrow services were slashed from Inverness and from Plymouth—which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister—in 1997, from Dundee and Carlisle in 1987, from Liverpool and East Midlands in 1992, from Birmingham in 1993, and from Norwich in 1990.
Why do such cuts occur? Air services in the UK are a free market, and in simplistic terms the profit per mile per passenger is better for intermediate and long-haul flights than for domestic UK routes. In effect, commercially viable daytime slots—take-off and landing times that are advertised by carriers and published in their schedules—at Heathrow and Gatwick are full. For example, this summer there was a 20 per cent. excess demand for slots at Gatwick. On a typical summer's day in August, demand exceeded capacity by as much as 22 per cent. every minute between 6 am and 8 pm. That, of course, is reflected at Heathrow as well.
274WH
Aviation has been badly affected by the tragic events of 11 September in Washington and New York. Airline costs have risen, there has been reduced growth and traffic has been down by 15 per cent. However, that traffic will return, and the Minister's Department predicts a 4.25 per cent. growth in passenger numbers every year. In London, there is no new capacity to take that growth. The last substantial runway built in the United Kingdom was in Manchester in the previous decade. In the competition for slots, therefore, regional air services will always lose out to their older and bigger brothers: international and transatlantic flights.
In 1998, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs undertook an inquiry into regional air services because of a reduction in direct flights from regional airports to London, including the loss of my direct route from Inverness to Heathrow in 1997. The Committee made several recommendations to the Government. It argued for different categories of slots—domestic, intermediate and long-haul—so that swapping of slots could be controlled, as in the United States. It also suggested that, in the allocation of slots at domestic airports, priority be given to airlines bidding to operate domestic regional services. That would be similar to the US essential air service programme. The Committee recommended an end to airlines' own companies allocating slots at airports, as they do at Heathrow and Gatwick. It also argued for the development of public service obligations PSOs—at Heathrow for a specified minimum level of air services.
The current European slot allocation rules—European regulation EC 95/93—have been due for revision for some time, but we will not have a complete revision before 2002. They must be adapted to allow greater protection for vulnerable regional air routes. Otherwise, we will continue to see trade-offs between domestic routes and more lucrative international routes.
What role can the Government play? What examples of best practice can we see throughout the world? Under European regulation EC 95/93, member states can preserve slots in two situations: first, on a route to an airport serving a peripheral or development region, if that route is considered vital for the economic development of that region; secondly, on routes where the Government have imposed PSOs to maintain a service that would not otherwise exist.
There are demanding conditions for the first option. The slots concerned must have been used on that route when the regulations came into force in 1993. Only one carrier must operate the route, and the route must be unable to he covered substantially by any other mode of transport. The reservation ceases once a second carrier covers the service with the same frequency.
Only in France has the first option been used, at Paris, Orly airport. It is now using the second option of imposing PSOs, and I believe that some 30 per cent. of services at Orly airport have PSOs at the moment. I am not aware of any PSOs operating from London, but they have a long track record in Scotland, especially in island services—in areas such as the Western Isles. By and large, those are subsidy PSOs. I am not calling for subsidy PSOs today; they are not needed where routes are commercially viable.
In the United States, the essential air service programme has operated since deregulation in 1978, and was the price that Congress demanded for passing

275WH
deregulation. Congress now spends $50 million per year on that very important programme, which services 75 cities. Most are in remote areas such as Alaska. At very congested airports, the United States Department of Transportation can demand that EAS status be given to certain routes. The Government have a strong power of intervention, in a country that is arguably the most unregulated in the industrial world. We should examine that closely, and perhaps copy it.
What are the prospects for Government intervention here? The bulk of the witnesses before the Select Committee inquiry to which I have referred argued that there was a case for public sector intervention to protect key vulnerable regional air services.
In my constituency, Highland council, the enterprise agency, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Inverness chamber of commerce and 90 per cent. of local businesses that I have surveyed during the past few weeks all argue strongly for a public service obligation on the Inverness to Gatwick route, which I use. The Minister may want to comment on the letter that his Department received from Sarah Boyack, Minister for Transport and the Environment in the Scottish Parliament, who proposed a draft PSO for his Department's consideration.
The Minister's Department stated in paragraph 93 of the evidence to the Select Committee that the United Kingdom would have a chance during revision of the European slot regulations to suggest amendments:
"Particularly if the Commission does seek to restrict the ability to ring-fence slots, one possibility might be to propose balancing that by giving greater priority to regional services in the…allocation of available slots."
British Midland criticised the new entrant rule in slot allocation and used the example of Heathrow, which has had 53 new entrants since 1991. There have been too many low-frequency long-haul services, which have frustrated prospects for domestic air services.
It is often said that politics is the art of the possible, but it is the art of the practical within a range of competing priorities. A simple solution to the problem is to build more runway capacity at Gatwick and Heathrow. However, that is not a suggestion that will win me much favour with my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent London seats. The lead-in time for planning, if Manchester airport is anything to judge by, would be at least 10 years because of the large number of likely objections.
There are technical solutions. The Cranford agreement covering Heathrow could be varied. It governs the speed and direction of take-off and landing times, and they could be varied to create more slots for regional air services. There are also creative solutions. Laurie Price, the aviation consultant to whom I referred earlier, argues that as 70 per cent. of aircraft using Heathrow and Gatwick use an 1,800 m runway, RAF Northolt, which has an 1,800 in runway, could be adapted as an overflow airport for Heathrow, and perhaps Redhill aerodrome, which is not too far from Gatwick, could be adapted for the same purpose.
The basic issue is to decide whether we want a regional policy. Transport is crucial for development of the regions, social inclusion, the economy, tourism and inward investment. The Government, Europe, the airlines, economic agencies, the Scottish Parliament and
276WH
the Welsh Assembly all have a role to play. We need to protect vulnerable peripheral routes by ring-fencing slots and routes. We need a published route development plan for Gatwick and Heathrow that takes account of the need for regional air travel and national priorities for airports. We need to create more London hub capacity, build more runways, adapt peripheral airports for increasing demand and approve terminal 5 at Heathrow, which has been long in the waiting.
We must encourage airlines that want to run domestic links to bid for more local services. We need to divide slots into domestic, intermediate and long-haul to stop the trading-off of Belfast with Bonn, Aberdeen with Athens and Plymouth with Paris. We need to create a regional policy for aviation that recognises the legitimate need of domestic airports such as Inverness to have access to at least one of the two primary hubs in London.
I call on the Minister to support a public service obligation on my own route. Regional services are not just for a day out in London. They play a crucial role in the development of peripheral areas. They are a lifeline for tourism, business and inward investment. I remember an old Lochaber crofter in my constituency who quoted from the Old Testament at every public meeting he attended. He used to say:
"old men shall dream dreams, and … young men shall see visions".
I look to the Minister to have the vision to transform aviation, to protect regional air services and, perhaps, bring a smile to the face of the old Lochaber crofter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been creditably brief when introducing his topic. I thank him for that. I am concerned because I can spot six hon. Members who wish to catch my eye. It is conventional to commence the concluding Front-Bench speeches 30 minutes before the termination of time. Therefore, hon. Members will understand why I appeal for brief and concise speeches that are clear and to the point.
11.15 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I heard what you said, Mr. Cook, and I will try to be as succinct as possible.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate. The matter is as crucial in his part of Scotland as it is in my area of Newcastle and the north-east. Both regions suffer from being peripheral, and air services, rail services and all transport links are essential for developing our economies. I agree with his comment that Heathrow airport's congestion problems are central to the matter.
Capacity lies at the heart of the argument. We require extra capacity at Heathrow airport no matter how that is brokered. In Newcastle, British Airways predominantly provides our routes to London, although I am glad that the cut-price airline Go has recently started services to London. That is welcome.
Sixty per cent. of passengers who fly from Newcastle to London will travel on to other international destinations, so the hubs—Gatwick and Heathrow—

277WH
are crucial. People who, like me, fly regularly from Newcastle to London know the awful frustrations that are caused by delays at the terminals. If one has an onward plane to catch and suffers a delay of an hour or half an hour, that can cause chaos in travel plans. Air traffic control congestion and congestion on the ground at Heathrow airport cause that problem.
The solution to the problem is terminal 5. I am told that we can expect the announcement about terminal 5 in two or three weeks. If I were a betting man—which I am—I would say that it is bound to be approved. Terminal 5 was always going to be approved. It is a scandal of the planning process that such an important infrastructure project takes so long to plan. Even now, it will take years to complete. Without the terminal, congestion on the ground will get worse and passengers will experience more severe delays.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a further runway for Heathrow airport. Today is a good day to start a campaign for the third runway. Everyone has been quiet about that because we want terminal 5. However, in reality, a third runway is essential.
The most important factor for the UK is to have a successful and major airline. That airline will, inevitably, be British Airways. In future years, there will be a substantial move by world airlines into larger groups. We must ensure that British Airways can prosper. If it has its base at Heathrow and the airport becomes less efficient, it will be damaged when competing against global airlines and global airline alliances that have already been formed.
In Newcastle, there has been a substantial and rapid growth in the number of passengers who travel directly from the city to Amsterdam or Paris for onward connections. That is a welcome alternative for many people, but one sees the problem faced by British Airways. Charles de Gaulle airport appears to have unlimited expansion potential, as does Amsterdam. Frankfurt airport has had a third runway since the United States air force moved away. Gatwick has one runway and Heathrow has two. We must bite the bullet and campaign for a third runway in the area. I hope that if that happens we shall not experience the same protracted planning applications as we experienced with Manchester. In our fast moving world, to which transport is the key, we cannot have a planning infrastructure system that plods at the rate that it did for terminal 5.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that an extra runway has recently been added at Schipol and that Charles de Gaulle is constructing another runway? Does that not add to his point that if we do not increase capacity in the United Kingdom, we shall lose international air traffic to those centres?
Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of the matter, and he is right. In the competitive world of international airlines, Air France, KLM and other airlines will all benefit from having a much more efficient hub than British Airways has with Heathrow.
278WH
Bearing in mind your strictures to be brief, Mr. Cook, I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber for introducing the debate, reiterate the vital importance of regional air services to his constituents and mine, and urge that the debate about extra capacity at Heathrow begin soon and in earnest.
11.20 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on introducing the debate. I have enormous sympathy with his points about the need for his area to be able to access properly both the national airline service and, through that, international airlines, and his point that air traffic in the modern world is not simply a mode of transport but relates to how communities develop and connect with the outside world, and to regional economic viability. The debate is central to the sort of nation that we aspire to be. The role of Manchester airport has been fundamental in the city's economic success in recent years.
I gently suggest to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that his preoccupation with one airline and one regional set of airports is not healthy for the development of air transport throughout the country. I hope to persuade him that there are alternatives to the preoccupation with Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, Gatwick.
In a country of more than 50 million people, the development of alternative hubs to the London airport system can be envisaged. I do not wish to sound excessively parochial. Of course Heathrow is the dominant airport in the United Kingdom and will be indefinitely, and Gatwick is the second. However, Manchester is already a regional hub in its own right. Some 100 airlines fly in and out of Manchester to and from 175 destinations around the world. It makes sense economically and environmentally for services from places such as Inverness to use an airport such as Manchester. I would not want to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber that Manchester is the only choice that Inverness should have. I entirely agree with him that the concept of public service should determine slots at Heathrow, and the Minister should respond to that point this morning.
I make a plea to wean ourselves off the view that all Governments have had in the past that only Heathrow and only British Airways matter. That is simply not so. My constituents and people from the north-west, the north of England and a wider area are in some cases better served through Schipol, Frankfurt or Paris. That will always be so. Some services simply do not allow people from the north of England to access the London airport system easily. I therefore insist that we take a broader view of the development of air transport, which is about not the protection of airlines or, airports but the development of communities and the economy, which is a broader issue. In the European context, we must examine the role of national carriers, on some of which enormous pressure is already being placed. In the European framework, rationalisation may be necessary.

279WH
As a result of events following 11 September, air transport faces greater uncertainty than at any time in the recent past. Many of us assumed almost blithely that the industry would grow for ever. However, there will almost certainly be a period of retrenchment and contraction. Airlines such as British Airways, Virgin and British Midland are cutting jobs and services, which will have an impact on an airport such as Manchester. I recognise that the international carrier that goes first into Heathrow or Gatwick and then Manchester will withdraw the Manchester service before the Heathrow service. That is inevitable in economic terms. If the Government are tempted to look at support for the airline industry, whether in terms of security costs or, more generally, airport duty, I hope that they will recognise that the regional distribution of air services is vital. Support for airlines may be legitimate, but support for airports and the communities that depend on those airports is also important.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of slots. Under the present system, slots are determined by negotiation between the airlines and the slot controller, which allows carriers to dominate. The public interest goes beyond that of the airlines, and a slot allocation system must be developed that recognises the wider economic and social interest. We must at least recognise the role of airports for the wider community. In an airport such as Manchester, slots are available 24 hours, but some slots are much more commercially desirable. Under the present slot allocation process, enormous power is given to the new carrier to drive in, at the expense of services that may be more socially and economically desirable.
The Civil Aviation Authority will report on the regulatory framework for airports this week. Will the Minister make sure that the charges imposed on regulated airports are consistent with the increased demand for security in air transport? We cannot be locked into the economic bubble of decision making that applied before 11 September—the world has changed since then, at least in that aspect. I also urge the Minister to look carefully and sympathetically at the powers of local authority airports, which is an important issue for Manchester and other airports. I know that his Department has made sympathetic noises about that recently, and I urge him to consider carefully what direction to take.
Air transport is far too important to be seen as an issue for a particular industry. It matters enormously to communities, in social and economic terms. We should not be preoccupied with London; we should look across the board at the needs of the nation as a whole. Different parts of the nation will be served by different policies on open skies, liberalisation and regulation. If the Minister will reflect on that, and develop an airports and airlines policy that genuinely serves communities and regions, he will have moved this country a long way forward.
11.29 am
John Thurso: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on having secured the debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on one of the issues that he introduced—the public service obligation for the Inverness to Gatwick link.
The constituencies of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West
280WH
(Mr. Kennedy) cover about 11,000 square miles. That area of the highlands is served principally by Inverness, but also by Wick airport. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the application that the Scottish Executive have made to the Minister through Sarah Boyack for a public service obligation, and I urge him to support it as much as possible.
Transport is vital to successful commerce in any area, but particularly in peripheral areas like the highlands that are far from the centre. For many years, the highland economy was in a steady, slow decline, with depopulation and job losses. Over the past decade, that trend has been successfully reversed. In the past three years, 4,000 new jobs have come to the highlands. Transport links—in particular, the air transport link—have contributed greatly to the steady increase in jobs and prosperity. If we consider my constituency, especially the northern part, we find that inward investment has flowed steadily into Thurso and Wick. People who want to invest in the area have studied infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, but, first and foremost, they have considered the ability to travel to and from the area. Without transport links, we would have no investment and no development in the region, but the reverse—a return to steady decline.
We currently have an air service from Inverness, which British Airways provides through a subsidiary. BA has given assurances of its commitment to the route. However, when there is pressure for slots in the south, it is all too easy for operators to give away a slot for what is perceived to be a less lucrative route so that it can be used for more lucrative international destinations. Conditions will inevitably change back, that pressure will return and the Inverness slot will once again be vulnerable to cancellation or change. There is no such pressure now, and it is the right time to ensure that a public service obligation is placed on the route so that we can secure a vital transport link without which the highlands would not be a net contributor to the United Kingdom economy.
11.32 am
John Mann: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for raising this issue. On the face of it, the interests of the north midlands and the north of Scotland in such a debate do not appear to be the same, but they are.
The case has been clearly made as regards the congestion and capacity problems at London airports, and I will not repeat what has been said. The case on growth in demand has been made less succinctly. I am not one of those who believe that the current dip in demand will be permanent. There is an unseemly haste among many in the aircraft and airline industries to cut jobs as they chase tomorrow's share prices, rather than take a more rational view of the coming years. There has been a blip in capacity requirements this year, but I confidently expect the year-on-year growth that we have seen in the industry to continue from next year. The rationale for Government decision making should take account of demand and capacity needs.
We in the north midlands understand the economic case that has been made for Inverness and, indeed, for all of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

281WH
We have, or should have, one United Kingdom economy, not two or three. In examining the business case for a new airport, which is what we are doing through the current public inquiry on Finningley airport, the question of the balance between regional and international air services is fundamental to consideration of future demand.
The constant opposition to expansion in London—the fifth terminal and any proposed third runway—creates a peculiar impression, when the second largest runway in Britain is readily available to take some of the excess capacity and create more landing slots in London. We can take both long-haul and freight away from London and our airport is ready and waiting, subject to the public inquiry. I look forward to support from the Government after the inquiry, so that we can continue a development of regional airports, as part of the development of the overall United Kingdom economy. That is a fundamental issue.
On Finningley, I think that I shall break my embargo with respect to my local newspaper, the Worksop Guardian, for Friday, and mention that my opinion poll of people living immediately around the airport, in the direct flight path, was concluded today. I have surveyed everyone and have a response rate equivalent to general election voting rates, with 95 per cent. in favour and only 5 per cent. against. That shows demand, not just support, from people who are saying, to use a phrase I employed once before in the House, "Yes, in my backyard; we would like a regional airport as a contribution to growth."
I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response on how the Government intervene, but the principle is absolute. We need expansion of the regional airport network. We need expanded and strengthened regional airports as part of the long-term growth of this country.
11.36 am
Mr. Iain Luke: I want to contribute to the debate on regional aviation because it is crucial to the area that I represent. Aviation and airports in the United Kingdom face two contrasting sets of circumstances. In the more populous areas, especially south-east England, strong growth and excess demand are causing capacity problems and raising environmental issues. Yet at the periphery of the United Kingdom, in parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the west country, the problem is the opposite. Their economies are handicapped by limited communications and for most of those regions, rail transport is not an option for business travel. They depend on air travel to provide day-return business travel to the main business centres of the UK, particularly London.
In the context of the overheated economy of southeast England, the Government need competitive economies throughout the regions of the UK to take development pressure away from the south-east. However, business location decisions are taken by executives who will not knowingly locate in regions that they perceive to be isolated. Thus, it is a fundamental requirement for a competitive regional economy to have direct access to a popular London airport at credible times, for day-return business travel.
282WH
Many regional economies can sustain viable air services, albeit often using modest-sized regional airliners. However, issues arise about the way in which services in peripheral areas of Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, are penalised by taxes and charges that were created to deal with congestion that occurs only in southern Britain and in the European core.
The biggest problems for aviation in the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom relate first to access to London, and secondly to the supply of regional airlines. The supply of runway capacity in the London area is seriously inadequate for growing demand from all parts of the world. As a result, services in small aircraft coming from the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom turn out to be competing for slots against the demands of major carriers operating much larger aircraft over longer distances. The bigger carriers almost always possess the ability to outbid any small regional carrier if airport slots and landing charges are subject to market pricing. The consequence is that the smaller regional services have been completely excluded from the main London airports and are even struggling to maintain peak period slots at the smaller London airports such as London City.
Dundee, which is more than six hours by train from London, has an air service to London City airport, with four flights a day. That service has done well, but its full potential has been suppressed by not having access to London City airport in morning or evening peak periods. To get a business-oriented morning flight, the first flight is obliged to leave Dundee at 6.15 am and arrive in London by 7.30 am. There appears to be no prospect of a slot becoming available between then and mid-morning. In the evening, northward departure slots are equally hard to obtain.
Such is the need for the service that it succeeds despite those timing penalties. However, it is equally evident that it would do a much better job for the economies of Dundee, Tayside and north Fife and be more financially robust if it was able to serve the capital at the frequencies and timings that business travellers would like. I am sure that that experience is mirrored by other regional services into London.
As the London airports have become private sector companies, their duty to their shareholders is to maximise profit. They will always take the high income available from the major airlines rather than the more modest income available from the small regional air services. Air travel from the periphery of the UK is essential for the integrity of the nation. All parts of the UK should have a right to easy and good access to the nation's capital. That is not happening, and the situation is bound to worsen if things are not done.
The Government must act to increase runway capacity in the south-east. The peripheral regions would probably welcome the creation of small airports in the south-east, based on the London City model, but perhaps not with quite such severe operating constraints as apply to that airport. City airports have the advantage of not being on a large site and of being more environmentally friendly than larger airports. Another advantage from the viewpoint of protecting air access from the periphery of the UK is that city airports are fair less vulnerable to predatory slot bidding by major airlines. City airports can be created on independent

283WH
sites, but the Government should also consider adding short regional runways to the existing major London airports, restricted to regional air traffic.
If a substantial increase in runway capacity is not to be provided in the London area—and provided sooner rather than later—the Government must act to guarantee the quality and price of dedicated slots in London for the smaller, regional operators. If that is not done, the economies of the regions will be seriously damaged.
The second main problem for the development of air services in peripheral areas is the ever decreasing availability of airlines serving the regional sector. That has largely been due to the major airlines acquiring the regional carriers with a view to configuring them as feeder carriers for their global networks. It will not come as a surprise that servicing the remoter parts of the UK in modest-sized aircraft does not come within the strategic priorities of major airlines. The supply of "footloose" airlines has fallen sharply at the smaller end of the regional sector.
The Government should examine the ownership and control of regional airlines and the possibility of creating more favourable financial circumstances for airlines serving peripheral Britain. Financial encouragement for such service providers would greatly assist regional economies. Indeed, in some cases it might have the effect of reducing the need for public sector obligation payments for essential services to remote areas.
In summary, the viability of the peripheral parts of the UK must be sustained in the face of a limited supply of regional airlines, a serious dearth of airport capacity in London and the overwhelming commercial pressure to drive domestic regional aviation out of London. Those issues must be tackled to ensure that regional aviation has a viable future.
11.44 am
Angus Robertson: I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for initiating this morning's valuable discussions. They build on his work, on that of my predecessor Margaret Ewing, and of other hon. Members from neighbouring seats in the north of Scotland who have shown a great interest, particularly in the Inverness air route. I echo much that has been said by them, and also agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) about demand. Demand affects not only the north of Scotland but many other parts of the United Kingdom. Similarly, the Inverness air link is a pressing issue not only for my constituents but the rest of the UK.
The reasons for a change in regional airline services are clear, particularly the threat of a world economic downturn, and the downturn in tourism, which was described by a prominent Moray hotelier as being worse than at the height of the foot and mouth crisis. In my constituency and other parts of northern Scotland, that must be balanced with the fact that Inverness has city status, a growing population and some of the finest tourism potential in Europe. We have many leading industries; some 50 per cent. of Scotland's whisky distilleries are in Moray. They depend on first-class air services to bring in buyers and distributors to promote
284WH
that vital industry. Such services are also of supreme importance to the many thousands of Royal Air Force personnel who are based at RAF Kinross and RAF Lossiemouth—two of the largest RAF bases in the UK—many of whom come from the south of England and have to travel back and forth regularly.
There seems to be a lack of vision and ambition. It is unfortunate that we need even to discuss maintaining and securing slots for Inverness. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber and I thank him and other hon. Members for signing my early-day motion, which called for a public service obligation order on the route between Inverness and Gatwick. I read the Hansard report of a 1997 Adjournment debate, and we seem to be going over ground that has been covered already. It is unfortunate that there has been so little progress to date. The level of global competition makes that situation particularly pressing. That applies especially to tourism. It is ironic that the north of Scotland is such an attractive tourist location yet has such an inadequate service. That must be seen in the context of competition, particularly from our closest neighbour, Ireland.
Ireland has made great strides in tourism with Bord Failte, and low-cost carriers have opened much of that country. In the past few days, a study outlined the growth in low-cost carriers in Ireland and the extent to which that had affected positively the tourism sector and flights in Ireland. That was compared and contrasted with the situation in Scotland. The study was compiled for the shadow tourism Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Kenny MacAskill, and I commend it to the Minister and would be happy to forward it to him.
In comparison with Inverness, low-cost carriers have flown into Prestwick, and it has seen a 550 per cent. increase in visitor numbers arriving by air. During the same period in Inverness, the increase was only 29 per cent. Efforts must be made to make it possible for low-cost carriers to improve services to Inverness. We should have more ambition and vision for Inverness airport, rather than seeing it as purely a regional airport. It should be a hub, a national airport for the north of Scotland, because it serves so many important and peripheral areas, and will continue to do so owing to the growth of the city.
Aviation policy is by and large a reserved matter. Therefore, much of my case impinges on the Government in Westminster. I have a query about a Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions study, which is a review of the access to regional airports. I have not seen it, and I do not know whether there is an intention to publish any of the review material. It is blindingly obvious when the train passes that there is no stop at Inverness airport. It is almost impossible to catch a bus from Inverness airport to the town. It is almost impossible to catch a bus from Inverness airport to the town. If there were more low-cost carriers, people would spend more on taxi fares to town than on their flight ticket to Inverness.
I echo the calls for a PSO to guarantee the slots, but even if that were granted, it would secure only the higher-cost airline routes, and that is not enough. Gatwick's future is uncertain in some repects, and we must have the ambition to increase flights to many

285WH
airports. I appeal to the Westminster Government, the Scottish Executive and the European Commission to do all that they can to improve the situation.
11.50 am
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter, which the events of 11 September have made topical. The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) have clearly and eloquently explained why a PSO—public services obligation—would be appropriate. I do not intend to rehearse those arguments since both hon. Gentlemen are probably better informed than I am on the route from Inverness to London, but we must widen the debate to include more than that route.
I contacted, at random, Plymouth airport and spoke to its director, John Humphrey, to give him an opportunity to set out the concerns of regional air services and airports. I thank him for his input. Access to Heathrow airport is a major concern; Plymouth airport used to have access to Heathrow, but has been switched to Gatwick. That causes Plymouth anxiety, because many United States and Japanese companies are based in Plymouth and use the service, but they want connections from Plymouth airport to London and on to other destinations, such as the far east.
The switch to Gatwick is of serious concern because 70 per cent. of Plymouth airport's passengers board another flight from London. The problem will be further exacerbated if, as has been suggested, British Airways downsizes long-haul operations from Gatwick. What discussions has the Minister had with British Airways on the subject? Is BA considering downsizing, and has he opposed such proposals? Can the Minister confirm the likely time scale for the consideration of the PSO for Inverness? Could we use article 87(2) of the European Union treaty to supplement the PSO, and if so, in what way?
The director of Plymouth airport thinks that the way to secure regional air services is to provide guaranteed or ring-fenced slots. BAA plc should charge a suitable landing fee; the director of Plymouth airport was worried that landing fees might be inflated because smaller aircraft do not make as much money for BAA. We must also find an airline prepared to run regional services, although the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber did not think that that was an issue.
A final factor is the police cover that is being provided. Plymouth airport has police cover 24 hours a day, and there is concern that those costs might, at some point, be passed on to it and other regional airports in a way that would significantly affect their operation. Costs could also be passed on to airlines and would have a significant impact. Will the Minister say whether those policing arrangements will continue without charge for the foreseeable future, or whether, at some point, regional airports or airlines will have to pick up the cost?
I had a discussion with representatives of one of the major regional airlines and, again, the lack of access to Heathrow airport is a major irritant. At this difficult time, can the Minister reassure regional airlines that
286WH
access to Heathrow will be improved? Alternatively, will he reassure them—as the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs recommended in 1997–98—that better access can be provided by improving significantly the links between Gatwick and Heathrow? The Select Committee's report included options such as a helicopter service or other transport measures. If Heathrow is to have no more slots for regional airports, a good, fast and reliable transport link between Gatwick and Heathrow could provide the relevant connections and ensure that efficient interlining from Gatwick is possible.
The regional airline representatives raised the issue of insurance. The Government made the welcome announcement that they would underwrite—or provide for—third-party insurance for war and terrorism for a 30-day period that began on 22 September, or thereabouts. The Select Committee's report said that the Government were at the point of charging commercial rates for that service. There are some blank looks from the Minister and his advisers. Will the Minister confirm that the process has moved on? If it has not moved on, and the Government are now charging commercial rates for the service, what feedback has the Minister received about those rates? Can he confirm that, although the rates that are being charged are commercial, the intention behind them is not to seek to profit from—or to exploit—what happened on 11 September?
I am sure that the Minister is aware of a newsletter that was leaked by the Association of Lloyd's Members, which said that the 11 September attacks were:
"an historic opportunity to make money".
That newsletter was circulated to Lloyd's names—the individuals who pledge their wealth to back insurance risks—and said that premiums:
"had shot up to a level where very large profits are possible".
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is probably wrong about that, as most Lloyd's names have had demands for huge sums of money since 11 September. That event has not been welcomed at all.
Tom Brake: All I can say is that if I am wrong, the BBC news is wrong. I am sure that that is not the case, so I stand by my information. However, I will give the Minister an opportunity to confirm that the arrangements are working, and that the airlines consider them to be commercial but financially acceptable.
The final issue raised by the regional airline was decent, inter-modal access to Heathrow. Regional airlines are willing to see short-haul flights replaced by rail links, if those links are decent. If the travelling times by rail are three hours or less, it makes more sense from an environmental point of view for those journeys to be completed by rail. That would free up slots for flights coming from places further afield, such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. When does the Minister expect all major conurbations within 300 miles of Heathrow or Gatwick to have rail journey times of three hours or less to those airports, which would make rail a viable option and thereby greatly reduce the demand for internal short-haul flights?
A discussion of regional air services cannot take place without touching on the subject of terminal 5, which many hon. Members have already mentioned. Will the

287WH
Minister confirm that we can expect a statement in the House on that subject? What assessment has been made of the impact of terminal 5, should it proceed, on regional air services? Would it improve or harm the prospects for regional air services? Terminal 5 is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy: one builds terminal 5; one attracts more international flights into that airport; all the airlines want to fly into there; nobody wants to fly into Gatwick; nobody wants to fly into other regional airports. What thought has gone into ensuring that that self-fulfilling prophecy does not come about? The current South East and East of England Regional Air Services study is dependent on the terminal 5 announcement. When does the Minister expect it to be published?
My comments have been brief because the Minister complained about the length at which I spoke yesterday, and in anticipation that he will be able to use the time that is left to respond to hon. Members' questions before launching into his prepared speech. I look forward to his response.
12.1 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this timely and topical debate. There were some commendably brief speeches this morning, which allowed many hon. Members to contribute. That is an eminently sensible example of how this Chamber might operate.
I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), but there were interesting speeches from the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) and for Moray (Angus Robertson). They all made the sensible point, in which they are right, that business development depends on the efficiency of regional airports. They all said that we must use the total capacity of the London airports to better effect, an issue to which I shall return later in my speech.
The UK aviation industry is one of Britain's great success stories. It is one of the most competitive and deregulated industries in the world. Today, Britain, as an aviation nation, is second only to the USA, and is pre-eminent in Europe. Aviation is also an industry with an unrivalled safety record. There is a great deal of potential, but if growth is to continue, the Government must resolve some key issues. This morning, many hon. Members have mentioned terminal 5. We are, of course, awaiting an announcement, which we expect shortly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made clear, however, it will take several years before it is built.
It may be worth examining the figures. In 1998, 160 million passengers travelled on aircraft. That figure is set to double in the next 10 to 12 years, and may, on some predictions, reach 500 million by 2030. That is a huge number of passengers, and we welcome that increase as part of the nation's development. As I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, that figure is related to international competition. Unless we maintain efficient and well run airports in London and elsewhere, we shall start to lose capacity to other centres such as Charles de Gaulle and Schipol. It is disturbing
288WH
that in Milan, for example, Alitalia is still given slot preference to other airlines, which have been told to use an airport 40 miles away.
We need a general increase in liberalisation throughout Europe. What does the Minister propose to do about the EU policy relating to slot ownership and distribution? The Government seem determined to allow the European Community to negotiate a policy, rather than to maintain a national one. I would also be interested to know what he proposes to do about international bilateral agreements, in which the EU seems to take an increasing interest. Is it true that the French have, in the past few days, concluded a bilateral agreement with the United States? For many years, we have tried for a bilateral agreement with the United States—even the Prime Minister intervened on the matter—and yet the parties have not been able to arrange one.
Before you call me to order, Mr. Winterton, to tell me that I am talking about international air policy, may I explain that that and slot capacity at Heathrow are integrally linked with the issues under debate? Every time an aircraft flies into Heathrow or Gatwick, it takes a slot that could be used by an international airline.
I want to return to the relationship between the London and regional airports. As it happens, I travelled a lot by air this summer—for example, I travelled to the airport in the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber. I have been travelling to Scotland for many years and recently the intervention of airlines such as Go and easyJet has transformed the situation. The price of £55 for a ticket from Inverness to Luton has enabled air travel to reach people in many hon. Members' constituencies where air travel would never have been conceived previously.
We need to think about how air travel from regional airports impacts on London. As has been said many times this morning, Heathrow and Gatwick are effectively full for daily commercial flights. However, other airports in London, such as Luton and Stansted, need to be considered. Bearing in mind the environmental constraints, and the need to maintain everybody's way of life, we should examine how all London airports can be used to better effect.
Hon. Members have already mentioned Northolt and Redhill. Given the environmental constraints on those airports, it would be interesting to know what the proposals are for increasing their capacity and effectiveness. There seems to be a vacuum in Government thinking. We are still awaiting a White Paper on the matter—I would like to know when and if it will be published. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, we need to consider the transport infrastructure between all the main airports in London.
It would be more acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to fly from Newcastle to Luton, if Luton had a better infrastructure connecting it to the centre of London—the Thameslink train, which I used from Blackfriars to Luton, is pretty slow, unclean and inefficient. There should be a better link between Luton and the centre of London, and Luton and other major London airports. To get from Luton to Heathrow is

289WH
virtually impossible: one has to use the Thameslink train or a bus into central London to get back out again to Heathrow. That makes no sense in a modern economy.
Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to improve interlinking between the different parts of the south-east airport system. However, environmental and economic issues also exist. Developing other potential hub airports—Manchester is already a hub, but other places can develop them—would be in the interests of the travelling public and the environment, and would do something about the excessive congestion in the south-east.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall return to it when I have finished my point.
The Government must seriously consider the transport infrastructure between London's main airports. It might then be easier for people to use regional airports such as Luton and Stansted, to the greater satisfaction of those who want to take international flights out of Heathrow and Gatwick. That involves the issue of motorway capacity, including bus lanes on the M25.
When I took my family on holiday to Spain this year, I flew out of Birmingham airport, which was very efficient. Travel operators must be encouraged to think increasingly about using the regional hubs for holidays, both for tourists leaving the country and for those coming in. In 1998, the Government allowed airports that were trading successfully to increase their borrowing. How effective has that relaxation been, and how has it affected the regional hubs? It is important to develop the role of local authorities and private companies that own the regional hubs.
Mr. Lloyd: This is not a matter of parochial pride, although that comes into it. We should not think of airports such as Manchester and the bigger Scottish airports simply as places where holiday carriers can fly from. Manchester already has a huge range of regular international services, which are fundamental to the development of the regional economy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wean himself off the idea that they are merely a bolt-on for when we wear our holiday hats and go off to Spain. They are about travelling for all manner of reasons all around the world.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right, but he is picking holes in my argument. My example was intended to show how we can use the regional hubs to better effect, thereby reducing the number of flights out of Heathrow and Gatwick. We must use every method at our disposal. The Government should develop a holistic policy for the whole air travel sector that considers how to use the regional hubs, the London airports and the smaller local airports to better effect, thus benefiting both the travelling public and the development of the country's infrastructure.
Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall, although the hon. Lady has not been present and we are short of time.
Caroline Flint: I apologise for arriving late. I gave notice that I was interested in the debate, but I have been speaking at a conference.
The hon. Gentleman is asking the Minister to produce a holistic plan. Is he suggesting that the development of regional airports should not continue as it is? For example, Finningley in my constituency, from which four out of five people in Yorkshire fly, could provide international long-haul services that are not currently provided anywhere in the county.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Lady to the debate, even at this late hour—I accept that she had to be somewhere else. She is picking holes in what I said. I made it clear that the purpose of a holistic policy is to determine how we can make better use not only of London's airports, but of regional hubs and small local airports.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said about his public survey of attitudes to an extra regional airport at Finningley. The fact that 90 per cent. of people were in favour is contrary to what one might expect. One of the problems in developing an airport strategy for London is how to take account of environmental issues, especially airport noise at antisocial times of the morning. When the Minister makes his decision about terminal 5, one of the matters that he will have to grapple with is the times at which to limit aircraft flying in and out of Heathrow. When Gatwick's second terminal was built, severe restrictions were imposed on the times of day that aircraft could fly in and out, and they have already been breached. The Minister will have to grapple with such issues if he is to come up with a sensible air policy for the United Kingdom.
I end where I began. We all want to improve the efficiency of airports, be they London, regional or smaller local airports. I have mentioned the need for regional airports to improve links with London through better infrastructure, and we also need better and more efficient checking in and baggage transfer. The speed link from Paddington to Heathrow offers an ideal example, but no such system links central London with, say, Luton. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington rightly alluded to the lack of an efficient transfer system from Gatwick to Heathrow. Those matters can be improved.
If the United Kingdom is to remain at the forefront of world travel, we must address those significant issues. Many hon. Members have called for the public service agreement for Inverness to he invoked to ensure that services are maintained. British Airways has briefed us that such an arrangement can work only if the Government are prepared to subsidise it. We must look at the issue in the round, and ensure that this tiny island's existing air capacity is used in the best way for all concerned. The Minister should tell us how he intends to meet that huge challenge.
12.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this important debate. I congratulate him on arguing the case, not only for Inverness but for Scotland, well and with brevity. He is always persuasive. He has a quiet and compelling manner that makes one listen to him more than to those who speak loudly and boldly, and I assure him that I have indeed listened carefully to his comments. He has articulated a strong case for protecting air services in his region.
My hon. Friend asked me to support the public service obligation. The Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), has written to Sarah Boyack, the Minister for Transport in Scotland. He said that the Department will now consider the request for the PSO against the criteria in European legislation. Officials of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are meeting members of the Scottish Executive tomorrow to discuss that important matter. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members present who represent Scottish constituencies.
I should draw the Chamber's attention to today's statement from British Airways:
"British Airways fully intends to continue services between Inverness and Gatwick. It remains a viable route and there are no plans to withdraw flights. We have also no plans to change or reduce services from Gatwick to Plymouth and Newquay."
It is clear from his speech that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) takes a huge interest in Plymouth. I have heard the points that he made before—when I visited Plymouth airport some three or four weeks ago. We will be looking carefully at the British Airways statement, and will keep under review its commitment to those services.
I shall deal with a couple of important points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He complained about EU involvement in slot allocation, but I should remind him that it was his party that agreed to such involvement, in 1993. It is true that France and the United States have signed a bilateral agreement on open skies, but we will sign a bilateral agreement only in the interests of the United Kingdom's airlines, not in the interests of the US aviation industry. That is perhaps another matter on which we differ from Conservative Members.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No. The hon. Gentleman had long enough and I want to respond to the points that others have made.
I have listened to those points with great care. It has been a good debate, with contributions from many hon. Members of different parties: the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson); my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who made compelling points in favour of regional airports; the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) who made a brief, sensible contribution, of which the hon. Member for Carshalton
292WH
and Wallington should perhaps take note, as it was very valuable; my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who made a very good contribution; my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), who was watched very carefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who takes enormous interest in such matters; my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), from whom we are always pleased to hear; and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I assure hon. Members that, although I may not have time to respond in detail to all points, I have listened to them carefully.
The Government recognise the significance of regional air services and their economic and social spin-offs, something referred to powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. Good direct flights to the capital and interlining opportunities to international flights attract inward investment and encourage the development of business and tourism in the regions. Therefore, I understand concerns that current air links between regional airports and London should be maintained. That point has been widely made in the debate.
I also appreciate underlying concerns about the future of regional air services, and why those concerns have come to the surface. In recent years, many regional airports have seen Heathrow and Gatwick services reduced or moved. Inevitably, such changes cause concern. I am well aware that certain UK regions are worried that commercial pressures are threatening services between their airports and Heathrow and Gatwick because of pressure on airport slots.
Hon. Members are probably aware that European law—EC regulation 95/93—governs the common rules for the allocation of slots at community airports. That is probably what the Conservative Government signed up to about 10 years ago. The regulation's key provision is for slot allocation at fully co-ordinated airports to be carried out by a slot co-ordinator. In the United Kingdom, the co-ordinator is Airport Co-ordination Ltd. It allocates slots according to specified criteria on a neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory basis. ACL's decisions are binding, and the Government currently have no role in the process. If the hon. Member for Cotswold thinks that that should change, perhaps his party might be interested in coming forward with proposals.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No.
The regulation is based on the key principle of historic precedence, also known as grandfather rights. That enables an air carrier that uses a slot in one season to have the first claim on it in the next, providing that it uses it for 80 per cent. of the time.
The scarcity of slots at Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, Gatwick encourages airlines to use slots to maximum commercial advantage. Hon. Members can appreciate that demand for slots increases pressure on slots used for less profitable routes. That is the thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber said. Some airlines have developed more long-haul services as air travel has expanded. However, I am sure that hon. Members welcome, as I do, the expansion of regional air services to Luton,

293WH
Stansted and London City airport provided by low-cost airlines, and the benefits that such competition can provide to customers.
I shall now try to address as fully as I can some of the issues raised in the debate. We must recognise that an airline is going to use slots at a congested airport such as Heathrow or Gatwick in a way that will maximise profits. If an airline thinks that, even taking into account the contributory revenue from connecting passengers, it can make more profit by switching slots from a thin regional service operated by small aircraft to a long-haul service operated by wide-body aircraft, it will do so. Obviously, airlines will not be considering the wider economic benefits of domestic regional air services. I think that this is the nub of the concerns of people in Inverness and Scotland.
We are aware of the difficulties that may arise from the conflict between market forces affecting the use of airport slots and the Government's regional interest. The Government are listening to the argument that wider external benefits should be taken into account in certain circumstances—for example, when one airline is operating on a route and the alternative forms of transport are inadequate. We have heard about six-hour journeys from parts of Scotland and that also applies to parts of Cornwall.
The market is seriously constrained by the infrastructure. The fundamental problem behind the lack of access at Heathrow and Gatwick is lack of adequate infrastructure—Heathrow has only two runways and Gatwick has only one. Demand for take-off and landing slots greatly exceeds the capacity at Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, at Gatwick. Most regions would like Heathrow connections, for obvious reasons, but might settle for assurances of a London link.
Concern has been expressed during the debate and at other times that airlines are free to choose how they use their slots. I have been raising the matter for many years, sometimes with Liberal Democrat Members and others in the south-west, so the subject is not new to me. Airlines must make profits, so many withdraw from marginally profitable services to use slots for more profitable routes. Under European legislation, they are entitled to do that. Slot allocation is not generally route specific. When slots have been allocated to airlines, it is for individual airlines to choose how to use their slots according to their assessment of market conditions. It is definitely not for the Government to interfere with the commercial decisions of airlines.
It is important to our discussion to explain the circumstances in which the Government can intervene and the constraints on that.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No. I want to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, because they are important.
294WH
There are currently two mechanisms available for the Government to intervene to protect access for regional services. Under the current regulation, the Government's ability to reserve or ring-fence slots for regional services is narrowly defined. They are permitted to reserve slots without a public service obligation provided that the slots were being used for the route before 1993, there is only one carrier on the route and there are no adequate links by alternative modes of transport. The Government have not so far ring-fenced slots without a PSO. They may also reserve slots when a PSO has been imposed on a route. I hope that that clarifies the avenues down which we may go.
Any move towards protecting air services for one region would be met with demands for similar treatment from other regions, and those may include regions that do not currently have London connections. Hon. Members should be aware that protecting all existing service levels would tie up many slots. That would be to the detriment of consumers generally, as well as United Kingdom carriers that would have to continue to operate some marginally profitable services or surrender the slot. If airlines were expected to forego the opportunity to make best use of the slots they hold, there would be a cost to the airline and loss of benefit for consumers. We need to balance the benefits and disbenefits of various options.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber referred to greater protection for regional air services through the other available mechanism—the public service obligation. The imposition of a public service obligation must be in accordance with EC regulation 2408/92, which is based on the presumption that the supply of air services should be left to a liberalised market to determine. It does, however, provide for the Government to intervene in certain circumstances. The regulation states that a member state may impose a public service obligation on a route to a peripheral or development region when the route is considered vital for the economic development of the region. It may do so to the extent necessary to
"ensure the adequate provision of scheduled air services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing, which standard air carriers would not assume if they were solely considering their commercial interests".
The Government have interpreted the regulation very tightly indeed.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. If I have not answered hon. Members' questions to their satisfaction, perhaps they will drop me a note and I shall endeavour to give them a full response.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We are all grateful to the Minister for concluding within the time allotted for the debate.

Rail Services (East Sussex)
12.30 pm
Norman Baker (Lewes): If I seem distracted, it is because last night there was a major explosion at Newhaven in my constituency. I understand that many fire fighters are involved and the town is covered with billowing smoke, which reaches as far as Eastbourne. I want to put on record my gratitude to the fire services, to whom I spoke this morning, for their work in a dangerous situation where there are exploding acetylene cylinders and other hazards. We can all take comfort from the fire service's professionalism.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that there has been no loss of life or serious injury, and that the hon. Gentleman will advise the House on the matter.
Norman Baker: I am advised that there has been no loss of life and no major injuries, but details so far are sketchy.
Let me turn to the subject of the debate, which is of interest to other hon. Members who represent constituencies in East Sussex. I am delighted that the hon. Members for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) are present and I hope they will want to intervene.
There is much constituency correspondence on the subject in East Sussex. The debate is well timed, given the changes to the railway industry as a consequence of Railtrack being taken into administration. If the Minister has managed to recover from the previous debate, it would be useful if he could say something about how the post-Railtrack arrangements will affect the opportunity for investment in rail services in East Sussex, because hon. Members in all parties want better rail services.
The characteristics of rail travel locally are that it is reasonably reliable, notwithstanding the complaints that some of us receive. There is a quickish service to London from East Sussex. It is far better than travelling by car, as those of us who need to can work on the train—trying to work while driving is something that the Minister and others might regard as hazardous.
However, the rail services are expensive, the trains are dirty and the rolling stock is clapped out and dates from the time when the Beatles' "She Loves You" was number one. The peripheral arrangements for travelling by train, such as car parking at stations, are often far from perfect. Much needs to be done if there is to be a renaissance in rail travel, people are to be persuaded out of their cars and on to railways, and businesses are to be persuaded to use rail rather than road freight, which is the Government's policy. That aim is shared by all hon. Members. It has not happened because money spent on roads is called investment whereas money spent on railways is called subsidy. We need to change that mindset, which has plagued our railways for too long. It may well be, for environmental, social and economic reasons, that money put into railways provides a better return for the taxpayer than money spent on roads.
In the past 20 or 30 years, Governments have been good at picking up on road schemes throughout the country and building roads, although not always as
296WH
many as some people want. They have not shown the same ability to create new railway lines or reopen existing ones, and to reopen stations. However, I am delighted that the Government's excellent initiative, the south-coast multi-modal study, is under way. It is the first time that a transport corridor—road, rail and short-sea shipping—has been considered, and it is the right way of doing things. I hope that the initiative will show that the best way to use the existing infrastructure is not to construct huge new roads costing £100 million-plus, which is what it would cost to have a dual carriageway from Lewes to Polegate; it would be far better to use the existing infrastructure.
We want a package of improvements in East Sussex, most notably the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. Its closure was absurd. It was ordered not by Beeching but by the county council in 1969 to facilitate the building of a bridge over the river in Lewes. A look at the railway map demonstrates how ludicrous the situation is, with trains from London going all the way to Uckfield in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden—and taking about 10 minutes longer to get there than when the railway line opened around 1840.
There is a seven-mile gap between Lewes and Uckfield where the track has been largely retained. A ridiculously short section of rail is missing and a reinstatement could easily take place. There would be several advantages in that, not least of which is that it would provide an alternative route to London. As the Minister knows, there are huge capacity problems on the Brighton line. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion agrees with that. It is inconceivable that we could have another Balcombe tunnel and Balcombe viaduct; that would be too expensive and environmentally damaging. The new train operator, GoVia, is considering an improvement to the line at Littlehampton. A third alternative, which Connex was considering before it lost the franchise, is to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line. Whatever the faults of Connex—it was far from perfect—it was prepared to look seriously at reopening that line. I very much hope that that opportunity will not be lost now under GoVia.
It would be tragic if the Lewes-Uckfield line were not reopened. We must pull together and find a way of achieving that; 32 years after its closure, there is a huge campaign, which spans all councils and all parties, for the line to be reopened. Whenever I or the hon. Member for Wealden try to achieve that, we are told to go and see the Strategic Rail Authority; the SRA tells us to see GoVia; GoVia tells us to see Railtrack, as it was; Railtrack tells us to see the county council; the county council tells us to see the Government, and the Government tell us to see the SRA. The Government need to produce a route map showing how we can reopen lines that should never have been closed in the first place and where there are obvious economic, environmental and social reasons for doing so. Will the Minister tell us how we can achieve that objective?
Mr. Charles Hendry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. Does he agree that the route to Brighton via Littlehampton is much longer than a reopened Wealden line would be? Before that line is reopened, it is essential

297WH
that the existing line to Uckfield have dual tracking and be electrified. The current service to Uckfield is deeply inadequate.
Norman Baker: I entirely agree. Littlehampton is not a satisfactory diversion route, as I imagine the constituents of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion would agree—and as those who get shunted there when there are rail works know. The Lewes-Uckfield line would be a reasonable diversion if there were problems on the Brighton line.
Another necessary improvement in infrastructure is the electrification of the Hastings-Ashford line. If one goes from Lewes to Brussels, as I have, it takes longer to go from Lewes to Ashford than from Ashford to Brussels. That is ludicrous. Getting off the super brand-new train that glides through the French countryside at about 100 mph at Ashford, believing that one is in the 21st century, one then has the surreal experience of transferring to a 1954 diesel train, which shunts along like Thomas the Tank Engine at about 10 mph from Ashford to Hastings. Business men and women in my constituency want to go to Ashford by train so that they can get to Brussels and back quickly. They tell me that it is simply impossible to do that because the Hastings-Ashford line is, at best, a Sunday outing; it is not a sensible rail line.
Mr. Gregory Barker: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this important debate. Does he accept that my constituents are appalled not only by the transit time to Ashford but by the service to London? They would recognise the picture that he has painted of the quality of the rolling stock, but not the journey time. In fact, it takes one hour and 45 minutes to travel from Bexhill to London, which puts Bexhill further away from London than York. The journey takes longer now than it did in 1922. That state of affairs is simply unacceptable.
My constituents are also concerned about the impact of Railtrack's collapse on repairs in Bexhill, Cooden Beach and Etchingham. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with that.
Norman Baker: I agree with the point about journey time. I saw a map with circles that showed how long it took to get from a particular area to London: half an hour, an hour or an hour and a half. The circles were not concentric. The map showed a big blip in the Wealden area and the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Journey times from those areas were excessively long compared with those from, say, Brighton.
Mr. David Lepper: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he, like me, welcome the fact that electrification of the Hastings-Ashford line is part of the commitment made by GoVia and South Central, now that they have taken over responsibility for that line? Does he agree that all those of us who are concerned with the economic vitality of the south coast need to put pressure on the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure the doubling of track on that line too? Electrification is only one part of what is required.
298WH
We in the south-east think of ourselves as living in a European region, particularly with the port at Newhaven—and the west pier, which leaves the English mainland and makes its way towards the continent. There is inconsistency.
Norman Baker: I am happy to agree. The hon. Gentleman has long been a strong advocate of improved rail services in those areas. I hope that the Minister will note the cross-party unity on the need to secure improved services in East Sussex and on the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield line.
I want to see other infrastructure improvements. Reinstating the loop between Polegate and Pevensey would enable Eastbourne to be bypassed, not by passenger traffic—the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) might object to that—but by freight traffic. That would facilitate the transfer of freight from road to rail.
We also need improvements at Keymer junction, where the Lewes line joins the Brighton line. As anyone who travels from Lewes, Bexhill or wherever knows, the trains inevitably wait there for three or four minutes, which causes a major problem.
We need a new station at Newhaven, because the current three stations are disgraceful and a terrible advert to people who arrive there from Dieppe. Dieppe has received a lot of investment whereas Newhaven stations do not even have a car park—they are that bad. A lot of money is going into Newhaven, where there is an opportunity for a big rail renaissance, with increased freight and passenger movements. The Government are keen on the public-private partnership in Newhaven, which is investing huge amounts of money in the area. Everyone agrees on the need for a single station. All parts of the railway industry say that that makes sense, but none is prepared to lead on the matter. Will the Minister knock some heads together to get things going?
We shall not see a renaissance of rail travel along the south coast—the situation in London is different—unless rail fares are cut. A peak-time return journey between Polegate and Lewes costs £6.50; a return journey from Seaford to Lewes—a distance of nine miles—costs £5. No one in their right mind will pay those fares.
Instead, we have a ludicrous situation in which the A26 and A27 are congested with traffic that does not move in the rush hour, while trains on the parallel railway lines sail gaily by, almost empty. I hope that the south coast multi-modal study will consider that. People in my constituency say that they do not use the trains because of the cost, not because they are dirty. Lower fares on those lines would therefore facilitate the transfer of passenger traffic from road to rail. That would obviate the need for the expensive road improvements being advocated by some. All those stations are in the middle of towns: Eastbourne, Polegate, Seaford, Newhaven and Lewes. There is a huge number of white collar workers in Lewes at the police headquarters, the county council, the district council, the health authority and the ambulance service.
The 12-car trains that GoVia runs from Eastbourne and Polegate to Lewes are substantially empty, but they then pick up huge numbers of people at Lewes and Haywards Heath. Why does not GoVia fill those trains

299WH
with people who will get off at Lewes? It would not have to run any extra trains or carriages. There is spare capacity. All it has to do is cut fares. I have written to GoVia, the Minister and the Strategic Rail Authority about this. GoVia's response was very encouraging. It said:
"It may be that on that particular route we can look at creating an experimental fare to see if the idea works. If we did we would have to submit the proposal for the current fares round by no later than 16th November … If we were able to introduce this experiment we would probably envisage a three month trial period."
GoVia is prepared to cut fares to see whether that gets more people on to the trains, but it will need help. I want the Government to say that they are prepared to invest money to cut fares. Although that may be classed as a subsidy, it would be the best way to deal with the transport problem. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the SRA and the multimodal study will look at cutting fares as part of the solution to the transport problem. I spoke this morning to the district and county councils. They are prepared in principle to help advertise that experimental fare cut. If the train operating company and the county and district councils are prepared to help, will the Government ensure that the SRA also helps?
I am sorry that I have rattled through my speech quickly. I could go on for hours about railways in East Sussex, as I am sure hon. Members will appreciate. It is an important issue for our constituents and it deserves a full and helpful reply from the Minister, which I am sure will be forthcoming.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the Minister, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that he has been very generous to allow so many interventions to guarantee that there was an all-party approach?
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I, too, was sorry to hear of the explosion in Lewes today. I hope that there has been no loss of life or serious injury. May I add my thoughts to yours, Mr. Winterton?
There is certainly cross-party interest in these matters. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) has been a doughty fighter for railway and other transport matters. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate and the clear way that he has presented his case.
At the risk of causing a rift in party unity on these matters, I refer the hon. Gentleman to an interesting debate that took place here yesterday—I seem to spend most of my time here these days. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who speaks on transport for the Liberal Democrats, was asked how much of the tax increase that the Liberal Democrats proposed at the last election would have been spent on improving public transport. He replied:
"I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with our tax plans, which were limited. They focused specifically on education."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 218WH.]
300WH
I make that point because the hon. Gentleman has given us the usual Liberal shopping list. Perhaps he will go back to his constituency and tell the people of Lewes that they will benefit from new Labour Government policies rather than from Liberal Democrat policies.
Norman Baker: I am sorry that the Minister has started in that way. We have had cross-party consensus and that was an unnecessarily political point to make. As the Minister knows well, the tax plans were about the 1p on income tax for education. That is not to say that we would not put more into public transport. We would do so by redirecting money that is already in the relevant budget.
Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful for that clarification that the Liberal Democrats would find more funding. When the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was given the opportunity yesterday to say how much more funding the Liberal Democrats would put into transport he did not come up with any figure. These things are important. We often stand in this Chamber and hear demands for spending in individual constituencies. It is important that we do not just have demands, but we say how we will deliver them. That is probably the difference between us: we have to deliver.
Before I respond to the main points that the hon. Gentleman, quite properly, raised, I wish to address briefly some of the performance problems on the railways in the south-east. Several operators run services in and out of Brighton; however, I shall concentrate on South Central, as East Sussex is served predominantly by it.
The latest statistics published by the Strategic Rail Authority in July do not, alas, make good reading. It is clear that much must be done to improve performance and customer satisfaction. The figures show that between 27 May and 23 June, 82.6 per cent. of Connex South Central's trains arrived on time, with 81.6 per cent. arriving on time during peak periods. Services are deemed punctual if they arrive at their destination within five minutes of the time stated on the timetable. The spring 2001 national passenger survey indicated that only 65 per cent. of Connex South Central passengers were satisfied with the service that they received and only 37 per cent. thought that they were getting value for money.
The performance statistics and national survey results were undertaken before the franchise was transferred from Connex to GoVia on 26 August. The new arrangement is still in its early stages, so it is too early to make judgments about GoVia's performance. However, the incoming franchisee is taking service improvement seriously, and South Central Ltd is investing £5 million in measures to improve the quality and perception of customer services. It is intended that the first of the new vehicles to replace mark 1 slam-door rolling stock will be introduced from next year.
The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the approach to franchising. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the SRA to concentrate on negotiating improvements for passengers within existing franchises or, by negotiating short two-year extensions, to make early replacement of franchises the exception rather than the rule.

301WH
I know that the new South Central franchise is of interest to the hon. Member for Lewes. The SRA signed heads of terms with GoVia as the preferred counter-party for the replacement South Central franchise in October last year. On 26 August, a commercial agreement was reached between Connex Transport (UK) Ltd. and GoVia for the transfer of the remaining period of the current franchise. Negotiations will continue between the SRA and GoVia towards a new 20-year franchise agreement. A series of major enhancements are planned over the period of the franchise to boost capacity and improve service frequency and comfort. Total investment of £1.5 billion is planned to introduce new trains and upgrade track and stations in order to raise standards, improve train service performance and provide additional capacity.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes will welcome such improvements, as will the many passengers who experience overcrowding and the problems of old rolling stock on this intensively used and capacity-constrained commuter network. As I said, new vehicles will start coming on stream next year to replace the slam-door trains that are currently in service.
Another early benefit is the upgrading of infrastructure to provide greater capacity on the Brighton main line and the Arun valley line. Electrification of the lines between Hastings and Ashford will provide through services between Ashford International and the south coast, and electrification between Uckfield and Hurst Green will provide electric trains between London and Uckfield.
The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the south coast multi-modal study. I believe that he recently secured an early-day motion on rail fares to Lewes and congestion on parallel roads—I took careful note of it—and that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking for his proposals to be considered as part of the south coast multi-modal study.
The study commenced in March 2001, and a report is expected in spring or summer next year. The overall aim of the study is to investigate congestion, safety and environmental problems on the south coast between Southampton and Ramsgate, and to propose measures aimed at improving access to and between regeneration areas and other areas of economic activity along the south coast. While the south coast study will need to consider the outcomes and recommendations of the Hastings study, it is not intended to review them as part of its work. The Hastings study is concerned with access and regeneration issues, while the south coast study is more strategic. The hon. Member for Lewes will shortly receive a written response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It may be helpful, however, if I deal with two of the issues that he raised in his early-day motion and today.
One issue is the proposed reduced peak fares, particularly on the Eastbourne-Polegate-Lewes and Seaford-Newhaven-Lewes lines. The Strategic Rail Authority is reviewing its national fares policy, under which almost 40 per cent. of fare revenue available to train operators comes from regulated fares. The review, which is not expected to be completed until summer 2002, will be wide-ranging and nationwide. The SRA
302WH
has stated that, before any fare increase can be justified, tangible improvements in performance and service should have come on stream. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the willingness of others to participate in the fare structure in his area will have been listened to carefully. I shall ensure that those points are passed on.
On the second issue, I am aware that several Members of Parliament and local authorities are campaigning for the reinstatement of the Uckfield-Lewes and the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells lines, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that others are opposed to those proposals. As part of its heads of terms, GoVia is procuring a feasibility study to test the reliability, affordability and value for money of reinstating the Uckfield-Lewes line. GoVia will support reinstatement, provided that its viability is demonstrated.
In consultations with the relevant local authorities, GoVia made it clear that it is willing to be convinced that reopening the Uckfield-Lewes line is good value for money. It suggested to local authority officers that developing residential property in the catchment area would strengthen the case for reinstatement. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament in the area support increased residential development there, but that would create an extra market and a critical mass of customers prepared to use the rail services.
The Strategic Rail Authority has a duty to spend taxpayers' money appropriately and, before deciding whether to progress with reinstatement, it needs to be satisfied that the proposals are robust, affordable and represent good value for money. A feasibility study will be undertaken once the new franchise agreement has been concluded and it will be used to inform the SRA's decision.
The hon. Gentleman also proposes electrification of the Ashford-Hastings line and new modern rolling stock, which I have already dealt with. He would also like a new station at Newhaven to allow the development of a strategy for moving freight by rail from the port, and the reinstatement of a direct link between Polegate and Pevensey to facilitate freight movements. Neither of those proposals is in the SRA's strategic plans for freight. It is for operators to come forward with ideas for consideration, but improving performance on the existing network is the first priority.
Several hon. Members mentioned Railtrack administration. If we are to achieve a better quality rail network, we need a successful network operator. Much has been said about the Government's handling of Railtrack. In his statement of 15 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to some lengths to explain the Government's decision not to provide Railtrack with a blank cheque. Our priority now is to ensure that the company that takes over Railtrack plc's network responsibilities can help deliver the improvements that we all want.
I can reassure the House that Railtrack's being placed in administration will not impact on rail travel: passengers and freight trains will continue to run as normal. The administrators are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that, while in administration, Railtrack continues to meet the railway inspectorate's safety requirements.

303WH
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for raising important matters today. I hope that he is not too worried by my introduction. He will appreciate that I often hear demands for extra services from hon. Members, but those who deliver the services—often those from their own parties—may not have the funding to provide them.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Minister for that quick gallop round some of our rail networks.

Data Protection Act 1998
1 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: It is a great pleasure to speak on this subject given that the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force only a few days ago, on 24 October. I hope to show in my speech the clear conflict between the 1998 Act and Members' privileges. I thank the information commissioner, Elizabeth France, and her staff, the Library and the House authorities for providing me with some of the information that I am about to use.
I hope to show the need for a change to the law, because it is necessary to ease up on the 1998 Act. Members of Parliament are being placed in a straitjacket that is becoming more frustrating by the day. The Act places Members' privileges in question. More importantly, constituents, who have rights of representation, are being denied their rights. I am increasingly being asked to get constituents to sign waivers. They must be signed before I am able to obtain information, which hampers the representations that I can make on their behalf.
I shall give two examples. First, when I write to my local health board appending a letter from a constituent that states his problem clearly, the board takes it upon itself to write directly to my constituent asking for his approval to research the matter when it is obvious that that approval has been granted. The board might even visit my constituent to seek his approval. A complaint against a particular consultant could lead to a constituent's being called to see that consultant, all of which would be done without my involvement. In many ways, that is a slap in the face because, in the first instance, the constituent either wrote to me or came to see me. That process breaches the privileges of a Member of Parliament because it takes him or her out of the loop.
The second example is more extreme. The Scottish Prison Service has decided that, under the 1998 Act, it also needs a waiver. In this hypothetical case I shall call the constituent Jimmy, which is appropriate. Jimmy telephones me from prison and asks me to get him released for one day so that he can attend his aunt's funeral. I phone the prison governor and say, "Why won't you let Jimmy out?" The governor replies, "I am very sorry, but that is sensitive information. You must get him to fill in a waiver." I say to him, "You get that done." He replies, "No, you must do it."
To do that, I must send a letter. The post in the west of Scotland is not great, so it takes three days for the letter to arrive, three days for it to go through the prison service and another three days for it to get back to me, by which time the dear aunt with whom Jimmy stayed for 25 years has been buried. That frustrates my rights of representation on behalf of that individual, regardless of his position. Bureaucracy is denying my constituents proper representation, which was not the 1998 Act's intention.
The basic integrity of MPs has been challenged. I argue that the 1998 Act discriminates. MPs are all honourable ladies and gentleman, yet we are put in a position where organisations do not believe us. The only way that that will be addressed is by changing the law. On the other side of the equation, the public have rights,

305WH
but I understood that the Data Protection Act was on the statue book simply to protect rights of access for members of the public. That aim is being frustrated and we are achieving the exact opposite of what was intended in the Act. Both public and private companies and organisations are questioning the authority of Members of Parliament.
My constituents are intelligent people, but they are not all university professors. They need protection, which is why they go to their MP in the first place. That is being denied by virtue of what I have outlined, giving just two examples from a great number of cases. Hon. Members' rights are being compromised at their very kernel, and a change in the law is required to—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who is making an extremely good case in which I am sure many people are interested, that an Adjournment debate is not the right forum in which to ask for a change in the law. He can ask for action and consideration of the current situation, but this is not the forum for seeking legislation to change the law.
Mr. Donohoe: I do not want to challenge the Chair, but I cleared the matter with the Clerk and was told that it would be all right.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. I must intervene. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has taken that action, but my understanding, from the Clerk sitting next to me, is that the position that I outlined is correct. The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case, and clearly asking for consideration and action. If he does that, he is entirely in order.
Mr. Donohoe: I shall try to keep to that, Mr. Winterton. One Clerk says one thing and another says something else. Perhaps I should have done more to check the position before I called for the debate.
Other elements demonstrate that Members of Parliament are being discriminated against. Lawyers—I have checked this with several—are exempt from a considerable part of the Act, a fact that is outlined in the Act itself. That is down to what is known as legal professional privilege. I argue that MPs need something along those lines. I hope that, now that I have focused attention on the subject, the Government will consider some form of change.
When researching the problem, I came upon a report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It states:
"Parliamentary privilege consists of the rights and immunities which the two Houses of Parliament and their members and officers possess to enable them to carry out their parliamentary functions effectively. Without this protection members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duties, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished."
It goes on to say something even more interesting:
"Another aspect of Parliament's right to regulate its own internal affairs concerns the application of legislation to activities taking place within the Houses of Parliament."
306WH
The legislation taken not to apply to Parliament includes the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Data Protection Acts of 1984 and 1998. All we require, then, is an extension so that when we are outside the premises we remain outwith the law.
The problem for MPs is best explained by quoting two paragraphs from a letter—I believe that a copy has been sent to the Minister—that I received from Elizabeth France, the Information Commissioner, which illustrate the concerns expressed by those involved with the Act. She says:
"I understand why data controllers are being cautious. There was an express provision in the 1984 Act which allowed disclosure where the data user had reasonable grounds for believing that they were disclosing to someone acting on behalf of the data subject concerned. This applied even if the disclosures in question were not foreseen by the data subject. As there is no such specific provision in the 1998 Act many organisations are properly more circumspect."
That demonstrates that the provision should have been included when the House considered the 1998 Act, which came into force on 24 October.
The second paragraph emphasises the point:
"In many cases the consent of a data subject to the disclosure of personal data can reasonably be inferred, for example where a Member of Parliament writes to an organisation and the nature and content of the letter clearly indicates that the data subject involved has asked the Member of Parliament to represent him. However, this will not always be the case, and if a data controller has doubts it is reasonable for him to check with the data subject that consent has been given. Where the personal data are sensitive, or thought to be sensitive, the data controller will require explicit consent before disclosure to a third party. Normally this consent will be written. It is worth noting that the onus is on the data controller to ensure that they have the correct level of consent before disclosure of the personal data."
That is right for the average person in the street, who expects—and gets—protection, but such an approach proves frustrating where a Member of Parliament is trying to make best representations on behalf of a constituent. I am grateful for the chance to quote that letter, because it could not be more helpful in illustrating and reinforcing my argument.
Finally—and with emphasis—I should point out that the Act discriminates. If my reading of it is right, certain Ministers are exempt, and I have already mentioned the section of the Act that excludes lawyers. Although this may be a flippant point, it could be argued that the Act does not cover Scotland. It appears to remain silent on the question of convicting a person who is in breach of the Act on the basis that Scottish courts have been given no instructions in that regard.
I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to those points. In the light of the new era heralded by the Data Protection Act 1998, I want to know how I can best represent my constituents' views.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before I call the Minister to reply, and further to the matter that I raised earlier, I shall quote from page 327 of Erskine May. Sub-paragraph (b) states:
"In general, matters that would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the adjournment; but under SO No. 30 Mr. Speaker may permit such incidental reference to legislative action as he may consider relevant to any matter of administration under debate on a motion for the adjournment when enforcement of the prohibition would, in his opinion, unduly restrict the discussion of the matter."

307WH
I hope that that is helpful to the Chamber. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has raised an important matter and I have used my discretion. I hope that the Minister will now respond to it.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important and, as we have heard, sensitive subject. I pay tribute to his evident hard work and concern for his constituents, which has been demonstrated in what we have heard.
I speak not as a Minister, but as a Member of Parliament I have come across these issues and know that they are extremely important. Fundamentally, all of us are here to serve our constituents. That often requires us to obtain personal information about individuals from third parties. It is right that we should have access to information so that we can carry out inquiries on behalf of our constituents, but I know that my hon. Friend recognises that we must do so in a way that respects society's concerns for the protection of personal information privacy. It affects us all. No matter how private we seek to be, we can be certain that somebody somewhere holds information about us.
With the rapid development of information and communication technology, it is essential that effective arrangements are in place to ensure that personal information is properly protected. That is not to say that impenetrable walls of secrecy must be built around our data. Information is a key commodity and modern society could not function if it could not be shared. However, we need a balanced approach and rules to safeguard our personal information when it is used by others. Equally, those rules must not prevent the legitimate and responsible use of information by those who need to see and hold it, and that includes all Members of the House of Commons. I know that that lies at the heart of my hon. Friend's concerns.
This new legislation has come into full force only in the last few days, so I draw the Chamber's attention to a helpful guide to the Data Protection Act 1998, which was issued by the House authorities in May 2000. It was prepared in consultation with the information commissioner and covers parts of the law that are relevant to constituency case work and House proceedings. It is a clear and reasonable guide to a complex area of law—I speak as someone who took no part in preparing it. As a constituency Member of Parliament I have cause to be grateful for the guidance. The chapter on constituency case work is particularly relevant.
I want to address the points raised by my hon. Friend. I cannot comment on the individual cases of the local health board and prison authorities to which he referred, and he would not expect me to. I hope that it is clearly understood that what I am about to say has no bearing on those cases.
Two points of principle seem to arise from my hon. Friend's comments. The first is the question of explicit consent. If it is clear to the organisation making the disclosure that the constituent has given consent—
308WH
explicit consent in the case of sensitive data, such as that to do with health, ethnicity, religion—a disclosure can be made. However, he will appreciate that the circumstances have to be evaluated in each case and an element of interpretation will always exist over what is explicit consent. I hope that he is no doubt that that is the position. A disclosure can be made in certain areas if consent is explicit, but a question lies over the term "explicit consent". I hope that he understands that public bodies must be careful; they have an obligation placed on them by statute and it is important that they discharge it properly. I understand his concerns, but we must not do anything that encourages a public body to be too cavalier in its interpretation.
That leads me to my hon. Friend's second point, but I stress that I shall not comment on individual cases because I do not have enough information and it is not for me to do so. What I am about to say has no bearing on the individual case that he cited.
My hon. Friend referred to delay. Let me make it clear that we do not consider that the Data Protection Act 1998 should ever give rise to significant cause for delay by any public body in going about its proper tasks. The Act puts in place procedures for handling data properly and appropriately. It may require a change of culture in the way that organisations manage information and data, and that is for the best, but it should never be used as an excuse for public bodies not to do something that they should otherwise do in relation to their substantive duties, or for delay. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured. When new legislation is introduced, some organisations need time for bedding down, but the point remains that it should never be a reason for substantive delay. The legislation introduces new procedures and proper protection.
The question of privilege is important. My hon. Friend drew attention to some of the surrounding issues. The use of personal data in the course of parliamentary proceedings is exempt from data protection principles when the exemption is necessary to avoid infringing parliamentary principle. However, there are examples when parliamentary privilege does not apply, as in the case of letters from hon. Members to Ministers or public authorities about constituency matters, in which case the 1998 Act applies.
My hon. Friend said that it is not clear whether the 1998 Act applies to Scotland. In fact, it applies throughout the United Kingdom and the relevant statute is the Scotland Act 1998, which determines whether a matter is reserved or devolved. Schedule 5 of that Act provides that the subject matter of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the 1995 EC data protection directive are reserved matters, so they apply to Scotland.
Mr. Donohoe: Section 60(1) of the Data Protection Act states:
"No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted-
(a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland."
It does not refer to Scotland and the law is silent on that. I would argue that, given that silence, no one in Scotland could be prosecuted.
Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend has the advantage of having the statute in front of him. If I heard him

309WH
correctly, he was referring to the institution of proceedings. I was referring to the application of the Act and it would be for the authorities in Scotland to take proceedings. Under schedule 5 of the Scotland Act, the Data Protection Act applies to Scotland.
Mr. Donohoe: The Minister now has a copy of the Act.
Mr. Wills: I have a copy, which refers to the institution of proceedings. I am delighted that I heard my hon. Friend correctly and I hope that I have covered his point.
I assure my hon. Friend that the purpose of data protection law is not to prevent Members of Parliament from doing their job properly and conscientiously, as he is doing. It does not prevent them from obtaining the information they need to pursue their constituents' concerns. It establishes a set of rules to ensure that there is appropriate protection for the personal information held about constituents and others. Members of Parliament are always acting on behalf of their constituents for the purpose of data protection legislation, but they may fall to be treated as third parties.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I think that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is trying to get across is that when a constituent rings an MP's office wanting him or her to pursue a problem, the MP may have to write to or telephone the constituent to get written consent. Will the Minister confirm that?
Mr. Wills: That is the reality, and it is sometimes necessary. Constituents are not always explicit about what they want Members of Parliament to do on their behalf. Speaking personally, not as a Minister, I have taken up cases where a constituent has asked me to do something, then clarified it later in writing. In some cases, constituents have been unwilling for me to disclose their name to the authority that they want me to approach. They are usually clear and explicit about that from the beginning, but sometimes they do not make it clear until later on in the proceedings. A public body that receives a request for information from a Member of Parliament has statutory obligations to be clear about
310WH
the basis on which it is handling the information on behalf of the individual to whom it pertains, and to treat it sensitively.
Mr. Cunningham: I accept that that is the case. However, where confusion arises, MPs must use judgment, discretion and interpretation.
Mr. Wills: Of course I accept that sensitive issues are involved. I am trying to explain the need for a balanced approach.
The information commissioner has an important role to play, and I welcome the fact that she has been helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South. I understand that she said that it may be necessary to review the range of disclosures that are permitted under schedule 3 and its associated order. It has always been the Government's view that the present arrangements are very much a starting point and that it may be necessary to consider further, in the light of experience of operating the new Act, whether additional processing gateways for sensitive personal data are needed. The directive to which the Act gives effect requires that any such gateways should be in the substantial public interest.
I will study carefully what my hon. Friends have said today to determine whether any amendment to the March 2000 order is necessary in this context. As they will understand, I cannot guarantee that that will produce the outcome that they might wish, but I shall write to them about it in due course. I hope that that gives them some comfort.
It is beyond dispute that Members of Parliament have a legitimate right to make representations on behalf of their constituents.
Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister explain why lawyers have certain rights that Members of Parliament do not have?
Mr. Wills: They do not have certain privileges that we do not have; they have a certain qualified privilege. As this is a complex issue, I will write to my hon. Friend about it.
This important Act safeguards the rights of individuals in the crucial area of information and privacy. However, we accept that Members of Parliament have a proper interest in the matter, and I shall write to both my hon. Friends with the results of our deliberations on what they have said.

Alcohol Misuse
1.29 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I am pleased to have the chance to raise important issues in relation to alcohol misuse. As both vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol misuse and vice-president of the specialist alcohol service covering my constituency, the Hertfordshire Alcohol Problems Advisory Service, I am all too aware of the health and social impact that alcohol has on communities. I am also acutely aware of the lack of measures to address alcohol misuse, particularly the absence of a strategic Government response to the issue, despite the large amount of evidence demonstrating the cost to society of alcohol misuse in its many forms.
Only a few months ago, the Royal College of Physicians put a figure on the burden of alcohol problems on the NHS, stating that they cost between 2 and 12 per cent. of NHS spend. Even at the lowest figure of 2 per cent., that amounts to about £500 million a year. Many of us would agree that there is much room for improvement in the waiting times experienced by patients requiring treatment for a range of conditions.
If the Government really want to address waiting times, the impact of alcohol problems cannot be ignored. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol misuse, the reality of the impact of alcohol problems on the whole hospital system was brought to life by Dr. John Kemm, a consultant in public health who was a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced the report "Alcohol—can the NHS afford it?"
In a graphic representation of a ward round in a busy city hospital, Dr. Kemm described patients in beds on the male medical and surgical wards. I have time to give only a flavour of that ward round. First, we had Mr. Smith, who drinks 40 units a week and has acute pancreatitis, more common in heavy drinkers and difficult to treat. Then we had Mr. Taylor, who had had a dense, right-sided stroke, which is unusual in someone so young—but the night before Mr. Taylor had had a binge on alcohol, which is recognised as increasing the risk of stroke. On the surgical ward, Mr. Carr had had a gall bladder operation; while the original problem was not due to his drinking, his slow and difficult recovery is due to the fact that he is a heavy drinker. His wound had become infected and he had to stay in hospital for an extra five days. Next we had Mr. Ponsonby who had fallen from his roof while doing DIY and broken his femur. Forty-eight hours after his operation he suddenly became agitated and disturbed with a case of delirium tremens, which meant that the hospital had to get in a specialist nurse for 24 hours to look after him. The role of alcohol in his fall should have been spotted and his alcohol dependence managed better. And so the ward round went on.
Dr. Kemm also described a Friday night in the casualty department, the type of cases seen—the majority alcohol-related—and the stresses that staff are put under. I was struck by one relating to a patient who had cut his head open. His X-ray showed no obvious problems but unfortunately he was extremely drunk. As the symptoms of being extremely drunk are very like those of a head injury, none of the doctors dared
312WH
discharge him. Instead, he was kept in all night and had his blood pressure checked and his pupils tested every 15 minutes, taking up a bed and valuable staff time.
The position outlined by Dr. Kemm reflects what is happening in Hertfordshire. While the local primary care trust has recognised the need to address alcohol misuse within the hospital setting, the lack of specific funding and national targets, as well as of robust ways of measuring the role of alcohol, means that alcohol is not dealt with—for example, by screening all patients and having a specialist alcohol worker to take referrals from across the hospital, as recommended by the Royal College of Physicians.
Many of the alcohol-related problems seen in hospitals are preventable—accident and emergency staff see many injuries caused by alcohol-related accidents and alcohol-related violence. Research by the former Health Education Authority showed that one in six people who attended A and E departments for treatment had alcohol-related injuries or problems. That rose to eight in 10 people at peak times on Friday and Saturday evenings—a staggering number, which, not surprisingly, has a significant impact on hospital resources.
Has the Secretary of State for Health considered alcohol misuse within the context of the good practice guidance for A and E departments, which he announced only last week and which is aimed at reducing waiting times for patients? Waiting times for A and E departments and the whole hospital system could be significantly reduced in the long term if the Government made the investment required to implement a comprehensive strategy on alcohol misuse. The Government have been promising such a strategy for a long time—indeed, since the public health Green Paper was published in early 1998. So far, however, there is no sign of a strategy, despite the latest promise in the NHS plan that one would be implemented in 2004. The Government are missing an enormous opportunity to reduce the cost to not only the NHS, but society as a whole.
I stress that the examples that I have given of hospital patients blocking beds are not out of the ordinary. Much of the population has problems with alcohol, ranging from dependency to alcoholism. That impacts on not only people's health, but their relationships, families, finances and ability to hold down a job.
The new figures for alcohol dependence show that 7.4 per cent. of people aged 16 and over are alcohol dependent to varying degrees—mild, moderate and severe. That amounts to about 3 million people. The latest figures on hazardous drinking, which is defined as patterns of drinking with a high risk of damage to future health, show that almost one third of women aged 16 to 24 and more than half of young men drink at hazardous levels.
Deaths directly from alcohol-related causes remained steady in the early 1990s, but have increased by 43 per cent. since 1994. Significantly, the rate of liver sclerosis has shown as huge increase, mostly among men in their thirties. That could be a warning to us all not to ignore the growing problems and, in particular, the effects of starting to drink at an early age and of regular binge drinking.

313WH
I am not overstating the facts when I say that the problems that I have outlined lead to family break-up, divorce, unemployment and, in some cases, even homelessness. They also increase the burden on the NHS and social services. I am concerned, in particular, for the children of problem drinkers. Almost 1 million children live in homes where the drinking of one or both parents has reached risky levels. That impacts on children's lives, often in distressing ways. Some live in fear of what they will find each day when they return from school or are forgotten at the school gates. Many grow up quickly and must care for their brothers and sisters in the face of parental neglect due to drinking. They must do all that while trying to maintain a veneer of normality for the outside world.
Much good work is being undertaken in Hertfordshire with young carers of alcoholic parents, but it is rare and is not undertaken across the country. A national alcohol strategy could include such work as a target and ensure that good practice is shared.
Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the increased drinking that is evident among young people. I mentioned the high levels of hazardous drinking among 16 to 24-year-olds, but there has also been an increase in the frequency of drinking among schoolchildren and in the amount that they drink. The average weekly consumption by pupils who drink has risen from 5.3 units in 1990 to 10.4 units in 2000, which is equivalent to more than five pints of beer a week.
The United Kingdom also seems to hold the dubious honour of having one of the highest rates in Europe of binge drinking by 15 and 16-year-olds, as well as the highest number of members of that age group who have ever been drunk, according to a survey launched earlier this year under the sponsorship of the World Health Organisation. That is an inevitable part of the overall trend in this country, which, unless properly tackled by a Government strategy, will go unchecked.
Alcohol is at last being dealt with as a distinct and important issue in drug education, and I welcome the establishment of a specialist team in the national charity Alcohol Concern, supported by Government funding, to provide schools with guidance on alcohol. That has not yet, however, been translated into resources locally for specialist staff to work with young people.
The established role of drinking in society means that a more holistic approach is needed to change attitudes to drinking generally, rather than simply improving alcohol education for young people, although, of course, that is important. Alcohol is part of our culture, so it is important that adults and children should learn to drink without risk. To achieve that aim a strategy is required that would combine a raft of measures into one linked action plan, including community safety, safe drinking messages, education and support, and treatment for problem drinkers. I am aware that alcohol misuse is not an issue for just one Department, although one would expect the Department of Health to take the lead role.
The Home Office has highlighted the role of alcohol in violence, such as the 13,000 violent incidents reported to the police that take place in and around pubs and clubs every week. The Department of Trade and
314WH
Industry should be concerned about the impact that employees' alcohol problems have on productivity, and about absenteeism. It should encourage employers to implement alcohol policies. That approach is low in bureaucracy and has a low cost; it is aimed at preventing acute problems from developing and at avoiding the cost of losing valuable staff.
The latest figures on drink driving from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions show an increase in the number of drink-drive deaths and injuries, despite the successes of the drink-drive publicity campaigns in past years. Why is there such an increase?
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has now taken responsibility for licensing and, worryingly, may end up taking decisions about more flexible licensing hours in isolation from Home Office concerns about alcohol-related violence. Any increase in licensing hours must be accompanied by an assessment of the additional measures that will be needed to prevent disorder and to ensure that people with an alcohol problem will be referred for help if they are arrested. I am informed by Hertfordshire Alcohol Problems Advisory Service that the local arrest referral scheme is for drugs only, yet more than half of those referred for help have serious alcohol problems. However, without a Government decision to make alcohol a priority, no funding is available to set up an equivalent alcohol scheme or to deal with those with alcohol problems who are inevitably identified by the drugs scheme.
Those examples highlight the need for a national strategy on alcohol misuse. None of the issues can be considered in isolation from the larger policy picture. The complexity of alcohol misuse and the fact that it occurs in so many different settings demonstrate the need for a rounded strategy with the input and support of all key Departments that have a role in relation to alcohol policies. Despite powerful evidence of the human and financial cost of alcohol problems, I am surprised and concerned that the Treasury has not yet been persuaded of the potential to reduce alcohol-related harm and its related costs through proper funding of a national alcohol strategy made up of preventive and remedial measures.
Lack of a national strategy means that, more often than not, alcohol misuse is not dealt with locally, as other issues are identified as national set priorities, with funding, and those issues are dealt with first. Without a national framework for action, no one has the task of taking the lead. Where localities take the initiative on alcohol issues, the quality of action varies. Experience and good practice is not shared. In addition, there is an unwelcome impact on specialist alcohol services across the country.
The promise of a Government strategy has led to a limbo period. Local commissioners for health and local authorities are waiting for national priorities to be set before deciding which services to fund, and to what level. That inevitably leads to the loss of skilled staff from alcohol services, exacerbating an already worrying situation in which insufficient funding is available to provide an adequate service to meet local needs. Although HAPAS provides a high-quality service, it struggles to meet the demand for counselling and treatment. Because funders are uncertain about what

315WH
they ought to be funding, I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that alcohol counselling services, including early intervention, will be at the heart of the strategy.
I urge the Government to ensure that a properly funded alcohol strategy is produced as soon as possible. It must not merely focus on a limited number of non-contentious areas, but must seize the opportunity to bring about real change in our drinking culture by taking a fully rounded approach that tackles all aspects of alcohol misuse in one comprehensive strategy. Substantial action is required to make a real difference, which in the longer term will result in a healthier country and less strain on publicly funded services. It will also make our towns and communities more pleasant places to be.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing this debate. It gives us an excellent opportunity to bring the issues up to date. I would like to acknowledge her extensive personal experience on the all-party parliamentary group, which is underpinned by a great deal of local action in her constituency and area. It is particularly valuable for Members to bring to these debates not just a sense of overarching strategy but personal experience of services on the ground. We are all informed as a result.
We must acknowledge that alcohol is an enjoyable part of life for many people in this country. Some 92 per cent. of men and 86 per cent. of women in Great Britain drink alcohol, and the vast majority do so moderately and sensibly without harming themselves or others. However, some misuse alcohol, with potentially devastating consequences for them, their families and communities. The hon. Lady illustrated, in her wide-ranging speech, the breadth of the problems. They are not confined to matters of health, education, crime and disorder or employment. Once a situation of alcohol misuse has arisen in a society, all of those areas give cause for concern. We must bear that in mind when we develop ideas and strategies for tackling the problems.
There are a number of specific health risks in the misuse of alcohol. For example, roughly 30 per cent. of accidents are alcohol-related. I am told that between 25 and 50 per cent. of drownings are connected with alcohol. In 1999, there were 420 deaths from drink-driving and alcohol is a factor in about half of pedestrian deaths on the roads. The number of short-term health risks is huge, and there are long-term health risks as well. Some 3 per cent. of cancers can be attributed to alcohol. Alcohol misuse is the most common cause of liver disease. In 1999, there were 4,700 deaths from liver disease, and 39 per cent. of men and 8 per cent. of women who attempt suicide are chronic problem drinkers. A huge amount of despair is caused not just to the people involved but to their families.
As the hon. Lady outlined, all those problems place immense pressure on the national health service in terms of both hospital treatment and primary care. The hon. Lady also highlighted the pressure that alcohol misuse places on accident and emergency departments. I am conscious of those pressures. I have visited casualty departments on a Saturday evening, when I was
316WH
involved in "casualty watch" in a previous incarnation, and I have seen for myself, at first hand, the terrible problems that staff face from people who have misused alcohol become violent and, been injured, and who are not susceptible to the most caring and compassionate treatment that is available.
I assure the hon. Lady that, as happens for people with mental health problems, there is no bar to putting workers in accident and emergency departments to try to ensure that people are treated appropriately and directed to other services, especially if the immediate presentation of alcohol may wear off but there is an underlying problem. Many A and E departments are putting such measures in place because they recognise that that reduces stress on staff and, in the long term, helps to stop the recurrence of problems, because the same people with the same problems present almost every weekend. Diverting such people into other services is part of reforming emergency care. That was mentioned in the strategy that we issued last week about streaming patients in A and E departments to give them the right care at the right time and in the right place. Extra funding is attached to that strategy: £118 million is being invested now to ensure that we relieve the pressure on A and E departments. Clearly, that is not all related to alcohol misuse, but a portion addresses the tremendous problems faced by staff in A and E departments, especially at weekends.
The hon. Lady rightly highlighted the Government's commitment to formulate and produce a national alcohol strategy. The original timescale was ambitious, and I acknowledge that the strategy has been slow to emerge. However, we must examine that in the context of the Government's specific clinical priorities for early action relating to coronary heart disease, mental health and cancer. Obviously, those matters compete for Government time and development by the Department of Health, and resources must be available in order to make a real impact. I reassure the hon. Lady that we said in the NHS plan that the alcohol strategy would be implemented by 2004. We are on track to meet that target and we shall develop a national strategy.
The hon. Lady highlighted the key issue of how we can draw in not only the Department of Health, but the Department for Education and Skills, the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that we have a joined-up strategy. It should be focused on health without ignoring the other crucial ways in which we can address the problems. It is all very well to have an excellent treatment centre, but if a person does not receive adequate housing, education or access to employment after being released from the centre, the problems that caused the person to misuse alcohol, because of a lack of social support, could kick back in and we could find ourselves in a similar position in subsequent months. Therefore, there must be a genuinely joined-up strategy—I do not say that in the Manner in which those words are currently abused.
I reassure the hon. Lady that the absence of a strategy does not mean that nothing happens. The strategy will focus, target and prioritise, and help to draw together ideas. However, many developments have taken place concerning alcohol and crime. The Government recently produced an action plan to tackle alcohol-related crime. The police have new powers to close

317WH
premises that are the focus of disorderly behaviour. Hotspots are targeted and we have more "pubwatch" schemes. In my area of Greater Manchester, the practical step of persuading public houses to use plastic glasses has dramatically reduced the number of horrific and savage facial injuries caused by people misusing alcohol. We have simplified and strengthened local authorities' powers to control drinking in public places. All hon. Members, as constituency Members of Parliament, know the problems of inappropriate drinking in public places and the intimidation that that causes for ordinary people going about their business. Giving local authorities the powers of arrest and to confiscate alcohol addresses the problem.
Over the past three years, the Department for Education and Skills made £21 million available to support the training of teachers to deliver effective drug, alcohol and tobacco education policies. It is key for us to join up those issues. That funding is set to rise to £47.5 million over the next three years, which shows how seriously the Government take public education on the matter.
We have also issued new guidance and assistance to target young men and women in our action to reduce teenage pregnancy. There is clearly a connection between the misuse of alcohol and teenage pregnancy, and trying to ensure that we provide information and education to support young people in making informed choices about not only alcohol but the rest of their lives is important to us.
We have closed a loophole, through the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, which created a new offence of proxy purchasing alcohol—buying alcohol on behalf of others aged under 18. That is a real step forward.
We have also taken action on housing. Rough sleeping has been reduced by about 62 per cent. over the past three years. Many people with alcohol problems fall into housing difficulties, perhaps not paying their rent, being evicted and finding themselves out on the streets. The rough sleepers programme to try to put people in hostels—off the streets and into supportive, caring environments—has been key to tackling some of the problems involved.
The hon. Lady is right to keep up the pressure on the Government to ensure that we produce a strategy and that, in doing so, we take into account the views of voluntary sector groups, user groups and people with hands-on experience of such services. We already have about 600 treatment services throughout the country. About 180 relate purely to alcohol, but many are
318WH
combined drug and alcohol services, as the same issues apply in terms of detoxification, support and counselling, which, as she said, should be at the heart of the strategy.
We want to reduce the problems of alcohol misuse rather than simply treating them. We are talking as much about putting money into prevention and ensuring that people do not go down that road in the first place, as about providing high-quality treatment services for people already in difficulty. We need to be creative in examining prevention work and finding out what works. I have found that in health promotion we lack an evidence base on campaigns, whether for safe drinking, drugs education or sexual health education. No robust evidence exists to show us how a campaign affects people's behaviour and whether they stop drinking, drink less or stop taking drugs. We have a long way to go before we get to the heart of the matter, and we are doing an awful lot of work in all those services to ensure that when we spend money, we get value from it. We want to ensure that we do not embark on campaigns that are not robust and effective.
Funding is available in the health service for alcohol services. At the moment it is mainstream funding, and it is for local commissioners to decide what their local communities need in terms of alcohol support services.
The hon. Lady is right: developing a strategy will help give focus and priority to this important field. Ensuring that we in the Department of Health join it up with our work on drugs is important. Perhaps even more important are the issues that the hon. Lady highlighted. We must have a strategy that draws in all our partners in Government Departments, education, housing and employment, and involves local government, which delivers many of the services, the voluntary sector, which has been extremely active in devising innovative and imaginative schemes that work, and users of services, because that is how we shall achieve sustainable change and help reduce alcohol misuse.
As I said earlier, the vast majority of people enjoy alcohol in a safe and moderate way, but ensuring that people who are in difficulty, unable to cope and need support, help, treatment and counselling in order to ensure that they and their families can live with dignity and support is a top priority for us. I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chambers. It is important to continue to progress as quickly as possible and to ensure that we deliver a strategy that lives up to her expectations and the expectations of those involved in the field.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to sell submarines in the last two years; with whom he negotiated; and if he will make a statement. [10138]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my noble Friend Lord Robertson, the then Secretary of State for Defence, gave on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 56W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey) and my answers to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 23 October 2000, Official Report, column 30W, and 19 December 2000, Official Report, column 89W, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 341W, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 184W, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 717W, and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on 20 July 2001, Official Report, columns 717–18W.

  Canada has acquired the four ex-Royal Navy Upholder class submarines. The acquisition takes the form of an eight-year lease with the option of outright purchase.

  The first of the refurbished submarines was handed over to Canada on 6 October 2000, with the second submarine being handed over to Canada on 4 October 2001. It is planned that the two remaining submarines will follow over the next 14 months. Canada has exercised its option to purchase outright the first submarine, HMCS Victoria.

  Military Equipment (Updating)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the armed forces have to update existing military equipment with particular reference to radio communications equipment, following the contribution of UK forces to the conflict in Afghanistan. [10498]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 513–14W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

  Armed Forces (Recruitment)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent initiatives have been taken to increase the level of recruitment to the armed forces. [10571]
  660W
  Mr. Ingram
  All three services undertake numerous and varied initiatives, both at national and local level, aimed at increasing the level of recruitment to the armed forces. Included among the many current initiatives are:The use of multi-media advertising campaigns.
  Services' Recruiting Teams' attendance at schools, careers fairs and Graduate Recruitment Seminars, road shows, exhibitions, youth clubs and organisations.
  Work experience placements within service establishments.
  Personal Development Courses and 'Look at Life' Courses for people who express an interest in the armed forces.
  Taster Day visits to HM ships and service establishments.
  A dedicated careers website for each of the services.
  Introduction by the Army of an 'on-line' recruiting office, with plans for this to be replicated by the other services.
  Specialist Ethnic Minority Recruiting and Diversity Action Teams aimed at promoting armed forces careers to ethnic minority communities.
  A partnership with the Employment Service, making use of its local outlets 'Jobcentre Plus'.

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the consultants' report on the relocation of the fixed wing aircraft repair business of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff International airport. [10765]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 707W. The position has not changed.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from business in the Vale of Glamorgan on the Defence Aviation Repair Agency's unsuccessful attempt to relocate its fixed wing aircraft repair business from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff International airport. [10766]

  Mr. Ingram
  The only representation received to date by the Chief Executive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) was from Mr. Derek Gaynor, the landlord of the Highwayman Inn in Nurston.

  Mr. Gaynor has since been informed about the current position concerning Cardiff International airport by officials from the Welsh Development Agency.

  Armed Forces (Training)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the(a) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre defence agency review of training of armed forces and (b) other intelligence agencies; and if he will make a statement. [11453]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The Defence Intelligence and Security Centre (DISC) is not conducting a review of training, but is undergoing a Quinquennial Review (QQR) of its agency status, part of which will involve an analysis of current and future training activity. This review was announced on 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 710W. Comments were requested by 15 September 2001 and to date we have received one representation. The review is due to be complete by February 2002.
  661W
  Separately, the report of the Defence Training Review, announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 27 March 2001, Official Report, column 545W, included a proposal to collocate security training, language training and possible joint photographic training. On 19 July, I announced that the DISC was being examined as the Ministry of Defence's benchmark site for security, intelligence, language and photography training, Official Report, column 334W.

  The only other intelligence agency within the MOD is the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency (DGIA), which was launched on 1 April 2000, formed from the merger of two defence intelligence agencies, the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) and Military Survey. The DGIA provides imagery intelligence and geographic support to defence policy, planning, operations and training.

  Road Safety Report 1999–2000
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Defence Annual Road Safety report for 1999–2000 will be placed in the Library. [11499]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 October 2001,Official Report, columns 321–22W. I stated that the report would be placed in the Library of the House shortly, and I am pleased to confirm that this was done on 29 October 2001.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nature of refit is required by HMS Ocean; and if he will make a statement. [11497]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 12W.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanical problems are being repaired on HMS Ocean; when repairs are expected to be completed; when HMS Ocean will be ready for re-deployment; and if he will make a statement. [11815]

  Mr. Ingram
  1 refer the hon. Member to the answer which the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave him on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 12W.

  Subject to operational considerations, HMS Ocean will be available for operational tasking by late spring 2002, following completion of the routine docking period.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he expects Defence Logistics Organisation(a) current expenditure and (b) capital expenditure to be within their respective estimates provision in the current financial year; and if he will indicate the relevant figures. [11577]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimates provision at the start of the year for the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) was made up of £3,421 million for current and £612 million for capital expenditure. As I explained in my reply of 662W
  26 October 2001, Official Report, columns 405–06W, in the normal course of business there are adjustments to these limits as the year unfolds, which will be finalised in time for the spring supplementary estimates. We would expect DLO expenditure to be within estimates provision at the year end.

  Joint Strike Fighter Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Joint Strike Fighter programme. [11576]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 514W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy).

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the decision taken in the Strategic Defence Review to reduce the role of the TA in nuclear biological chemical reconnaissance; and if he will make a statement. [R] [9671]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to review the decisions taken in the Strategic Defence Review with regard to the role of the Territorial Army in nuclear biological chemical reconnaissance. Since the SDR a regular Joint NBC Regiment comprising Army/RAF elements has been formed at RAF Honington, and became operational in December 1999. Its role is NBC reconnaissance, survey, detection/identification/monitoring and decontamination. Currently, two squadrons of the Royal Yeomanry form the reserve element of the Joint NBC Regiment.

  Exercise Swift Sword
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to use Exercise Swift Sword to increase recruitment to the armed forces. [10580]

  Mr. Ingram
  An Army recruiting initiative 'Operation London Soldier', from 10 to 23 September 2001, culminated in a competition on 30 September. The planned prize had been a period with Exercise Swift Sword. However, due to the events of 11 September, a replacement prize of one week of military/adventure training in Gibraltar was introduced instead.

  Exercise Swift Sword, as with all such large exercises, served to heighten awareness of the armed forces, with considerable daily coverage in the media. In addition, the live footage and photographs from the exercise will be used to enhance and update the services' recruiting libraries and will provide up to date and topical material for future recruiting literature.

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will urge his American counterpart to stop US forces using cluster bombs over Afghanistan. [10788]

  Mr. Hoon
  The cluster bombs used in Afghanistan do not contain anti-personnel landmines and are, therefore, legitimate weapons that have not been prohibited by any treaty or convention. They are used with discretion and
  663W
  proportionality and against legitimate and appropriate terrorist and military targets that are selected with great care.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) use of and (b) preparedness to use napalm in Afghanistan of coalition forces. [11448]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: No napalm has been used by coalition forces operating in the Afghanistan region and there are no plans to do so.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on a bombing pause to assist the more effective delivery of humanitarian aid in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [11647]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the UN has made clear, the military campaign as such has not hampered the delivery of assistance in any significant way. We have no plans at present to suspend military activity in Afghanistan in order to facilitate the delivery of aid, not least because a pause in the bombing would simply encourage the Taliban to harass humanitarian supplies more than at present.

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme; and when he expects studies to be complete. [10600]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme was completed in August 2001. An unclassified summary of the final report is in preparation for publication and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House in due course.

  Drugs (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if disciplinary action over drug taking is exercised consistently between the three services. [10703]

  Mr. Ingram
  All the services have similar disciplinary procedures for dealing with drugs offences which include trial by court martial and, on a verdict of guilty, usually results in dismissal from the service following a period of military detention.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been tested under the Compulsory Drug Testing programme in the last year in each of the three services; and how many have tested positive in each case. [10701]

  Mr. Ingram
  The figures for all service personnel in the calendar year 2000 are as follows:

  Service

  Underwent Compulsory Drug Testing (CDT)

  Tested positive

  Royal Navy

  13,951

  50

  Army

  117,659

  609

  Royal Air Force

  11,610

  14

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary action was taken by each of the three 664W
  services in the last year in respect of service personnel who tested positive under the Compulsory Drug Testing programme. [10702]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the year 2000, no disciplinary action was taken against personnel from any of the three services for testing positive at a Compulsory Drugs Test (CDT). Failure of a CDT will normally lead to the Administrative Discharge of an individual on the basis that drugs are incompatible with service in the armed forces. A positive test by itself is not a criminal or disciplinary offence. Disciplinary action will only be invoked, in relation to CDT, if an individual commits the offence of failing to provide a urine sample for the purpose of testing.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to alter regulations and penalties for possession of cannabis among servicemen and women, following the changes proposed in civilian life by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. [11090]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's proposal concerned the reclassification of cannabis. However, misuse of drugs, of all classes, will remain incompatible with the requirements of life in the armed forces.

  Porton Down Veterans Support Group
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will invite the Porton Down Veterans Support Group to the next meeting of the Veterans Forum. [10902]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes. The next meeting of the Veterans Plenary Forum is scheduled to take place on 17 April 2002.

  Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired by British forces during the present action in Afghanistan. [11014]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Royal Navy submarines fired a small number of Tomahawk land attack missiles on 7 October and 13 October.

  I am withholding the precise information requested under Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to national defence.

  Regular Commission Boards
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future location and organisation of the regular commission boards. [R] [11270]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Regular Commission Board (RCB), which is currently based at Westbury in Wiltshire, is part of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA). Its role is to select potential officers for entry to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS), also part of ATRA.

  Historically, the RCB was part of the Directorate of Army Recruiting but in 1998 it was placed under the control of RMAS, as there is clearly a synergy between the selection and training of potential officers.
  665W
  We have now decided that RCB should be collocated with RMAS as from February 2003. Collocation of the two parts of what is essentially a single operation will further enhance coherence, achieve economies of scale and could enable ATRA to achieve a degree of estate rationalisation. The role and ethos of RCB will not change.

  Territorial Commissioning Board
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future locations and organisation of the territorial commissioning board. [R] [11271]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is examining various options to determine the best way to operate the Territorial Commissioning Board and I expect a decision to be made by the end of the year. I will write to the hon. Member when I know the outcome and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the paper being prepared by the Defence Procurement Agency on the future of the defence industry to be published; and if he will make a statement. [11455]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: It is not intended to publish this paper as it is for the purposes of internal discussion and advice only. I am therefore withholding it under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Armed Forces (Advanced Driving)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many active servicemen successfully completed advanced driving safety courses in the last 12 months. [11450]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The Ministry of Defence does not run specific courses teaching advanced driving safety, although service personnel do attend courses provided by organisations such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA). This training is arranged locally. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  MOD does, however, provide training for all categories of driving licences. This includes basic training plus familiarisation training on the relevant type of vehicle, refresher training, and any specialist courses required. All these courses stress the importance of driving safely. More specifically, MOD has recently introduced a defensive driving training programme—some 4,000 personnel were given this training over the year April 2000 to March 2001.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if security at nuclear installations has been upgraded in respect of terrorist threat; and what plans he has to take further measures. [11777]
  666W
  Mr. Ingram
  The standing level of security at Ministry of Defence nuclear installations is maintained at a high level and is specifically designed to counter an attack by armed terrorists. This high baseline level of security is maintained at MOD nuclear installations irrespective of fluctuations in the terrorist alert states that may apply to other Government establishments or MOD installations. Security measures at defence nuclear establishments include armed guarding and strict control of access. As my hon. Friend would expect, these security arrangements are kept under constant review.

  My hon. Friend would not expect me to go into detail regarding any additional security measures that may be adopted in the future.

  MOD F680 Export Control Applications
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD 680 export control applications(a) are awaiting decision and (b) have been waiting for (i) one month or more, (ii) two months or more, (iii) three months or more. (iv) six months or more and (v) one year or more. [9470]

  Dr. Moonie
  The F680 is an informal process under which companies can obtain advice on the prospects for approval of exports at the marketing stage. The F680 also gives formal clearance for release of classified information, where required, for marketing purposes. The information sought is not currently held in the form requested. However, the Ministry of Defence is carrying out an audit of extant F680 applications as part of a programme to improve this service to industry. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is completed and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Biological Warfare
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with pharmaceutical companies about facilities used for the creation of biological organisms and toxins with potential for warfare. [8620]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has had no such discussions.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vaccines the Government have in place to treat biological agents, organisms and toxins affecting the population. [8619]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have existing stocks across the whole range of potential bioterrorist threats. Our contingency planning is responsible and proportionate. For security reasons, we cannot reveal levels or locations of either vaccine or antibiotic stocks.

PRIME MINISTER

  Interception of Communications Commissioner
  Brian White
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to publish the next annual report of the Interception of
  667W
  Communications Commissioner; and if it will be available electronically. [10773]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today laid before the House the annual reports for 2000 of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Simon Brown. The confidential annexes have been excluded in accordance with section 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The annual reports will be available on the Cabinet Office website. I am grateful to the Commissioners for their work.

  Occupational Health and Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will clarify departmental and agency responsibilities for occupational health and vocational rehabilitation. [11312]

  The Prime Minister
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), is responsible for occupational health services provided by the NHS. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), is responsible for vocational rehabilitation.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what British planes taking off from the base in Diego Garcia have dropped cluster bombs during the military action in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement on the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, with particular reference to British involvement. [11574]

  The Prime Minister
  No UK aircraft have directly taken part in the bombing campaign.

  The cluster bombs used in Afghanistan are legitimate weapons, which have not been prohibited by any treaty or convention. They are used only with discretion and proportionality, as international law requires, and against legitimate and appropriate terrorist and military targets.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush on the armaments used during the military action in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [11579]

  The Prime Minister
  We are in close contact with the US on all aspects of the response to the attacks of 11 September, including at the military planning level.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, in what ways the Commission plans to assist 668W
  access for children of staff, hon. Members and hon. Members' staff to daycare facilities. [10287]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission already provides child care vouchers for staff of the House with small children. The vouchers are very flexible, and can be exchanged for various forms of daycare, including nursery places and care by nannies, childminders or certain relatives.

  For school aged children the House also ran a subsidised holiday playscheme for children of hon. Members and hon. Members' staff and staff of the House for six weeks in the summer. The Board of Management will be considering whether to extend the scheme for the future. Staff of the House are also eligible to use Westminster Playscheme run by the civil service.

  There is no specific responsibility on the Commission to provide facilities for children of Members and their staff, but Members can use their allowances to purchase vouchers or daycare facilities for their staff. The Department of Finance and Administration publishes information about finding child care facilities in the Westminster area on the intranet.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of number of farm occupations taking place in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [10576]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Committee of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers visited Zimbabwe on 25–26 October. They found a divergence in the views and facts relating to farm occupations. The Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) have reported that occupations continue unabated, and that since the Abuja meeting on 6 September, 688 farms had new people join the occupations. The CFU estimate 200–300 new occupations since 6 September. The Government of Zimbabwe dispute these figures. The Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe have cited several new occupations since Abuja in Mashonaland West. At Abuja, the Government of Zimbabwe gave an assurance that there would be no further occupation of farm lands. We continue to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to abide by this commitment.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy initiatives he plans to promote democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [10578]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. At Abuja, the Government of Zimbabwe agreed to abide by the democratic and human rights principles contained in the Harare Declaration. My noble Friend Baroness Amos accompanied Commonwealth partners on a visit to Zimbabwe on 25–26 October, to assess implementation of the Abuja Agreement and to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to abide by their commitments. The EU opened Article 96 consultations on 29 October, to press for closer engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe on human rights, democratic principles and the
  669W
  rule of law. We continue to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to admit international election observers and to create a climate conducive to free and fair elections.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the level of political violence in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [10579]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned about political violence in Zimbabwe. In the Abuja Agreement, the Government of Zimbabwe agreed to take firm action against violence and intimidation. But the Chikomba by-election on 22–23 September was marred by violence. We continue to press the Government of Zimbabwe to permit the entry of international election observers, and to create a climate conducive to free and fair elections. My noble Friend Baroness Amos accompanied Commonwealth partners to Zimbabwe on 25–26 October, to assess implementation of the Abuja Agreement and to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to abide by their commitments.

  Visa Centres
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to open the proposed visa centres in Jallandhar, Ahmedabad and Sylhet. [11430]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have recently received formal approval from the Indian Government to open visa liaison offices in Jallandhar and Ahmedabad. We are identifying suitable premises and aim to open both offices by mid-2002. Work is almost complete on the Visa Liaison Office in Sylhet, which should open on schedule in November.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if permission has been given to DRS railway transport company to increase the operating speed on trains moving spent nuclear fuel to Sellafield. [9103]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such permission has been given by the Department.

  Railway Industry
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, local Government and the Regions when he informed the Rail Regulator of his Department's discussions with(a) passenger rail franchisees and (b) train operating companies for taking over responsibility for operating and maintaining railway infrastructure in the areas where they run train services. [9832]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials have had meetings on such matters with train operators' representatives or their advisers at their request. These have not resulted in any change in policy about which the Rail Regulator needed to be informed.
  670W
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money was invested in Railtrack in each of the years since privatisation. [10470]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) 18 October 2001,Official Report, column 1315W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money he estimates will be required to meet the 10-year plan's objectives for higher safety; and how this estimate has changed since the plan was published. [10440]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport safety is a major priority for this Government and our L180 billion 10-year-plan will contribute towards delivering a safer transport system. It is not possible to give a precise figure about how much of that money will be required to meet the plan's safety objectives, because much of this expenditure will simultaneously deliver a range of benefits, including safety.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the requirement for public sector investment in rail during the period of the 10-year plan will change as a result of the transfer of Railtrack assets to the proposed successor body. [10401]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No change is expected.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many times he has met the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority since June; and what the date of their last meeting was. [10443]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Secretary of State and I have met the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority on several occasions—specifically to discuss the Authority's work, as part of wider industry meetings and at the High Level Group for London Rail Projects, which last met on 4 October.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Railtrack is able to meet the requirements of the Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1999 in paying its contractors and suppliers. [10448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W, to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), on the successor to Railtrack, what the credit rating of Railtrack was on 4 October. [10445]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Standard & Poor's credit rating for Railtrack plc on 4 October 2001, based upon their research dated 2 May 2001, was single A-1 (short term).

  The Moody's credit rating for Railtrack plc on 4 October 2001, last updated in June 2001, was A2 (long term) and P-1 (short term).
  671W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the relationship between the future track access charge regime and the non-profit making status of the successor to Railtrack. [10475]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Tuesday 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for placing responsibility for safety on stakeholder directors of Railtrack. [10285]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements he will make for the financing of the successor body to Railtrack so that it can meet its(a) network maintenance and (b) other obligations. [10532]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure train operating companies maintain the wheels of rolling stock and locomotives to minimise damage to the track. [10393]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive advise that there are Railway Group Standards governing the maintenance of the wheel profiles of rolling stock and locomotives. The train operating companies have systems in place regularly to monitor wheel profiles. Proper maintenance of the track is also an important issue, and the industry has set up a joint systems authority to develop solutions to the difficulties at the wheel/rail interface.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the rail manufacturing and renovation industry of the decision to extend existing franchises by two years. [10813]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's policy is not to treat all franchises alike but to replace them early, or when they expire, or to extend their current term, whichever is most likely to deliver benefits to passengers. The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan will set out plans for applying this policy franchise by franchise and will thus provide a firmer basis for business planning by the rail manufacturing industry.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what issues he will consider when exercising his powers under schedule 7 to the Railways Act 1993 in approving the transfer of Railtrack plc out of railway administration. [12144]

  Mr. Byers
  Schedule 7 to the Railways Act 1993 makes provision for a transfer scheme mechanism to be used for the transfer of the undertaking of a protected railway company which is the subject of a railway administration order.
  672W
  Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 7 provides that a scheme made under that schedule shall not take effect unless (in the case of the undertaking of Railtrack plc) it is approved by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  I will consider carefully all of the terms of any proposed scheme submitted to me by Railtrack plc (acting by its administrators). However, in order to assist potential bidders for the undertaking of Railtrack plc this answer sets out, by way of guidelines, the principal issues upon which I will need to be satisfied before approving a proposed scheme. These guidelines may change from time to time (in which case I will publish the revised guidelines) and they are not intended to be exhaustive and are issued as guidance.

  Guidelines

  My principal objective, in determining whether or not to approve a proposed transfer scheme, is to ensure that the operation of the network will, after the proposed transfer, be undertaken efficiently, safely and economically.

  I also intend to ensure that I am satisfied on the following issues:

  1. Efficiency and Viability

  The technical expertise of the proposed transferee to operate, maintain, renew and enhance the railway network. This will include:
  presenting proposals for focused and effective management (particularly in relation to contract management and planning, and a willingness to facilitate enhancement by special purpose vehicles or alternative structures for financing enhancements and developments which separate enhancement and development risk from operation, maintenance and renewal), and
  demonstrating that employees with appropriate skills will be retained and, where applicable, recruited;
  A proper understanding of the projected liabilities of the transferee and the performance risks it faces;
  A proper understanding of Railtrack plc's network operating licence and a demonstrable intention and ability to comply with it;
  A proper understanding of the Government's strategic plans for the railway industry and a demonstrable commitment to them (including the 10-Year Plan and the SRA's Strategic Agenda);
  A coherent and cost-effective business plan for:
  ascertaining the condition of the network assets and life cycle cost minimisation;
  implementing output based contracts for maintenance and renewal;
  facilitating the successful implementation of special purpose vehicles (or equivalent arrangements) delivering large scale enhancements and renewals; and
  the maintenance of an assets register, including a description of process and timetable;
  Proposals for ascertaining the cost structure of the network business and the control systems to be implemented at both central and regional levels and how successful reporting mechanics are to be achieved;
  A cohesive, achievable and cost-effective strategy for dealing with those renewals and small enhancements that are not to be delivered by special purpose vehicles (or equivalents).

  2. Safety
  An ability to run the network safely, with a clearly defined safety policy;
  Evidence that the Heath and Safety Executive has confidence in the proposed transferee and that the relevant Safety Case will be in place immediately following the transfer.
  673W
  3. Key Relationships
  Proposals for creating, at regional level, relationships with railway passenger and freight service operators and other stakeholders;
  Evidence of support from employees and their representatives;
  Evidence of the confidence of relevant stakeholders in the industry, for instance railway passenger and freight service operators and suppliers of finance.

  4. Financial viability and value for money
  A demonstrated ability to finance the activities of the proposed transferee in a cost-effective manner (including its proposed treatment of existing and future, short and long term finance creditors, and a demonstration that it will have a sufficiently high, investment grade, credit rating to raise the necessary finance for its activities);
  A coherent plan for the treatment of existing trade and other creditors;
  A demonstration that its approach would ensure that effective maintenance and renewal takes place at the lowest practical cost.
  Proposals for the transfer of liabilities which relate to the operation, maintenance, renewal and development of the parts of the network that are to be transferred.

  In addition, and to achieve my overall objective, I will have regard to the extent and nature of Government support that will be required to operate the network after the proposed transfer and the value for money that this would represent for Government. I will expect any proposal for a transfer to address very clearly the basis, extent and nature of support that will be required from the Government.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice he has received on the strength of balance sheet needed by the new Railtrack company to obtain a BBB credit rating. [11091]

  Mr. Byers
  As I have stated in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W, it is my firm intention to ensure that our proposal to the administrator would, if accepted, result in the transfer of the business of the company and its finance creditor's indebtedness to a new, financially sound, vehicle and that the debt transferred will have a long-term credit rating of at least BBB/Baa2 and a short-term credit rating of at least A-2/P-2.

  In relation to the proposal that we will be putting to the administrator for a company limited by guarantee, we will be targeting a long-term credit rating of A/A2 or higher, to reflect the financing capacity requirements of the rail infrastructure business. I am advised that this would secure a robust balance sheet for the company.

  I can also reaffirm my firm intention that our proposal will, taken in the round, preserve the economic rights of the current finance creditors in all material respects. Such proposals must, however, retain the flexibility to translate some of the detailed terms and conditions of the debt into a form that reflects the different structure and credit rating of a company limited by guarantee.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how his Department will provide further financial assistance for Railtrack plc in administration. [12222]
  674W
  Mr. Byers
  Full details of the funding arrangements agreed with the administrators are in the loan agreement. Parliamentary approval for this new expenditure in the form of a voted loan (to be repaid when Railtrack plc moves out of administration) will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for DTLR. Pending that approval, and further to my answer of 17 October 2001 to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn),Official Report, column 1230W, up to an additional £800 million of expenditure has been approved to be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Merseyside Rail Franchise
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Strategic Rail Authority will announce(a) the rail franchises for the north-west region of England and (b) its decision on whether Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive will let the Merseyside rail franchise alone or jointly with the Strategic Rail Authority. [10812]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has reviewed its franchise replacement programme in light of the statement made by the Secretary of State on 16 July and will announce its plans for further replacement or extension of franchises when these are agreed with Ministers in due course.

  Petrol Storage
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what conditions are attached to the licences for underground storage tanks to prevent and detect leakages; and how the proposed removal of licences will change this. [10524]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Licences for underground petrol tanks have conditions attached which are intended to prevent and detect leaks. The conditions are based on guidance issued by HSE and the Local Authorities Co-ordinating body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS).

  HSC are to consult early next year on a proposal to remove licensing at all workplaces except retail petrol filling stations. All workplaces storing petrol, whether licensed or not, will be subject to the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) which will come into force in the summer of next year.

  DSEAR places comprehensive duties on employers to eliminate or reduce fire and explosion risks from dangerous substances including petrol. DSEAR will require measures to reduce risk of releases and the escape of petrol.

  Because of the close involvement of the public at retail petrol filling stations it is proposed to develop additional controls to supplement DSEAR, as a replacement for the current licensing regime. Until these are developed and consultation has taken place with stakeholders, licensing will remain in force at retail petrol filling stations.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he is implementing to encourage petrol retailers to report leakages. [10564]
  675W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Repair of leakages is already one of the standard licence conditions imposed by Petroleum Licensing Authorities. Control of leakages will also be subject to the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) which will come into force in the summer of next year. HSE will be publicising the new regulations and associated guidance.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many breaches of licensing conditions of underground storage tanks have(a) been reported and (b) resulted in prosecution in each of the past five years. [10568]

  Dr. Whitehead
  HSE does not collect statistics on breaches of licence conditions and prosecutions by Petroleum Licensing Authorities (PL As). The information would be disproportionately expensive to obtain retrospectively.

  New reporting arrangements are being developed in conjunction with PLAs so that this information can be obtained in the future.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if his Department will carry out a full condition audit of all underground storage tanks in the United Kingdom. [10569]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Neither HSE nor the Environment Agency has any plans to commission a full condition audit of all underground storage tanks. Safety and environmental legislation provide adequate safeguards to prevent and control leaks from underground storage tanks. The powers are available to conduct investigations where necessary.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans to incorporate the recommendations of the Institute of Petroleum and the Association for Petrol and Explosive Administrators into its new Code of Practice relating to petrol retailers. [10567]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has recently completed a public consultation on a groundwater protection code of practice for petrol stations and underground storage tanks for hydrocarbons. All responses to the consultation will be taken into account when finalising the code.

  HSE are carrying out a major review of petrol legislation with a view to modernising it. The review is being carried out in three phases which will look at:
  Phase 1: workplace storage of petrol except for retail petrol filling stations.
  Phase 2: retail petrol filling stations.
  Phase 3: non-workplace storage of petrol (mainly domestic premises).

  As part of phase 2 of the review HSE will consider all existing guidance, including that jointly produced by the Institute of Petroleum and the Association for Petrol and Explosive Administration, when making recommendations regarding the future of petroleum legislation for retail petrol filling stations.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the report into modernising petrol legislation will be published. [10522]
  676W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Although the licensing system under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 (PCA) has worked well for many years, it is now outdated and does not easily sit alongside the modern risk-based approach to health and safety. HSE are therefore carrying out a major review of the legislation with a view to modernising it. The review is being carried out in three phases which will look at:Phase 1: workplace storage of petrol except for retail petrol filling stations.
  Phase 2: retail petrol filling stations.
  Phase 3: non-workplace storage of petrol (mainly domestic premises).
  The HSC will publish consultative documents detailing its proposals for each of the three phases of the review of petroleum legislation. The consultative document for phase 1 will be published early next year but it is too early yet to give an indication of when the remaining two will be published.

  Firefighters
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on firefighter numbers in South Yorkshire; [10386]

  (2) what the average number of firefighters is per 10,000 population in (a) South Yorkshire, (b) the Metropolitan fire authorities and (c) England. [10384]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Based on annual returns to HM Fire Service Inspectorate, actual firefighter numbers for South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Services as at 31 March 2001 were as follows:

  Number

  Whole time

  920

  Retained1

  38.83

  1 Expressed as 24-hour units of cover

  Statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service, including maintenance of a firefighter establishment sufficient to meet national standards of fire cover, rests locally with the fire authority, in this case the South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  According to the latest available information the number of firefighters, including retained firefighters in terms of units of 24 hour cover, per 10,000 population at 31 March 2001 was:

  Number

  South Yorkshire

  7.4

  Metropolitan fire authorities

  8.1

  England

  8.4

  Note:

  Firefighters numbers are provisional derived from annual returns to HM Fire Service Inspectorate. Population figures are taken from the 2000 mid-year estimates prepared by the Office for National Statistics

  Council Tax Exemptions (Students)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how local authorities are compensated for properties exempted from
  677W
  council tax on the grounds that they consist of student households; and what his estimate is of (a) the numbers of such properties and (b) the council tax revenue lost in 2000–01 for each local authority in England. [10940]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities receive an additional amount of revenue support grant to compensate them for properties exempted from the council tax because they consist of student households. Such properties are exempt from council tax because, unlike other people on low incomes, full-time students are not normally entitled to council tax benefit.

  We do not have information for 2000–01 on the number of such properties for each local authority in England. We are, however, collecting it for the current year. We estimate that around 120.000 properties in England qualify for the exemption in 2001–02, and that the council tax income forgone as a result is about £90 million.

  London Underground (Line Closures)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many line closures there were of more than one day on each of the lines of the London Underground network since 1 January. [10945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  London Underground have not closed any whole line on the underground network for a day or more in the period since 1 January 2001.

  South East England Regional AS0
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes in expenditure by the South East England Regional Assembly on(a) regional intelligence, (b) communications and (c) publications there have been for the 2001–02 financial year. [10777]

  Dr. Whitehead
  These are matters for the South East England Regional Assembly.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to control expenditure by the South East England Regional Assembly. [10775]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The South East England Regional Assembly has been established voluntarily by bodies representing the interests of the south-east region. Their expenditure is a matter for the chamber and its members. The Government have, however, allocated £500,000 this year to SEERA to help the Assembly to establish a stronger strategic and scrutiny role within the region. The Government Office for the South East will be monitoring that part of SEERA's expenditure which relates to the £500,000 grant.

  Traffic (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of GCHQ's New Accommodation Project on traffic in Cheltenham; and if he will make a statement. [10984]
  678W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Cheltenham borough council granted planning permission to GCHQ and Group 4/Tarmac on 10 August 1999 for the construction of new buildings and associated engineering operations to provide for the consolidation of GCHQ operations. The application was accompanied by a Traffic Assessment. This, together with the proposal that the development should be related to a Green Travel Plan, was taken into account by the then Secretary of State when the application came before him in August 1998 as a departure from the development plan. The Secretary of State was content to leave jurisdiction for the application with Cheltenham borough council.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards rerouting traffic away from the A40 through Cheltenham; and if he will make statement. [10983]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the Roads Review published in 1998 the Government announced their intention to detrunk the A40 through Cheltenham and Gloucester. When the A40 is detrunked it will be for Gloucestershire county council as the local transport authority to decide how it wishes to manage the traffic on the A40 through Cheltenham.

  Replacement Rail Services (Arriva)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about the replacement of rail services with bus services by Arriva; and if she will make a statement. [11084]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The Strategic Rail Authority and the Passenger Transport Executives have agreed to the implementation of a mitigation plan. The Secretary of State has been kept informed and I understand that an amended timetable came into effect on 29 October and will run until 24 February 2002.

  Pedestrian Deaths
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) car occupants and (b) pedestrians were killed in car crashes since 1971, broken down into five-yearly intervals. [11135]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Figures for fatalities in Great Britain are as shown below:

  Car occupants1

  Pedestrians hit by cars

  1971–75

  14,291

  —

  1976–80

  12,237

  —

  1981–85

  10,989

  6.353

  1986–90

  10,633

  6,163

  1991–95

  6,288

  4,508

  1996–2000

  5,927

  3,350

  1 Figures for 1971–79 inclusive include data for car and taxi occupants only. For 1980 to 1998 they include occupants of minibuses, three wheelers, invalid tricycles and motor caravans. The latter two categories are excluded from figures in 1999 and 2000.

  Note

  Figures for pedestrians hit by cars are not available for years prior to 1979.

  Vehicles (Pedestrian Protection Standards)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will publish the Transport Research Laboratory's estimate of the comparative effects of the full mandatory pedestrian protection standards for cars and the voluntary approach; [11138]

  (2) which EC directorate proposed the voluntary proposals for pedestrian protection standards for vehicles; and if he will publish the scientific basis and assessment of the consequences of the differences from the mandatory Working Group 19 proposals. [11134]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The proposals originated from DG Enterprise, who have been engaged in discussions with the vehicle manufacturers' representatives on this issue over the past year.

  The work by TRL assessing the benefits of the first phase of the negotiated agreement relative to the benefits of the full EEVC WG17 proposals (which would be delivered in the second phase) has been within a tight timescale, so any figures provided have been on an informal basis. Figures may evolve or be refined before they can be incorporated into an intermediate or final publishable report.

  Benefits of the first phase of the negotiated agreement relative to EEVC WG17:

  The initial work focused on a critique of the 80 per cent. relative benefit for killed and seriously injured pedestrians claimed by industry. Using what was believed to be similar assumptions, TRL arrived at relative benefits of 60 per cent. for fatals and 70 per cent. for seriously injured. We said, when we recently consulted on the Commission's proposal, that the benefits were being looked at afresh. This new approach uses databases from Europe, Japan and the USA and test and other data. This suggests that the relative benefit is around 25 per cent. for fatals and 60 per cent. for seriously injured.

  Absolute benefits:

  The benefit for the full EEVC proposals changes slightly to 10 per cent. fatals and 20 per cent. seriously injured compared with the values of 8 per cent. and 21 per cent. which we have traditionally used.

  TRL's work on this will be available in an interim report in early 2002.

  Abandoned Cars
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on abandoned cars. [11720]

  Mr. Byers
  Today we have published in a consultation document the Government's proposals to deal with the growing problem of abandoned cars. Copies of the document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Abandoned cars are an increasing eyesore on our streets and a real danger to children who are attracted to them as playgrounds. Too often they are also a target for local arsonists and also can be useful to criminals as a pool of cars that cannot be traced back to them. Our proposals published today aim to get abandoned cars off the streets, quickly and efficiently.
  680W
  The measures will give local councils increased powers to deal with these cars and get rid of the bureaucratic boundaries that make it easier for irresponsible people to abandon cars at will. They will also reduce the demands on the police and fire services who have to deal with the vandalism, arson and other crime resulting from, and facilitated by, abandoned cars.

  It is the Government's firm intention and belief that these measures will contribute to making our neighbourhoods better places in which to live.

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his review of the blue badge scheme for disabled drivers. [11317]

  Ms Keeble
  The review of the blue badge scheme is under way. A discussion paper is being prepared. We will announce the outcome of the full review, including any proposals for change, in due course. We will keep the House in touch with progress.

  Merchant Navy (Cadets)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for cadet training within the Merchant Navy. [11307]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Cadet training is a matter for the shipping industry itself. But the Government provide financial support for training under the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme. A company entering the UK tonnage tax has to meet a training commitment equivalent to one officer trainee per year for every 15 officer posts in its fleet. We believe these measures will increase cadet training.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement. [10844]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are no stocks of antiques, paintings or fine wines recorded in the relevant departmental chapter of the National Asset Register published in 2001 or in the 1997 version of the National Asset Register. Since there are none recorded, there are no plans to sell any such assets.

  Planning Guidance
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when regional planning guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber will be published. [12006]

  Ms Keeble
  My right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is today publishing Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber (RPG12).
  681W
  RPG 12 provides the spatial development framework for the Yorkshire and Humber region. Its core objectives are to support sustainable economic growth and regeneration and to achieve urban and rural renaissance in the region. Development will be focused on the region's main towns and cities making best use of previously-developed land and helping to reduce the need to travel.

  The new Yorkshire and Humber Assembly, launched on 22 October, will be at the heart of the implementation of the strategy, working with the region's local authorities, Yorkshire Forward and other stakeholders.

  I am pleased that much of the format and content of RPG12, including the vision, objectives and core strategy, carries forward what was proposed in the original draft RPG prepared by the Regional Assembly. RPG12 reflects very effective working between the Assembly, local authorities and other stakeholders who have made valuable contributions to refine and enhance the original draft strategy. It builds on the new inclusive process for preparing RPG that the Government have put in place. Many of the comments received in response to the consultations carried out earlier this year were constructive suggestions and have been taken on board in finalising the guidance.

  The Yorkshire and Humber Assembly will now take the strategy forward and work with partners to ensure its effective implementation, monitoring and review.

  Building Regulations
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish guidance on amendments to Part L of the Building Regulations, which deals with energy efficiency, to Part H of the Building Regulations, which deals with drainage and solid waste, and to Part J of the Building Regulations, which deals with combustion appliances; and if he will make a statement. [12012]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The 2002 editions of the Approved Documents which give guidance on ways of meeting the new requirements of Part L1, Conservation of fuel and power in dwellings, Part L2, Conservation of fuel and power in buildings other than dwellings, Part H, Drainage and waste disposal, and Part J, Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems, as introduced by the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001, SI 2001/3335, were published today by The Stationery Office.

  The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001, SI 2001/3335 and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, SI 2001/3336 were laid before the House on 11 October 2001. The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001 made changes to the technical requirements with regard to Part L, Conservation of fuel and power, Part H, Drainage and waste disposal, and Part J, Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems in the Building Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2531. Both sets of Regulations also made some consequential administrative changes to both the Building Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2531 and to the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2532. Both sets of Regulations will come into force on 1 April 2002.
  682W
  Taken together, these new regulations and their supporting Approved Documents introduce a package of measures that will bring a number of environmental, safety and economic benefits.

  The review of Part L has been a noteworthy example of the good relations the Government wish to forge with industry and others with interests in our energy policy and the development of proportionate regulations. The performance standards in the new Approved Documents L1 and L2 are significantly higher than those introduced in 1995 and will set most builders and building services engineers something of a challenge. However the close contact with industry has ensured that the new standards can be achieved by adopting reasonable standards of design and construction practice. They will yield substantial benefits for the occupiers of new dwellings and other buildings through lower heating bills (up to 25 per cent. in the case of dwellings;), lower air conditioning bills and/or improved comfort and productivity, and for the nation in the avoidance of carbon emissions. It is estimated that these measures will contribute 1.4 MtC in 2010 of the overall 23 per cent. cut in the UK's greenhouse gas emissions that we set out in our Climate Change Programme published last November, and of course those savings will continue to accumulate thereafter.

  On 5 March 2001 I announced the package of amendments that were to be made to Part L following consultation. As industry requested, the material has been split into two Approved Documents, L1 for dwellings and L2 for other buildings. The guidance in the new Approved Documents raises the performance standards for building insulation, introduces new ones for airtightness and solar shading, widens the standards for heating to include boiler performance, widens the lighting standards to include luminaires and display lights, and introduces new ones for air conditioning systems including their controls. To back these physical measures up there are new requirements for testing and commissioning that will help to make designers' intended performance capabilities a reality, and the provision of users' manuals and log books so that occupiers can obtain all of the potential benefits.

  To back up the guidance in these Approved Documents we have also published today "Limiting thermal bridging and air leakage: Robust construction details for dwellings and similar buildings". This document was prepared in collaboration with industry and provides construction details which are a way of showing compliance with the new standards for thermal insulation and airtightness.

  Part L now also addresses summer performance as well as insulation against winter cold and heating and hot water systems. There are new building fabric provisions aimed at limiting solar overheating, and new air conditioning and mechanical ventilation measures aiming to ensure that, when specified, they can perform efficiently.

  These new provisions are not restricted to new buildings. Around half of the carbon benefits mentioned will come from the application of the new requirements for work in existing buildings. For dwellings, we have introduced provisions that apply whenever new windows and glazed doors, boilers and hot water vessels are to be replaced. For buildings other than dwellings the same provisions apply for windows and all the building systems addressed by Part L, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting, are also included. These provisions are qualified

  683W
  however, in that reasonable provision depends on the circumstances in the particular case. Sympathetic treatment of historic buildings is necessary for instance to enable conservation and restoration and new guidance in both the Approved Documents will help to establish what reasonable provision is in these special cases.

  The review of Part J has addressed the increasing risks of carbon monoxide poisoning, the ill-health effects of flue-gas entering living space, and the risks of injuries caused by fires, and also to address for the first time the oil pollution threat from domestic central heating oil storage systems.

  The outcome of investigations into possible additional risks posed by lower specification concrete flue liners was announced in November 2000. These investigations found no certain evidence of additional risk but made a series of recommendations. The amendments to Part J and the publication of the 2002 edition of Approved Document J complete our response to these. They incorporate a new requirement (J4) to fix permanent notices indicating hearth, fireplace and chimney performance limits, and the Approved Document gives examples of what are satisfactory provisions using the new European Method for specifying performance of all types of flue liners.

  A new requirement J5 makes provisions for reasonable steps to be taken to ensure that when external liquid fuel storage (oil and liquefied petroleum gas) systems are provided they are protected from fire in adjacent buildings or premises.

  The new requirement J6 makes provision for oil storage tanks and connecting pipework serving buildings used wholly or mainly as private dwellings to be constructed and protected to reduce the level of risk of oil escaping and causing pollution. This new requirement also makes provisions for notices which give information on how to respond to an oil escape to be fixed in a prominent position.

  The publication of a consultation on amendments to Part H of the Building Regulations was announced in July 2000. The outcome of that review is reflected in the amendments to Part H of the Building Regulations and in the 2002 edition of the Approved Document.

  The new requirement H4 applies when building work takes place over sewers. This has enabled the repeal of Section 18 (building over sewer etc) of the Building Act 1984. Provision of foul drainage is now required by the Regulations, and this has enabled the repeal of Section 21(1) and (2) of the Act. These changes bring necessary requirements all together into the Regulations, and should simplify matters for practitioners.

  The new requirement H2 includes the provision of a durable notice giving information on necessary continuing maintenance for septic tanks, wastewater treatment systems and cesspools. Lack of maintenance is one of the main causes of failure of septic tanks and other non-mains drainage systems, and this new requirement seeks to address this. There is also improved guidance on drainage fields from septic tanks.

  Guidance in the Approved Document includes guidance on the use of infiltration drainage systems and a presumption that this method of drainage is the preferred
  684W
  option for rainwater disposal rather than storm sewers. This will ease the load on storm sewers and may reduce the risk of flooding due to run off from new development. Guidance in the Approved Document recommends that drains serving more than 10 properties should have a minimum diameter of 150 mm. This should help to reduce the incidence of private sewers and drains.

  Copies of "Limiting thermal bridging and air leakage: Robust construction details for dwellings and similar buildings" have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared in relation to these Regulations and it too was published today. It has also been placed on the DTLR website at (http://www.safety.dtlr.gov.uk/bregs/brpub/02.htm).

  European Railways (Interoperability)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 192W, what practical changes will be required in the UK rail network as a result of Directive 2001/16/EC. [10950]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directive requires that all projects relating to the construction, upgrading, renewal and operation of the trans-European conventional rail system conform to European Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs). This system includes all the main rail lines in the UK. These TSIs will set out the detailed technical requirements that must be met, at both component and overall system levels.

  They do not yet exist and the drafting process has only recently begun, so it is not possible at this stage to state what practical changes will be necessary to the UK rail network.

  Cleaner Vehicles
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what guidance he has given to car manufacturers on the future for LPG cars; [9939]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the potential for LPG cars to improve air quality; [9940]

  (3) what plans the Government have to encourage manufacturers to make LPG cars. [9944]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The changes I announced recently to my Department's PowerShift programme, following consultation with vehicle manufacturers, fuel suppliers and others, indicate the Government's strong continuing commitment to supporting the wider introduction of vehicles running on LPG, natural gas and electricity, reflecting their contribution to improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  Availability of production-line LPG vehicles will help consumers to take up the gas option, and the Government have introduced an additional 20 per cent. grant for production-line LPG vehicles. I am pleased that several manufacturers are already introducing such vehicles.
  685W
  The PowerShift programme monitors the environmental performance of LPG vehicles to ensure that PowerShift-approved vehicles and conversions deliver consistently clean performance.

  Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to issue revised guidance on factors affecting the imposition of speed restrictions on roads. [10000]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Safety Strategy committed us to an assessment framework for determining the appropriates speeds for roads and a simplified method of making speed limit orders.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason teachers in further education are not eligible for the Starter Home Initiative. [10231]

  Ms Keeble
  The Starter Home Initiative assistance available for teachers is being targeted on the compulsory education sector where the most severe recruitment and retention problems for teachers, which the Initiative aims to help alleviate, are being experienced.

  We recognise that other key workers, including teachers in further education, need to be able to find affordable homes within a reasonable distance of their workplace. Our wider housing policies to increase the supply of affordable homes, particularly in areas where demand is high, will benefit other groups of key workers. By 2003–04 capital investment in housing will have risen to more than £4 billion compared with planned spending of £1.5 billion in 1997–98. We plan to provide 100,000 new or improved homes for low cost renting or home ownership over the next three years.

  We are also looking afresh at planning guidance as a means of providing more opportunities for key worker housing.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the financial position of National Air Traffic Services; and if it is seeking new public finance. [10439]

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has received an application for additional funding from the National Air Traffic Services; and what effect additional funding would have on the proposed National Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick. [10246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is in the process of reviewing its financial position, following the downturn in the demand for air travel arising from the events of 11 September.

  The Government have received no request for financial assistance for NATS.

  Port of London Authority
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what application he has received from the Pont of London Authority under section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964 concerning(a) changes to the Act and (b) proposals for a statutory instrument; and if he will make a statement. [10455]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Port of London Authority (PLA) applied in February this year for a Harbour Revision Order under section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964. The order contains a number of provisions for amending existing legislation, mainly relating to the licensing and registration scheme for craft and boats for hire. Following advertisement of the order the PLA are currently engaged in discussions with relevant parties in an attempt to resolve objections that have been made to the order.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the number of trucks of food which have been transported into Afghanistan(a) in the last week, (b) on average on a daily basis since 7 October and (c) since 11 September. [9076]

  Clare Short
  In the week ending 28 October, which is the latest information received from WFP in the field, a total of 8,048 tonnes of food were dispatched to Afghanistan. The table shows the daily breakdown.

  On information received to date the daily average food despatch between 7 and 28 October has been 771 tonnes.

  Table of food aid dispatched to Afghanistan

  Week ending 28 October 2001

  Tonnes despatched

  22 October 2001

  104

  23 October 2001

  1,857

  24 October 2001

  2,729

  25 October 2001

  946

  26 October 2001

  1,469

  27 October 2001

  0

  28 October 2001

  943

  Total

  8,048

  Note:

  Data from WFP, 29 October. Further confirmed data not yet available from the field.

  Papua New Guinea
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid projects in Papua New Guinea are supported by her Department(a) bilaterally, (b) from EU sources and (c) multilaterally; what is their value for each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [11446]

  Clare Short
  We do not provide direct bilateral assistance to Papua New Guinea, but it benefits from our contributions to multilateral agencies, including the European Union, Asian Development bank and World
  687W
  bank, all of which have substantial programmes in PNG totalling some £8 million per year. PNG also benefits from the UK's support to Pacific regional organisations and a small gifts scheme of some £70,000 per year. The details we have available are as follows:

  European Union Programme
  PNG benefits from:

  (i) the current National Indicative Programme (50 meuro) which focuses on education, forestry and fishers. Projects comprise:

  (a) the Regional Indicative Programme on agriculture (phase 1) which has now been completed (1.2 meuro);

  (b) the Island Region Environment programme (phase 1) which has also been completed (6 meuro):

  ($)

  Of which:

  Asian development bank

  Total value

  OCR1

  ADF2

  TA3

  1997

  Health Sector Development Programme

  50 million

  45 million

  5 million

  —

  Health Sector Development Project4

  13 million

  —

  10 million

  —

  Improving Provincial Agricultural Support Services5

  150,000

  —

  —

  150,000

  Financial Management5

  150,000

  —

  —

  150,000

  Development Strategy Workshop

  62,000

  —

  —

  62,000

  Strengthening Financial Management of the Health Sector

  600,000

  —

  —

  600,000

  Restructuring Plan for the Department of Agriculture and Livestock

  150,000

  —

  —

  150,000

  1998

  Smallholder Support Services Pilot Project4

  11.49 million

  7.6 million

  —

  —

  Fisheries Development4

  9.3 million

  6.5 million

  —

  —

  Financial Management (Supplementary)5

  72,500

  —

  —

  72,500

  Skills Development5

  500,000

  —

  —

  500,000

  Social and Environmental Studies5

  150,000

  —

  —

  150,000

  Road Upgrading and Maintenance5

  750,000

  —

  —

  750,000

  Road Asset Management System

  1.0 million

  —

  —

  1.0 million

  Review of Foreign Aid Management

  115,000

  —

  —

  115,000

  Consultative Implementation and Monitoring Council

  50,000

  —

  —

  50,000

  1999

  Financial Management4

  46.9

  25.8

  —

  —

  Employment-Oriented Skills Development4

  39 million

  —

  20 million

  —

  Road Maintenance and Upgrading4

  114.7 million

  63 million

  —

  —

  Rehabilitation of Navigation Aids system5

  500,000

  —

  —

  500,000

  Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation5

  908,000

  —

  —

  908,000

  Governance and Public Sector Reform Programme5

  600,000

  —

  —

  600,000

  Microfinance and Employment5

  150,000

  —

  —

  150,000

  Road Sector Cost Recovery Improvement

  350,000

  —

  —

  350,000

  Financial Management Strategic Framework

  500,000

  —

  —

  500,000

  Provincial Road Asset Management System

  581,000

  —

  —

  581,000

  2000

  Rehabilitation of Maritime Navigation Aids System4

  30.12 million

  20.6 million

  —

  —

  Microfinance and Employment4

  20.51 million

  —

  9.6 million

  —

  Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation4

  23.3 million

  —

  15.34 million

  —

  Governance and Public Sector Reform Programme (Supplementary)5

  381,000

  —

  —

  381,000

  Agro-Industry Development5

  500,000

  —

  —

  500,000

  Coastal Fisheries Management and Development5

  340,000

  —

  —

  340,000

  Community Water Transport Project5

  580,000

  —

  —

  580,000

  Strengthening Financial Management of the Health Sector (Supplementary)

  186,000

  —

  —

  186,000

  Review of Mining and Hydrocarbons Tax Regimes

  325,000

  —

  —

  3250,000

  Review to Constraints to Informal Sector Development

  225,000

  —

  —

  225,000

  Rehabilitation of Maritime Navigation Aids System

  800,000

  —

  —

  800,000

  1 Ordinary Capital Resources

  2 Asian Development Fund

  3 Technical Assistance

  4 Project Preparatory TA

  5 Total project cost includes financing by the ADB, governments, borrowers, beneficiaries, sub-borrowers; co-financing from official, export credit, and commercial sources; equity sponsors; and local participating private companies and financial institutions.

  688W
  (c) budgetary support which is provided through the Structural Adjustment Programme (10.4 meuro).

  (ii) SYSMIN (50 meuro) which is providing support for highways, mining, roads and bridge construction.

  (iii) STABEX (12 meuro).

  World bank

  1. The current programme comprises:

  (a) the last tranche of the Structural Adjustment Operation (totalling 90 million dollars) which is due in December 2001;

  (b) projects in education ($30 million); health ($20 million) and infrastructure ($32 million);

  (c) technical assistance forming, gas and agriculture (oil palm).

  2. The World hank's indicative lending programme for PNG currently totals $210 million.

  The Gambia
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department gave to the Independent Electoral Commission in The Gambia(a) prior to and (b) during the presidential election held on 18 October. [10979]

  Clare Short
  Since 1999 we have provided support to the Independent Electoral Commission to develop and upgrade its electoral records database. In the run up to the presidential elections we provided consultancy support and various items of equipment in support of the voter re-registration exercise.

  During the elections themselves we contributed to the costs of international observers to monitor the election process.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she will give to the Independent Electoral Commission in The Gambia prior to its 2002 parliamentary elections. [10980]

  Clare Short
  The support we have already provided to the Independent Electoral Commission prior to the presidential elections, particularly on voter re-registration, will also be relevant to the Parliamentary Assembly elections in 2002. We have not yet had discussions with the IEC about any additional requirements for the Assembly elections, but when we do so we will take into account possible support from other donors and experience in the presidential elections.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will review her programme of assistance to The Gambia following the presidential election held on 18 October. [10981]

  Clare Short
  Over the past year our assistance to The Gambia has been concentrated on facilitating the electoral process, and on the implementation of the poverty reduction strategy. The future of the programme will depend on our overall assessment of The Gambian Government's commitment to poverty reduction, democracy and human rights. We will review the programme early in 2002.

  China
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will increase funds for her Department's HIV/AIDS programme in China. [10590]

  Clare Short
  We are financing a £15.3 million HIV/AIDS prevention and care project in China, which aims over five years to help the Government of China develop an effective national response to HIV/AIDS. We are also working with the Government of China to design specific support for the delivery of HIV/AIDS education to young people, where funding is likely to be in the region of £5 million over three years.

  The Government of China recently launched their first five year action plan to contain, prevent and control HIV/AIDS. We are currently considering what further support we can offer the Government in helping them achieve this plan.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for international Development what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by her Department; if she will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans she has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement. [10846]

  Clare Short
  My Department has seven antiques (clocks) but no paintings (the only paintings we have are on loan from the Government Art Collection) and no fine wines. No such assets have been sold in the last three years, and there are no plans to sell these items.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [10286]

  Clare Short
  The needs of the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo are desperate. Some progress on the peace process and a gradual improvement in access for humanitarian agencies has enabled my Department substantially to increase the level of our support for humanitarian work through well-established non-governmental organisations.

  We have contributed funding towards direct humanitarian assistance particularly in the areas of health and nutrition, water and sanitation, prisoner protection, and assistance to refugees, child soldiers and other vulnerable groups. We have also funded human rights projects in the DRC and in the wider Great Lakes region. Since January 2001 we have committed £5.5 million to the ICRC' s emergency appeal.

  The Government are also working to promote an end to the country's conflict and a secure and lasting peace. We are providing support to the peace process through the office of the Facilitator for the National Dialogue had peace-building projects, and we are actively exploring opportunities to support the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of combatants in the country.

  Sustainable Development Summit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department plans to achieve at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; and if she will make a statement. [8311]

  Clare Short
  The latest version of the interdepartmentally agreed HMG objectives for WSSD is available on the Government's Sustainable Development website www.sustainable-development/gov/uk. In support of this strategy DFID will work to highlight the way more effective use of environmental resources can contribute to poverty reduction; and gaining wider international acceptance of the principles of strategic planning for sustainable development, which have already been agreed at ministerial level in the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD.

  Argentina
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to her Argentinean counterparts regarding the imprisonment of a group of Argentinean farmers who grew British hemp seed certified for industrial purposes only; and if she will make a statement. [8308]

  Clare Short
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by her Department; if she will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans she has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement. [10840]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department holds no stocks of antiques, paintings or fine wines. No such assets have been sold in the last three years and we have no plans for any future sales.

  Details of assets held by the Scotland Office are set out in the National Assets Register (Cm 5521, July 2001).

CABINET OFFICE

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress the better regulation task force is making in relation to speeding up decisions required by existing environmental regulations and diminishing their burden on business. [9289]

  Mr. Leslie
  The task force looked at environmental regulations last November, when it reported on their impact on farmers.

  As with all its reports, the task force follows closely the Government's progress in implementing its recommendations and publishes updates on its website.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish new guidelines on the employment of special advisers. [9290]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) at column 866.

  13. Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to reduce the number of special advisers employed by Her Majesty's Government. [9293]

  Mrs. Roche
  The rules on the appointment of special advisers continue to be as set out in paragraph 50 of the Ministerial Code.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's co-ordination role in emergency planning. [9291]

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's role is in emergency planning. [9296]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friends to my oral answer to the hon. Member the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) today at column 863–64.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress made in the work undertaken by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. [9302]

  Mr. Leslie
  Led by the Civil Contingencies Committee, the Secretariat is co-ordinating a review of our tried and tested contingency plans in the light of the events of 11 September. We are taking all sensible steps to make sure the country is well prepared for any emergency or threat, including chemical and biological ones.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department proposes to publish a regular progress list on items being considered under the regulatory reform procedure. [9294]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government set out last week their plans for regulatory reform order-making for the period up to the new year in the memorandum responding to the Deregulation Committee's 4th Report of last session.

  Government Office for the North-West
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the operational priorities for the Government office for the north-west. [9298]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government office for the north-west's overall aim is to work with regional partners and local people to maximise competitiveness and prosperity in the region, and to support integrated policies for an inclusive society. A complete list of their objectives are contained in the Government office for the north-west's document 'Corporate Objectives 2001–02', a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental Co-ordination
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to improve co-ordination between Government Departments, the Prime Minister's office and his Department. [9299]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  It has been the traditional role of the Cabinet Office to serve Ministers collectively under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister and co-ordinate business between Departments. This continues to be the case. The creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the restructuring of the Cabinet Office after the election have strengthened our ability to help ensure that all Departments are able to deliver the Government's key priorities.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for Cabinet Office what role his office is playing in promoting the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. [9303]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I continue to play a role in international climate change discussions and negotiations on behalf of the Prime Minister, which includes promoting the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for Cabinet Office when the British-Irish Council last met; and what was on the agenda for that meeting. [9304]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The British-Irish Council meets in different formats. Since the first summit meeting held in London in December 1999, a number of meetings have taken place in different sectoral areas at ministerial and official level.

  The most recent meeting of the Council took place in Dublin on 13 September last. Officials discussed the issue of misuse of drugs, the area of work for which Ireland is the lead Administration within the Council.

  The Irish Government will host the next British-Irish Council summit. The drugs issue will be the main item for discussion at the Summit. Progress in the other areas of work of the Council will also be reviewed. The Government also look forward to further meetings taking place in the agreed areas of work.

  Government Office for the East Midlands
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are the operational priorities for the Government office for the east midlands. [9305]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government office for the east midlands has three strategic aims: to achieve a lasting better quality of life for people and communities in the east midlands socially, economically and environmentally; to encourage and enable people and communities suffering from, or vulnerable to, social exclusion to fulfil their potential; and to help the region, its people and its businesses continuously improve their capability to compete successfully. Details of these aims and other operational priorities are in the Government office for the east midlands annual report 2000–01, available on line through their website.

  Government Office for the East of England
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the east Anglia Government office; and if will make a statement. [9306]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Deputy Prime Minister last met GO-East officials on 13 March. Since then I have met them on 19 July and 18 October.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in achieving the Government targets as set out in the modernising Government White Paper. [9308]
  694W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Government made significant progress towards the targets set out in the White Paper before the last election. Improved delivery and public service reform is a key priority for this Parliament.

  Civil Service Pay
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to audit civil service pay to assess the impact of pay policy on(a) men and (b) women. [9292]

  Mr. Leslie
  Under civil service reform, Departments and agencies are reviewing their pay systems. By April 2003 they should have prepared an action plan for addressing any equal pay gaps.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in implementing Recommendation 17 of the report, Strategy Development and Partnership Working in the RDAs. [10932]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The RDAs have taken on board Recommendation 17 of the DETR report on Strategy Development and Partnership Working in the RDAs. The principles for successful partnership working used in the original development of the Regional Economic Strategies are now reflected in the preparation of RDA Action Plans and the revision of their RESs. Under a new fund worth f15 million over three years, the regional chambers have been awarded a total of £5 million in 2000–01 to enhance their RDA scrutiny role and thus strengthen regional accountability. Part of that scrutiny will be a closer involvement in the revision of strategy process.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the report "Reaching Out The Role of Central Government at Regional and Local Level" that there should be(a) a review of the regional development agencies' first year performance and (b) a review of the relationship between the strategies of the regional development agencies and regional planning guidance. [10931]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Ministers took the RDA's first year performance into account in determining the framework of targets the RDAs should follow under the Single Programme Budget, which was announced on 9 March 2001. The RDAs' Regional Strategies and the Regional Planning Guidance are being treated as equal and complementary documents.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft her Department has recorded in 2000 and 2001; and on how many occasions in 2000 and 2001 computer systems in her Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside her Department. [10999]
  695W
  Ms Hewitt
  Records of IT security incidents reported within my Department for the period in question show:

  2000

  2001

  Hacking incidents

  0

  0

  Fraud

  0

  0

  Theft

  11

  16

  There have been no recorded incidents in 200() or 2001 of my Department's computer systems being illegally accessed by computer hackers within or outside my Department.

  Petrol Retailers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many petrol retailers(a) are in operation and (b) have been closed and sealed since 1990, classed in the categories (i) oil company sites, (ii) main retailer sites, (iii) supermarket sites, (iv) smaller retailer sites and (v) other unbranded sites; and if she will make a statement. [10462]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Institute of Petroleum's(IP) annual "UK Retail Marketing Survey" (lam published in March 2001) provides data on the total number of petrol retail outlets in operation in the UK.

  The following table, using the IP data, shows the number of petrol retail outlets in operation in the UK in 1990 and 2000, broken down by the specific categories outlined in the question.

  Site category

  1990

  2000

  Oil company sites

  16,044

  8,420

  Main retailer sites

  2,819

  2,483

  Supermarket sites1

  58

  1,027

  Smaller retail sites2

  40

  247

  Other unbranded sites

  504

  866

  Total

  19,465

  13,043

  1 In 1990, some supermarket sites displayed oil company brands and the IP subsumed these sites within the oil company site and main retailer site totals. The total number of supermarket sites retailing petrol in 1990 was 294

  2 The smaller retail site category accounts for those companies with 50 petrol retail sites or less

  Data on petrol station sites that have been sealed after closure are not collated centrally.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's target is for the number of Post Office Card Accounts to be operational in(a) 2003 and (b) 2006; and what the estimated cost is to the Government of those accounts.[10454]

  Ms Hewitt
  Targets for Post Office Card Account (POCA) will be developed within the context of a migration and marketing strategy which is in the process of being developed. On the cost of the POCA, it would not be appropriate to disclose current estimates as this is subject to commercial negotiations between Consignia and the Paying Departments and between Consignia and the potential supplier of the banking engine.

  Microsoft Pricing Policies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking in response to industry representations on Microsoft pricing policies. [10456]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under UK competition law the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour and possible abuses of a dominant position. He can act where pricing levels appear to be the result of anticompetitive behaviour but has no powers to act in relation to prices as such.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has advised IT industry representative bodies that if they have evidence of anti-competitive behaviour by Microsoft they should forward it to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  A380 Airbus
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on competitiveness of British aerospace subcontractors of bidding for elements of the A380 Airbus project against European suppliers whose non-recoverable up-front costs are supported by their Governments' development assistance; [10814]

  (2) what information she has collated on which of the countries engaged in the A380 Airbus project have divided Government financial assistance for project development between the prime contractor and subcontractors in the supply chain; and what the proportion is in each case; [10816]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the impact on the British aerospace industry of the decision (a) to provide assistance in connection with the development of the A380 Airbus project to the prime contractor Airbus Industries UK and (b) not to provide assistance to both the prime contractor and subcontractors in the supply chain. [10815]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government will provide £530 million of Launch Investment to Airbus UK for the Airbus A380 super jumbo project. The project will create and safeguard jobs in both Airbus UK and the supply chain. As in the case of our agreement with Airbus UK, details of agreements between other governments and their industries are commercially confidential.

  The support provided to the prime contractor such as Airbus UK benefits the whole of the supply chain by securing strategically important projects for the UK. This has been the experience of past Launch Investment contracts.

  The DTI continues to sponsor a programme of activities, operated by the Society of British Aerospace Companies, aimed at improving the competitiveness of the UK aerospace industry. This has had a beneficial effect on the industry as a whole and has contributed to the UK supply chain being in a strong position to compete globally.

  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many partnerships have(a) applied for

  697W
  and (b) been granted limited liability status; and whether such partnerships are required to make a disclosure of regulatory, disciplinary or legal actions they are defending. [11284]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  948 limited liability partnerships (LLPs) had been successfully registered with Companies House as of 29 October 2001. 16 refunds have been given to unsuccessful applicants. LLPs, like companies, are not required to make any disclosure of regulatory, disciplinary or legal actions that they may be defending.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the export of cluster bombs; how many licences for the export of cluster bombs are in force; and to which countries. [10918]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All licence applications covering the export of cluster bombs are considered on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  The export of cluster bombs is controlled under entries ML3 and ML4 in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended. Other bombs and munitions are also controlled under these entries. It would entail disproportionate cost to examine the records to establish which, if any, of the licences still in force cover the export of cluster bombs.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the value and country of destination of exports under the military list in categories(a) ML4a (b) P5030, (c) ML7, (d) ML7d, (e) ML7e and (f) ML7f from 1997 to 2000 inclusive. [10917]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It would entail disproportionate cost to establish the value and country of destination of exports controlled under entries ML4a, P5030, ML7, ML7d, ML7e and ML7f in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended; from 2 May 1997 to 31 December 2000.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the OFT report on the legal profession. [8662]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the budget debate on 8 March 2001, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the Government's response to the OFT report, "Competition in Professions", published on 7 March 2001.

  The Government agreed with the recommendation that Schedule 4 to the Competition Act 1998 should be repealed and that the professions should be fully subject to competition law. The Government also announced that they would consult on those areas of the report that fell to them to take forward.

  The Government remain committed to ensuring that the professions are properly subject to competition.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of trends in foreign direct investment in Scotland, Wales and the English regions in the last 12 months. [10986]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

  There is no requirement to notify inward investment decisions and so the figures include only those projects where Invest UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  On 12 July Invest UK announced at its Annual Review another record year for attracting inward investment projects into the UK. Between 1 April 2000 and 21 March 2001, Invest UK recorded 869 inward investment decisions to locate in the UK by foreign owned companies (an increase of 15 per cent. on the previous year) over the next three years.

  2000–01

  Scotland

  Wales

  English Region

  Number of projects

  72

  39

  639

  Number of new jobs

  9,274

  4,520

  52,812

  Number of safeguarded jobs

  4,231

  1,833

  45,318

  Total of associated jobs

  13,505

  6,353

  97,130

  Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 25 September showed that at the end of the second quarter of 2001 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stock in the UK had risen to £389.5 billion—up 32 per cent. compared with a year earlier.

  There are signs of a decrease in the total number of new inward investment inquiries. We are monitoring the position and working hard to maximise the level of inward investment.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the levels of inward investment in the UK. [10652]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The figures included are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

  There is no requirement to notify inward investment decisions and so the figures include only those projects where Invest UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  On 12 July Invest UK announced at its Annual Review another record year for attracting inward investment projects to the UK. Between 1 April 2000 and 21 March 2001, Invest UK recorded 869 inward investment

  699W
  decisions to locate in the UK by foreign owned companies (an increase of 15 per cent. on the previous year) over the next three years.

  Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 25 September showed that at the end of the second quarter of 2001 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stock in the UK had risen to £389.5 billion—up 32 per cent. compared with a year earlier.

  There are signs of a decrease in the total number of new inward investment inquiries. We are monitoring the position and working hard to maximise the level of inward investment.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures she is taking to ensure that the UK remains attractive to foreign investment; [10659]

  (2) what recent steps she has taken to promote investment in the UK from abroad. [10651]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Posts overseas have intense contacts with potential inward investors. Invest UK as the Government agency that promotes the whole of the UK as the best inward investment location in Europe is working in partnership with all UK Development Agencies to maximise the level of inward investment.

  The Government are encouraging all Development Agencies to build on their strengths and on existing clusters in their regions to attract further inward investment. They are also increasingly collaborating with each other, on overseas promotional activities, to increase their attractiveness to investors.

  From 1 April to 31 March

  Number of projects

  Total new jobs

  Total safe jobs

  Total associated jobs

  1997–98

  East

  34

  945

  17,744

  18,689

  East Midlands

  18

  1,689

  758

  2,444

  London

  63

  2,948

  444

  3,392

  North East

  48

  2,764

  9,890

  12,654

  Northern Ireland

  24

  3,357

  2,416

  5,773

  North West

  71

  4,944

  7,277

  12,221

  Scotland

  75

  7,688

  4,869

  12,557

  South East

  57

  5,534

  7,482

  13,016

  Wales

  55

  4,976

  2,479

  7,455

  South West

  40

  3,205

  1,735

  4,940

  West Midlands

  81

  5,641

  12,546

  18,187

  Yorkshire and Humber

  65

  2,874

  15,131

  18,005

  Total for year

  631

  46,562

  82,771

  129,333

  1998–99

  East

  41

  1,411

  2,575

  3,986

  East Midlands

  21

  2,096

  1,176

  3,272

  London

  105

  4,125

  1,796

  5,921

  North East

  35

  2,304

  6,953

  9,257

  Northern Ireland

  31

  3,345

  1,837

  5,182

  North West

  65

  3,224

  9,123

  12,347

  Scotland

  54

  6,311

  1,098

  7,409

  South East

  73

  4,497

  13,957

  18,454

  UK

  2

  50

  5,800

  5,850

  Wales

  48

  5,591

  1,796

  7,387

  South West

  34

  3,008

  1,417

  4,425

  West Midlands

  71

  5,478

  9,323

  14,801

  Yorkshire and Humber

  86

  3,626

  18,672

  22,298

  Total for year

  666

  45,066

  75,523

  120,589

  700W
  Over the last two months Invest UK has been involved in the following events to promote the UK abroad.
  The signing of UK China Partnership: September
  Korean Hitech Forum in Bristol: 10–11 September
  Biotechnia Trade Fair Hanover: 9–11 October
  Greater Phoenix Electronics Show: 10–11 October
  Inward Mission from China: Week of 24 September
  IT Seminar Iceland: 25 October
  UK with New York events including business lunches: 22–26 October
  IT.Com Fair Bangalore, India: Week beginning 29 October.
  The Government are continuing to pursue economic policies which enhance the UK's attractions including developing our skills base, providing flexible labour markets and a stable economy.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide an estimate of foreign direct investment for each region of the United Kingdom for each year since 1997, and the forecast for each region for 2001. [10995]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures in the table are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

  There is no requirement to notify inward investment decisions and so the figures include only those projects where Invest UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Figures for 2001–02 are still being collected and will be available in July 2002 when Invest UK announces its annual results.
  701W

  From 1 April to 31 March

  Number of projects

  Total new jobs

  Total safe jobs

  Total associated jobs

  1999–2000

  East

  37

  2,101

  2,085

  4,186

  East Midlands

  31

  675

  1,707

  2,382

  London

  159

  7,200

  9,989

  17,189

  North East

  49

  3,479

  8,431

  11,910

  Northern Ireland

  20

  2,353

  1,710

  4,063

  North West

  80

  4,768

  11,865

  16,633

  Scotland

  76

  10,804

  3,095

  13,899

  South East

  110

  6,236

  15,987

  22,223

  South West

  47

  4,814

  3,263

  8,077

  UK

  1

  0

  1,000

  1,000

  Wales

  47

  4,161

  3,636

  7,797

  West Midlands

  99

  6,458

  11,730

  18,188

  Yorkshire and Humber

  44

  1,362

  7,089

  8,451

  Total for year

  800

  54,411

  81,587

  135,998

  2000–01

  East

  56

  3,094

  7,898

  10,992

  East Midlands

  17

  2,065

  2,287

  4,352

  London

  222

  8,306

  2,274

  10,580

  North East

  35

  4,959

  2,859

  7,818

  Northern Ireland

  22

  4,906

  909

  5,815

  North West

  39

  3,187

  1,610

  4,797

  Scotland

  72

  9,274

  4,231

  13,505

  South East

  191

  18,190

  4,547

  22,737

  South West

  38

  4,109

  2,182

  6,291

  UK

  5

  0

  20

  20

  Wales

  39

  4,520

  1,833

  6,353

  West Midlands

  103

  4,867

  20,226

  25,093

  Yorkshire and Humber

  33

  4,035

  1,415

  5,450

  Total for year

  872

  71,512

  52,291

  123,803

  Report total

  2,969

  217,551

  292,172

  509,723

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by her Department; if she will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans she has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement. [10839]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not hold stocks of antiques, paintings or fine wines. It holds a number of paintings and artwork on loan from the Government Art Collection, and a small collection of contemporary art purchased for the refurbished Conference Centre at 1 Victoria street. The only antique items owned by the Department are the Pyx chair and a Grandfather clock.

  There has been no sale of such assets during the last three years nor are there any plans for sales in the future.

  Small Business Service (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the Small Business Service has had from the Chorley constituency. [10089]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since April 2001, there have been 116 inquiries to the Small Business Service in the Chorley constituency.
  702W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have been started in the Chorley constituency with the help of the Small Business Service. [10090]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since April 2001, there have been six business start-ups in the Chorley area. The number of businesses started in Chorley during 1999 was 285 (latest figures available).

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 11W, if he will list the location of the sites where tidal stream generators could be deployed. [10699]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The following is a list of identified sites in UK waters where tidal stream generators could be deployed.

  Shetland:

  Yell Sound—East Channel

  Yell Sound—West Channel

  Blue mull Sound—North

  Blue mull Sound—South

  Orkney:

  North Ronaldsay Firth

  Eday Sound—Lashy

  Westray Firth—Falls of Warness

  Westray Firth—Kili Holm to Fers Ness

  Papa Westray

  703W
  Pentland Firth:

  Hoy

  South Ronaldsay

  Stroma

  South Ronaldsay/Pentland Skerries

  Pentland Skerries

  Duncansby Head

  Inner Sound

  West Scotland:

  Mull of Kintyre

  Sanda Sound

  Mull of Oa

  Gulf of Corryvreckan

  Dorus Mor

  Kyle Rhea

  Loch Linnhe—Corran

  Irish Sea:

  Rathlin Island, North Channel

  Mull of Galloway

  Wigtown Bay

  North Wales:

  Menai Strait—Belan

  Menai Strait-Menai Bridge

  Bristol Channel:

  Barry

  Foreland Point

  Lundy (North)

  Lundy (South)

  Cornwall:

  Cape Cornwall

  Lands End

  The Lizard

  English Channel:

  Portland Bill

  Channel Islands:

  Race of Alderney

  Casquets

  North West Guernsey

  Big Russel, Guernsey

  North East Jersey.

  Additional sites may be identified in the course of continuing research.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the sites of the wind farm developments seeking sea-bed leases from the Crown Estate which have achieved pre-qualification status; and what the projected time scale is for their construction and commissioning. [10235]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the Crown Estate press release of 5 April 2001 which provides details on the 18 developers, including specific site information, that pre-qualified for Crown Estate leases. A copy is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Information on the construction and commissioning phases of projects is a commercial matter for the developers concerned.
  704W
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she intends to implement the provisions of the EU Renewable Energy Directive for good quality energy from waste as part of the hierarchy of waste treatment. [10901]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The European Directive on Renewable Energy sets out the European context for support schemes for renewable forms of energy. It is for each member state to design and implement domestic support systems. In our recently published statutory consultations on the Renewables Obligations we do not propose to support energy from mixed waste incineration. This position is entirely consistent with the EU Directive, which we will be implementing in due course.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the need to include high quality energy from waste in the Renewables Obligation, consistent with the EU Renewable Energy Directive. [10899]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: We published our Statutory Consultation on the Renewables Obligation in August this year. We have received responses both commending the Government's proposals to exclude energy from the incineration of mixed wastes from the Renewables Obligation, and advocating that it should be included. We are currently considering the comments we have received and hope to bring a draft order before the House as soon as possible.

  Electricity Trading
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress she has made on reaching a settlement with the energy regulator on the viability of combined heat and power projects under the new electricity trading arrangements. [10648]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Ofgem published on 31 August their review of the impact of NETA on smaller generators. The report covered the first two months since the implementation of the new electricity arrangements (NETA). The Government will be issuing a consultation paper in response to the Ofgem report on smaller generators imminently which contains proposals aimed at addressing the issues surrounding NETA that have been raised by the smaller generator community, including the CHP generators.

  As well as consideration of the impact of NETA, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will also be publishing wider proposals in the form of a CHP strategy in the coming months.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding the new electricity trading arrangements. [10647]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: In October 1997, the then Minister for Industry, Energy and Science proposed that the electricity pool system be reviewed. In the review and the subsequent development of regulations to implement new electricity trading arrangements (NETA), there were a number of consultations undertaken by my Department and Ofgem. During the development and implementation of NETA, numerous representations were received from a range of

  705W
  organisations, in the form of letters, responses to consultation exercises and in meetings. Since NETA went live in March of this year, the DTI and Ofgem have consulted on further refinements to the trading arrangements in light of experience of the new system. This has prompted further representations from interested parties.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish her consultation document responding to the Ofgem report on the effects of new electricity trading arrangements on small generators. [10428]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Government will be publishing their consultation document responding to Ofgem's reports on the operation of NETA and the initial impact of NETA on smaller generators in the near future.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the part aggregation could play in addressing the position of small generators under new electricity trading arrangements. [10429]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The impact of NETA on smaller generators, including renewables and CHP, was, and continues to be, of great concern. Following a request by the then Minister for Energy, Ofgem published on 31 August 2001 a report on the impact of NETA on smaller generators, based on the first two months of NETA operation, as well as a report on NETA operation generally.

  Ofgem's report on the impact of NETA on smaller generators includes the finding that there is widespread concern that aggregation (or 'consolidation') services have yet to become fully operational.

  The Government believe that effective aggregation services, which would group smaller generators into portfolios of predictable and less predictable generation, are one of the keys to addressing issues faced by smaller generators under NETA.

  The Government will imminently be issuing proposals specifically aimed at addressing the concerns of the smaller generators community, including wind generation. These will include proposals on aggregation services under NETA and will set out the Government's views on aggregation services in detail.

  Medicines (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department will press the forthcoming WTO summit to take steps to ensure that developing countries have access to cheap medicines. [11466]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We are working with the European Union and others to ensure that the WTO's existing rules on intellectual property help developing countries gain access to medicines. This means making sure that new medicines are developed while at the same time allowing developing countries to take appropriate measures to protect public health in national emergencies.

  Intellectual property rights need to be part of wider action to address the problems facing developing countries in delivering effective healthcare to all their
  706W
  citizens. That is why the UK strongly supports the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to form a high level working group to report back by May 2002 on what else needs to be done.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices were closed in each quarter of each financial year for 1979–80 to 2000–01. [10134]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that compilation of post office closure statistics on a quarterly basis was only introduced last year. The available quarterly figures for net post office closures are:

  October to December 2000–135

  January to March 2001–113

  April to June 2001—119.

  Total closures for the year to March 2001 were 547. Of these, four were classified as permanent.

  A £2 million fund to support relocation and refurbishment initiatives by volunteer or community groups to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where the traditional post office is closing received parliamentary approval in July.

  Icelandic Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims made under the Icelandic trawlermen's compensation scheme which have been refused at appeal have been taken to the independent adjudicator; and how many have been successful. [10783]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As at 29 October, 101 appeals have been sent to the independent adjudicator for consideration. So far three have been allowed.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average length of time taken to settle claims made under the Icelandic trawlermen's compensation scheme. [10785]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Over half of the compensation payments were made within five months of the launch of the scheme.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims under the Icelandic trawlermen's compensation scheme from those who have continued to fish after 1979 have been paid. [10786]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Trawlermen who qualified for compensation under the initial rules of the scheme may have continued fishing on vessels other than former Icelandic water trawlers or moved out of fishing entirely. I regret that information differentiating these two groups is not available.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims under the Icelandic trawlermen's compensation scheme are outstanding; and if she will make a statement. [10457]
  707W
  Ms Hewitt
  All claims received have been scrutinised and entered into the special computer system established for the scheme. Some 1,781 claims have not yet been paid or rejected either because they were on hold or because further information is awaited, often from claimants themselves.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims made under the Icelandic trawlermen's compensation scheme have been refused; how many have been subsequently appealed; and how many appeals have been successful. [10784]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 29 October, 4,199 claims have been rejected. 101 appeals have been sent to the independent adjudicator for consideration, of which three have been allowed so far.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total amount paid so far is under the Icelandic trawlermen's compensation scheme. [10787]

  Nigel Griffiths
  At 22 October, £22.8 million had been paid out in compensation under the scheme.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ladbroke Grove Rail Disaster
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the basis was for the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service to the British Transport police relating to a further investigation arising from the Ladbroke Grove disaster. [11719]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed with its case with regard to the Paddington rail disaster. [11457]

  The Solicitor-General
  I shall place in the Library tomorrow a statement by the Crown Prosecution Service explaining the basis for the advice that it has given to the British Transport police to enable the British Transport police to decide whether to conduct any further investigations arising out of the tragic circumstances of this disaster.

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to review the process of personal injury claims, with particular reference to the role of insurance companies. [10697]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no specific plans, but the Government keep developments in personal injury cases and their funding under general review and are currently evaluating the Civil Justice Reforms which have been implemented since April 1999.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Solicitor-General what powers she has to intervene in personal injury claims when it is clear that there is deliberate delay on the part of one party. [10698]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.
  708W
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for civil court procedure and he has no power to intervene in individual cases.

  Since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in April 1999 the courts have been required to manage cases actively and may impose sanctions for delay or unreasonable behaviour either before or during a claim. A party who has experienced delays when attempting to resolve the dispute should bring the matter to the court's attention. The sanctions can vary according to the nature and the effect of the delay. They range from ordering additional costs to be paid by the party causing the delay to striking out a claim or a defence.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have registered for individual learning accounts. [9684]

  John Healey
  By 26 October 2,490,966 individual learning accounts had been opened in England.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the total cost of the suspension of individual learning accounts. [11540]

  John Healey
  It is not possible to estimate the total cost at this stage. However, letters notifying our 2.5 million individual learning account (ILA) holders that the programme is to be withdrawn from 7 December were sent out from 29 October 2001. The cost to the Department to complete this is £789,000. In addition, notices were placed in nine national newspapers on 26 and 27 October at a cost of £37,679.

  In addition, we will be working to ensure that existing account holders can take up learning opportunities booked by 7 December, and to look into complaints made against some learning providers.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost has been to date of the advertising campaign advising people of the suspension of individual learning accounts. [11541]

  John Healey
  Notices advising that the individual learning account programme is to be withdrawn in England from 7 December 2001 were placed in nine newspapers on 26 and 27 October—The Daily Mirror, The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Daily Star, The Evening Standard, The Independent, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times.

  The cost was £37,679.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has given to UK online centres following the suspension of individual learning accounts. [11542]

  John Healey
  We immediately acknowledged the concerns of UK online centres through the dedicated centre managers' online resource website. In addition, I wrote to all learning providers who are operating the individual learning accounts (ILAs) programme, informing them of the changes.
  709W
  We have asked centres to inform our partners, the Government offices and the agencies responsible for the UK online centres application process of the impact that the withdrawal of ILAs will have on them. These partners will then be able to provide the Department with a clear picture of the position for UK online centres.

  Teaching Materials
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received about the relaxation of guidelines over branding of teaching materials and activities by corporate sponsors. [10952]

  Mr. Timms
  In conjunction with the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Consumers Association, we recently issued revised guidance, "Commercial Activities in Schools: Best Practice Principles". It revises and updates guidance produced by the National Consumers Council in 1996. Far from being a relaxation of criteria, the guidance makes it clear that schools should satisfy themselves that the educational benefits of the commercial activity outweigh the potential disadvantages; that explicit sales messages should be avoided wherever possible; and that the level of any branding should be appropriate to the activity. I have placed a copy of "Commercial Activities in Schools: Best Practice Principles" in the House of Commons Library.

  We have received no recent representations about the new guidelines.

  A-Level Results
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to address gender differences in A-level results. [8180]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our goal is, of course, that students of both genders fulfil their potential in higher education and the employment market. We are aware that boys' performance in the main A-level subjects has not equalled that of girls in recent years. The foundations for improvement need to be laid at earlier stages of schooling. That is why we have put resources into pre-16 initiatives that enhance boys' performance, such as the literacy strategy. We also have a major research project under way to identify successful strategies for raising boys' achievement that can be disseminated more widely. Examples of good practice are already being made available online to schools.

  Social Exclusion Report
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in implementing the social exclusion unit's report on 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training. [9295]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are making excellent progress with implementing the social exclusion unit's report.

  Fifteen ConneXions partnerships are currently operational, and 18 more partnerships have been invited to prepare business plans setting out how they will deliver the ConneXions service in their areas from April 2002. The service will be available across England by 2002–03. An independent report on the 13 ConneXions service pilots—which tested different aspects of the service—has shown
  710W
  that 80 per cent. of young people helped by personal advisers feel ConneXions has made a real difference to their future prospects.

  The ConneXions card—which will offer rewards and incentives for participation in post—compulsory learning—is being trialled in a small number of schools and colleges in the north-east. Following completion of the trials, the card will be rolled out on a regional basis across the country, becoming available throughout England from autumn 2002.

  Our education maintenance allowance (EMA) programme is having a positive effect on the lives of many young people. Around 100,000 young people have applied for an EMA to date in this academic year. Early evidence is encouraging: EMAs have produced a 5 percentage point increase in participation among the target group. Our EMA transport pilots and pilots for the homeless, teenage parents and people with disabilities are now in their second year of operation. Initial findings suggest that vulnerable young people are benefiting from EMAs.

  In the "Schools: Delivering Success" White Paper, we set out our framework for a coherent phase of 14 to 19 learning. Key elements include tailored programmes of learning—offering more opportunities for vocational and work-related learning—through which young people could advance at their own pace. We are also looking at proposals for an overarching award covering challenging goals in formal qualifications, but in which other achievements—such as volunteering—might also be recognised.

  We will be issuing a consultation document in the new year, which will set out our proposals for 14 to 19 learning in more detail.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the level of funding for education provision of excluded pupils. [9591]

  Mr. Timms
  Education standard spending will increase by 6 per cent. for 2002–03. Local education authorities will need to decide how much of that increase they spend on increased education provision for excluded pupils. They will have a duty to ensure that all children excluded for more than 15 days receive a full-time education from September 2002.

  Further Education (West Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) post A-level and (b) vocational school leavers in the constituency of West Chelmsford in (i) July 2001, (ii) July 2000 and (iii) July 1999 went on to: (A) university, (B) employment (C) unemployment and (D) Government sponsored training programmes. [9732]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The information is not available at constituency level.

  National estimates of the main activity of what young people are doing after year 13 are available from the youth cohort study (YCS). The destinations of those in full-time

  711W
  education in year 13 leaving with either two or more A-levels or a vocational level 3 qualification are shown in the following table.

  Main activity in year following year 13 for post A–leve1 and vocational school leavers2—England and Wales

  Percentage

  Post A-level1

  Vocational level 32

  Full time education

  74

  49

  of which:

  Higher education

  62

  32

  Employment

  19

  39

  Unemployment/Other/Not stated

  6

  9

  Government supported training

  1

  3

  Total

  100

  100

  1 Young people in full–time education in year 13 who attained two or more A-levels

  2 Young people in full–time education in year 13 who attained a level 3 vocational qualification

  Source:

  Youth Cohort Study, Cohort 9 sweeps 2 and 3

  Sixth Forms (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) the number of pupils in each sixth form and (b) the indicative budgets for each school sixth form in 2002–03 for every school with a sixth form in Worcestershire. [10205]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Learning and Skills Council allocations for schools in Worcestershire will not be announced until December, and work to calculate them is still under way.

  Primary School Admissions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are taken to prevent admission authorities from requiring parents to enter their children prematurely for reception classes to ensure admission to primary schools. [10677]

  Mr. Timms
  The Secretary of State has made it clear to admission authorities that parents should not be pressurised into sending their child to school before he or she has reached compulsory school age. The code of practice on school admissions encourages admission authorities to allow parents to secure a school place but defer their child's entry to school until later on in the same academic year. Admissions policy is under re view with proposed changes currently the subject of consultation. The Secretary of State is looking to strengthen the message in the code by making it clear that she expects all admission authorities to allow parents to defer entry.

  The consultation on admissions ends on 7 November.

  Teachers (East Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the class sizes of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools were in the East Riding of Yorkshire on 31 March in each year since 1996. [10729]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the table.712W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in East Riding of Yorkshire Local Education Authority: average class sizes1

  Average class size

  Maintained primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  January each year

  2001

  27.3

  21.8

  2000

  27.4

  22.0

  1999

  28.3

  22.1

  1998

  28.7

  21.6

  1997

  28.3

  21.0

  1996

  27.7

  21.2

  1 Classes taught by one teacher

  Note:

  East Riding of Yorkshire LEA was formed in April 1996 as part of the local government re-organisation.

  Special Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultation has been carried out with the parents of pupils in special schools on the policy of inclusion and the future of those schools; and what the results of that consultation were. [10962]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have consulted widely on their strategy to raise standards for pupils with special educational needs. Like others, parents, pupils and staff from special schools have contributed to the consultations on the Green Paper, "Excellence For All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs" (October 1997), "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action" (November 1998) and the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (March 2000). The Government's proposals received broad support.

  There is a continuing and vital role for special schools within an inclusive education system. Inclusion is not a drive to close special schools. Rather, the Government want all special schools to be outward-looking centres of excellence working hand in hand with each other and with mainstream schools. Special schools can act as a source of expertise, advice and professional development. When mainstream and special schools work together there are benefits for all.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1231W, on specialist schools, what proportion of the applicants who gained sponsorship arranged through the Technology Colleges Trust had such sponsorship make up 50 per cent. or more of the total sponsorship needed to gain specialist status. [11052]

  Mr. Timms
  Sponsorship arranged through the Technology Colleges Trust accounted for 50 per cent. or more of the sponsorship raised in the case of 51 per cent. of the applicant schools.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 17 October,Official Report, column 1231W, on specialist schools, what proportion of the applicants who gained sponsorship arranged through the Technology Colleges Trust were applicants for (a) arts, (b) technology, (c) language college and (d) sports status. [11053]

  Mr. Timms
  The proportion of applicants supported through sponsorship arranged through the Technology Colleges Trust were as follows: 32 per cent. arts applicants;
  713W
  50 per cent. technology applicants; and 18 per cent. language college applicants. Support for schools applying for sports college status is provided through the Youth Sport Trust.

  Special Educational Needs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations have been received on the most recent SEN code document. [111291]

  Mr. Timms
  A draft special educational needs code of practice was laid before Parliament on 20 June. It was withdrawn in response to comments from members of both Houses, many on behalf of parents or parents' groups, in particular about the draft guidance on quantifying the provision in children's statements of special educational needs.

  A revised draft addressing those concerns was placed before Parliament for approval on 23 October. The further revision has been widely welcomed.

  Computers Within Reach
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of the targets for Computers Within Reach were(a) achieved and (b) not achieved, indicating the reasons for not meeting the targets. [11206]

  John Healey
  The original target for the pilot phase of the Computers within Reach scheme was to supply up to 35,000 refurbished computers by March 2001 for those on certain benefits who were seeking to gain or retain employment. Due to problems associated with the sourcing of equipment and the logistics of delivery, the scheme was extended to 31 October 2001. This was to enable all individuals on waiting lists who had paid for a computer to receive one. Until figures from suppliers are collated I cannot give a final number for computers delivered through the scheme. However, it is anticipated that around 24,000 computers will have been delivered by the end of the pilot phase.

  There is an on-going evaluation of the scheme and the initial findings show it has been successful in targeting the priority groups of those in receipt of:

  jobseekers' allowance

  income support

  incapacity benefit

  state pension with minimum income guarantee.

  I am currently considering the way forward for the scheme in the light of lessons learned from the pilot phase, as well as the findings of the evaluation research which is currently under way.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans have been made by(a) her Department and (b) institutions involved in the preparation for Holocaust Memorial Day 2002. [11276]

  Mr. Timms
  The Home Office is the Government Department with responsibility for Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) 2002. It is working with a number of Government Departments and organisations on the preparations for the day.
  714W
  Last year, this Department produced an education pack for all schools to support last year's Holocaust Memorial Day. New resources for schools to commemorate the day in 2002 have been developed and will be available at the end of November 2001. The resources are complementary to the education pack which the Department produced last year, and reflect this year's theme of Britain and the Holocaust.

  The resources have been produced by an education working group of experts on the holocaust, racism, and education, from bodies such as the Wiener Library and the Imperial War Museum. I am grateful for their continued support and dedication to this work.

  Capital Grants (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools in Northampton, South which have received capital grants; and what the value of grants was in each case. [11287]

  Mr. Timms
  Table A shows the new deal for schools devolved formula capital allocations made to schools in the Northampton, South constituency in 2001–02.

  Table A—new deal for schools (NDS) devolved formula capital allocations made to schools in the Northampton, South constituency in 2001–02

  School name

  Allocation (£)

  Abington Vale Lower School

  9,566

  Abington Vale Middle School

  19,974

  Ashton Church of England Primary School

  6,676

  Barry Lower School

  10,534

  Bellinge Lower School

  8,567

  Briar Hill Lower School

  10,304

  Chiltern Lower School

  9,105

  Cliftonville Middle School

  11,949

  Cogenhoe Primary School

  8,336

  Collingtree Church of England Primary School

  6,830

  Delapre Middle School

  21,865

  Denton Primary School

  7,768

  Duston Eldean Lower School

  12,563

  Duston Upper School

  27,423

  East Hunsbury Lower School

  13,132

  Ecton Brook Lower School

  9,443

  Ecton Brook Middle School

  17,069

  Gloucester Nursery School

  6,769

  Great Billing Church of England Lower School

  7,576

  Hackleton Primary School

  9,197

  Hardingstone Primary School

  9,197

  Harpole Primary School

  9,074

  Hartwell Church of England Primary School

  9,274

  Hopping Hill Lower School

  10,411

  Hunsbury Park Lower School

  9,935

  Kislingbury Primary School

  8,044

  Little Houghton Church of England Primary

  6,802

  Lyncrest Lower School

  9,689

  Mereway Lower School

  9,420

  Mereway Middle School

  20,481

  Mereway Upper School

  21,842

  Military Road Lower School

  9,305

  Millway Middle School

  18,406

  Milton Parochial Primary School

  7,798

  Northampton School for Boys

  33,303

  Preston Hedges Primary School

  9,996

  Queen Eleanor Lower School

  10,672

  Roade Primary School

  9,673

  Roade School

  38,584

  715W

  Table A—new deal for schools (NDS) devolved formula capital allocations made to schools in the Northampton, South constituency in 2001–02

  School name

  Allocation (£)

  Ryelands Middle School

  17,830

  Simon de Senlis Lower School

  11,034

  Spring Lane Lower School

  9,643

  St. James Church of England Lower School

  7,783

  St. Lukes Church of England Lower School

  7,506

  St. Paul's Lower School

  7,967

  Standens Barn Lower School

  9,581

  Vernon Terrace Lower School

  9,043

  Weston Favell Church of England Lower School

  9,043

  Wootton Primary School

  10,688

  Yardley Hastings Primary School

  7,122

  Total

  603,792

  Table B—capital grant allocations to Northamptonshire local education authority 2001–02

  £000

  Grant name

  Allocation

  Voluntary Aided Schools

  943

  School Laboratories

  360

  School Security

  166

  School Access

  581

  NDS Condition

  1,670

  Seed Challenge

  424

  Total

  4,144

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children remained in education after completing their GCSEs in(a) schools with sixth forms and (b) schools without sixth forms, in 2001. [11537]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The primary source of information on the changes in the activities of young people after completing compulsory education is the youth cohort study (YCS).

  The table details the figures requested.

  Percentage

  Comprehensive schools

  In full-time education in year 12

  With sixth form

  71

  No sixth form

  65

  These estimates are for England and Wales. Equivalent estimates for schools other than comprehensive schools are not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been imposed in the London Borough of Bromley and at what cost to public funds. [9996]

  Mr. Denham
  Information collected centrally identifies the number of antisocial behaviour orders issued by Magistrates' Court Committee (MCC) area only, not by local authority area. Information is not collected centrally on the costs to public funds such orders make.
  716W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued in each of the local authority areas covered by the Essex police; and if he will list those where no orders have been issued. [10505]

  Mr. Denham
  Information collected centrally identifies the number of antisocial behaviour orders issued by Magistrates' Court Committee (MCC) area only, not by local authority area.

  Volunteer Bureaux
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning The Experience Corps Limited and funding for local volunteer bureaux. [10187]

  Mr. Denham
  I recognise that volunteer bureaux play a strong role in promoting volunteering and good practice locally; that is why the Home Office provides funding of about £170,000 annually to the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux. I have received representations on behalf of a number of volunteer bureaux concerning funding allocated to the Experience Corps. The Experience Corps was established specifically to support and mobilise older people to become active in their communities. I hope that these organisations will work together to build on and enhance what has already been achieved.

  Chinese State Visit (Policing)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he has taken of the findings of the High Court on 3 May 2000 in respect of the actions of the Metropolitan police in determining the appropriate level and nature of policing for the visit of the Chinese State Vice-President to the UK this month. [10716]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: I have been informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the planning for the policing operation during Vice-President Hu Jintao's visit has taken into account the findings of the High Court on the 3 May 2000.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings have taken place between the Metropolitan police, his Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Chinese officials to discuss the policing of the UK state visit of the Chinese State Vice-President, Hu Jintao; and what decisions were taken on the policing of this visit. [10715]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have held several routine meetings with the Chinese Embassy to discuss the programme for the Vice-President's visit. The Metropolitan police attended some of these, to enable them to make operational decisions on security for the visit. Decisions on the policing of the visit are a matter for the Metropolitan police alone.

  Criminal Records (Discrimination)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures will be
  717W
  introduced to prevent discrimination against those with criminal records when they apply for a job, following the Police Act 1997. [10115]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: We are determined that people who have offended in the past should not be unfairly discriminated against. The Code of Practice issued under the Police Act 1997, following extensive consultation, emphasises the need for information to be used fairly, and for guidance issued or supported by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to be observed. The Code also requires employers to have written policies in relation to the recruitment of ex-offenders. The CRB is working closely with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and with Nacro to develop guidance material for organisations that wish to use the CRB's service. Two publications have been issued so far. Both offer practical and policy recommendations on employing people with a criminal record. The Bureau will continue to work with these organisations and others on the creation of guidance materials. A publicity campaign aimed at offenders, ex-offenders, employers, volunteering groups and the public is currently being developed by the CRB, to help inform people about the disclosure service.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the turnover rate was for special constables in each constabulary in England in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [10145]

  Mr. Denham
  Home Office-funded research into the premature wastage of special constables, completed last year, found that the primary reasons for leaving were often external to the service. However, the research identified some underlying management factors contributing to the decision to resign.

  Recommendations aimed at reducing the wastage included making improvements to: the flexibility of duties and hours offered; the management structure within which specials operate; the quality of training provided locally; and to local efforts to monitor and prevent wastage.

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and as part of the police reform process we are looking at radical improvements in the management, welfare and deployment of special constables.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables are to be assigned to the Senlac Division(a) this year and (b) in the next five years. [9863]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by the Chief Constable of Sussex police that the force aims for a ratio of one special constable to every five regular officers. Establishment figures for regular officers are set on a yearly projection basis according to the budget; For the Senlac Division in 2001, this figure was 260 regular officers. There are currently 34 special constables deployed there.

  No decisions have been made about the deployment of regular (and therefore special) constables for next year and beyond.
  718W
  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and as part of the police reform process we are looking at radical improvements in the management, welfare and deployment of special constables.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were with the Essex police at the end of(a) 1971, (b) 1981 and(c) 1991; and what the latest available figure is for 2001. [10506]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of serving special constables at force level has only been recorded centrally from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1971 and 1981 are not available. The total number of special constables in Essex police force for 1991 and 2001 are set out in the table.

  Year

  Total number of special constables

  30 December 1991

  642

  31 March 2001

  445

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and as part of the police reform process we are looking at radical improvements in the management, welfare and deployment of special constables.

  Emergency Services Personnel (Assaults)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people convicted of assaulting(a) ambulance personnel and (b) other emergency services' personnel in the last 12 months for which figures are available received a (i) custodial sentence, (ii) community service order and (iii) fine. [9989]

  Mr. Denham
  The statistics held centrally on the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database include only the circumstances of an offence if such details are referred to in legislation. Assaults on ambulance personnel and other emergency services' personnel excluding the police are not separately identified in legislation from other offences of assault and so details of convictions of offenders found guilty of such offences are not centrally available.

  Summary offences of assault on police officers can be identified and details of convictions for this offence in 1999, broken down by type of sentence, are given in the table. It is not possible to identify more serious offences of assault on the police.

  Data for 2000 will be available in November.

  Persons convicted and sentenced at all courts for assaulting a constable by type of sentence, England and Wales, 1999

  Offence/convictions

  Offence description

  Assaulting a constable

  Principal statute

  Police Act 1996, Sec. 89(1) and offences against similar provisions in Local Acts

  Total convicted

  6,117

  Total sentenced

  6,133

  of which:

  Unsuspended sentence of imprisonment1

  1,281

  719W

  Persons convicted and sentenced at all courts for assaulting a constable by type of sentence, England and Wales, 1999

  Offence/convictions

  Community service order

  971

  Fine

  1,319

  1 Comprises persons sentenced to a secure training order, to a young offender institution or to an unsuspended sentence of imprisonment

  Note:

  All data given refer to the principal offence. Some persons sentenced may have been convicted in a previous year

  Prison Work
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received during the last 12 months on the impact of the price of goods manufactured by prisoners on similar products made by commercial businesses outside; and if he will make a statement. [10144]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service policy on pricing is that goods and services should be offered at a fair market price, which covers direct manufacturing cost plus a contribution to the recovery of overheads. Prison overheads are higher than outside because of high fixed costs, such as high ratios of costly supervision, a short working week and low productivity rates. Once a prison has recovered all variable costs and a contribution to the direct costs, its rates are in most cases no lower than those of comparable commercial ventures.

  The Prison Service has dealt with three cases during the last 12 months in which concerns were expressed about under-cutting by prisons. All three cases were fully investigated and it was found in each case that Prison Service policy had been adhered to.

  Nottinghamshire Police
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the budget for Nottinghamshire police in(a) cash and (b) real terms for each financial year since April 1996. [11305]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The information is set out in the table.

  Cash (£ million)

  Real (£ million)

  Real terms increase (percentage)

  1996–97

  115.3

  130.6

  1.6

  1997–98

  119.7

  131.5

  0.7

  1998–99

  124.7

  133.3

  1.3

  1999–2000

  129.6

  135.3

  1.5

  2000–01

  133.8

  137.1

  1.4

  2001–02

  140.3

  140.3

  2.3

  Note:

  Real terms figures are given at 2001–02 prices (GDP deflator)

  Source:

  Nottinghamshire police

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has held with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry, to co-ordinate initiatives to reduce crime through sport and recreation; [10141]
  720W
  (2) what level of funding is available from his Department for initiatives to reduce crime through sport and recreation; [10140]

  (3) what discussions he has held with professional sports clubs about using sports initiatives to reduce crime. [10139]

  Mr. Denham
  A number of professional sports bodies were involved in the discussions of the Football Working Group, which was chaired by former Home Office Minister, Lord Bassam of Brighton and which reported in March 2001. The working group report includes recommendations aimed at encouraging Premiership and Football League clubs to maximise and expand their community investment programmes, notably through developing partnerships with local communities, local authorities and businesses. The report highlights the social and public order benefits of encouraging, facilitating and funding young people to participate in grassroots football and other sports projects.

  In January 2001 senior Home Office officials met officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the Department for Education and Skills (formerly Department for Education and Science) and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (formerly Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) to discuss the contribution youth sport can make to crime reduction. Officials subsequently attended a seminar organised by the DCMS and featuring an American expert in this field. Further discussions took place in June and officials remain in touch with a view to identifying examples of effective schemes which can be recommended to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships.

  The Home Office is currently funding a number of schemes which aim to use sport and recreation to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. There are several small schemes with total funding of £400,000 under the Reducing Burglary Initiative. The principal schemes are those involving the Youth Justice Board—ie Positive Futures (£6 million over three years to March 2003); Youth Inclusion (£15.6 million over four years to March 2003); and Easter and Summer 'Splash' schemes (£3.6 million over two years to March 2002).

  Police Priorities
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many priorities he has set each police authority in England and Wales in the last three years. [10142]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Act 1996 allows the Home Secretary to set objectives for policing, normally referred to as Ministerial Priorities.

  For each of the years 1999–2000,2000–01, 2001–02 financial years there have been the same two Ministerial priorities.

  721W
  1—to reduce crime and disorder in partnership with local authorities, other agencies and the public.
  2—to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities.

  In the first of these years, there were two additional priorities:
  1—to deal speedily and effectively with young offenders and to work with other agencies to reduce offending and re-offending.
  2—to target and reduce drug related crime in partnership with other local agencies, via the local Drug Action Team1 in line with the Government's strategy "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain".
  1Drug and Alcohol Action Teams in Wales.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 24 July from the hon. Member for Torbay regarding Mr. Tuci of Chelston, Torquay. [10137]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 30 October. I am sorry I have been unable to send an earlier reply.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reply to the letter to him dated 21 September from the hon. Member for Solihull concerning the company known as A & N Trimmings Ltd. [8680]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter of 21 September on 19 October.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) 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) House of Commons and (ii) House of Lords; [7007]

  (2) 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;

  Table 1: Written Parliamentary Questions (House of Commons)

  Number of ordinary written question

  Percentage more than one month

  Percentage more than three months

  Average response time in days

  Number of named day written questions

  Percentage more than one month

  Percentage more than three months

  Average response time in days

  1995

  1,968

  1

  1

  5

  1,591

  0

  0

  2

  1996

  1,615

  2

  0

  5

  1,187

  1

  0

  3

  1997

  1,515

  0

  0

  4

  1,300

  0

  0

  2

  1998

  2,222

  0

  0

  4

  1,251

  0

  0

  1

  1999

  2,200

  0

  0

  5

  1,661

  0

  0

  1

  2000

  1,947

  0

  0

  4

  2,063

  0

  0

  2

  20011

  1,136

  0

  0

  4

  1,000

  1

  0

  2

  1As at 20 July 2001

  722W
  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. [7008]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department receives large amounts of correspondence from hon. Members and members of the public. We aim to send a substantive reply to all letters as soon as possible. I am determined to achieve a high level of performance in dealing quickly with correspondence.

  We are working with our information technology partners to develop next summer a customer contact centre which will radically change the way we handle letters, e-mails and telephone inquiries. In the short term we are implementing a number of organisational and process changes to bring about improvements in the quality and timeliness of replies and to prepare for the contact centre.

  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, column 324W, and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 454W.

  The Home Office also receives a high number of parliamentary questions each Session and takes its responsibilities for answering them seriously. This is reflected in the performance levels indicated in the tables, which are, in the main, within the recommended response times required by both Houses. The Home Office has, since 2000, had a performance indicator of answering 95 per cent. of parliamentary questions within target. In the most recent financial year for which figures are available—2000/01—the figure achieved was 94 per cent.

  The tables show the number of written parliamentary questions answered by the Home Office in the House of Commons and the House of Lords respectively since 1995; the percentage of those questions which took more than a month to provide a substantive answer; the percentage of questions which took more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and the average response time in days from the point at which the question is due for answer (ie the date on which it appears in the order book). The figures for questions in the House of Commons have been broken down in terms of questions which were for ordinary written and named day answer respectively.

  723W

  Table 2: Written Parliamentary Questions (House of Lords)

  Number

  Percentage more than one month

  Percentage more than three months

  Average response times in days

  1995

  219

  0

  0

  8

  1996

  340

  0

  0

  9

  1997

  367

  2

  0

  8

  1998

  607

  0

  0

  8

  1999

  573

  1

  0

  9

  2000

  579

  2

  0

  9

  20011

  135

  4

  0

  8

  1 As at 20 July 2001

  Homicide of children under one year

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Number of victims

  16

  28

  30

  42

  37

  Son/daughter (including adopted)

  13

  21

  23

  28

  25

  Stepson/daughter (including child of suspect's cohabitant/lover)

  0

  1

  2

  5

  4

  Other family (including foster children)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Friend, ex-friend

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Professional (suspect killed customer or client in the course of carrying out their occupation)

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Other known (acquaintance)

  0

  1

  3

  4

  0

  Not known (insufficient information)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  No current suspect

  2

  4

  2

  2

  7

  Total

  16

  28

  30

  42

  37

  Outcome principal suspect—convictions

  Murder

  5

  1

  5

  5

  3

  Manslaughter

  7

  11

  14

  12

  2

  Infanticide

  1

  4

  4

  7

  0

  Suspect died

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Acquitted/proceedings discontinued

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Suspect committed suicide

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Number of proceedings on advice of DPS

  0

  4

  1

  2

  1

  Other (eg under age)

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Court proceedings pending, in progress

  1

  0

  3

  14

  24

  No suspect

  2

  3

  1

  1

  7

  Total

  16

  28

  30

  42

  37

  Statistics on homicides cover the latest published period and are as at 11 September 2000. Figures are subject to revision (usually downwards) as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child deaths where domestic violence is a factor were recorded in each police authority since such statistics were collated. [10461]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics on the homicide of children

  Table 1: Offences currently recorded as homicide for children less than 16 years where the relationship of the victim to the principal suspect is that of son or daughter

  Police force

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Avon and Somerset

  2

  0

  3

  1

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Cheshire

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  3

  2

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1

  Dorset

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Child Deaths
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homicides there were of a child aged under one, broken down by the relationship of the victim to the principal suspect; and how many people were(a) charged and (b) convicted of such offences in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [9882]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested details are in the table.

  killed by their parents are collected centrally, but those where domestic violence is a factor cannot be separately identified.

  The following tables show currently recorded homicides of children less than 16 years, killed by their parents, for each police force area. Data are provided from 1977 to 1997 on a calendar year basis and from 1997–98 to 1999–2000 on a financial year basis. Information is as at 11 September 2000 when recording was closed for publication purposes. The outcome may result in some offences being reclassified as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.
  725W

  Table 1: Offences currently recorded as homicide for children less than 16 years where the relationship of the victim to the principal suspect is that of son or daughter

  Police force

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Durham

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Essex

  0

  1

  6

  1

  2

  0

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Greater Manchester

  4

  2

  4

  2

  4

  3

  2

  3

  5

  2

  5

  5

  Hampshire

  2

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  2

  Hertfordshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  2

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Kent

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  1

  1

  4

  0

  Lancashire

  4

  2

  2

  2

  0

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  London City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Metropolitan Police

  8

  6

  13

  10

  7

  9

  6

  7

  18

  4

  16

  8

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Northumbria

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  3

  3

  4

  0

  2

  1

  North Yorkshire

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  1

  0

  2

  4

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  2

  4

  South Yorkshire

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Staffordshire

  4

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Suffolk

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Sussex

  2

  2

  2

  0

  3

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Thames Valley

  0

  4

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  8

  3

  1

  1

  5

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  5

  4

  5

  2

  2

  3

  6

  5

  5

  4

  2

  8

  West Yorkshire

  2

  3

  5

  5

  3

  3

  2

  5

  4

  3

  4

  5

  Wiltshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  South Wales

  2

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  Total

  55

  63

  64

  40

  54

  58

  53

  62

  72

  36

  55

  76

  Table 2

  Police force

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–98

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  4

  3

  3

  3

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  3

  2

  3

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Cleveland

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  0

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  4

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Dorset

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1

  0

  3

  0

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  2

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Greater Manchester

  5

  2

  3

  4

  2

  3

  3

  6

  1

  1

  6

  3

  Hampshire

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Humberside

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  3

  2

  1

  3

  2

  2

  0

  Kent

  1

  1

  4

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Lancashire

  3

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  0

  4

  3

  2

  1

  3

  Leicestershire

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  London City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  Metropolitan Police

  6

  6

  8

  3

  8

  4

  8

  7

  8

  10

  7

  4

  Norfolk

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Northumbria

  1

  0

  2

  3

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  3

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  726W 727W

  Table 2

  Police force

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–98

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  1

  5

  5

  2

  7

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  3

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  4

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  5

  0

  Suffolk

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Surrey

  2

  1

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sussex

  2

  5

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  Thames Valley

  1

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  3

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  2

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  3

  West Midlands

  4

  5

  2

  3

  2

  4

  3

  7

  1

  1

  4

  9

  West Yorkshire

  0

  2

  1

  1

  3

  3

  4

  0

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  0

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Gwent

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South Wales

  2

  0

  7

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  3

  3

  0

  4

  Total

  44

  49

  63

  51

  49

  53

  52

  58

  50

  45

  59

  53

  Summer Recess (Departmental Publications)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by his Department during the summer recess. [9230]

  Mr. Blunkett
  During the summer recess, my department issued 70 Home Office press notices and eight press notices were issued by the Prison Service.

  All Home Office press releases are placed on its website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk

  There were four Home Office publications.

  1. Code of Practice on Visual Recording of Interviews with Suspects.

  2. Implementation of the EU Driving Disqualification Convention.

  3. Draft Code of Practice on Accessing Communication Data.

  4. Review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997.

  Data Retention (Communications Service Providers)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what types of data are included within the code of practice which his Department is drawing up for data retention by communications service providers. [10420]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]I will draw up the Code of Practice in consultation with communications service providers and the law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies. The general definition of communications is in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The types of data within that category that will be covered by the code will be agreed in the course of consultation. That way we can be sure that both sides are clear about the types of data which are retained.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has in respect of the retention of communications data by communication service providers; and whether this will be(a) voluntary or (b) mandatory. [10421]
  728W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]I intend to make it clear that communications service providers may retain data for up to 12 months for law enforcement and national security purposes. I will then work with the telecommunications industry to develop a voluntary code of practice on retention of data.

  Sussex Police
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) special constables there were in Sussex in each of the last 10 years. [9766]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  Sussex police

  Year1

  Police officer strength

  Special constable strength

  Civilian support staff strength

  1991

  2,969

  2571

  926

  1992

  2,984

  2548

  951

  1993

  3,008

  2512

  983

  1994

  3,009

  527

  1,013

  1995

  2,931

  511

  1,049

  1996

  3,074

  511

  1,132

  1997

  3,085

  472

  1,149

  1998

  2,996

  442

  1,185

  1999

  2,847

  393

  1,393

  2000

  2,822

  352

  1,328

  2001

  2,855

  306

  1,454

  1 As at 31 March

  2 Special constable numbers for 1991 to 1993 are for 31 December

  In the latter part of the 1990s the chief constable civilianised a significant number of non-operational police posts, which accounts for the fall in police numbers from 1997 to 2000. At the end of August 2001 the force had 2,948 officers. Much of the recent increase reflects the success of the crime fighting fund.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 68W, on Sussex police numbers, what are the working-time equivalent numbers for (a) the 2,963 police officers and 1,573 civilian support staff employed by the Sussex constabulary, (b) the 108

  729W
  additional police officers and 119 additional civilian support staff taken on since March 2001 and (c) the expected 224 new recruits in the current year. [11025]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]The figures provided by the acting chief constable of Sussex police in the answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 68W, are full-time equivalent numbers for officers and civilian support staff except for the expected new recruits in the current year. The projection for new recruits (224) is actual officer numbers because predictions cannot be made on whether new recruits will be full or part-time officers.

  Computer Errors (Exceptional Leave to Remain)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many days in 2001 the Home Office computer system has incorrectly issued permissions for exceptional leave to remain; and how many such permissions were issued. [10941]

  Angela Eagle
  Where appropriate, decisions on exceptional leave to remain are taken by caseworkers after a full consideration of the facts of the asylum application. I am not aware of any exceptional leave to remain decisions being made as a result of computer error.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) families, (b) single persons and (c) persons of all categories including dependants, received voucher-only support in each of the last six months for which data exist. [10721]

  Angela Eagle
  The table shows the number of asylum seekers, in each of the requested categories, who were receiving voucher-only support as at the end of each of the last six months for which data exist1,2.

  As at end of

  Families3

  Singles

  Total (excluding dependants)

  Total (including dependants)

  February

  1,030

  8,780

  9,810

  11,360

  March

  1,180

  10,210

  11,400

  13,470

  April

  1,270

  11,160

  12,430

  14,660

  May

  1,370

  12,010

  13,380

  15,790

  June

  1,520

  13,150

  14,670

  17,370

  July

  1,640

  13,960

  15,600

  18,520

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest ten. Figures may not sum owing to rounding.

  2 Cases where support has been ceased are excluded.

  3 A family, in this context, is defined as any principal applicant with at least one dependant.

  Road Traffic Penalties
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the responses received to the consultation paper on road traffic penalties. [10293]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]Officials in the three Departments concerned (Home Office, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Lord Chancellor's Department) are currently engaged in taking stock of the detailed and comprehensive responses to the Road Traffic Penalties 730W
  Consultation Paper which was published on 19 December 2000. A considered Government report containing a summary of the responses received and final set of recommendations will be published in the near future.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners(a) are known to have taken illegal drugs and (b) have tested positive at a later date in each of the last three years; and what percentage the latter represents. [10667]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the use of illegal drugs in Prison Service establishments is provided by the random Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) programme. Information as to how many prisoners tested positive more than once is not held centrally.

  The table sets out the number of random MDT samples which tested positive over the last three full financial years and for this year to 31 August.

  Year

  Number of positive random MDT results

  Total number of random MDT tests

  1998–1999

  11,552

  63,209

  1999–2000

  7,682

  54,013

  2000–01

  6,383

  51,474

  2001–021

  2,594

  21,875

  1 Year to 31 August 2001.

  Car Theft
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on the proportion of those convicted of car theft who have previous car theft convictions; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of those figures for future policy. [10670]

  Mr. Denham
  Data held centrally do not distinguish car thefts from thefts of any type of motor vehicles.

  An analysis of a sample of offenders sentenced for thefts of motor vehicles in 2000 reveals that 26 per cent. had one or more previous convictions for a similar offence.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the offending rate for car theft for(a) 14, (b) 15, (c) 16, and (d) 17-year-old (i) males and (ii) females in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [10669]

  Mr. Denham
  Information for 1997, 1998 and 1999 taken from the Home Office's Cautions and Court Proceedings Databases showing the number of persons aged(a) 14, (b) 15, (c) 16 and (d) 17, broken down into (i) males and (ii) females, cautioned by the police or convicted at all courts for: (a) theft of a motor vehicle, (b) aggravated vehicle taking, (c) being carried knowing vehicle to have been taken or driven away, unauthorised taking and carrying away of a motor vehicle (Theft Act Section 12(1) as amended by the Section 37 Criminal Justice Act 1998), per 100,000 population for each age is given in the table.

  Data for 2000 will be available later in the year.

  731W

  Offenders cautioned or convicted per 100,000 population by offence type, age and gender, England and Wales 1997–99

  Offence type and gender

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Males

  Age 14

  57

  52

  59

  Age 15

  87

  73

  75

  Age 16

  86

  79

  82

  Age 17

  82

  66

  72

  Females

  Age 14

  3

  2

  3

  Age 15

  4

  3

  6

  Age 16

  5

  5

  5

  Age 17

  4

  5

  6

  Aggravated vehicle taking

  Males

  Age 14

  100

  101

  133

  Age 15

  193

  206

  224

  Age 16

  287

  299

  290

  Age 17

  346

  319

  327

  Females

  Age 14

  5

  11

  10

  Age 15

  18

  18

  21

  Age 16

  20

  17

  29

  Age 17

  17

  22

  21

  Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle1

  Males

  Age 14

  221

  252

  302

  Age 15

  379

  420

  431

  Age 16

  465

  474

  518

  Age 17

  445

  433

  472

  Females

  Age 14

  27

  25

  29

  Age 15

  41

  43

  52

  Age 16

  43

  51

  50

  Age 17

  35

  41

  41

  Total

  Males

  Age 14

  378

  405

  495

  Age 15

  659

  621

  730

  Age 16

  838

  852

  890

  Age 17

  872

  818

  870

  Females

  Age 14

  35

  38

  43

  Age 15

  63

  65

  79

  Age 16

  68

  73

  83

  Age 17

  57

  73

  68

  1 Including offences of "being carried knowing vehicle to have been taken or driven away"

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost of recruiting, training and equipping a police officer is. [10671]

  Mr. Denham
  The recruitment of police officers is the responsibility of the Chief Officer of each force. No central records are kept of the overall cost of recruiting, training and equipping a police officer.

  When rates of payment to be made under the Crime Fighting Fund in 2000–01 were agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, £1,000 was included for recruitment and £7,000 for the initial residential training for each new recruit. In 2001–02 the payment for recruitment has been up-rated to £1,030 per recruit.

  Parole
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in the UK were granted parole in the last three years. [10668]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of prisoners released on parole in the last three years is:

  Number

  1998–99

  2,383

  1999–2000

  2,561

  2000–01

  2,584

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Climate Change
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the climate change negotiations. [9281]

  Mr. Meacher
  Political agreement was reached between 177 countries on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol at the resumed Sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn in July. This was a significant political achievement.

  The Seventh Conference of the Parties is now taking place in Marrakesh (29 October-9 November). Our aim will be to complete the task of converting the Bonn agreement into detailed decisions. We should not underestimate the scale of this task, but I am optimistic agreement should be possible. It is vital that we maintain political momentum and the spirit of co-operation that was evident in Bonn. We hope that agreement in Marrakesh will pave the way for ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto protocol by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what new initiatives she plans to assist British compliance with commitments under the Kyoto protocol. [9301]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK's climate change programme, published in November 2000, sets out details of the policies and measures that the Government are introducing to meet the UK's target under the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12 and to move towards our domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. We estimate that these policies could reduce emissions by 23 per cent. by 2010. This is substantially beyond our Kyoto target.

  The Government have been making progress with implementing the policies outlined in the programme. The UK's Third National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was published on 30 October, provides an update of this progress. Copies of the Communication will be placed in the Library of each House.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what improvements in the co-ordination of rural policy and departmental operation have been achieved since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [9297]

  Alun Michael
  Major benefits are expected to flow from bringing together responsibilities for farming and food, environment and conservation and the rural affairs portfolio within one Department, although the benefits–both policy and operational–will be realised gradually. On foot and mouth disease, there was already close joint working between Departments, via the Cabinet Office co-ordination machinery and via the rural task force, which brought together both Departments involved and external stakeholders. The establishment of DEFRA has offered scope for further integration. Great efforts are being made to establish a new culture within the Department, with clear aims and objectives through a process in which stakeholders and staff at every level have been involved. We are also seeking to develop close partnerships as a way of working within the new Department, across Whitehall and with partners at a regional and local level throughout England as well as on the international stage. The new Department has created a post at Board level to bring together general weight of DEFRA field delivery as a whole.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what restrictions will apply to the provision of grants to rural businesses as part of the extension of the Business Recovery Fund announced on 18 October; [10101]

  (2) what the deadline for grant applications is under the Business Recovery Fund announced on 18 October. [10100]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]Regional development agencies have played a crucial role in responding to the needs of businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. I am grateful to them for their positive response to the challenges and the high degree of co-operation we have received from them in recent months. As with earlier tranches of money, it will be for the individual regional development agency to decide on the best way to allocate the Business Recovery Fund (BRF) in its region and to set the deadline for applications according to local circumstances. Regional development agencies must ensure that grants are consistent with the European Commission's state aids rules as well as the guidance issued by this Department. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House when published.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statistical information she has collated on the impact foot and mouth disease has had on(a) farm incomes and (b) output. [10471]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is very much aware that the outbreak has had a considerable impact on farming and a range of industries throughout the UK. DEFRA is currently working with a number of other Government Departments to estimate the economic impact of the outbreak and the results of this work will be made publicly available.
  734W
  In addition, an estimate of total income from farming (TIFF) for 2001 will be published on 29 November 2001. This will include the effects of foot and mouth disease and other factors that have affected income in 2001.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contracts have been concluded between her Department and farms infected by foot and mouth near Thirsk for the cleansing of their premises. [10179]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has now agreed 59 contracts, with 54 farmers and five contractors in the Thirsk area, for the cleansing and disinfection of premises affected by foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals were slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease, broken down by those from infected farms and those culled for protective purposes, weekly since March. [9911]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]The Animal Health Act 1981 provides the powers to require the slaughter of any animals affected with foot and mouth disease (FMD), suspected of being affected, which are or have been in contact with affected animals or have been exposed to the infection of FMD.

  The following table sets out the breakdown of the number of animals slaughtered by Infected Premises (IPs), Dangerous Contacts (DCs), and Slaughtered on Suspicion (SOSs) by week.

  Week ending

  IPs

  DCs

  SOSs

  2001

  25 February

  2,094

  817

  653

  4 March

  31,851

  7,525

  0

  11 March

  65,846

  11,946

  0

  18 March

  104,513

  41,093

  0

  25 March

  165,748

  124,876

  0

  1 April

  234,986

  244,347

  11,242

  8 April

  234,986

  244,347

  11,242

  15 April

  107,204

  466,970

  20,390

  22 April

  65,359

  339,171

  17,241

  29 April

  56,029

  166,125

  17,966

  6 May

  31,059

  73,882

  8,112

  13 May

  15,025

  36,743

  9,985

  20 May

  18,655

  43,590

  940

  27 May

  25,572

  67,021

  4,712

  3 June

  23,738

  48,482

  171

  10 June

  12,552

  46,270

  2,283

  17 June

  25,855

  42,333

  954

  24 June

  13,291

  39,888

  2,098

  1 July

  11,030

  17,107

  471

  8 July

  19,546

  30,539

  1,072

  15 July

  11,310

  26,693

  666

  22 July

  11,303

  24,354

  44

  29 July

  12,995

  15,494

  1,612

  5 August

  21,215

  24,102

  496

  12 August

  9,928

  16,700

  689

  19 August

  8,996

  14,355

  829

  26 August

  7,020

  4,005

  0

  2 September

  11,152

  27,887

  0

  9 September

  14,696

  23,295

  1,145

  16 September

  3,584

  9,772

  380

  23 September

  1,840

  8,905

  117

  30 September

  2,122

  3,890

  1,250

  7 October

  0

  183

  80

  14 October

  166

  1,914

  0

  21 October

  0

  387

  324

  Grand total

  1,316,704

  2,473,669

  126,183

  735W
  The grand total for dangerous contacts is believed to be a slight underestimate of the true figure. These figures may be subject to change as quality assurance of the data is carried out.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason blood tests requested by her Department in July on 22 farms in north Somerset were delayed until October. [7888]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]DEFRA Head Office gives permission for local Animal Health Offices (AHOs) to start blood testing (serosurveillance) around former infected premises but it is left to the local AHO to decide on its priorities for sampling based on a number of factors. In the case of north Somerset, the AHO is also responsible for Gloucestershire and Wiltshire.

  The blood tests are part of the extensive on-going programme of testing sheep flocks inside foot and mouth disease protection and surveillance zones and so far over 1.1 million samples have been taken across the country. The 22 farms in north Somerset fell within a surveillance zone straddling the borders of two testing regions. Those in the Somerset part of the zone were sampled in advance of those in north Somerset.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the reasons were for the change in Government policy on the criteria for classifying outbreaks of foot and mouth disease that came into effect in April. [7728]

  Mr. Morley
  Our policy for confirming an outbreak of foot and mouth has not changed. There are, however, a number of different scenarios which would lead to animals being slaughtered to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease;

  Infected premises
  Where foot and mouth disease has been confirmed on the basis of clinical findings by a veterinary surgeon or positive laboratory tests or both.

  Dangerous contacts
  Premises where it is believed that animals have been exposed to foot and mouth disease infection by virtue of a known contact with infected animals or by contact through movements of vehicles, persons or things believed to be contaminated with virus.

  Contiguous premises
  A category of dangerous contacts where animals are believed to have been exposed to infection because of their proximity to a neighbouring infected premises.

  Slaughter on suspicion
  Premises where on veterinary examination there are insufficient grounds to confirm disease but where there are clinical signs that cannot exclude the possibility of disease being present. Animals are culled and samples taken to confirm the presence/absence of disease. Cases giving positive results or those that are subsequently confirmed on clinical grounds, are classified as infected premises.

  Live Animal Exports
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will propose changes to EU law to allow the banning of export of live animals; [10387]
  736W
  (2) if she will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the exporting of meat instead of live animals. [10388]

  Mr. Morley
  The June Agriculture Council unanimously adopted a resolution instructing the European Commission to bring forward early proposals for changes to the current rules on the welfare of animals during transport. This debate on the proposals will provide an opportunity to discuss the options for reducing the number and duration of long-distance journeys of farm animals to slaughter. Our preference is for a trade in meat rather than the long distance transport of animals for slaughter.

  We recognise the need for the discussion to include economic and animal health implications.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money has been allocated to the Greater London flood defences by her Department in each of the last three years. [10274]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides grants for flood defence capital works that satisfy essential criteria but responsibility for all expenditure on flood defences rests with operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities. The Environment Agency estimates that its flood defence expenditure in Greater London in the last three years was as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Capital

  7.0

  8.0

  8.0

  Operational

  26.6

  32.0

  29.4

  Other

  4.9

  4.8

  4.6

  Total

  38.5

  44.8

  42.0

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to undertake a review of responsibility for flood defence management and funding; and if she will make a statement; [11010]

  (2) when she expects to publish the findings of her review of flood and coastal defence funding. [11011]

  Mr. Morley
  The purpose of the review of flood and coastal defence funding arrangements was to ensure that funds were appropriately sourced and targeted, and delivered effectively and efficiently. Funding and institutional arrangements are inextricably linked. In addition to researching funding options and prioritisation, the review has gone on to consider whether current institutional arrangements were fit for purpose. The conclusions of the review are expected to be published later this autumn. The Government are satisfied that the outcome of this review, and other on-going reviews relating to flood management, will contribute substantially to ensuring a focused, integrated, efficient and effective service.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the additional annual investment that would be required to ensure all flood defences in England and Wales are classified by the National Audit Office as being at least in good condition. [11007]
  737W
  Mr. Morley
  The National Audit Office's March 2001 report on inland flood defences includes condition ratings for flood defences made by the Environment Agency. These data form part of the input for two recent research projects on the "National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from Flooding" which were commissioned by this Department; the most recent report of this research was published in September. It suggests that investment in capital and maintenance would need to be increased from current levels by between £110 million and £120 million a year to maintain current standards of defence, with a further £30 million a year to improve to indicative standards.

  Hunting
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent studies of foot and mouth disease risks surrounding fox hunting she has commissioned. [10004]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]A veterinary risk assessment regarding the possible relaxation of the foot and mouth disease controls over hunting with dogs in England and Wales has been carried out by the State Veterinary Service and is currently being considered by Ministers. Hunting with dogs takes a variety of forms all of which pose different levels of risk, and therefore require different levels of risk management measures. The assessment will shortly be published on the DEFRA website http:/www.defra.gov.uk/ and copies will be made available in the Library of each House.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to publish the results of the risk assessment in relation to hunting with dogs in areas free of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [8595]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]The veterinary risk assessment regarding the possible resumption of hunting with dogs is currently being considered by Ministers. It takes account of the varying degrees of risk in different parts of the country. Hunting with dogs takes a variety of forms all of which pose different levels of risk and therefore require different levels of risk management measures. In the context of the Government's clear commitment to do everything possible to prevent future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, this needs careful consideration. We hope to be able to reach a decision and will publish the veterinary risk assessment on which our decisions will be based.

  Milk Task Force
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the work of the Milk Task Force; and when she expects it to publish its report. [11419]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1219W.

  Local Food Production
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports on local food production and sale she has received; and if she will make a statement. [10831]
  738W
  Alun Michael
  There have been a number of recent reports which have made reference to production and/or marketing of local foods including the report of the rural task force, which I chair, and the report by Lord Haskins on rural recovery after foot and mouth disease. We are currently considering our response to the recommendations of the rural task force report and the Haskins report and we will respond shortly.

  Environment Agency (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will increase the budget of the Environment Agency in Somerset. [10776]

  Mr. Morley
  Allocations for the environmental protection work performed by the Environment Agency are made on a national basis, and not by county. On flood defence, I have recently announced the allocations to flood and coastal defence operating authorities for 2002–03. The capital allocation, on which we are prepared to pay grant, for the Environment Agency in Somerset is £4.4 million (compared with £2.5 million in 2001–02). The rate of grant has been increased by 10 per cent. to 75 per cent.

  Coffee Prices
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) other UK Government Departments and (b) her EU counterparts regarding the effect of coffee prices on developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [10591]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]The UK recognises that the coffee market is experiencing record low prices and remains committed to poverty reduction in developing countries.

  The UK, like other EU member states and the European Commission, is a member of the International Coffee Organisation. At the 85th meeting of its governing body, the International Coffee Council, on 25–28 September 2001, the Council resolved to establish a Quality Committee to facilitate measures for the withdrawal from the market of defective beans and those with a moisture content above a certain level. This will provide practical advice and support to a resolution by producers aimed at reducing the total amount of low-grade coffee beans on the world market. The beans would not be stockpiled but either destroyed or diverted to other purposes such as cosmetics, animal feed or fuel.

  Forests
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total acreage of forest in the UK is. [10270]

  Mr. Morley
  There are 2.8 million hectares of woodland in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much land was planted into forest in the UK during 2000. [10943]

  Mr. Morley
  18,800 hectares of new forests were planted in the United Kingdom in the year ended 31 March 2001.

  Livestock
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) cows, (b) sheep and (c) pigs there were in the UK on 1 October. [10275]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures are collected in June in the Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census by the relevant UK Departments.

  As at June 2001

  Thousand

  Total cattle and calves

  Total sheep and lamb

  Total pigs

  England

  5,749

  16,140

  4,823

  Wales

  1,271

  9,976

  41

  Scotland

  1,903

  8,090

  596

  Northern Ireland

  1,677

  2,574

  398

  UK

  10,600

  36,780

  5,858

  Note:

  Wales and Northern Ireland figures are provisional

  Source:

  June 2001 agricultural and horticultural census

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she intends to apply to pay optional agrimonetary compensation to the arable sector. [12221]

  Mr. Morley
  We have considered the case for payment of optional agrimonetary compensation to the arable sector. While we acknowledge the difficulties that the sector is facing, we have decided not to draw down these funds given the many competing demands on the Exchequer at present, not least the cost of eradicating foot and mouth disease. The arable sector will, however, receive £28 million in compulsory agrimonetary compensation this autumn.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Summer Recess
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by his Department during the summer recess. [9227]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's Press Office issued 48 press notices including one with a consultation document.

HEALTH

  Sexual Offences
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce new legislation on sexual offences further to protect mentally handicapped victims. [10072]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health.

  Responsibility for the current review of legislation relating to sex offences rests with the Home Department.
  740W
  When the Government set up the Sex Offences Review in January 1999, its terms of reference included
  "to provide coherent clear sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation."

  The recommendations of the Sex Offences Review to Government on reforming the law on sex offences were published in 'Setting the Boundaries' in July 2000. We are considering how to change all existing sex offences in the light of over 700 responses to that consultation document, including how to deal with sex offences against those with learning disabilities, and will be bringing forward legislation in due course.

  Cardiac Surgery (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cardiac surgical operations have been carried out on people in the Jarrow constituency in each of the last five years. [8827]

  Jacqui Smith
  As data are not available at constituency level, the information in the table has been supplied for health authority area of residence.

  The figures show the number of finished consultant episodes for heart operations which took place in national health service hospitals in England in the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000.

  Heart operations Finished consultant episodes for patients treated in NHS hospitals in England and resident in Gateshead and South Tyneside HA or Newcastle and North Tyneside HA 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1995–96

  CABG

  174

  262

  PTCA

  67

  174

  Other heart ops

  805

  1,245

  Total

  1,046

  1,681

  1996–97

  CABG

  194

  284

  PTCA

  119

  134

  Other heart ops

  879

  1,287

  Total

  1,192

  1,705

  1997–98

  CABG

  231

  281

  PICA

  83

  123

  Other heart ops

  1,164

  1,480

  Total

  1,478

  1,884

  1998–99

  CABG

  242

  297

  PTCA

  99

  138

  Other heart ops

  1,031

  1,530

  Total

  1,372

  1,965

  1999–2000

  CABG

  199

  263

  PTCA

  120

  197

  Other heart ops

  1,124

  1,576

  Total

  1,443

  2,036

  741W
  Notes:

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  Operation codes (OPCS4R) used are as follows:

  Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG)-K40–46.

  Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA)-KA49–50.

  Other heart ops-K01–39, K47–48, K51–71.

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Department of Health

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the NHS to the average family was in 2000–01; and what it is forecast to be in 2001–02. [10512]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department produces figures on national health service expenditure per head of population. Public expenditure on the NHS in England is expected to be around £890 per head of population in 2000–01, rising to £970 in 2001–02.

  Occupancy Rates
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the occupancy rates for each NHS hospital trust in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [11119]

  Mr. Hutton
  Bed data, including occupancy rates, are available in the annual publication 'Bed availability and occupancy—England: Each Financial Year to 1999–2000',742W
  copies of which are available in the Library. Alternatively, information can be downloaded from the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Whittington Hospital
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what details of the PH proposals for the Whittington hospital will be published; and if he will publish his assessment of(a) its cost and (b) the cost of direct departmental funding. [11447]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]Details of the private finance initiative proposals for the Whittington hospital project will be published by the Whittington Hospital National Health Service Trust one month after final approval has been given and the funding route for the project agreed. Under our code of openness, the trust's full business case will be made publicly available and will include full details of the cost of the PH proposals and the publicly funded alternative.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new graduate primary care mental health workers(a) have been employed and (b) will be employed in (i) the current financial year, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04. [11522]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proposal to develop 1,000 new mental health workers in primary care outlined in the NHS Plan forms part of a package of measures designed to strengthen primary mental health care. The new graduate primary care workers will be employed in the financial year 2003–04.

TREASURY

  Debt Write-off (Government Companies)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the granting of requests for debt write-offs by national and local government and wholly-owned companies of the Government; how many such debt write-offs have been agreed since 1996–97; and which Minister gave approval to such write-offs in each case. [10926]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury expects all public bodies to have appropriate systems to manage their finances within the funds available and to take a prudent approach to the raising and financing of debt. While Treasury approval is generally required for write-offs, the final decision in individual cases rests with the relevant Secretary of State. The decision to remit lending will of course depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

  Departments are responsible for accounting for all loans, including write-offs. In the case of loans from the National Loans Fund, primary legislation is required before any loan can be written off. In the case of lending financed by Departments, all other write-offs must be recorded in the accounts of the leading department and any remission of voted lending above £20 million is reported to Parliament by way of a Treasury Minute.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to the answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1034W, if he will publish his estimate of the proportion of people of pension age in each local authority area. [10700]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. David Laws, dated October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning the proportion of people of pension age in each local authority area. I am replying in his absence. (10700)
  The requested information for local authority areas in England and Wales for the latest available year is provided in the attached table1.
  1 The relevant table has been deposited in the Library.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the record kept under clause 9 of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers of contacts between his special advisers and the news media since July. [8221]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 18 October 2001] All civil servants, including special advisers, are expected to keep departmental Heads of Information informed of contacts with the media. Details of such contacts are for internal purposes only.

  National Insurance and Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the annual revenue which 744W
  would be raised by (a) raising the employee national insurance rate by 1 per cent., (b) raising the upper earnings limit of employee national insurance contributions to the starting level for paying the upper rate of income tax and (c) restricting the value of the personal income tax allowance to the basic rate of tax; [9957]

  (2) what his estimate is of the yield to the Exchequer from (a) the 10 per cent. rate of income tax, (b) the 20 per cent. rate of income tax, (c) the 22 per cent. rate of income tax, and (d) the 40 per cent. rate of income tax in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [9958]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: The full-year effect of raising the upper earnings limit to the higher rate threshold is estimated to yield £750 million. This estimate was provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  The full-year effect of restricting the personal allowance to the basic rate of income tax is estimated to yield around £3 billion in 2002–03. This estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  For the other questions, I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics", tables 1.6 and 2.5, available in the Library of the House. The latest data on Inland Revenue Statistics can also be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  Hypothecated Health Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to introduce a hypothecated health tax to finance the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [10745]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have made their commitment to increasing resources over the next three years for the NHS, funded from general taxation and linked to reform. Decisions on taxation and spending will be taken in the Budget and Spending Review, respectively, next year.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the revenue value of detected alcohol and tobacco fraud and smuggling was for the financial year 2000–01. [9202]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: The revenue value of detected alcohol and tobacco smuggling will be published in the Customs and Excise Annual Report for 2000–01.

  Income and Corporation Taxes Act
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the schemes under section 590 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 the Inland Revenue has approved which relate to retirement ages. [11389]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Approximately 200 schemes have received Inland Revenue approval under section 590 of
  745W
  the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The identity of individual schemes is protected by obligations of taxpayer confidentiality.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Northampton have received the Children's Tax Credit since its introduction on 6 April. [11274]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information about the Children's Tax Credit is not available by constituency. However, the number of families who are eligible for CTC in the east midlands is estimated to be 400,000.

  Consolidated EU Tax
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the proposal by the European Commission for a single consolidated tax base; and what plans he has to discuss these proposals with his EU counterparts. [10758]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax harmonisation, including proposals for a consolidated company tax base, is not the way forward for Europe. The Government will not support any action at European level that will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 854W-56W, if he will distinguish between total managed expenditure for 1999–2000 in United Kingdom Department programmes comparable with programmes covered by the Barnett formula in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and total managed expenditure in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in programmes not compared for the purposes of the Barnett formula. [11012]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Separate figures are not published for the English equivalent of devolved programmes. Furthermore, it is for the devolved administrators to allocate funding to programmes within their block allocations. However, the Statement of Funding Policy published by the Treasury in July 2000 set out the Barnett formula including the comparability factors used in the formula and information on which elements of the devolved administrations' budgets are determined by the Barnett formula. Data for 1999–2000 relating to DEL expenditure are given in table 1.17 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses published in April 2001.

  Other elements of UK Departmental spending programmes are treated as Annually Managed Expenditure. Details of AME spend are shown in Table 1.16 of PESA.

  Delivered Administrations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 838W, what is the degree of convergence
  746W
  already achieved between expenditure by the devolved Administrations and their predecessor Departments, covered by the Barnett formula comparable to UK Department programmes since 1996–97; and what changes there have been in the composition of those comparable programmes since 1996–97. [11050]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Separate figures are not published for the English equivalents of devolved programmes. However information on identifiable total managed expenditure per head by country including years since 1996–97 was published in Chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses in April 2001. Details of the Barnett formula were published in the Statement of Funding Policy published in March 1999.

  Taxation (Fines)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised for HM Treasury through fines imposed by(a) HM Customs and Excise and (b) the Inland Revenue for (i) late completion of tax forms and (ii) late payment of tax owed in the last 10 financial years. [9762]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tables show the revenue raised by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise from late filing penalties on tax forms and late payment surcharges over the last ten years. The Inland Revenue accounts for its receipts in accounts years running from November to October.

  The penalty figures are for Income Tax (including Pay-As-You-Earn), Self Assessment (from 1998), Company Tax (from 1991), Company Tax Pay and File (from 1995), Company Tax Self Assessment (from 2000) and Capital Gains Tax. The main impacts on penalty receipts were the introduction of:
  CTPF penalties, increasing receipts from Accounts 95 and 96 onwards
  PAYE end of year penalties, increasing receipts from Accounts 95 and 96 onwards
  SA penalties, increasing receipts from Accounts 98 onwards.

  Self Assessment is the only Revenue tax that has a surcharge, so receipts began after its introduction in 1996–97.

  Inland Revenue

  £

  Accounts year

  (i) Penalties paid

  (ii) Surcharge paid

  1991

  1,032,000

  —

  1992

  1,362.000

  —

  1993

  1,488,000

  —

  1994

  1,936,000

  —

  1995

  5,511,000

  —

  1996

  15,288,000

  —

  1997

  20,840,000

  —

  1998

  42,193,000

  9,480,000

  1999

  56,338,000

  36,527,000

  2000

  63,438,000

  50,943,000

  Total

  209,426,000

  96,950,000

  747W

  Customs and Excise

  £

  Financial year ending March

  Value added tax

  Excise

  Insurance premium tax

  Air passenger duty

  Landfill tax

  1992

  93,000,000

  not available

  From the outset of each tax

  1993

  96,000,000

  1994

  83,000,000

  1995

  70,000,000

  1996

  73,000,000

  1997

  73,000,000

  1998

  77,000,000

  40,769

  1999

  80,000,000

  14,554

  2000

  82,000,000

  15,426

  2001

  87,000,000

  39,510

  Total

  814,000,000

  110,259

  330,491

  563,390

  1,621,684

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the forecast is for(a) the total charges made under the climate change levy and (b) the amount within this total which is attributable to sales of (i) electricity and (ii) electricity from nuclear sources. [8873]

  Mr. Boateng
  Climate change levy is forecast to raise £1 billion in its first year, 68 per cent. of which is expected to come from supplies of electricity. 23 per cent. of electricity production is nuclear.

  All CCL revenue will be recycled to business. The levy is designed to be revenue neutral for the private sector as a whole, and is expected to be broadly neutral between the manufacturing and service sectors. CCL revenue is funding a 0.3 per cent. cut in the employers' rate of National Insurance contributions, and £150 million of additional support for energy efficient measures.

  Market-sensitive Information
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the guidelines on the timing of release of market-sensitive information contained in decisions by Government Departments. [8392]

  Ruth Kelly
  Guidelines on the release of market-sensitive information contained in decisions by Government Departments are contained in the Government Information and Communication Service (GICS) Handbook published by the GICS Development Centre in the Cabinet Office.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library details of meetings between Ministers in his Department and outside groups since 7 June in the form specified in paragraph 63 of the July 2001 Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers. [8132]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers meet a wide range of individuals and organisations in carrying out their official duties. The arrangements for all such meetings are fully in accordance with the Ministerial Code.

  Compliance Costs Research Programme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the progress and (b) expected timescale of the Inland Revenue and Customs Joint Compliance Costs Research Programme. [9738]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Last year, the Inland Revenue and Customs embarked on a research programme to measure the compliance cost of tax. The programme is expected to run for four years and will cover all direct and indirect taxes. Two contracts were awarded in September 2000 to undertake the first studies in the research programme. I have not seen the report so I cannot comment on the progress as yet.

  Office for National Statistics
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2000–01. [12145]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Office for National Statistics' performance is set out in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts which is being laid before Parliament today.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  War Pensions
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what clarification was given on 24 November 2000 by DSS officials to representatives of the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region on the interpretation of which category of claimant could count as British in order to qualify for the ex gratia claims announced on 7 November 2000, following a meeting on 15 November between the DSS, the War Pensions Agency and other interested organisations. [11304]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  Through the latter part of November 2000, DSS officials were talking to representatives of ex-service organisations on a daily basis.

  While there is no specific record of contact with the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region on 24 November 2000, the advice being given at that time

  749W
  was that to be eligible for the ex-gratia payment civilian claimants must have been British at the time of internment.

  Benefit Fraud (Highland District Council)
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Highland district council. [12220]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Highland district council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Inspectors found that despite covering the largest geographical area of any council in the UK, the council was effective at promoting the take-up of benefit and provided access to advice on HB and CTB through a number of local outlets.

  Although benefit claims were processed on time, inspectors consider the council's claim form was poor and its approach to verification was inconsistent, resulting in serious implications for the security of the benefits gateway. The report notes the council intended to phase in the Verification Framework from April 2001 and also agreed to revise its claim form.

  Inspectors consider one of the underlying problems was the council's failure to manage benefits, particularly the lack of a senior manager with direct responsibility for HB and CTB. The report notes that addressing this failure is fundamental to facilitating improvements and successfully implementing BFI's recommendations.

  Inspectors found limited counter-fraud activity, with no procedures in place with the procurator fiscal to effectively pursue prosecutions nor to offer administrative penalties. Insufficient staff were allocated to the counter-fraud team. Investigation work was in arrears and some investigations had not been fully completed. BFI considers one third of the council's Weekly Benefit Savings claims were incorrect.

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

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

  Department of Social Security
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to phase out references to the Department of Social Security(a) on printed materials and (b) on the internet. [11309]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  References to the former Department of Social Security are being replaced on printer materials when a reprint becomes due, to avoid unnecessary wastage and costs.

  All the Department's internet sites are in the process of being updated with the new corporate identity. Former DSS sites will be maintained for a period of time in order to redirect users to the new site.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to advise small businesses of their present and future obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended. [11320]

  Maria Eagle
  Our "See the Person" national disability advertising campaign in 1999 and "What have you got to offer?" in autumn 2000 encouraged small businesses to consider reasonable adjustments to improve access for disabled people. A further campaign is planned for early next year.

  We continue to work with partners such as the Small Business Service, the DRC and Equality Direct to identify advice and information that meets business needs.

  There are also Codes of Practice available giving practical advice to employers, service providers and trade organisations about how to meet their duties under the DDA and a range of free, explanatory leaflets.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent estimate is of the number of(a) bogus and (b) surplus national insurance numbers. [7469]

  Malcolm Wicks
  To date, 2,009 applications made for NINOs have been made using false identity documentation.

  Duplicate NINOs are removed from the DCI as and when they are identified. Where it is discovered that a customer has two NINOs, one is deleted and this is noted on the remaining account. These cases are generally spotted by field officers and rarely involve fraudulent activity. Of the 205,000 surplus duplicate records removed from the DCI between November 1995 and March 2001, only 10 cases were potentially fraudulent.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of companies under the regulations introduced on 8 October that(a) are obliged to provide and (b) have so far failed to offer access to a stakeholder scheme. [7576]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest estimate of the number of employers obliged to provide employees with access to a stakeholder pension scheme is between 350,000 and 400,000. By the end of August 2001, pensions industry figures showed 146,950 employers had designated a scheme. Figures showing designations since then are not yet available.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements he is making to monitor employers' compliance with their obligation to designate stakeholder pension schemes. [11316]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 180W.
  751W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what avenues of redress are available to individual employees where their employer has failed to meet the deadline for designation of a stakeholder pension scheme. [11315]

  Mr. McCartney
  An employee who considers that their employer should have provided staff access to a stakeholder pension scheme but has not done so may raise the matter directly with their employer or through their trade union official or other recognised staff representative. Should this not resolve the issue the matter may then be reported to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) who will investigate.

  Child Support Maintenance
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment framework is employed by the Child Support Agency to decide the level of a working nonresident parent's child maintenance contributions. [7586]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Currently, the amount of child maintenance a non-resident parent is required to pay is calculated in accordance with a formula set out in the Child Support Act 1991 and the Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases Regulations. The formula takes account of both parents' ability to maintain their children. Both parents' incomes and essential living expenses are considered and it can take up to 100 pieces of information to assess maintenance.

  From April 2002, a much simpler maintenance calculation will be used, based on percentage rates of the non-resident parent's net income (15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two children and 25 per cent. for three or more children). The rates will be reduced for non-resident parents on low incomes, for those who share the care of qualifying children and for those with children (including stepchildren) in a second family.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if existing cases will be given priority in the implementation of the Child Support Agency reforms. [11573]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Changes to the child support scheme will take effect for new cases from April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred to the new scheme as soon as we are confident that it is working well for new cases.

  Fraud Buster Computer System
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Fraud Buster computer system. [8971]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Over the three years 2001 to 2004, we are investing £2 billion in transforming the delivery of services to make better use of technology and reduce the amount of fraud and error in the system. We are tightening up the benefit system and making sure that from the very first claim, the right benefits are going to the right people. However, the Department does not have a system known as "the Fraud Buster computer system".

  Pension Provision Group
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government will publish the revised reports from the Pension Provision Group on(a) pension provision for self-employed people and (b) the impact on pensions of changes in the labour market. [9811]

  Mr. McCartney
  The reports will be ready for publication later in the year.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent estimate is of the level of housing benefit fraud. [10460]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest estimate for the monetary value of fraud and error in housing benefit was published in the report "National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review 97/98" which is in the Library. In April this year we set up the housing benefit review which will deliver an on-going measurement of fraud and error in housing benefit.

  Preserved Rights (Residential Homes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 834W, on preserved rights, what estimate he has made of the number of residents ordinarily resident in each local authority (a) in nursing homes aged (i) under 65 and (ii) over 65 and (b) in residential care homes aged (1) under 65 and (2) over 65 as at (A) 1 April 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003. [11471]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have recently surveyed local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and have estimated the number of preserved rights residents for which each local authority will become responsible on 8 April 2002. The estimates cross-classify residents by age and type of home. The information has been placed in the Library and is also available on the Department of Health website.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates (Leeds)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates in the Leeds district currently serve on the present petty sessional area benches; and for each of those PSA benches how many reside in the areas served by those benches. [10292]

  Mr. Wills
  The Advisory Committee has provided the figures requested on the numbers of magistrates on the four benches covered by the Leeds Advisory Committee. They are set out in the table. By statute, magistrates must live in the commission area in which they serve or within
  753W
  15 miles of its boundaries. There is no requirement for them to live in the petty sessional area to which they are assigned.

  Number of magistrates in the Leeds area

  Petty sessional area

  Number of magistrates

  Number living within the petty sessional area

  Leeds

  309

  204

  Morley

  22

  20

  Pudsey and Otley

  33

  31

  Skyrack and Wetherby

  48

  41

  Total

  412

  296

  Jury Rooms (Smoking Ban)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will(a) introduce and (b) enforce a smoking ban in jury rooms within the Courts Service. [11139]

  Mr. Wills
  Court managers currently have the discretion to introduce a non-smoking policy in communal jury areas wherever the accommodation allows for a separate, well-ventilated smoking area to be provided nearby.

  Jury retiring rooms are used whenever a jury is considering a verdict. During this time jurors are not allowed to come into contact with anyone outside the retiring room and resource constraints mean it is not always possible to provide a separate dedicated smoking facility for each retiring room, although smokers are asked to consider the comfort of their fellow jurors while in the retiring rooms. The often stressful nature of deliberation means that it is neither feasible to introduce nor possible to enforce a ban in these rooms.

  There are currently no proposals to change existing arrangements or policy in respect of jury rooms.

  Libra Project
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of magistrates courts are operating the office automation element of the Libra project in parallel with legacy systems. [10253]

  Mr. Wills
  There are currently 16 magistrates courts committees (MCC) out of a total of 42 that are the operating the office automation (OA) element of the Libra project. In addition, about half of Greater London is operating the service. All of these MCCs operate legacy systems in parallel, as legacy systems will not be replaced until the new Libra software is available to run over the OA infrastructure. Deployment of the service is currently under way in a further two MCCs.

  Extradition Costs
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total cost to public funds to date of(a) legal aid and (b) Government legal costs in the extradition cases of (i) Ibrahim Hussein Abdul Hadi Eidarous, (ii) Khalid A. Fawwaz and Adil Muhammad, (iii) Abdul al-Majid Bari and (iv) Rachid Rausda. [10482]
  754W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the case of(a) the legal aid costs recorded to date by the Legal Services Commission relating to criminal and civil proceedings connected with extradition have been:

  (i) Ibrahim Eiderous—£107,416

  (ii) Khalid Al Fawwaz—£157,077

  (iii) Abdel Muhammad Abdul Al Magid Abdelbary—£164,432

  (iv) Rachid Ramda—£20,456

  Not all work has yet been billed and assessed.

  In the case of (b) the costs of the cases for Messrs. Eidarous, Bari and Fawwaz have been a total of £16,500 in counsel fees and for Mr. Ramda £15,000 in counsel fees. Further bills are expected.

  Judicial Appointments Report
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the Third Judicial Appointments annual report. [11721]

  Mr. Wills
  The Judicial Appointments annual report, covering the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, was published yesterday. The report includes comprehensive narrative descriptions together with statistics on appointments to the judiciary, Queen's Counsel, Lay Magistrates and General Commissioners of Income Tax. It also includes information on the Lord Chancellor's appointments policies and procedures; on the progress in implementing Sir Leonard Peach's recommendations, such as the appointment of the First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report is also available on the following website address: http://www.lcd.gov.uk.

  Court. Service Review
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will begin the quinquennial review of the Court Service. [11750]

  Mr. Wills
  I yesterday formally launched the first review of the Court Service which was established as an executive agency in April 1995. The terms of reference have been agreed and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Lord Chancellor's Department would like to hear from those who wish to contribute to the review. It is intended that the review should be completed by spring 2002.

  Medical Records
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to keep under review the fee for individuals to gain access to their medical records under the Data Protection Act 1998. [11749]

  Mr. Wills
  The maximum fee for subject access to medical records held in computerised form is £10. For the time being, the Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 maintain at £50 the maximum fee for subject access to medical records held in other forms. The Government believe that, in the light of current technology and record-keeping practice, the £50 maximum strikes the proper balance between ensuring that cost is not a barrier
  755W
  to subject access and avoiding the diversion of resources from patient care. The Government are committed to working with the Information Commissioner, in consultation with other key interests, with the aim of finding a long-term solution.

  Trials (Magistrates Courts)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates court trials scheduled to be heard on a particular day in England and Wales between January and July had to be rescheduled because the prosecution police witness failed to attend. [10956]

  Mr. Wills
  Information is not collected nationally on adjournments and rescheduling, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, in a pilot study run in nine of the 42 magistrates courts committee areas between 2 April and 29 June 2001, 6,267 trials were listed. Of those, 1,176 trials were ineffective for a variety of reasons, 81 of which were as a result of a prosecution police witness failing to attend. An ineffective trial is defined as:"On the trial date expected progress is not made due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the court, and a further listing for trial is required".

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many trials in magistrates courts in England and Wales were rescheduled from the original date between January and July. [10955]

  Mr. Wills
  Information is not collected on adjournments and rescheduling, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many trials were heard by magistrates courts in England and Wales between January and July. [10957]

  Mr. Wills
  In the period between January 2001 and June 2001 a total of 27,444 cases brought by the Crown Prosecution Service were contested in the magistrates courts, compared to 29,030 in the same period in 2000 and 31,857 in 1999. A contest is defined as'a case that has proceeded to trial against a defendant on at least one either-way or summary charge'.

  The figure includes both cases in which a defendant has entered some guilty pleas to charges before the court and no guilty pleas.1

  No figure is available for cases prosecuted by other agencies.

  1Source:

  CPS Caseload Statistics

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department has recorded in 2000 and 2001; and on how many occasions in 2000 and 2001 computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department. [11003]
  756W
  Mr. Wills
  The number of cases of computer hacking, fraud and theft recorded by the Lord Chancellor's Department is as follows:

  2000

  2001

  Computer

  (a) Hacking

  2

  2

  (b) Fraud

  0

  0

  (c) Theft

  11

  12

  Illegal access by computer hackers

  (a) Within

  0

  1

  (b) Outside

  2

  1

  No protectively marked information was lost in the incidents of theft and the hacking incidents caused no damage to the departmental computer systems.

  Magistrates Courts Service Annual RM0
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the annual report of the chief inspector of the magistrates courts service; and if he will make a statement. [12013]

  Mr. Wills
  Copies of the chief inspector's annual report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The chief inspector's report describes the work of the Inspectorate over the past year and reports some of its principal findings. Magistrates courts committees (MCCs) are seen to have made improvements in many areas. In particular, the co-operation between the courts, police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) at an operational level, has strengthened further. The progress made on the operation of the 'Narey' reforms aimed at reducing delay in the magistrates courts and the Government's pledge to reduce the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders are examples of the benefits of close working.

  There have been advances made in the collection of performance information, and in the way it is represented to the MCC, but effective analysis of this information remains a weakness for a number of MCCs. This is in spite of the situation being highlighted in last year's report. MCCs are, however, demonstrating a better awareness of the need to provide the strategic direction and of leaving operational matters to their officers.

WALES

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement. [10842]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A summary of my Department's asset holdings is given in the National Asset Register (Cm 5221, July 2001). Since it was established on 1 July 1999, the Wales Office has made no significant disposal of assets and has no plans to do so.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department took in recognition of energy efficiency week. [11518]

  Mr. Touhig
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 592W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Hooliganism
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what further measures are to be initiated to help prevent violence and hooliganism at sporting events. [9986]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Apart from the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill, which is undergoing parliamentary scrutiny, no relevant legislation is currently proposed. An extensive range of specific legislative measures is in place for tackling violence and disorder at football matches while general public order and other provisions are available for dealing with the much lower levels of disorder experienced at other sporting events. Legislation alone will not eradicate violence and hooliganism. That is why the Government are committed to monitoring implementation of the

  £ million

  Capital expenditure

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  City of Manchester Stadium

  0.5

  0.4

  3.3

  12.9

  41.9

  59.0

  English Institute of Sport

  —

  —

  0.1

  0.2

  1.3

  1.6

  Manchester Acquatics Centre

  0.6

  3.3

  11.4

  11.8

  5.2

  32.3

  Heaton Park Bowling Greens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  Bisley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.6

  5.6

  Bolton Arena

  —

  —

  1.25

  1.5

  7.1

  9.85

  The table shows public expenditure over the last five financial years on venues primarily constructed for the Commonwealth Games. The expenditure is made up of funds from Manchester City Council and/or Sport England. To date no public money has been incurred on Games accommodation or on transport networks.

  Picketts Lock
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if Her Majesty's Government will recompense the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority for the costs it incurred in respect of the athletics stadium at Picketts Lock; and if she will make a statement. [10151]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ann Roberts, the Chair of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 12 October about this. We will give very careful consideration to her letter.
  758W
  55 recommendations contained in the Working Group on Football Disorder report, published in March, and to helping the relevant authorities take forward the recommendations on crowd management contained in the Cricket Disorder Review Group report, published in September.

  Manchester Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of the Ministerial Group on the Manchester Commonwealth Games. [9307]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following the election the ad hoc Ministerial Group on the Commonwealth Games was reconstituted as a formal Cabinet Committee, MISC 15, under the joint chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Its terms of reference are"to consider option and policies for the Government's approach towards the Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002".

  MISC 15 will meet as business arises.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money has been spent in each of the last five years to construct the necessary facilities, transport networks and accommodation in connection with the Manchester Commonwealth Games. [9463]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: The information is as follows.

  Athletics Facilities
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will discuss with Scottish Ministers the locating of national athletics facilities for the United Kingdom in Scotland. [10149]

  Mr. Caborn
  The question of whether there should be national athletics facilities needs to be determined by UK Athletics' own long-term strategic objectives. A long term development plan for athletics in this country is being developed by UK Athletics in discussion with Sport England and my Department.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what stadiums there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) London capable of holding international athletics events under the auspices of the IAAF. [11018]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The IAAF have a variety of different international track, road, indoor and cross country events with different technical requirements. Four stadiums have hosted the IAAF Grand Prix and the AAA National Championships in recent years: London—Crystal Palace; Birmingham—Alexander Stadium; Sheffield—Don Valley; and Gateshead—the

  759W
  Gateshead Stadium. None of the venues is currently able to host the IAAF World Athletics Championships, however the Don Valley Stadium is fully capable of being converted to World Championships standard.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of United Kingdom sports medicine provision for international athletics; and if she will make a statement. [11021]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The UK Sports Institute (UKSI) is currently setting up a network of world class facilities and services to elite athletes. There will be centres in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and a network of regional centres in England. Each centre will provide state of the art sports science and medicine facilities.

  The Government, through UK Sport and Sport England, continue to fund the work of the National Sports Medicine Institute (NSMI). The Institute promotes good medical practice in the treatment of athletes at all levels, including adequate preparation for events and the importance of a sound diet for optimum health and performance.

  In addition, the UKSI and NSMI work closely with the British Olympic Medical Centre (BOMC), based at Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow, on co-ordination and delivery of sports medicine and science services for elite athletes in the UK.

  Following a monitoring report on their World Class Performance Plan, published at the start of 2001, and subsequent joint work between UK Athletics and UK Sport, UK Athletics commissioned an independent review of its sports medicine provision. Dr. Ken Fitch, who has undertaken significant reviews across the world, including the Australian Institute of Sport, was responsible for the review. The Minister for Sport recently met with UK Athletics and Dr. Fitch to discuss sports medicine provision for international athletics.

  UK Athletics have just received Dr. Fitch's report and they will be putting together an action plan for the short, medium and long term to enhance their provision of sports medicine to athletes. The UKSI also contributed to the review and UK Sport will work in partnership with UK Athletics on the implementation of the review's recommendations.

  Golden Jubilee
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received about plans for the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [9973]

  Mr. Caborn
  A number of representations have been received in support of widening the distribution of the Golden Jubilee commemorative medal to include other groups, particularly the police.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has made for the celebration of the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [9972]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 November 2000, and 22 June 2001. Also 760W
  relevant is the joint Home Office and Ministry of Defence press notice of 15 February 2001, in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the Golden Jubilee commemorative medal.

  After taking on responsibility for the Golden Jubilee celebrations, I announced on 3 August 2001 details of the extended bank holiday 'Jubilee Weekend' over the period 1–4 June 2002. A copy of the press notice is in the Library of the House. The events include:

  Saturday 1 June
  Classical concert in Buckingham Palace Gardens.

  Sunday 2 June
  Jubilee church services and bell-ringing across the UK.

  Monday 3 June
  Pop concert in Buckingham Palace Gardens followed by beacon-lighting and firework display.

  Tuesday 4 June
  Ceremonial procession to St. Paul's and the National Service of Thanksgiving at St. Paul's (morning).
  Lord Mayor of London hosts lunch at the Guildhall.
  Golden Jubilee carnival pageant in the Mall (afternoon).

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to allow school children free tickets to the Commonwealth games to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [9998]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Commonwealth games are a commercial event, and the organisers have an imperative to sell all the available tickets. However, tickets for the games have been set at a level to ensure that people can afford them. Ticket prices start at £5 and over half of all tickets will be priced at £10 or less. Five events, the marathon, triathlon, walking, and mountain and road cycling will also be free.

  Local school children will be taking part in the opening and closing ceremonies. Alongside the Commonwealth games the organisers, Manchester 2002 Ltd., are also organising the Sprit of Friendship Festival and Queen's Jubilee Baton Relay. These will offer a range of opportunities for school children to participate in the broader games programme and celebrate the Golden Jubilee.

  Museum Attendance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the level of museum attendance was(a) last year, (b) this year and (c) projected for next year. [10186]

  Dr. Howells
  Total visitor attendance at those museums and galleries sponsored by my Department are as follows:

  2000–01: 29.8 million actual outturn

  2001–02: 27.6 million estimated outtum

  2002–03: 29.7 million projected.

  Attendances at museums throughout the UK are estimated to be over 77 million annually.

  Olympic Games
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made
  761W
  of the impact of the loss of the venue for hosting the World Athletics Championships on the future of an Olympic bid from the United Kingdom. [10180]

  Mr. Caborn
  The British Olympic Association has yet to decide whether to bid for the Olympic games in 2012, 2016 or later. My officials are currently discussing the prospects for such a bid based on London with the British Olympic Association, Greater London Authority, UK Sport and Sport England. Those discussions include the drafting of a consultancy proposal for a cost-benefit analysis of bidding for and, if successful, staging an Olympic games in London which would include an assessment of the chances of success of such a bid.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the cost to public funds of supporting a bid to host the 2012 Olympic games. [11023]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The British Olympic Association has yet to decide whether to bid for the 2012 Olympic games. My officials are currently discussing the prospects for such a bid based on London with the British Olympic Association, Greater London Authority, UK Sport and Sport England. Those discussions include the drafting of a consultancy proposal for a cost-benefit analysis of bidding for and, if successful, staging an Olympic games in London which would include an assessment of the costs to public as well as private funds.

  Community Fund
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to ensure equality among London boroughs for future distributions of awards by the Community Fund. [10228]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's commitment to ensuring that Lottery funding is fairly distributed is reflected in the changes made to Lottery distribution through the National Lottery Act 1998 and revised Policy Directions issued to distributors in the summer of 1998. Decisions concerning distribution of awards are a matter for the Community Fund.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to recoup Government money invested in the Wembley National Stadium project. [10247]

  Mr. Caborn
  No exchequer funds have been committed to the National Stadium project. Sport England have provided a grant of £120 million to Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to secure the acquisition of the Wembley site and to take forward development work. Discussions are continuing between Patrick Carter, the Football Association and Sport England to determine the future direction of the project.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Wembley stadium. [10539]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and Birmingham,
  762W
  Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 19 October 2001, Official Report, column 1380W.

  European Football Championships
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support she plans to give to Scotland's bid to host the 2008 European Football Championships. [10751]

  Mr. Caborn
  The possibility of a bid for Euro 2008 by Scotland is a matter for the SFA and the Scottish Executive. I will receive an update on bids to stage major sports events in Scotland at the next meeting of the Sports Cabinet on 31 October.

  Football (Funding)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial support is provided through(a) Sport England, (b) UK Sport and (c) other Government funding sources to develop football at the grassroots. [10987]

  Mr. Caborn
  Football is the nation's most popular participation sport by far, and it is a priority for both the Government and Sport England to develop the sport at the grass roots. Sport England's funding for football has been channelled through the Football Foundation since July 2000. The Foundation received Lottery funding totalling £7 million from Sport England in 2000–01, and the majority of this went to funding the sport at the grass roots level. Children's and recreational football also benefits from substantial Sport England Lottery funding for multi-use capital projects, and the financial benefits to grass roots football cannot be quantified.

  In addition, exchequer-funded grants from Sport England to the Football Association to fund work on grass roots development totalled £165,000 in 1998–99 and £144,000 in 1999–2000.

  The primary role of UK Sport is to support elite sportsmen and women by funding the development of training and competition facilities, and the provision of high quality coaching. UK Sport does not fund grass roots development initiatives in any sport.

  Sports Review
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the(a) terms, (b) timescale and (c) membership of the Performance and Innovation Unit review of how major sporting events are staged. [11022]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Details of the Performance and Innovation Unit review will be announced shortly.

  BBC
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) black and (b) Asian governors there are on the BBC Board of Governors. [11433]

  Dr. Howells
  The BBC Board of Governors currently includes one black and one Asian member.
  763W
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last discussed the ethnic breakdown of staff with the Director General of the BBC. [11432]

  Dr. Howells
  Decisions about recruitment of staff and equal opportunities are the responsibility of the BBC. I understand that the BBC has launched a number of managerial development schemes and training initiatives aimed at ensuring that 10 per cent. of BBC staff are from ethnic minorities by 2003.

  Independent Commission on Gaming
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from non-profit making private clubs on the proposals of the Independent Commission on Gaming; and how many 764W
  of these expressed concern regarding the impact on their clubs if the Commission's proposals were implemented. [10817]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have received over 1,500 representations from such clubs, all expressing concern about the proposal by the Gambling Review Body that they should no longer be allowed to install jackpot gaming machines.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact on the financial viability of non-profit making private clubs of the proposals of the Independent Commission on Gaming. [10807]

  Mr. Caborn
  We shall make such an assessment, following the closure today of the consultation period on the report of the Gambling Review Body.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Baroness Michie of Gallanach
Janet Ray Michie (commonly called the Honourable Janet Ray Michie), having been created Baroness Michie of Gallanach, of Oban in Argyll and Bute, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Mackie of Benshie and the Lord Geraint.

Lord Black of Crossharbour
Conrad Moffat Black, PC (Can.), OC, having been created Baron Black of Crossharbour, of Crossharbour in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Thatcher and the Lord Carrington.
Lord Chorley,Lord Chorley, having received a Writ of Summons in accordance with Standing Order 9(7) (Hereditary Peers) following the death of the Earl of Carnarvon—Took the Oath.

Specialist Schools
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with their progress with specialist schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, yes. The first main finding from Ofsted's survey, Specialist Schools: An evaluation of progress, is that most specialist schools covered in its survey are achieving the aims of the programme, and that designation has been a catalyst for innovation which has helped to sustain or accelerate the momentum of school improvement. Analysis shows that specialist schools continue to improve GCSE performance at a faster rate than other maintained schools and, achieve good value-added results.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but I fear that it is a little optimistic. How will the Government ensure that sufficient specialist teachers—the core of the system—will be available? Will there not be an inordinate, even unacceptable, amount of travelling for the children involved because of the distance, in many cases, of the specialist schools from their homes? Does not my noble friend agree that, in spite of the many denials by the Government, there will be a two-tier system of
1410
schools simply because of the very large amount of grant being paid to the specialist schools and not to the non-specialist schools? Are we seeing the end of comprehensive schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are not seeing the end of comprehensive schools. As regards teachers, we are keeping a very careful watch to ensure that specialist school status is granted to schools which are able to ensure they have the teaching available for their specialism. As I have said in the House many times, we are concerned that in some subjects we have shortages. We are looking to make sure that we deal with those effectively.
As regards travelling for children, it is important to remember that specialist school status will be available to schools but on the condition that they work closely with other schools, including primary schools and other secondary schools. As technology grows within schools, we envisage that there will be many opportunities for children to take advantage of specialist schools by using that technology. We also know that in rural communities secondary schools are looking to work closely together and collaborate to ensure that they cover a range of specialisms between them.
It would be true to say that there was a two-tier system only if we were somehow preventing schools participating. It is open to all schools to become specialist schools if they wish. This is part of a raft of measures to help schools to improve. We have established a system of working towards specialist status in order to ensure that schools can participate fully.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in view of the fact that specialist schools are designed to deal with pupils with certain specialist abilities, what percentage of such schools are using the right to admit 10 per cent of their pupils on that basis?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the answer is 7 per cent. The figures were looked at when we had about 470 such schools. We shall continue with our evaluation of progress. The reality is that most schools have not found the need for designation. Selection is by aptitude, not by ability. The most pertinent examples are sports colleges and performing arts colleges. One can see how they might wish to use the provision.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, if the Minister is right and if specialist status is such a catalyst for improvement, given that last year there was an under-spend by the Minister's department of £1.4 billion and the cost of raising all schools to specialist status would be £1.13 billion, why do not the Government raise all secondary schools to specialist status?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I thought I had made clear, it is possible for every school wishing to do so to become a specialist school. Designation as such may not be appropriate for some

1411
schools and may not be the route they wish to take. We believe in having a diverse education system. It is important to recognise that there is a process involved. That is an important part of the catalyst in terms of improvement and innovation in schools.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords—
Lord Quirk: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, apart from the need to raise £50,000 in backing, are the conditions for admission to specialist status firmly based upon a school's potential in the relevant specialism?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are keen to ensure that schools are not debarred from specialist status because of the requirement to raise £50,000. We are examining the position carefully to ensure that that does not happen, and we are talking to those who could assist. It is important for schools wishing to take on a specialism to be able to demonstrate that they have the right number of appropriate staff and the other means to do so.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I should like to express my strong support for the Minister's remarks in favour of specialist schools. I hope that she will continue to resist the voices saying that a two-tier system will be created. As she said, any school can apply, and specialist schools in the state sector have shown the greatest improvement in GCSE and A-level results across the whole sector of education. I applaud the Minister's support for such schools, although her party in the old—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I am sorry. Perhaps I may ask the Minister—to agree with me! Will she continue her support for specialist schools and ensure that they expand beyond 1,000? In the past her party opposed such schools. I am glad that it now embraces them.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support—although I am not sure that it will do me as much good as he might think. It is important to ensure a greater understanding of what specialist schools are about. In describing them, we must be careful to make clear the opportunity for all schools to participate. This is about ensuring success across the education system—and it is about all the values that I hold dear.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will the Minister quantify the injection of private moneys into specialist schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in order to establish its specialist status, a school is required to
1412
raise £50,000 in financial support. I am not sure that I can answer beyond that available figure. We are seeking to ensure that schools are not debarred because they find that difficult within their local community.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister accept that if the Government achieve their objective—namely, for half of all schools to achieve specialist status by 2005—they will only have created another half consisting of "bog standard" secondary moderns, particularly in deprived areas, where achieving £50,000 worth of sponsorship from local businesses is almost impossible?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I wondered when the words "bog standard" would appear on my agenda. As I have said, we are clear that we do not want the £50,000 figure to debar schools from participating. We shall look closely at ways of supporting them. This is one of a range of ways in which schools can be involved. There are also "beacon" schools and other kinds of schools. If a school decides that this is the route it wishes to take, it does not make any other school second-best. It is simply one opportunity within a raft of measures to make sure that in every community we have the best possible education for every child.

Food Standards Agency
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the work of the Food Standards Agency since its inception has been satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Food Standards Agency was established to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food, and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food. We believe that the agency has made a good start in meeting those objectives.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he not as disappointed as I am that nothing has yet been forthcoming from the Food Standards Agency regarding the long-overdue regulations for nutritional labelling in a uniform manner of pre-packed food? Not only has that not come forth; but foodstuffs are still being imported from Europe with no nutritional information whatever, and in some cases without a single word of English on the label.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that we want to see progress made in food labelling to ensure that information is made available to the public so that they can see where the food comes from and what is contained in it. There is

1413
no disagreement on that point. The Food Standards Agency is very well taken with this task. It has been pressing for amendments in EU labelling rules, and will continue to do so.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, what is the outcome of the review of the Food Standards Agency task force on the burdens of food regulation on small businesses?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, small businesses have complained of being excessively afflicted by the burden of regulation. The task force of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is examining that matter. As regards the Food Standards Agency's review, a task force was established with representation from small businesses. The latter stated that the requirements of food regulation do not of themselves impose a particularly onerous burden on small food businesses, but identified difficulties with aspects of the regulatory regime, particularly in relation to the requirements of the HACCP approach. It also identified problems with consistency of enforcement and access to information on changes in legislation. The FSA will work hard with local authorities to ensure that lessons are learnt, that the HACCP approach is developed in an effective and proportionate manner and that there is consistency of approach among all the local authorities concerned.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in so far as food can move freely throughout the European Union it is important for the Food Standards Agency that uniform standards should apply throughout the rest of Europe? Is the Minister satisfied that the proposed European food safety authority will meet the same standards as those of our own agency?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we certainly approve and support the establishment of the European FSA. We hope that its emphasis on risk assessment and on evidence-based information will lead to a consistency of approach throughout the European Union. Clearly, if food safety and the import of food are to be conducted properly within the EU a consistency of approach is important. As regards problems that have arisen with certain imports from other EU countries into this country, the FSA has pursued that matter vigorously with both the EU and the countries concerned.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the FSA is doing enough to communicate with the public about its efforts to improve food safety?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if the FSA is to be as successful as we wish it to be, it is clearly important that the public are able to access its information and its leaflets and are able to be involved in its policy making. In their response to the Phillips inquiry the Government gave an account of the FSA's activities, including that of question and answer
1414
sessions with public observers at each meeting of the board. The FSA has also held public stakeholder meetings. Its website is visited by 1,000 visitors a week and its BSE website had 2 million visitors in one year. The Government believe that the FSA has made a good start in engaging with the public, but clearly it needs to build on that because at the end of the day it is a matter of building public confidence in food in this country.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the FSA's survey of public attitudes revealed that health was high on their list of priorities and that safety was not as high as it had expected? Will he therefore encourage the FSA to focus on the diet of schoolchildren and to consider the provision of breakfast facilities to enable children to eat one proper meal, or at least some proper food before the start of the school day?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the survey contained much valuable information and will be published annually. It informs the work of the FSA. As regards providing breakfast for schoolchildren, we are aware that many schoolchildren do not eat properly. We would encourage schools to provide not just bacon and eggs but perhaps more nutritional breakfasts as well.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that contact and consultation between the FSA and specialist NGOs in the field such as the British Nutrition Foundation have been adequate? I believe that my question rather neatly follows the previous two.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should expect such consultation and communication to take place between the FSA and non-governmental organisations. They are essential stakeholders in the whole matter of food safety and public confidence. I shall certainly encourage the FSA to redouble its efforts in that direction.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the question—
Noble Lords: Next Question.
The Clerk of the Parliaments: The Earl Russell.

Benefits Agency: Contingency Funds
3.5 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider increasing the contingency reserve for the discretionary Social Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis; of Heigham): My Lords, I am glad that I am not answering the previous Question!

1415
The contingency reserve currently stands at £1 million. It is available on application to provide Benefits Agency districts with additional funding should they be faced with unforeseen expenditure resulting from local crisis or emergency. There have been no applications so far this year but, of course, the level of the contingency reserve is kept under review.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and especially for the assurance that the level is kept under review. Does she agree that attempting to assess need for any particular area in the light of the previous year's information is, in Harold Macmillan's phrase, "like planning a railway journey with last year's Bradshaw"? Does the Minister further agree that the downturn in the world economy has affected areas in very different proportion? The effects of 11th September, the effects of unemployment and the effects of flood damage are unevenly distributed. Would the Minister be in an even better position to respond to that kind of situation if she had a bigger contingency reserve at her disposal?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely take the point that one cannot predict the drawdown on the contingency reserve. However, I hope that I can give the noble Earl the assurances he seeks. The figures of three years ago, for 1998–99, show that of a contingency reserve of half a million pounds, £53,000 was drawn down for Montserrat evacuees and flooding. In the following year, of a contingency reserve of half a million pounds, £363,000 was drawn down for Kosovar evacuees and flooding. We increased the figure, as we thought that the Kosovo problems might increase, to £2 million the following year, but the drawdown was £262,000. Consequently, the figure for this year is £1 million. Never in my history with the department has the drawdown of the contingency fund exceeded about a third of the total moneys. The problem is that if you lock money away in the contingency reserve, it is sterile money and is not available to give out in the form of budgetary grants. However, should unexpected emergencies occur, we can turn to it.
The noble Earl mentioned unemployment. He will know that the main bulk of the Social Fund—some three-quarters of that money—is allocated to budgeting loans which are available only to someone who has been on benefit for at least six months and allows him or her to buy items such as carpets. Therefore, unemployed people will not normally be in that situation.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I too welcome the fact that the level is kept under review, particularly as the prospects of flooding this winter appear to be every bit as bad as last year. However, is not the noble Earl's Question rather too narrow with regard to the Social Fund? The third report of the Social Security Committee of another place states that,
"the scheme in its present format needs urgent overhaul and an injection of funds".
1416
However, the Government's response in July was pure "Yes, Minister". Will the Minister go further than that response to the Select Committee's report?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suppose I should say, "yes, shadow Minister". The main pressure on the Social Fund—I can understand this—is from quarters suggesting that what are essentially loans should become grants. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has espoused that view in the past. As the noble Lord will understand, our hesitation on that point is due to the fact that the cost estimate for that provision is well over £1 billion. That takes away the main function of the Social Fund which is to produce budgeting loans for people who have been on long-term benefit and who do not have the capital to replace an item such as a cooker or a carpet. Recent research by the University of Bristol contradicts the findings of the Social Security Committee. It says that these amounts are well targeted and well repaid, with 93 per cent of the money coming back, and that the system is very acceptable to people because it gives them free credit which claimants on the Social Fund would otherwise not be able to enjoy.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Public Inquiry
3.10 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the finding of the Devon County Council inquiry that the handling of the foot-and-mouth outbreak was "lamentable", they will now reconsider their refusal to set up a full public inquiry into these events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Devon County Council preliminary report provides a useful local perspective on the foot and mouth disease outbreak. It is to be passed on to the two inquiries and the policy commission on the future of farming and food. However, I see no reason to reconsider the decision announced by the Prime Minister to set up two independent inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as someone who has been involved in livestock rearing for the past 40 years. After the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth, the Northumberland report put at the head of its recommendations for dealing with future outbreaks,
"the need for immediate action in stamping it out by slaughter and by the destruction of infected material",
even to the point that diagnosis should not be delayed by waiting for,
"confirmation over the telephone from Veterinary Headquarters".

1417
The statistics in that report show that between October and December of that year, 97.4 per cent of cases were slaughtered by the day after diagnosis and 99.2 per cent by two days after.
The evidence from this outbreak—
Noble Lords: Question.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am coming to that. The evidence from this outbreak, of which the Devon report is just one piece, leads one to believe that the Government had no contingency plan developed and ready that was capable of achieving similar results. Will the Minister enlighten us further on that point? If the Government no longer accept the stipulations of the Northumberland report in framing their policies, does the Minister not accept that a full public inquiry is necessary to establish a new set of criteria for handling such an emergency?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to the last of the noble Duke's many points, I have already said that I do not think that a formal public inquiry would be the best method. As the Prime Minister has announced, the inquiry under Dr Anderson, coupled with the inquiry by the Royal Society, will provide a basis for dealing with such diseases in the future.
It is not true, as implied in the Devon report, that there was no contingency plan. Following the Northumberland committee report, there was a contingency plan. I have it here. It was lodged by my then colleague, Joyce Quin, in the Libraries of both Houses. We began working to it at the beginning of the outbreak.
We have to bear in mind that the outbreak was unprecedented anywhere in the world. The contingency plan related to a rather more limited form of outbreak, as one might have expected in view of international experience up to that date with foot and mouth and the then very recent outbreak of classical swine fever.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in view of the total lack of confidence in the countryside about the Government's record and the inquiries that they have set up, and given the distinct possibility that we could have another totally different outbreak in the not too distant future, is it not imperative that we have an early independent inquiry to establish clear criteria so that we do not have a further disaster of the kind that we have suffered this year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely what we are doing. We are having an independent and open inquiry that will report as rapidly as possible. As the noble Lord well knows, a full public inquiry would take a considerable amount of time. People would be looking over their shoulders in relation to litigation. We would be much less likely to get at the truth in the timescale that the noble Lord is looking for.
I appreciate that dealing with the disease has led to a number of substantial concerns in what has necessarily been a very difficult situation for farmers and for all
1418
concerned. However, any lack of confidence is expressed by people in this House and by other commentators. People in the countryside want to know how we could better deal with the disease in the future. That is what the independent inquiry is designed to tell us.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recommendation of the preliminary Devon inquiry that in future all information from DEFRA must be clear, open and honest and political considerations should be set aside? When does DEFRA propose to publish the foot and mouth risk assessment report on the resumption of hunting with dogs, which I understand has been with the department for five weeks?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have indeed received a risk assessment on all forms of hunting that are currently banned under the foot and mouth regulations. That has to be assessed against the developing state of the disease and the changing regulations that apply to autumn movements. We are now considering all those issues together so that we can treat hunting in the same way as we treat other countryside activities. An announcement will be made on that shortly.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: My Lords, does the Minister think that enough resources are going into research on animal health? Does he agree that many strange diseases are appearing in pigs, cattle and sheep?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a substantial amount of research on animal health is being undertaken. It is true that a number of diseases have appeared in various species here and in other countries. Most of those diseases are known and identifiable and we know how to deal with them. However, it is important that we keep up with the science, both on the analysis of the disease and its spread and on how to deal with any outbreak. That is one of the main issues that the Royal Society inquiry will address.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is considerable disquiet about the lack of a public inquiry, because independent inquiries cannot require evidence in the way that a public inquiry can? It remains unclear which decisions were taken for good scientific reasons and which for reasons of political expediency.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I challenge the noble Baroness to point to any decision that was taken for reasons of political expediency. She may disagree with decisions that were taken at various points in the campaign, but I assure her that neither I nor any of my fellow Ministers or our predecessors took any decision on the disease that related to political expediency. Everything was done on the basis of firm and clear veterinary and scientific advice with the aim of eradicating the disease. It is time that such allegations stopped and I am surprised at the noble Baroness.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that there is still a call for a full public inquiry? He has suggested that it could take a long time, but it need not take as long as the Phillips inquiry did. Given that the Government are unable to control, check and stop infected meat coming into this country, why is there no provision for such in the Animal Health Bill published today?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that import checks and regulations are decided at European level to a large extent. Any change in the regulations would have to be made largely at that level. We have raised the issue in Europe and discussions are going on. I accept that import checks are an important part of restricting the possibility of that disease or any other breaking out again. We are addressing that.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the suggestions made in some quarters that the Government's strategy would have been much more effective if some farmers had not resisted the culling advice of vets?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one reason why we have introduced the Bill referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is that resistance to the contiguous cull and to veterinary advice on what animals should be culled delayed some of the slaughter. Going back to the original remarks of the noble Duke, that meant that the achievement of our targets of 24-hour and 48-hour slaughter processes was not possible in every case in every part of the country. The judgment from all the studies that have so far been carried out is that that delayed the eradication of the disease.

Business of the House: Debates, 8th November
3.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday, 8th November so far as is necessary to enable the second Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before his Motion for an humble Address; and for both Motions to be taken before the four Northern Ireland orders.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Marsh set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways
Lord Marsh Lord Marsh rose to call attention to the current and long-term problems of the railway industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, particularly in the presence of the Leader of the House, I first declare an interest. I am pleased to say that I am in receipt of a pension from the British Rail pension fund. Furthermore, particularly since the noble and learned Lord is still present, the regulations are now very tough and we must include friends and relations in such declarations. I suspect that at least 85 per cent of the chaps with whom I went to school, together with my father, my grandfather, two uncles and four cousins, were also employed by the GWR, known colloquially as "God's Wonderful Railway".
On a slightly more serious note, I am also very lucky to have enjoyed the unique experience of serving in a Labour Cabinet as Minister of Transport. Then, within a couple of months, I moved directly across to become chairman of the British Railways Board under a Conservative government. Both regimes were equally difficult. I introduce this personal note because the seven years that I spent in those two diametrically opposed functions, working under both parties, formed the basis of a lasting fascination that I have with the subject of today's debate.
As is the case today, the railway and its voracious appetite for ever-increasing injections of public money dominated the work of the Ministry of Transport under both parties. It spawned, as it does today, numerous study groups on the future of the railway to the joy and financial benefit of an endless queue of highly paid consultants. That occurred within five or six years of the previous massive restructuring, which took place under the late Lord Beeching and resulted in the biggest deficit ever.
It is interesting and, I believe, relevant that we are again debating yet another major upheaval only five years after the previous one. That is one of the problems which exists for this particular industry. It is not surprising because most new Ministers and all new governments take office with a desperate desire to solve the problems which their predecessors found insoluble. But the result of constant political upheavals and the obsession with trying to pretend that the rail system might one day make a profit achieves very little other than massive disruption and increased expenditure.
I left the Ministry of Transport during its 50th anniversary. When I left, I was the 25th Minister of Transport. I cannot believe that any normal business could emerge unscathed and survive with five different owner/managers, each introducing a different policy every 10 years.
The problem is that passenger railway systems are simply not like other large industrial organisations. In many areas, they are sui generis. They are certainly not like the other privatised industries of gas, water and electricity. They differ in many ways but, in one respect above all others, they are unique. Specifically,

1421
passenger railway systems have now operated across the world for well over 100 years; and throughout that period, they have all operated without ever returning a true profit on the capital employed. There are many reasons why that is so, but it has been the case not only in this country but also in France, Germany, Japan and virtually every other country in the world.
Accountants have turned railway accounting and the cosmetics thereof into an art form. It is done by hidden subsidies of one form or another. But still the Government have to stand behind it. One great thing that the passenger railway systems of the world discovered—at least, their finance directors did—was socially necessary lines. Every time an upheaval or a restructuring occurred and matters became difficult, one could always find some socially necessary lines. On occasion it would have been much cheaper to give each passenger a car with a chauffeur and to ask him to drive himself. At the end, one might say, "Well, we've given them some money because it was socially necessary and look at the effect it's had on the bottom line".
But the unfortunate characteristic of a lack of profitability is quite fundamental. It is in the nature of the beast. There are many reasons why that is so, and I give but just one example. Passengers do not travel seamlessly throughout the 24 hours of a day. In every part of these enormous railway systems, with their vast amounts of capital equipment, and during each hour of the 24, a high proportion of the system does not earn a penny. That is where the big problem lies, and it is why infrastructure and investment programmes are a never-ending subject of argument. And there is nothing that one can do about it.
To add to the problem, despite the dreams of the Treasury, which has a long history of trying to get the railway deficit off its books, and despite the dreams of new governments, all history demonstrates that no government can shelter from the financial problems presented by the railway any more than they can walk away from the problems of the National Health Service. At the end of the day, the government will always be the lender of last resort, knowing that they will never get their money back. Yet that is exactly what the Conservative government, prompted by the Treasury, sought to achieve with privatisation and the disastrous decision to separate the railway track from the operation of the trains which use it.
Despite the attempts and efforts of the European Union over the past 10 years to get national rail companies to separate their fixed networks from the operation of the services, in no other major passenger system in the world are the infrastructure and the operations both separate and privatised. It was a unique idea. One could say that it was brave, but it has not worked. The result of that truly unique experiment has been a financial and operational shambles without precedent in this or any other passenger railway system. It has produced a situation in which Railtrack cannot even produce a register of its assets five years after its flotation.
The problem is compounded by the fact that, despite all the warnings, many of those who were responsible for the industry—Ministers and civil servants—refused to face up to the size and fundamental nature of the problem. As recently as April this year, the Government were still convinced that all that was needed was a little patching up in the case of Railtrack and another £1.5 billion to keep the wolf from the door. As an American tax victim once said in court, "You have a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and, before you know where you are, you're talking serious money".
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—a much respected Minister—described the Government's position when he said:
"I share the conviction … that mistakes were made in the privatisation process … But after years of fragmentation and instability, surely the answer is not more upheaval. What we need now is evolution rather than revolution".—[Official Report, 5/4/01; col. 976.]
With difficulty I restrain myself from making a single-syllabled comment—it would be unparliamentary. That statement describes clearly the course on which the Government have embarked—a course that many of us believe can only make a bad situation worse—and it completely underestimates the nature and scale of the problem.
Last week, one year after the Paddington train crash, which claimed the lives of 31 people and left 500 injured, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would not bring proceedings against any person or company for manslaughter. I thought long and hard before deciding to introduce that tragic issue into this debate. It is not difficult to imagine and understand the feelings of those who suffered loss and injury in one of the world's worst accidents in railway history. I introduce it because that accident and the Cullen report into the events that led up to it are central to my conviction that the management structure that was introduced by the act of privatisation was and still is fundamentally and dangerously flawed. I believe that the CPS was completely right in its decision not to bring prosecutions against any person or company. In my view, the evidence contained in the Cullen report, which runs to 279 pages and is terrifying to read, makes it clear beyond argument that there are and were no guilty men against whom to proceed.
I am told that a definition of corporate manslaughter requires a, "controlling mind". That is a remarkably apt definition. I say in all seriousness that the fragmented structure of the post-privatised railway had—and has—no controlling mind. No one was truly accountable to anyone else; or, if they were, they did not know it. That is the system that we are debating and which the Government believe will be reformed by evolution over an unspecified time-scale. That is not merely grossly optimistic; when one reads some of the comments of those who gave evidence to the inquiry, it becomes clear that it is also a dangerously complacent policy.
The Cullen report is long and difficult. I shall offer to noble Lords a small but representative group of quotations. There are very many others. They give a flavour of the situation in an industry in which vehicles weighing hundreds of tonnes travel at high speeds with large numbers of people upon them. Noble Lords should forget about the various initials that they will hear in this alphabet soup of quotations, with the exception of one set of initials: SPADs, which stands for "Signals passed at danger". That acronym strikes horror into the hearts of railway managers and was at the base of what happened at Paddington. The first quotation states:
"Mr Holmes told the Inquiry that … he wanted to rationalise the groups which were dedicated to SPAD Management, with the ultimate aim of having … a single focus. With that in mind he established the SPADRAM Group, intending to wind up the others. The GTMG did not meet after Mr Melanophy left … in May 1999, and the SPAD Action Group had not met since the autumn of 1998 … he initially allowed the STSG to continue, provided that it was closely linked to the SPADRAM Group. However, there was uncertainty over whether or not the STSG had been overtaken. Mr Bray and Mr Mayo attended for a meeting of the STSG in June 1999 but discovered that no one else had appeared. The meeting was aborted and no minutes were taken".
That involved a meeting of a large number of people to discuss signals passed at danger.
The report also states:
"In April 1998 the Great Western Zone Safety Management Group … which discussed safety performance, asked that the minutes from the SPAD Reduction Group be attached to their minutes. In October"—
I point out that that was five months later—
"the SMG minuted that 'the actions arising from the SPAD Technical Group were not being conveyed to the relevant operators, and a process was required that enabled them to be aware of the decisions'".
That is a fantastic idea when you come to think of it. The report continues:
"Even those who were in key safety management posts appeared to have had limited knowledge of what was going on in the groups. For example, Mr Robson was unaware of matters being discussed in the SPAD Action Group, despite being the Project Safety Manager at the time".
I come to the last quotation, which is from Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. That states:
"The idea of BR's public sector responsibility as something to be relied on has died hard and indeed was perpetuated by Railtrack's initial assertion that was the directing mind for safety on the railway. Reality has not lived up to expectation, but expectation has affected the HMRI's"—
that refers to Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate—
"attitudes to industry standards to enforcement and toughness and checking follow-up and follow-through … HSE as a whole were assuming compliance and that duty holders would exercise their responsibilities, because that was very much part and parcel of what we had expected from BR and we did not feel the need to intervene, to probe, to audit, to inspect as much when you had a single body exercising its responsibilities in that way".
I could go on in that way. It makes the blood run cold to think about what was happening in response to a danger that was apparent to everybody and no one knew how to cope with it.
I have concentrated on safety, although that is only one example—it is obviously the major example—of the lack of clear lines of accountability from the signal box to the chairman's office. If an organisation that is the size of our railway system, which spreads literally from Land's End to John o'Groats, does not have efficient lines of command and communication in the field of safety, and is a major spender, one cannot possibly have optimal financial control.
It would be absurd to suggest that BR was a paragon of managerial virtue. It had many problems, some of which were the direct and inevitable result of government policies. The lines of communication and accountability were absolutely clear because it had a functional board at the centre. The functions were human resources, engineering, finance, passengers and freight. That was replicated in each region, in each division and in each area. Therefore, if there was a problem with the track, the engineer on the board would demand a report from the regional engineer; the regional engineer would demand reports from his district engineers; and the district engineers would demand reports from the area engineers. It is now more than 12 months since the accident, and nobody knows who was responsible, because there is no organisational chart that could show one who was responsible.
This is not just a bee in my bonnet; it is crucial to our breaking away from the present system. What happened in the past has happened. All governments make mistakes. As a former Minister, I am an expert on that, having also made my share. I am not opposed to privatisation; far from it. I strongly believe that we need to have within the railway system a major element of private capital if for no other reason than to protect the investment programme, which is currently treated light-heartedly by government after government.
I was chairman of the BRB for five years. During that time, we had six reductions in a 10-year investment programme under two governments and five Ministers. It is no good talking about a 10-year investment programme unless the parties get together in some weird way and begin to preserve that programme for the future.
There are many ways to achieve those objectives. Whatever the final outcome that is produced, an organisation in which executives at every level can be held accountable for their actions is pretty basic as a start.
I am much concerned about whether the Government have yet grasped that particular nettle. It has been reported that Railtrack will be replaced by 15 directors reporting to a board of up to 40 members, representing the train operating companies, the rolling stock companies, passenger groups, trade unions and the CBI. It would be outrageous if that juvenile proposition were to emerge as a possibility. I hope that the Minister will clarify that it is not so.
The problems are serious but they are not a party issue. I can confirm that Labour railway trains are very much like Conservative ones. The Government are in a unique position. They have their majority; they have

1425
the time; and they cannot he held directly responsible for this difficulty. They have the opportunity to achieve something that will be very popular with the electorate. Indeed, it could even persuade the electorate to forgive them for the many wicked things that they have done in the past few years. My Lords, I beg to move for papers.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for initiating the debate today, as it gives us a good opportunity not only to look back on what has gone wrong with rail privatisation, but to look forward to a new era, which many of us hope the reconstruction of Railtrack will create.
I particularly enjoyed the noble Lord's reference to the number of transport Ministers who had served before him. As someone who worked for the British Railways Board after he was chairman, I can say that the number of changes in Ministers has not altered too much since then. Eight former Secretaries of State for Transport sit on the Conservative Benches of this House—an extraordinary number—and I am particularly looking forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, who is one of them. The eighth was the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, the other day.
So many things went wrong after rail privatisation in 1994 that it is hard to know where to begin. Despite having a licence which had as its prime requirement the need to pay attention to the public interest, ahead of the interests of shareholders, Railtrack gave every impression of believing that its main duty was to sweat the assets that it had acquired from the state, cut costs on essential items, such as maintenance and renewals, and reward its senior people on the same sort basis as if they had been successful entrepreneurs in the private sector. All that, despite the fact that two-thirds of the company's income came from the taxpayer.
The company was flawed from the beginning. As an unnamed rail contractor commented—presumably he did not dare to be named—to the magazine Contract Journal on 17th October, Railtrack,
"had a total disregard for the supply chain. Its network statements produced annually were a hoax, a huge public relations exercise designed to fool the public into believing a lot of money was being spent. But Railtrack was promising things that it was not actually getting down to doing. It was all jam tomorrow. In rail maintenance, Railtrack had driven down prices irrespective of safety".
It is hard to disagree with that view. That approach led directly to gauge corner cracking on the rails, to the Hatfield disaster, and then to a spell of blind panic on Railtrack's part. Chris Green, the well-respected chief executive of Virgin Trains, said in his Sir Robert Reid lecture on 13th February this year:
"The railway industry has scored an own goal of epic proportions. It should have entered the new millennium with every thing going for it. Passenger travel had soared by a third in just four years. Public goodwill for a rail renaissance was supported by all political parties—and private investment had started to solve the deep-seated funding problems".
1426
The train operators' attempts to build up passenger confidence and build new markets were blown away almost overnight by universal speed restrictions and line closures. But the effort to drive down costs by, for example, putting out as much track maintenance work as possible out to private contractors, some of whom had no experience of working on the railway, had the opposite effect. Virtually everything that Railtrack did cost more than in the days of the single, unified, publicly owned railway. Major investment projects now cost between 2.4 and three times more. Even relatively straightforward maintenance contracts are one and a half times as expensive.
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the outgoing chief executive of Railtrack has attempted to blame the regulatory regime for Railtrack's collapse, describing it as,
"intrusive and largely uncontrolled over-regulation".
The fact is that Tom Winsor, the regulator, had spotted that track quality was getting worse and that the number of broken rails had increased well before the Hatfield disaster. Not unreasonably he demanded that Railtrack should do something about it.
I shall say more about the new proposed structure in a moment, but I want to make the point now that. I do not support the view that the Office of the Flail Regulator should be subsumed into that of the Strategic Rail Authority. Neither do the train operating companies or the rail freight industry. I commend to noble Lords the comments of James Strachan, a non-executive director of Ofgem, who wrote in The Times on 24th October:
"Whatever the structure used for Son of Railtrack, short of renationalisation, we need to remind Government that, if consumers are to be protected, there will always be a need for strong, independent economic regulation of natural monopolies that reside, to whatever extent, in the private sector".
As for the assertion that the Government—in other words, taxpayers—should compensate Railtrack shareholders because some will lose money, whatever happened to the warning that shares can go down in value as well as up? If noble Lords took themselves off to a betting shop in Victoria Street and asked to place a bet on A Romp too Far in the 4.25 race at Cheltenham this afternoon—I have checked that such a horse exists and that it is running—on the basis that if they did not win they would still expect to get their stake back, we can imagine what sort of reaction they would get from across the counter.
Despite the efforts to rewrite the history of recent events at Railtrack, the possibility of the company going into administration had been clear for months. Steve Marshall, chief executive of Railtrack, told the Financial Times on 11th April:
"Yes, they [the Government] would allow us to go bust. It's quite clearly item one on the agreement with the Government. While the Government stands behind the industry, they don't stand behind any particular company, of course they don't".
In July, Railtrack's financial advisers told the directors that administration was one of the options facing the company. On the 25th of that month, less than four months after extra funding had been agreed, the Government were advised that the company's

1427
financial position was even worse than it appeared in April and that unless Ministers effectively handed over a blank cheque, Railtrack would be insolvent.
In my view, the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, deserves credit for acting firmly and decisively. He has correctly used the powers given to him by the previous Government's Railways Act 1993.
Will Hutton wrote in the Observer on 14th October:
"What else was he supposed to do? Was the Government to offer an open-ended cheque book to keep bankrupt Railtrack alive? Equally why should the state pay £7 billion—the average share price over the last 3 years—to nationalise a bankrupt company? If Byers announced a withdrawal of subsidy, the result would have been a collapsing share price and mayhem. The solution he hit upon, simultaneously refusing the subsidy, allowing Railtrack to go into administration but guaranteeing creditors would be paid, allowed the rail service to continue uninterrupted last week".
He continued:
"And the future structure for Railtrack, a company limited by guarantee but with the public-interest objectives and no shareholders, allows the rail industry to go forward, removing some of the in-built contradictions that have trapped it until now. Byers deserves a round of applause".
In a Written Answer published in Hansard last Tuesday, the Secretary of State set out to Parliament how he envisages Railtrack will come out of administration and why he prefers the not for profit solution—the formation of a new company limited by guarantee to take over Railtrack plc's railway assets and its role as network operator.
The reaction to those proposals from within the industry and from representatives of passengers and other users has been almost universally favourable. The chairman of the Rail Passengers' Council, Stewart Francis, said on 8th October:
"We have been advocating radical evolution since the truly rotten state of the rail industry became apparent. Almost a year ago we floated the idea of Railtrack becoming a public trust, and now we hope that the inclusion of regulators, train operators and passenger representatives on the board will help bring about the joined-up railway we need".
I know that that view is shared by the more enlightened chief executives of the train operating companies.
I agree with them. But we must realise that it will be a struggle to deliver the targets contained in the Government's 10-year plan on the basis of the investment already committed and planned, particularly if a recession brings about a serious reduction in consumer spending.
There are some hopeful signs. The first of those is the appointment of Richard Bowker as the new chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. He is widely respected within the industry and he deserves the warmest of welcomes to what will be a critical and challenging job.
Secondly, when the railway manages to get things right we should praise and support it. Last Tuesday, in the company of three Members from another place, I spent a morning at the Railway Test Centre in Nottinghamshire and tried out the new Pendolino tilting train which Virgin is buying from Alsthom. As a veteran of British Rail's advanced passenger train in
1428
the early 1980s—the prototype I travelled on then did at least get as far as Crewe, I remember—I was a little sceptical of whether the new technology would work.
My verdict is that it will and that the potential is there for reducing journey times on the West Coast Main Line and for doubling both train frequencies and the number of passengers carried. Fulfilling those targets really matters because they are an important ingredient in the overall 10-year plan for the railway. They in turn depend on delivering the upgrade on the West Coast Main Line.
It would be foolish to imagine that the way ahead for the railway will be easy; of course it will not. For as long as any of us can remember, and as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, so graphically described from his own experience, our rail system has been under-funded and under-appreciated, certainly compared with the railways in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world. The structure will require still more reform; there are far too many train-operating companies and many of them have franchises which are much too short.
There is also too little collaboration between them and the other players in the industry. There is too great a reliance on the system of penalties and rewards and insufficient attention is given to the needs of passengers and other customers. But as far as Railtrack is concerned, the Government should be congratulated on at last grasping the nettle and from that fundamental reform we should encourage them to build a better railway which I am sure the new structure will deliver.
3.52 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, as a new boy to your Lordships' House I did not expect to be speaking quite so early in the debate. However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so.
I do not have the time to go over all the issues relating to privatisation. However, having been Secretary of State in the early stages of privatisation until mid-1994, I fully sympathise with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in relation to the difficulties faced by any Secretary of State for Transport. It should not be forgotten that there were many criticisms and problems associated with the old British Rail, including some of those described by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, as existing within the new system.
I take the noble Lord's point about subsidies. It was never the intention of privatisation to do away with subsidies; we made that clear from the outset. We were endeavouring to acquire many of the benefits of privatisation—the change in culture and management—while recognising that subsidies had to continue.
However, I would not quote French railways as a good example of public subsidy. When I was Secretary of State, 22 per cent of the total expenditure of French railways was interest payment on debt. That was a huge waste of money, so much so that on a number of

1429
occasions the debt simply had to be liquidated. That was effectively a further government subsidy; it is certainly not the route we want to go down.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the need for private capital. That was one of the major purposes of privatisation, and I shall say more on that later. I agree also with his criticism of what has been floated in the newspapers about the new board structure. It would be unworkable, taking us back to many errors of the past.
Because of the time I can make only five points. First, I always said that our original plans would have to evolve and change in the light of developments. I can see three areas where I would have made changes. The first is fewer franchises. I worried at the time about the number of franchises we had in the original proposal, but I always thought that in due course the market would sort out a better structure. That is in fact what happened. I agree that we could have fewer franchises still.
Secondly, we should have longer franchises. I was not able to persuade the Treasury in that regard. I remember introducing PEPs into the other place when I was a Treasury Minister. Those PEPs arrangements were not as flexible as I would have wished because I failed to negotiate sufficiently with the Inland Revenue. However, I felt that once we had introduced the system the realities would come about and changes would be made. That is what happened with PEPs and what should be happening with longer franchises. Once the franchises were in place and the need for investment in rolling stock lessened, I felt that it would become obvious that the franchises should be longer. That continues to be my belief. Unfortunately, so far, the Government have done the reverse.
Thirdly, I believe that some aspects of access charging need changing, especially to obtain the right incentives for Railtrack to increase the use of its infrastructure with corresponding investment and expenditure decisions.
None of those points is fundamental. One that is, and one that. I would not change, is the establishment of a single national track authority, separate from operations, as against the management and control of both track and trains being held by the same body on a regional basis—the old romantic regional railway notion. There were four reasons, following careful consideration, for my going down that route. The first was that although in certain parts of the country—the Isle of Wight and perhaps Scotland where Scotrail had roughly 95 per cent of the traffic—we could have a body doing both, which I made clear I was willing to consider for them, in the majority of cases there would be a conflict of interest because so many different train operating companies as well as freight were using the tracks. That was a clear problem. Although there is now a suggestion of an experiment in one or two parts of the country, the point is still a strong one.
The second reason was that one of our key priorities was a higher level of investment in the rail infrastructure. There was no proper correlation between the real investment needs of the infrastructure
1430
and the capacity of individual train-operating companies, with their own capital structures, to make that investment. The proper prioritisation of investment had to be done by the single authority.
The third reason was safety; that is, that Railtrack would have the key role in ensuring the safety aspects of track and signalling. The existence of a national track authority would ensure that safety standards and procedures were co-ordinated in a clear and consistent way. I shall say something more about safety in a moment, but that was a key consideration.
The fourth reason was the need for the national track authority to ensure the efficient co-ordination of operational time-tabling across the network. I believe that those reasons remain as relevant today.
Privatisation was working extremely well and the Chris Green quotation proved that. I agree with the tribute paid to Chris Green. There was a big increase in passengers and a big increase in freight. It was the first time there had been a reversal of the constant decline in the amount of freight since the Second World War. There were considerable increases in investment, both in rolling stock and in infrastructure. All that was working well until the Paddington and Hatfield crashes.
My second main point is that this Government have had as much time as the previous government—it is eight years in total since the Bill was introduced—to make any changes they wish. I am sorry to have to say it, but this Government's time has been characterised, instead of making the system work, by a determination to undermine the privatisation without reversing it. There has been a culture of blame and bullying; there has been constant interference. I thought it was massively ironic that the Secretary of State, in his Statement of 15th October, said in the other place, at col. 956, that we need,
"a cut in the burden of day-to-day interference".
That has been much greater than it was during our period.
The wrong choice of regulator was made. I noted what Steve Marshall, the chief executive of Railtrack, said the other day about the demeanour and comments of the regulator and there is some truth in that. There has been a lack of decision-making. I have already criticised the decisions made on the franchises, which have become shorter rather than longer, and there has been a lack of decision-making elsewhere. The Strategic Rail Authority to date has clearly not worked and the frustrations of its outgoing chairman are evident and public. The result was that when we had the tragic accident at Paddington and Hatfield, there was a huge overreaction. Previous accidents during the time of British Rail did not produce the panic reaction and closure of the system that we saw for a long time following those two accidents, particularly Hatfield. Much of that was due to the culture of blame and bullying and the fact that the management lost its nerve.
Thirdly, as regards safety, the number of SPADs reduced substantially following privatisation. There was clearly a management failure in both accident

1431
situations. That was borne out by the reports. However, I do not believe that it was a fundamental failure of the structure. Airlines and airport authorities, which are thoroughly privatised, give a high priority to safety because it is vital to their future commercial operation. The same does and should apply to rail.
We gave a high priority to safety in the original privatisation proposals. I would not have gone ahead had the Health and Safety Commission not validated the entire structure we put in place. At the time the chairman of British Rail said that that was an appropriate structure. However, there is a point which is relevant to Paddington and Hatfield; it is one that is sometimes difficult to make. Following any inquiry into a rail accident, it is always difficult in reaction to make a balanced judgment on whether to make a huge commitment to additional expenditure at the expense of expansion of the railway. It is also difficult to make a balanced judgment regarding expenditure on safety issues between road and rail.
I faced that situation after the Clapham inquiry. The chairman of British Rail and I agreed that the high expenditure recommended by the Clapham inquiry could not be justified by the benefits that came from it. One has to remember that 90 per cent of all traffic is on the roads, yet we spend much less on road safety measures than on rail. I tried to increase such expenditure. At the time of the Hatfield crash, on average there were 10 deaths on the roads each day; 3,500 per year. That fact is not publicised. That is very much higher than the figure for rail. In terms of cost benefit for public expenditure, we should spend more on road safety measures. That is where the real benefits lie. That is difficult to say, but I believe that it is necessary.
My next point is the question of a level playing field, which was much discussed. When I was Secretary of State I believed, as I still do, that motorway charging needs to introduced. I believe that for a whole variety of reasons, not least to achieve a proper recognition of the cost of travel by road compared to rail. That would help to further increase rail passenger and freight usage.
My final point concerns where we are now. I believe that the action of the Secretary of State has been immensely damaging, above all for the future financing of the railway infrastructure. One of the great benefits of introducing the privatisation of Railtrack—which I did not do, I was looking to the longer term—was that it would bring in extra private capital. In response to a Question regarding future private financing in the other place, the Secretary of State said:
"The proposed company to take over Railtrack's liabilities … will be a private company; therefore its borrowing and finance will not score against public borrowing, but will be in the private sector".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/01; col. 971.]
Bingo, just like that! That is a triumph of hope over expertise. We all know that the £34 billion which is in the programme will not come from the private sector in the way it would have done previously; it will either
1432
be much more expensive with huge legal conditions attached or it will need a firm government guarantee, in which case it will score as government expenditure. Any Chief Secretary knows that. That will be the great flaw and black hole in the programme ahead. The commitments to health and education undertaken by the Chancellor, coupled with the fact that public finances will become pretty rickety in future as we go through economic uncertainties, mean that there is no chance that that £34 billion will come from the public sector, either by government guarantee or directly. That is the black hole and the consequence of the action recently taken.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for initiating the debate and for opening our discussions in a characteristically passionate and thought-provoking way. Until I heard his opening remarks I had not realised that the hereditary principle had ever extended to the railways. However, as so often here, I have learnt something new.
There has certainly never been a better time than now to discuss the future of the railways. It is important today to focus our attention on the future and how we think the industry should look in the years to come rather than looking back and indulging in too many recriminations about how we arrived at today's situation. Above all, it is important not to lose sight of the needs of the passengers. All too often such debates take place without the word "passenger" being heard. The needs of passengers are relatively straightforward, although not simple to achieve. They want a safe, efficient railway at a price which offers real choice.
We are fortunate indeed to have within your Lordships' House a wealth of expertise and knowledge about the railways, which has been gained over many years from a variety of sources. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who will sum-up from these Benches, for his knowledge, which has been built up over a lifetime in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to consultants. I suspect that no Government could afford to pay consultancy fees for the collective expertise in your Lordships' House today.
I sincerely hope that the Government will take advantage of such free advice. Frankly, at present they need all the help they can get in framing the future development of our rail system. As we have heard, "short-termism" has been the curse of a number of aspects of policy-making. That is never more apparent than in transport planning, and railway planning in particular.
I am well aware that when the railway industry was privatised there was a real concern in this House which cut across party lines. However, one thing was clear at the time: the government of the day had a clear agenda. There was a belief that the hey day of the railways was over and that save for the movement of people between large urban centres, in the main, the track had been replaced by the road. With that scenario, it was

1433
theoretically understandable that the private sector could do the job at least as well as the state, and perhaps better.
However, today's agenda is different. Years of transport policy geared towards facilitating car use has led to severe congestion problems, and not just in cities. Congestion, along with an understanding that to stand a chance of achieving the Kyoto commitments with regard to CO2 emissions, means that we have to tackle the transport sector. That has led to a rethink of the contribution the railway can make to a more sustainable transport system. That will not happen without investment. Experience everywhere else in the world tells us that no major rail system can run without large amounts of investment. Much of that has to be public.
The first big question for the Government at this time is for them to be honest about how they see the future role of the railways. Do they see a return to the managed decline that we saw in the previous administration, or do they genuinely believe in a revitalised railway, one which contributes to a wider agenda of sustainability, accessibility and regional regeneration? If they believe that, how much are they prepared to spend on that objective? How much do they realistically see coming in from the private sector? Are they sure that systems are in place which can objectively assess the comparative value of public investment in rail as opposed to other transport modes? How should we be making investment decisions within the industry? How should we judge investment in maintenance, safety and new infrastructure? How do we balance the needs of local versus inter-city services and the needs of passengers versus freight? Do we have the policy-making framework to be able to make those decisions? I am not sure that we do.
The Government need to consider what kind of projects are suitable for special purpose vehicles. We, on these Benches, believe that they can be retained although perhaps in a different way. Today's news about the West Coast Main Line has shown how we need to take a fresh look at such projects to ensure widespread agreement on what can be achieved and how. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to tell the House how he sees the future of the West Coast Main Line and phase 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which is so important for our region.
The role of the private investor in transport schemes has been brought under close scrutiny as a result of the way in which the demise of Railtrack was handled. My noble friend Lord Oakeshott will concentrate his remarks on the financial aspects of the current crisis.
Can the Minister say how long the Government intend Railtrack to stay in administration? From these Benches, we believe that there must be in place far more detailed plans on how the infrastructure is to be brought up to an acceptable standard before the network is handed over to a new body. We shall be seeking cast iron assurances on how this work is to be done and how it will be funded before we shall be happy about any future arrangements.
1434
The restoration of a reliable network has to be the overriding priority if passenger confidence in the network is to be restored. It is more important for the handing over to be done properly than to hurry the process. There is no shame in taking time to think about the fundamental questions of the rail industry; and there is no problem about taking time if that time is well used.
In recent days and weeks, we have heard considerable doubts about the ability of the industry ever to return to the days of vertical integration. The estimated cost of bringing infrastructure up to standard is regarded by many as being too high for the industry to bear, particularly as we may move into a recession in the aftermath of the events of 11 th September. In addition, there are many questions to be answered about how the needs of all users would be dealt with objectively within a vertically integrated system. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House how vertical integration would comply with recent European Union directives on the separation of networks and operators.
The Government's decision earlier this year to extend franchises on a two-year basis gives a further opportunity to think again about franchising: how many franchises there should be; and whether they should include maintenance and renewal. If there are fewer but larger franchises, is there a role for smaller franchises embedded within the larger ones? Larger franchises would provide an opportunity to reduce the fragmentation in the industry. It is interesting to note that from their different perspectives, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, have come to the view that there should be fewer franchises.
The relationships between all the players in the railway industry needs to be carefully thought through. Do the Government believe that the SRA is a sufficient body to set the policy framework, manage the industry and act on their behalf in deciding whether the interests of taxpayers and passengers are being upheld? If not, do they intend to continue to interfere with its work, creating a body in which no one has any real confidence? Alternatively, will they step aside, strengthen the SRA and allow it and its new chairman to do the job that they set it up to do a few years ago? If a more regional structure for the railways emerges, there are certain aspects which probably should be decided nationally—for example., timetabling, capacity and signalling.
We on these Benches have real concerns about the ability of the SRA to take into account wider regional policy objectives. We are seeing worrying signs of a concentration of investment in the South East. I know that my noble friends Lord Shutt, Lord Greaves and Lord Mar and Kellie will talk about that aspect. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will make a robust case for the rail freight industry. I should like to hear what the Government have to say about freight with regard to meeting the targets they outlined in the 10-year plan—how long ago that seems—and access charges.

1435
We believe that the fragmentation of the industry is largely to blame for its current state. We should like to see the Government take this opportunity to place the remaining economic functions of the Rail Regulator within the SRA. We also question the development of a performance regime in which it sometimes seems that regulation becomes an end unto itself—a plethora of bodies which each tends to justify its own existence by creating ever more regulation. The end result is a set of contradictory demands on the industry. Obviously operators should pay if they fail to provide sufficient rolling stock or drivers but if the effect of the regime is to reduce the maintenance of the track and the undertaking of new works, little has been achieved. The role of the SRA in determining the future shape of regulation should be central to all this. With the creation of a not-for-profit infrastructure provider, some of the need for regulation has disappeared. We believe that railways safety should be regulated by professionals within the SRA. On the subject of safety, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the programme of installation for TPWS will continue and will not be interrupted.
I should like to say a few words about the staff within the rail industry. They have done a very good job under very difficult circumstances during the past year and will continue to do so. We should pay tribute to them.
There is an opportunity now to start with a blank sheet of paper—or as close as we shall ever get to that. I am well aware that I have raised more questions than I have given answers. However, there are times when there is nothing wrong with asking questions provided that we take time to consider them and the answers to those questions. Undue haste and a lack of clear objectives could plunge the rail industry into a turmoil which, after the recent decades of under-investment, could sink for ever the chances of this country developing a rail system which not only meets the needs of our passengers but also matches the expectations of one of the strongest economies in the world.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for introducing this Motion. It enables us to discuss an extremely important and difficult problem. I found his remarks very illuminating. I shall illustrate by a specific example the nature of some of the difficulties facing those framing policy on rail investment. It is a subject on which I have been in correspondence with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and concerns the urgent need to improve rail connections with ports in East Anglia.
To appreciate the difficulty, it is necessary to understand a significant trend in our foreign trade. Over the past 40 years, there has been a fundamental change. Until the 1950s, our main exports of manufactures destined for world markets were shipped across the ocean sea routes on cargo liners
1436
trading out of the big west coast ports such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Bristol. Since then there have been two significant changes, one in the markets, the other in the ships. The largest segment of our exports is now destined for other countries in Europe, whether in the European Union or outside it. The ships transporting them are specialised container vessels, many of which trade out of the port of Felixstowe. Previously a small dozy enterprise, it has been vigorously expanded by large investments to become our biggest container port, second only to Rotterdam in Europe. Further investments are planned, both at Felixstowe and at Harwich on the other side of the same estuary, which would approximately double the number of containers now handled there within the space of a few years. The problem is how to move the containers from factory to port or—in the case of imports—from port to consignee.
There is a single track rail connection between Felixstowe and Ipswich to which some useful improvements have been made recently but current capacity is well below the anticipated volumes foreseen after the expansion of the port. The developments planned on the other side of the estuary, by the same company, could be handled by the existing double track between Harwich and Manningtree. But serious problems will arrive in moving the imported containers to their final destination because of congestion on the track between Colchester and Stratford and on the north London line between Stratford and the main trunk lines from London to the Midlands and Scotland and because of the inability of the cross-country route between Ipswich and Peterborough to handle the volumes forecast. The worry, therefore, is that within a few years container capacity at Felixstowe and Harwich will have been doubled before the railways are ready.
I have explained these anxieties to the noble and learned Lord. He responded courteously to my letters on the subject. He explains that he is confident of the Government's commitment to a scheme capable of making the necessary investments but he cannot say whether these will be forthcoming in time to carry the traffic which is expected to occur within the next five years. If this does not happen, the results will be dire because millions of containers will have to travel by road on routes which are already overloaded, congested and dangerous.
I understand the Government's dilemma but I also recall that they have made pledges about an integrated transport policy in two general elections. We expect the Government to fulfil those pledges in this particular case, which may prove to be a critical test of their ability to maintain public confidence in their effectiveness as a government. At least that is how it appears to many people who live in the region as I do.
As I have already explained to the Minister's office, I regret that because of a long-standing engagement I do not expect to be able to be in the House when the Minister replies. I apologise for the apparent discourtesy, but I shall study what he says on the subject with close attention.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, suggested, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I shall concentrate my final remarks on rail freight and what I believe it requires from the network.
To put matters in context, seven years ago it was said:
"Rail privatisation will bring extra efficiency, free up investment, expand choice, enhance services that the customer wants. Privatisation should be judged by the results".
Those were the words of Dr Brian Mawhinney, one of the few Secretaries of State for Transport of that era who is not in your Lordships' House.
I believe that today we are here to judge whether or not it has been a success. Undoubtedly, for freight it has been a success. Freight has grown by 40 per cent. The competition above rail has been good for customers, and the industry survived Hatfield. Traffic has grown by 6 per cent in the past quarter compared with the previous year. The SRA's freight strategy has been widely welcomed and the industry is looking positive. I believe that passenger traffic is also up by about 30 per cent. One can debate whether that is due to privatisation, the economy or whatever.
I see the main problem as the infrastructure provider. Railtrack was privatised. More importantly, its management team introduced a culture of arrogance, bullying and "knowing all the answers" that ill served its customers and, in the end, its shareholders. I believe that the main problem lies in the answer to the question: what should be done to ensure a safe and reliable rail infrastructure to meet the needs of its customers?
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who introduced the debate, debated SPADs at some length. The noble Lord rightly placed much of the blame with management—bad communications, general sloppiness and a few other things—of a company that was happy to welcome growth without growing the network to accommodate it. I welcome the fact that the Government put Railtrack into administration—not before time—because the company had lost control of its finances, expected to live on government hand-outs, became bogged down in red tape and was unable to respond to customers' needs. In the past year it had said on a number of occasions that it would be four years before it could do anything. That is unacceptable. It still has no real engineering control over its network, maintenance and renewal. I believe that basically it lost its way managerially and financially.
The Government say that they want to simplify the system and have fewer interfaces, more joined-up regulation and many other things. I understand that. However, they must be careful not to abolish any organisation because they do not like the personalities concerned, especially when such a change may require legislation and cause several years' delay. All noble Lords remember the hiatus caused by privatisation, which I am sure was not intended. I do not believe that the train manufacturers got an order for over three years. Many thousands of jobs were lost and the
1438
business lost a good deal of confidence. The challenge today is to make whatever change is necessary without that happening again.
I believe that the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here. It is easy to sit here and debate change, but it is Railtrack which is broke and needs to be fixed, not the rest of the industry. Above rail, freight is alive and well, especially since the regulator has halved access charges. It has invested £1 billion of private sector finance since privatisation. I hope that my noble and learned friend will confirm that the £4 billion in the Government's 10-year plan for freight is still ring fenced and that on those conditions the industry can deliver the 80 per cent growth under the plan. Competition and network-wide access are essential.
The passenger TOCs are more dependent on economy, but I believe that, having set them up with franchise and track access agreements and many other arrangements, it would be foolish to chuck all those things away unnecessarily unless it was seen to be essential to make very significant improvements. I believe that if we are to have competition above rail both in passenger and freight—it is not ideal but at least it is there—we must retain the split between the infrastructure provider and the train operators above it.
Some noble Lords have talked about major restructuring. We have not had re-nationalisation yet. Many have suggested that all contractors should suddenly return to public ownership. To me, that means 300,000 more civil servants, which I am sure the Government would enjoy. There is also the question of vertical integration and whether TOCs would take over responsibility for maintaining and renewing the track and many of the other activities currently undertaken by Railtrack.
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, spoke eloquently about why he split the track from the trains. I must agree with him that that is the right solution. I could speak at length about why such vertical integration would be very difficult for freight, but it would also be difficult for many of the passenger train operators who are not lucky enough to be vertically integrated. The number of contracts which would have to be created between each of them and the vertically integrated company would make it very much more complex rather than simpler. I prefer to see what can be done to fix the son of Railtrack and whether it can be done quickly and without the delays and uncertainties caused by the need for new legislation.
I believe that a company limited by guarantee with the kind of board membership as proposed by the Government will work. The freight and passenger industry together with the wider stakeholder must be represented. I believe that in those circumstances the company would be sensitive to the needs of its customers, something which Railtrack manifestly failed to achieve. Obviously, it would be highly desirable to provide some incentives to the staff. Maintenance and renewal contracts must be let for much longer periods, perhaps 20 years, with some

1439
franchising and partnerships; if not, no contractor will invest in the very expensive equipment that is required to maintain a modern railway. We have passed the age when sleepers were laid by hand. That was done only last year on the Settle to Carlisle line which had to be closed for a month.
Will the funding of the new Railtrack be a problem? Funding must come from government in some way and through track access charges. It could borrow and issue bonds. A change in the arrangements whereby all train operators paid Railtrack on the same basis—in other words, as with freight, short run marginal costs, with a lump sum being provided effectively by government to cover Railtrack's fixed costs—would provide a little more transparency. Nobody has come up with a better solution. I believe that the status quo with Railtrack is unsupportable.
Alongside a change in Railtrack—or Newtrack—we need some thinking and leadership from the Strategic Rail Authority. I welcome Richard Bowker. Can my noble and learned friend say when Mr Bowker is to begin work, and for how long he will be excluded—probably out of necessity—from taking any part in discussions about his former company? I hope that under his leadership the SRA will be proactive and show leadership right across the board. I do not know whether that is the Government's intention; if not, I question why the SRA is there.
Alongside that, what is to be the role of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? There is currently on the table a draft agreement which has been negotiated between Virgin and Railtrack and the department. I understand that that agreement, which is called the Hartwell accord, was submitted to the department earlier this month. Why was it submitted to the department and not the Strategic Rail Authority which is responsible for negotiating franchises? For freight and other passenger operators it is extremely serious because it proposes that the only operator on the line between Rugby and Stafford will be Virgin. There will be no freight and no other passenger trains. Virgin trains will get priority everywhere. The four-tracking between Rugby and Stafford will be abolished because the cost will go up suddenly—somewhere between two and four times—to about £1 billion.
That is driving a coach and horses through all the franchise agreements. How can the Government expect to instruct the SRA to reach agreement on that basis? Therefore, because I am extremely worried about the document, the next question for my noble and learned friend is: have the Government consulted the SRA on it?
I move now to the Rail Regulator. As other noble Lords have said, he is there to protect private sector companies against changes to their operating conditions and costs and their profitability as well as dealing with competition matters. I see the future of Newtrack as being a kind of delivery arm of the Government and the SRA. It would be unacceptable not to have an independent body. Knowing how much and how frequently governments change their minds,
1440
for what appear to be good reasons at the time, the lack of an independent Rail Regulator would put off a number of private investors who might otherwise want to invest in the network, be it trains, freight facilities, wagons or whatever.
I conclude by saying that I believe that the change from Railtrack to Newtrack in its management, its business ethos and its structure, together with a careful selection of staff and a much stronger and more effective engineering management, will have a major and beneficial effect. It is interesting because we have already seen a change in Railtrack's staff. It is as if a burden has been lifted from their individual shoulders. The company's bills are being paid by the administrator much more quickly than they were by Railtrack. So I see costs being reduced and service quality being improved. Added to that should be a proper long-term contract for maintenance and renewal with, possibly, direct payments to Railtrack by the SRA for the general network and for the enhancements being done separately. That will enable the Government to achieve their objectives and to sort out the mess that Railtrack has left without a hiatus of two or three years while we go through unnecessary new legislation.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on initiating this important debate on the railway industry. We also all appreciated the noble Lord's passionate plea for stability, particularly in the longer-term, for this great industry. I found the noble Lord's reference to the whole procedure as having been a massive upheaval very interesting. How right he was to remind us all of the words used from time to time by Government Ministers. I merely quote what Mr Keith Hill said on 1st May 2001. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out, Mr Hill said that,
"the answer is not yet more upheaval".
or should it be "not yet more upheaval". I am not quite sure, but an indication is given when he said:
"What we now need is evolution rather than revolution".
Then Mr Hill, almost with omniscience, went on to state:
"It has been argued that the public money going to Railtrack should generate an equity stake. However, the money that the Government will be paying Railtrack … is to meet the cost of improvements to the network".
A short intervention from Mrs Dunwoody was greeted with the words:
"I think that my hon. Friend is alluding to the £1.5 billion in funding for Railtrack … and the benefits that it will confer in terms of infrastructure renewal".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/5/01; col. 176WH.]
So, if I had been a shareholder listening to Mr Hill I would have felt comforted.
I want to make a short intervention in the debate to refer particularly to the position of the 255,000 shareholders. Those in the industry to whom I have spoken would be appalled by the reference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that buying shares is

1441
just the same as going into a betting shop. The problem here is that those shareholders to whom I have spoken believe that this particular horse was nobbled. I want to go into some detail about that.
There is no doubt that a substantial number of Railtrack employees invested in the company. That is quite apart from the private individuals who would otherwise be unconnected with the company but whose pensions depend on investment in equities. Nor should it ever be forgotten that the employee shareholders, whom I believe have been treated very badly, include signallers without whom the rail network simply cannot run.
What has upset people is the way that shareholders have been treated so contemptuously and have also been spoken about so disparagingly, particularly by Government Ministers. We are dealing with many small shareholders who bought shares at privatisation and who are employees of the company.
I want to try and work out what happened over the weekend of the 5th, 6th, 7th and eventually Monday, 8th October. I believe that there is some evidence which I hope that the Minister can dispel that there was a false market in Railtrack shares at least on Friday 5th October. We are assisted by the Secretary of State. He sets out clearly what happened. He stated:
"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".
Later he said that,
"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".—[Official Report, Commons. 15/10/01; col. 955.]
From my investigations there was a meeting, to which the Secretary of State has alluded, between Stephen Byers and John Robinson at 4.45 p.m. That meeting is a key meeting because the markets had closed at 4.30 p.m. I shall return to that in a moment. As I understand the matter, at about 9 p.m. that evening—Friday 5th October—a team from Schroder Salomon Smith Barney went to Railtrack House to amplify what the Secretary of State had told John Robinson at the earlier meeting. Apparently the Secretary of State said that he would prefer a joint approach to the High Court, but that if Railtrack did not support the petition the Secretary of State was still minded to proceed in any event.
In trying to follow the sequence of events a little assistance was given to me in The Times on Tuesday 23rd October. It was an innovation; a solicitor going into print, acting for the Government and telling us what happened. The article starts:
"A simple phone call late on a Friday evening torpedoes any weekend social plans of 35-year-old Robert Hickmott … with news of an urgent assignment that must be completed by Sunday night".
He later states in the article:
"'A critical event is the Railtrack board meeting at 2 pm on Saturday and after that it becomes clear that we will have to work overnight to pull together our evidence to get the order'".
1442
I have made inquiries. There was indeed a Railtrack board meeting on Saturday 6th October at which a message was received by the board that the directors of Railtrack had to decide to send a letter to the Secretary of State stating that the company was insolvent. As I understand the position, Railtrack refused to do so as it did not believe that to be the case. However, it became aware that journalists were being briefed. At some stage—perhaps in a Select Committee we need to know what was being said to journalists at the time. But it became absolutely clear that there was no way in which Railtrack could be anything other than high and dry on the Monday morning unable to draw on its credit lines.
Of course that refusal to write the letter meant that the Government then had to set about producing financial evidence. Noble Lords will know that I am a solicitor, a senior partner of a national legal practice. I am accustomed to looking through court bundles. For that reason, I welcomed the opportunity to go through the court bundle. In it I found a witness statement from David Rowlands at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, together with two documents, one from Arthur Andersen and the other a letter from Schroder Salomon Smith Barney which, on reading them, appear pretty thin as well as being highly speculative. When one looks at the way in which the evidence was presented, of course the judge had no alternative but to make the necessary order.
What I should also like to know is this: what were the circumstances that gave rise to the laying of the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001? I ask that question because in the court bundle, and elsewhere, I have discovered some interesting information. First, however, when were those regulations signed? Although a corrigendum has been issued which tries to put right one or two details, it is clear that the regulations were signed by the Lord Chancellor, not on the Saturday, but on Friday, 5th October. That is made clear on page 36 of the rules. Can the Minister let me know at what time on Friday, 5th October the Lord Chancellor signed the rules to indicate his concurrence to their being made? If Mr Byers told Mr Robinson that the decision to seek a railway administration order had been taken after the markets closed on 5th October, but before Mr Robinson's meeting with the Secretary of State at 4.45 p.m., we have a time window of only 15 minutes.
Perhaps the Minister can assist me on that detail. If, in fact, the decision had not been made and the order had not been signed, it meant that no announcement of the Government's plans could be made to the London Stock Exchange until 7 a.m. on Monday 8th October. If, however, the Lord Chancellor had signed the regulations earlier in the day, or even if his office had received the regulations for signature before the markets closed, that would suggest that the Secretary of State had in fact taken his decision before the markets closed. What causes myself and others connected with the railway industry concern is whether the Government had created a false market.

1443
I shall conclude my remarks with further evidence. I should first be interested in particular to know from the Minister whether my suspicions are correct on two points. First, a major reorganisation took place, covering the restructuring of the Railways Directorate. That was referred to in the 11th October issue of Rail Business Intelligence. Perhaps I should not subscribe to a conspiracy theory, but it would be interesting to learn whether that restructuring of the Railways Directorate was as innocent as it is made to sound by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
More important, and again referring to the court bundle, I found a copy of the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001. I always pay great attention to any markings made on such papers in court bundles because quite often they can divulge the date on which they were actually prepared rather than the date on which they were lodged. Lo and behold, on the top of the statutory instrument I found the date 28th September 2001, timed on a fax machine at 10.09.48. It is not clear whose fax machine was used, but in the top left-hand corner is the number 5986 771 001. I have not tried to contact that number to find out what it could mean, but it seems clear—I am happy to share this with the Minister—that the Railway Administration Order Rules were not only in contemplation but also in execution before 5th October.
I understand that a clear commitment had been made to the company that the Government would ensure that it would be made aware of the true situation at all times. Of course, however, if it is the case that it was not made aware until 4.45 p.m. on Friday, 5th October, then it was under no obligation, but were not the Government? I do hope that the Minister will be able to set my fears at rest.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for introducing a debate on the current and long-term problems of the railway industry. I believe that noble Lords are well placed to discuss this matter, in that most of your Lordships have had all kinds of railway experience in trying to travel to the House. Each week we hear various travellers' tales. However, perhaps we do not know the half of it, because journeys undertaken by noble Lords to reach this place are usually made on the best of the railways. We need to look further afield and see how the railways function in provincial areas. What is the position in the regions?
I should like to offer a case study of what is now taking place in Yorkshire and the North East. The provider of passenger rail services in Yorkshire and the North East, which covers Tyne and Wear PTA, West Yorkshire PTA and South Yorkshire PTA, was from February 1997 Regional Railways North East. The proprietors were MTL. Then a new name was introduced: Northern Spirit. The spirit vanished and another new name was introduced: Arriva. Now, if
1444
noble Lords will believe it, the newest name is Arriva Northern. That company appeared on the scene in February 2000. It was given a one-year franchise which has now been extended to two years.
It has been 20 months since Arriva Northern arrived, while four years and eight months have passed since the first and original franchise. The case study for this week is as follows: two days ago, on Monday, a revised timetable was issued. It revealed over 1,100 cancellations. All the timetables have had to be reprinted. Some of those cancellations comprise odd train services here and there; that is, shared misery. Travellers need to check the new timetables afresh because a particular train service may well have been cancelled and deleted. Furthermore, trains from Yorkshire to Manchester Airport have been substantially deleted, in particular the overnight services. A third set of services to have been affected is what I call the wholesale division: Leeds to Goole, nothing; Leeds to Knottingley, nothing; Wakefield to Pontefract, nothing; and half of all services between Wakefield and Sheffield deleted. It is interesting to note that those routes where, as from Monday next, no rail services will be provided, are in the same areas in which the Arriva Bus Company has a monopoly on bus service provision.
When the franchises were first handed out, it is my recollection that, although the bus companies were keen to join in with rail franchising, care was taken to ensure that any bus companies given opportunities to move into rail were offered those opportunities in areas where they did not function as bus companies. It appears that that has now become very fuzzy. It will be interesting to hear the views of the Minister in regard to franchising. Will there be a clear division in future or will this fuzziness continue?
In addition, there are only five trains a day between Leeds and Morecambe which go through Skipton and North Lancashire. Two of those will be cancelled as of Monday. The only service from Leeds to Glasgow via the Settle and Carlisle line has been cancelled. The whole of the service from Newcastle to the smaller towns, up the East Coast Main Line towards Berwick, has been cancelled.
There has been a substantial reduction in services and, in many cases, the cancellation of an entire service. Does the Minister think that people in London and the South East would put up with this with a week's notice? I suspect it is something that could be done in the provinces but that it would not past muster further south.
The reason for train cancellations and the cancellation of entire services is driver shortages. The first franchise holder dispensed with the services of several drivers early on in the franchise. But it has been 20 months since the new franchise holder took over, and here we are with these current cancellations. Bearing in mind that the companies operating the trains do not have to worry about the track or rolling stock but have only to operate the trains, it seems mighty strange to me that they cannot arrange sufficient staffing—especially 20 months on—to provide the services they have contracted to provide.

1445
On top of driver shortages we have rolling stock shortages. Amazingly, in the area in which the West Yorkshire PTA operates and pays for services, 18 fewer vehicles are available now than was the case in May 2000.
That is the short term. In Yorkshire, we are now saying that it is better to travel hopefully than to Arriva. But what about the long term? We have heard a good deal about Railtrack, and clearly there are very many problems there. I have indicated where we have problems with an operator after nearly five years of the privatised system. In addition, bearing in mind that 18 fewer coaches are available, is there not a further problem with the leasing companies and the rolling stock providers?
We have a fragmented railway system which has a great many problems. A great many areas need to be examined. Now is the time for the entire rail industry to turn the disaster of Railtrack into an opportunity to create a joined-up railway.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I echo particularly the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt.
I thank my noble friend Lord Marsh for his timely introduction of this crucially important debate. I must, as always when discussing the railways, declare an interest. The first Lord Palmer was a director of the Great Western Railway for 48 years, for 42 of which he was vice chairman. I was also privileged to learn how to drive trains in our yard at Reading station when I was a child.
It has become abundantly clear in the debate so far that our railway industry is in a terrible muddle and mess. There is no doubt that everyone is in agreement that we need a root and branch reform of the Rail Regulator, the SRA, and, indeed, of Railtrack.
I know that we should not always believe what we read in the press, but even today there was an extraordinary headline that millions of pounds worth of brand new rolling stock is lying idle because the rails cannot take it. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that we are in.
I long to know—I have already in the past asked the noble and learned Lord-this question—who is going to invest in this wonderful new Railtrack. This worries me because we must bear in mind that the Government cannot give a completely open-ended financial commitment.
I strongly believe that there must be a full consultation with all aspects of the rail industry, especially with the unions and with the hands-on chief executives of the private rail operating companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the issue of management. I completely agree with him that good management is absolutely vital. I have read reports of the new chief executive of Railtrack earning a seven figure annual sum. To me, that amount of money ought to be invested wisely in lower and middle management.
1446
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in the old days of British Rail line management ran right the way through the company. At the end of the day, the director responsible on the British Rail board knew exactly what was happening on the ground because of the way the whole system worked upwards. I strongly urge that that system should be reverted to.
When one looks at the structure of fares, it would be helpful if Her Majesty's Government could bring some kind of influence to bear on the rail companies. I spent a long time this morning trying to work out the best way of getting home to Scotland. Here I should declare an interest in that I travel frequently on the Great North Eastern Railway line. It may interest your Lordships' to know that a second-class return rare from Edinburgh can range from £36 to £79. I find it even more extraordinary that it is £61 cheaper to travel first class from Aberdeen to London than it is from Edinburgh to London. My geography tells me that Edinburgh is 150 miles closer to London than Aberdeen. I know that the noble and learned Lord may say that it is a problem for the rail companies, but it does make extraordinary sense. For those without easy access to a computer, trying to work out the cheapest and most sensible rail fare is by no means a simple matter.
In conclusion, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. At long last we have a chance to grasp the problems facing our rail industry. Let us hope that Her Majesty's Government take, once and for all, decisive action and as soon as possible.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, because I wish to address the issue of investment finance which he has raised.
The Railtrack episode has not done a lot for the popularity of rail privatisation, whether on the part of the institutional investors or, indeed, the employees, whose terms of employment have included a share scheme as part of the employment package. So they have our sympathy.
I have less sympathy, however, than the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for merchant banks and others in the City of London, who are the only people he has not blamed. It may be said that it is the Government's fault, oar it is someone's fault, but it is those in the City of London who have earned considerable sums out of privatisation and who complain when anything goes wrong with a scheme—let us not forget this—that they designed and have been paid for. This crisis of rail finance is, in my submission, as much a crisis of the City of London as of the rail management or the Government.
Let me say why. As an article in Insurance Day pointed out on 23rd October, there were two years of soaring profits with dividends to match, but,:in order to meet the short-term demand for dividends, relatively little was ploughed back into capital projects, leaving an ageing infrastructure desperately in need of renewal. So the central question is this. Has

1447
the problem of short-termism been thought through, when we have to finance a 10-year plan to the tune of £60 billion, with half, broadly speaking, coming from the public sector and half from the private sector?
Have people not noticed the inconsistency of saying one minute that the money, both public and private, is at the end of the day all coming out of one pot—which is true—and in the next breath saying that it is all very difficult for public finance because of the PSBR, and it is difficult for private finance because of the absence of guarantees?
So where do we go from here? The question that I wish to explore is how far the City is prepared to be innovative in creating, with the public authorities, the pragmatic design of a financial instrument for long-term infrastructure investment; and in particular how we inject some credibility into the £34 billion of private investment mentioned in the 10-year plan, and within that the £23.5 billion for infrastructure upgrades over and above the Channel Tunnel link and the West Coast Main Line.
We have invented a new short-term vehicle for Railtrack in terms of company law—it is not a shareholder company. We now need to see whether we can match this innovative instrument with credibility for the medium term in terms of raising these vast amounts of capital.
We therefore need to look for a new kind of financial intermediary. I shall describe it as an "intermediary" in the sense that it is between the savings institutions and the pension funds, etc, which are quintessentially interested in long-term returns and the long-term infrastructure of the country, and the rail industry. We need above all a financial intermediary which itself has long-term credibility.
This point was unfortunately simply glossed over in the 10-year plan, which states that the private sector is expected to invest £34 billion over the next 10 years and the public sector £30 billion. At the time, that sounded impressive. But the key question is: who in the private sector was committed to the sum of £34 billion? In terms of the £30 billion of public sector finance and the £34 billion of private money, are we comparing apples with apples? No, we are not.
As an American Senator once remarked about defence contracts, £30 billion here and £30 billion there soon starts to add up to real money. But that would be wrong in this case. It is not real money, is it? Certain things have to be done to make that £34 billion into real money. Similar questions arise in regard to the public sector finance. How much is new money? That is a matter of interpretation. But so far as the private sector financing is concerned, the assumption is of roughly a doubling in broad terms from £2 billion to approaching £4 billion a year of the annual investment spend.
For a nation of our wealth, that is not a big figure. The annual flow into savings institutions is about £100 billion. So if the amount is £4 billion, we are talking of 4 per cent. As regards the financial intermediary—the national investment bank—that is
1448
a figure that we can take in our stride. But for the 10-year plan to be credible, we must know exactly who is expected to raise which amount of money, how, and through which type of financial vehicle.
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said that to rely on the current financial formula to obtain the £34 billion is a triumph of hope over experience. I agree with him—and I looked forward to hearing his solution. What was it? He did not have one—and I do not think that Hansard will record him as having one.
I want to urge that serious consideration should be given to the innovative idea put forward by John Smith and his colleagues in the mid-1980s—and supported by the National Economic Development Council through the publication of its report on a new financial intermediary for long-term investment, generally through bond finance, but most notably for infrastructure.
The report had the zippy title, Practical Aspects of a New Financial Intermediary. Noble Lords will recall that this was before the age of "spin"; but even then, the Labour Party thought that it might be just a tiny bit easier for people to get the drift if the idea was termed a "national investment bank" or "national infrastructure bank"; and I shall do likewise.
The NEDC discussed the report's findings in the mid-1980s—in a committee chaired by Lord Ashburton. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, and I were members, along with people from the Treasury, the Bank of England, the merchant banks and the CBI. That will probably damn the idea out of hand for a start! It was based on a number of pieces of research, including studies of the European Investment Bank and Credit National in France. If the EIB example is to be entertained, we do not have to pay more for the money. That is an issue on which people give their views without the research evidence to back them up. We do not have to pay more for that sort of money.
I do not expect this to be taken as a good idea in the way that a rabbit is plucked out of a hat. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say that he expects the analysis of these challenges for investment—medium-term investment in a field where short-termism and the relevant rate of return is self-evidently absurd—to go forward to an inquiry on the basis that at this stage nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. In particular, the risk element needs to be insulated from the savings institutions to the extent that this is true of the European Investment Bank when it raises large sums in the capital markets.
By the time the 10-year plan is finished, as Keynes said, we may all be dead. But at least we hope to live long enough to see an infrastructure which is not such that the German Ambassador can say in 10 years' time, as he said last week, that parts of our infrastructure remind him of living in a third world country. The Railtrack fiasco gives us a great opportunity for lateral thinking. I am sanguine that the line of thinking that I have put forward will form a valid and necessary part of that.

1449
I make one final point, on international cooperation on investment. It may be that in some cases we should be looking overseas, and we now have quite a lot of overseas investment, from Swiss railways, France, Germany and so on. I have noted the keen interest shown, for example, by SNCF in co-operating with the proposal of Central Railway for a freight route along the line from Liverpool to the Channel Tunnel in the context of development of the trans-European rail freight network. Perhaps the national infrastructure bank and the French opposite number could be involved in the £6 billion on that project as well.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. I am employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, advisers to the Government on certain aspects of transport infrastructure and operations—although I hasten to say that I am not involved in work on the railways. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is not in his place, but perhaps I may point out to him that I am not as highly paid a consultant as he seemed to imply we all are. I declare also that I served three Secretaries of State, each serving their regulated two years in the department without remission—including my noble friend Lord MacGregor, who was a distinguished Secretary of State for Transport. I pay tribute to his achievement in his tenure in office.
I want to concentrate my remarks to the Minister, and through him to the department, on franchise train operations. First, on balance, the quality of train services has improved dramatically since before privatisation. We all have a love-hate relationship with the railways. We love the romance and we hate the operators, whether British Rail or the present franchised operators of the privatised railways.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who is not in his place, that we tend to lose a sense of proportion if we focus on particularly bad examples of service. If we stand back and look at the quality of service now being provided by the privatised passenger train operators compared with that provided under British Rail, there has been improvement and innovation. The trains are cleaner and more punctual and reliable than they were under British Rail. We have seen examples of innovation by management in terms of cheaper fares—certainly there are more expensive fares on certain services—and more innovative services and fares for those who wish to travel. In general I believe that the privatisation has been a success.
I put four points to the Minister. First, I refer to the lengths of franchises. My noble friend mentioned this. When the railways were privatised many of the early franchises were of seven years' duration. Towards the end of the process they were much longer, up to 15 years. The present Secretary of State has indicated his preference, as I understand it, for short-term renewals; that is, five years. We now have 14 franchises coming up for renewal within the next two-and-a-half years. To renew those franchises for short terms would be a great disaster. I strongly recommend the Minister to
1450
convey to the Secretary of State the wisdom of long-term franchises of at least 15 years. Why do I say that? With a longer franchise—and, indeed, after a competition has been held for that franchise—one is able to plan more consistently and to recruit and train staff. One is also able to invest either in stations or in new rolling stock, as Virgin Trains is doing, with much greater confidence than if one has the right to run a train service for only five or seven years. I would welcome a commitment on the part of the Secretary of State to keep an open mind on the subject. He appears to have closed his mind to the matter and prefers short-term franchises.
Secondly, I refer to vertical integration. I believe that many noble Lords would agree that to muddy the waters and seek to go back to an integrated railway may be impractical. However, I make a plea that both as regards pilot schemes and certain railway lines where there is perhaps only a single passenger train operator, we should experiment with the train operator being responsible for track maintenance and renewal. I believe that makes sense. I am not in favour of transferring ownership of the track to the train operators for the reason that my noble friend Lord MacGregor gave; namely, that it is better not only for reasons of safety but also for reasons of investment to have a single integrated national network of ownership which is able to plan coherently. I do not believe either that responsibility for signalling should be passed to the train operating companies. However, responsibility for maintenance and much stronger co-ordination and collaboration at the local level would, I think, be of benefit to the railway industry. Certainly the previous administration never closed its mind to such an innovation.
Thirdly—I say this at the risk of being unpopular—I suggest to the Minister that we should revisit the tightness of the regulatory regime of passenger rail fares. Your Lordships will remember that when the process was introduced the regime for many fares, particularly on commuter services and on some rural services where there was effectively a monopoly, meant that each year the train operators could not increase fares by more than the retail prices index minus 1 per cent. Hence there has been a real terms reduction in rail fares over the past live years. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the welcome increase of some 40 per cent in passenger numbers—although that is now beginning to stabilise given the possible impending downturn in the economy—and 40 per cent increase in freight. That is most welcome. One of the reasons for the increase in passenger numbers is the real terms reduction in rail fares. Other reasons for that are innovative fares, a better quality of service on some lines and, of course, the growth in the economy.
However, an RPI minus 1 per cent regime imposes a big penalty on train operating companies. Over 10 years, with an annual fare revenue of about £1 5 billion that penalty involves a sum of £150 million which benefits passengers but which is not available to the train operating companies to reinvest. The Strategic Rail Authority should encourage the Office of the Rail

1451
Regulator and the Franchising Director, now incorporated in the Strategic Rail Authority, when they refranchise to look again seriously at whether such a regime is too tight. Alastair Morton, as chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, has always reminded us that the three sources of finance—the passenger, the taxpayer and the City of London—all have to make a contribution to the massive investment that is required. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he correctly pointed out—my noble friend Lord MacGregor agreed with him and therefore I do not make a party political point, even when I refer to a noble Lord on the Cross Benches—that the taxpayer must be a permanent subsidiser of the railway system. That was always envisaged in the privatisation proposals and in the legislation the previous administration introduced. I believe that the passenger, through rail fares, should make a bigger contribution to the required investment in the railway system.
Fourthly, I come to the vexed question of track access charges. I know that for many this is rather an arcane subject. What we got wrong in the initial model of the track access charges was the inflexibility of the charging by Railtrack of the train operating companies. The model was inflexible as it did not take account of the number of trains—which reflected the—growth in the market—which used the railway infrastructure. Railtrack did not receive any significant extra income in the early years of the boom and therefore was under some constraint in terms of reinvesting in the railway infrastructure. A much more flexible system is required so that the increased number of trains, passengers and freight trains that use the infrastructure in boom years should result in more money being ploughed back into the infrastructure through higher track access charges. The converse is true: when we are in a period of stability or falling levels of usage, Railtrack must absorb the reduced level of track charges through reserves it must build up in good years.
I refer to the problem of driver shortages, which is the single biggest problem for the rail industry. Mistakes were made by the first operators of some of the franchised routes who sacked some drivers and did not maintain sufficient safety margins. The train operating companies now have over a thousand drivers in training. It will take time for them to come fully into service. We should recognise the efforts they have made. I hope that when fines are next levied on some of the franchised train operating companies the Government will bear in mind that action has now been taken by many of the train operating companies. I hope that if the working week is shortened beyond 35 hours—that was one of the principal causes of the reduction in hours in which drivers were available—there will be some flexibility shown towards and understanding of the problems.
I wish to place on record my recognition of the success of the vast majority of dedicated managers and staff on our railway system. We criticise them too
1452
easily and too often. That is particularly true of the media. What is needed is greater encouragement and less interference.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I propose to focus today on the current financial problems of the railways and on Railtrack in particular. The noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and other Conservatives have attacked the Government, with some justification, for the shambolic way they put Railtrack into administration. But the country will take a great deal more notice of Conservative criticisms when they have the courage to admit that they landed the railways in this mess with their privatisation into penny packets before the 1997 general election.
I had a quick look at the Labour manifesto for 1997, which seemed to give a pretty fair summary of what had happened at that stage. It said:
"The process of rail privatisation is now largely complete. It has made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer. It has fragmented the network and now threatens services".
That was pretty clear. Then, when we get to 2001, what do we find in the latest manifesto? It said:
"Labour's priority is to improve and expand railway and road travel. Our ten-year transport plan, supported by all the key players, matches large resources with major reform".
If socialism was the language of priorities many years ago, I am afraid that is new Labourism being all things to all men. When it came to Railtrack, the manifesto said:
"Railtrack is being reformed to focus on the operation of existing track and signalling. The Rail Regulator with strengthened powers will ensure the delivery of higher standards, increased safety and increased investment by the company".
Some reform. That was just four months ago, before they pulled the plug.
What should the Government do now? First—on this at least I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—taxpayers' money should not go towards bailing out Railtrack shareholders. There have been several declarations of interest in the debate. I declare an interest as an investment manager who did not invest in Railtrack for the pension funds and charities entrusted to my care. Equity investment is all about risk and rewards. There were clear health warnings in the original prospectus. Leading investment banks warned this summer that Railtrack shares could easily be worthless. Any professional investors who thought that they had a government guarantee did not do their homework. Some big investors collected juicy dividends and chose to bet on the Government pouring more money in. They lost. If private shareholders were told that they had a guarantee, they should sue their advisers.
Railtrack should never have been a plc quoted on the Stock Exchange. It could never have made a real profit. It depended totally on government subsidies, was at the mercy of the regulator and had enormous potential liabilities, as Hatfield showed. The normal market disciplines and incentives of the private sector did not apply.

1453
In the real world, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and others, have pointed out, the taxpayer has to underwrite the operation of our railway system. The public will not tolerate the economic disruption and enormous social cost of the railways grinding to a halt.
Once we face that fact, only two questions really matter for the future of Railtrack. First, how do we maintain and improve our railway track and infrastructure at the lowest long-term cost? Secondly, what is the simplest form of ownership now, with clear accountability at the top and managers and staff left to get on with their jobs down the line? Mr Byers's proposal for Newtrack fails on both counts. His proposed new "private sector" company limited by guarantee is an economic sham. He hopes that it will get a BBB credit rating, although at the moment it does not even have that. A company with BBB rating is defined as having,
"weakened capacity to meet financial commitments",
with the added caution that,
"certain protective elements may be lacking".
You can say that again. Even to get to that stage, the Government have to give it
"reserves to act as a buffer for performance risks",
as well as a "standby loan facility". That means that the taxpayer provides all the equity in the new company and is effectively the lender of last resort. The Government are not giving a guarantee; just a postdated cheque. There is no one else to stand behind any loans if Newtrack runs into trouble. The whole charade just means that lenders will charge billions more for their money and the long-term interest rate will be between 1 and 3 per cent higher than if the Government came clean and funded it all by issuing gilts.
As the National Audit Office said in its recent report on public/private partnerships:
"The Treasury considers that increasing public borrowing has an external cost on the Government's reputation for prudence and the reputational externality is a calculation to reflect this assumed cost".
The accountants Deloitte & Touche dismissed the Treasury's argument in their report on the London Underground PPP. They said:
"In our view, the concept of reputational externality is largely theoretical and the potential quantum would be very small. We have not been persuaded by the evidence provided to us".
In other words, the taxpayer and railway travellers will be paying a high price in the future so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can boast how prudent he is to keep essential borrowing for our railway system out of the public sector borrowing requirement.
The Government's plans for the successor to Railtrack are expensive and complicated. As the Financial Times put it last week:
"By structuring the industry to avoid the formal definition of nationalisation, Ministers are seeking to gain the commercial and presentational advantages of nationalisation without its political embarrassment. Instead they risk generating the disadvantages of nationalisation without its benefits. All, it seems, because they have an obsession with not increasing public sector net debt, even by the 0.3 per cent of national income that Railtrack's debts represent. Its complicated structure and diverse board almost guarantee another round of railway buck-passing".
1454
The managers and staff of Railtrack now need a breathing space of at least two or three years so that they can buckle down to their jobs without constant reorganisation and interference. It is far too soon to experiment with fancy new corporate structures while Railtrack is in crisis. Whether Railtrack is formally renationalised or is run for some time by the special railway administrators with DTLR paying the piper and calling the tune, the result should be the same.
As I am sure we all know, Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk in the White House saying, "The buck stops here". The buck stops with Mr Byers now, whether he likes it or not, and that is where it should stay until this basic public service is out of intensive care and well down the track towards recovery.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for introducing this subject and for one of the most entertaining, informative and passionate speeches that I have heard in this House in 30 years. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his very informative speech. We have learnt a great deal this afternoon.
Before I leave previous speeches, I should like to defend the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. He is perfectly capable of defending himself, but was not in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, suggested that he was picking up bad areas out of the blue. Arriva Northern is local to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and presumably he has to deal with it regularly. I was up in York on Saturday and saw how dreadful it was and looked. The noble Lord was right to pick it out, because our view of the railways is based on the lines of which we have personal experience.
On 5th April this year, I asked an Unstirred Question on the possible renationalisatiort of Railtrack. I little realised then how right I was—I knew that I was right, but I did not know quite how right. Originally, the Green Party had drafted a short Bill to allow the Government to take Railtrack back into public ownership, but because it involved expertditure on compensation for shareholders, we were advised that only a government Minister could put it forward. We challenged the then 'Transport Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to take it forward, but sadly he failed to rise to the challenge.
If the Government had heeded our advice, Railtrack could have been brought back into public ownership in a controlled manner. Instead, it was done in a panic over a weekend. It would also have allowed the Government to work out a new structure for the railways before sending in the administrators. Instead, the Government have put Railtrack into administration and are now desperately searching for a new structure for the railways. That will cause a hiatus—a long period of uncertainty—while a new structure is devised and implemented. That is something that the Government claimed to be keen to avoid.

1455
In reply to the debate on 5th April, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, referring to the proposal for nationalisation, said:
"To do so would probably take a couple of years and involve potentially complex and controversial primary legislation, during which time the industry would be effectively paralysed".—[Official Report, 5/4/01; col. 975.]
What a terrible prospect compared with what we have before us at the moment. Let us consider what has happened. I believe that "paralysis" accurately describes the state of the rail industry today.
Almost exactly six months later, on 6th October, the Government realised that Railtrack in the private sector could not meet its public service obligations, and they felt compelled to take the revolutionary step of bringing Railtrack back into public ownership. Will the Government now admit that they were wrong six months ago, just as the Conservatives were wrong six years ago when they decided to sell off Railtrack?
Where do we go from here? We welcome the Government's proposal for Railtrack to be replaced by a not-for-profit trust of some kind. However, many questions remain unanswered. Who will be on the board of the trust and who will appoint them? Where will the trust get its funding from and how much will that be? What roles will the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator have in the new structure? All those questions need to be answered, and answered fairly soon.
The replacement for Railtrack—dubbed by some "Newtrack", although that sounds more like a device for torturing the Mayor of London's favourite pets—needs to be publicly owned and accountable. However, on a day-to-day basis it must be kept out of the clutches of the Treasury—an organisation which for many decades has had a malign influence on the railways. It is hoped that the not-for-profit trust will satisfy that requirement.
It seems to us that a more radical restructuring of the rail industry is needed than that recently proposed by the Government. At the time of privatisation, the old British Rail was fragmented into more than 100 companies. Simply changing one of those companies from a PLC to a not-for-profit trust will not solve the problems caused by the fragmentation of the industry. The railways must be reintegrated into a much smaller number of units. As well as improving efficiency, that would vastly reduce the legal and accountancy overheads caused by the thousands of contracts between the 100 companies which are now necessary to operate every train.
Let us take, for example, infrastructure maintenance. It was the lack of knowledge about the state of the track and the fact that information was spread among several different companies and contractors that led to the failure to repair the gauge corner cracking which caused the terrible fatal crash at Hatfield last year. Therefore, track inspection and maintenance need to be reintegrated into the replacement for Railtrack.
1456
The Commons Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs supports that proposal. In its Sixth Report, published in March this year, it was highly critical of the present system. It said in paragraph 51:
"Given that the previous means of managing maintenance and renewal contractors has failed, we strongly recommend that Railtrack take over direct responsibility for inspecting the network, and for directly employing those who work on the maintenance and renewal of the rail network. It should do so without any further prevarication and delay, and without awaiting the outcome of a spurious 'review'. In order to carry out these functions properly we recommend that Railtrack employ adequate engineering and project management expertise".
In the longer term, as passenger franchises expire, they can be brought back into the public sector at no cost. A revised SRA could have responsibility for operating the trains. Some poorly performing train operating companies should be brought back into the public sector immediately. Arriva Trains Northern, which I have already mentioned in another context and which the SRA proposes to fine £2 million for cancelling 1,000 trains each week over the summer, would be a prime candidate. Ultimately, the rolling stock could also be bought back.
The number of regulatory and safety bodies for the rail industry needs to be reduced. A proliferation of different bodies with varying responsibilities causes confusion and errors. The Government will have to provide more funding for the rail industry. Given what has just happened to Railtrack and the lack of compensation for investors, financial institutions are unlikely to invest the £30 billion that the Government had expected over the next 10 years. The £26 billion of government funding in the 10-year transport plan will not be sufficient for the needs of the rail industry. Most of it will be taken up with subsidies to train operating companies and two major projects—the West Coast Main Line upgrade and the Channel Tunnel rail link. Only about £5 billion is likely to be available for other projects.
In order to provide the country with a railway system fit for the 21st century, far more money will be required. The governments of other European countries invest far more in their railways than the UK has done over recent decades. Raising the rail network of this country to European standards will require European levels of investment.
Following Railtrack's collapse, many supposedly committed schemes now have an uncertain future. Thameslink 2000—I remind the House that the "2000" refers to the year in which it was supposed to begin operation, not the year in which its public inquiry would take place—is awaiting the inspector's report from the public inquiry and a decision by the Minister. At the time of privatisation, Railtrack was given £500 million of public funds towards that scheme. Who will now pay for it to be built and where has the £500 million gone?
Is the funding for the construction and operation of both phases of the Channel Tunnel rail link still secure? Will the domestic services planned for the Channel Tunnel rail link to serve Kent go ahead?

1457
Which, if any, of the many options for upgrading the West Coast Main Line will go ahead? Who will decide and who will pay?
And what of the many other schemes to upgrade our rail network? What will be the future of CrossRail and Orbirail in London? Will there be a role for Transport for London in taking forward these schemes? If PTEs can specify rail services in other metropolitan areas, can London's regional government do the same?
If the Government intend to create three mini-Railtracks with their PPP proposals for the London Underground, how long do they believe that those will survive before they, too, must be bailed out? And how much damage will have been done to the Underground before that happens?
Many former rail lines closed by Dr Beeching should be reopened. A grant application for the first phase of the East West Rail Link, which is planned eventually to link Oxford and Cambridge, was recently refused by the SRA. Where is the funding for such essential services to come from?
The railways are an essential part of a sustainable transport policy. My ancestors, the Peases, were among the first people to help to put the railway system of England on the map—to start it and to get it going. They were entrepreneurs who did a job for the country. I hope that there will still be for their, and my, descendants a decent rail system in the years to come. However, at the moment the signs do not look very hopeful.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Elder: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on providing us with the opportunity to have this debate. It asks us to reflect on the current and long-term problems of the railways.
At the start, it would be churlish not to record the fact that, following the terrible events at Paddington and Hatfield, some services are now more or less back to normal. l heard what the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, said. Of course, I appreciate that in areas where, in particular, there is a very heavy commuting burden and a long-term problem of investment, getting back to normal may not sound like much. But we should also remember that on some routes a high-class, high speed passenger service is available. One such takes me from Scotland to London with some regularity. ln being rightly critical of things when they go wrong, we should also be prepared to say something when people appear to be getting things right.
Undoubtedly the most important recent event has been the administration of Railtrack, which should be unequivocally welcomed. That is not to underestimate the difficulties ahead, but for the first time in a long time, there is a real way forward for the industry. That industry is still largely traumatised by the effects of fragmentation, which were experienced during a botched process of privatisation. For the first time in a long time, it is unequivocally the case that the interests of the travelling public, the freight industry and safety are all being treated with the importance that they deserve.
1458
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, pointed out in his most interesting contribution that the Government have been in charge of the present set-up for almost as long as the previous government were. However, he drew the wrong conclusion from that—it is certainly a conclusion with which. I should disagree. If the Government can be criticised on their policy regarding Railtrack—I readily concede that this is much easier to see in retrospect—it may be that they tried, for rather longer than should have been the case, to try to make the structure that was inherited work. In fact, time and events showed that the structure was so riddled with flaws that it was always going to fail.
Following the administration of Railtrack, we have a base from which we can move forward by putting safety and the passenger at the top of the queue. Following the announcement earlier this week by the Rail Regulator, it is also clear, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley pointed out, that the final conclusions of the freight charging policy from the Rail Regulator have been widely welcomed by the industry. We can see a way forward for freight, which the Government are rightly committed to advancing in Transport 2010.
I should like to spend a little time on the position in Scotland. There are signs that the McLeish settlement", which emerged during the passage of the Scotland Act, is, as some of us feared, not as settled as we might have hoped. There remains a tension between the Scottish Executive and the SRA. Decisions about the network in Scotland are increasingly being made away from Scotland and involve a degree of centralisation that is neither helpful nor necessary.
There has been a close partnership in Scotland, with a single Railtrack zone, a vastly dominant train operating company and a single infrastructure maintenance operator. One control room handles Railtrack and ScotRail operations. That has been a sensible basis on which to proceed.
Whatever the structure of the new successor to Railtrack—whatever form it takes—I very much hope that it will be borne in mind that that structure should be fit for its purpose in relation to all areas of the country. The overwhelming majority of journeys that start in Scotland—95 per cent of them—are made entirely within Scotland. The new structure will need to take account of that. It should also reflect the fact that while the Scottish network should of course be integrated into the rest of the national network, there must be sufficient local influence to ensure that the Scottish rail network is integrated with the rest of the transport system—with buses, roads, ferries and the air service. As a matter of course in Scotland, train timetables show boat connections to the islands and, where necessary, bus connections to ferry ports. That happens between Inverness and Ullapool and Thurso and Scrabster. No one service provides complete cover for the whole of Scotland. If decisions about one service are taken without awareness of the rest, we will not end up providing the comprehensive service to our communities that they need.

1459
There is also the issue of accountability. The bulk of Railtrack's income in Scotland comes from franchise payments underwritten with funds from the Scottish Parliament, not through the SRA budget. Centralising further decisions can only undermine proper accountability. I believe that the administration of Railtrack offers a new and wholly welcome opportunity to get those matters right.
The Government need to show real determination in ensuring that the necessary investment is provided. There can be no suggestion that waving a magic wand will change things overnight. However, we now have a basis on which to build. The priorities are right and, in view of the determination that the Secretary of State showed in his decisions earlier this month relating to Railtrack, we have the basis on which we can ensure, with our work, that the railway has a certain and productive future.
5.44 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in considering the future of the railways in the United Kingdom, I strongly believe that we have to look at the background to the original privatisation process. During this long and informed debate, very few voices have called for British Rail to be re-made.
It is now widely accepted in almost all quarters that the old British Rail, which had served a purpose, faced real problems regarding the way in which it was structured. It was a monolithic organisation. Although many excellent people worked for it—both managers and operators of rail services—they faced real problems. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out that the typical reaction of British Rail over the years was simply to ask for more money, which went into a bottomless pit. There was little transparency within British Rail and the services and infrastructure were poor. It was almost an organisation without hope. Successive governments had looked at it and put it in the category of being too difficult to do anything about.
That was the background to the privatisation process. That process developed an innovative framework. Privatisation was a bold move, and there have been some real problems with elements of the resulting structure. Even the Government—the Labour Party was one of the fiercest critics of the privatisation process at the time and has been subsequently—broadly propose a similar framework. They are looking at reconstituting one of the major players within the privatisation framework. Broadly speaking, they are considering having train operating companies that are independent from the body that will manage the infrastructure.
The principal aims were to introduce the disciplines of the private sector. We know that that was never intended to mean that the railway system would be without subsidy; it meant that getting commercial management and commercial investment would make a fundamental difference to the levels of service. That has proved to be the case. The noble Lord, Lord
1460
Berkeley, and others commented on the number of people who now travel by rail—there has been an increase of about 30 per cent in the passenger traffic that is carried by the rail network. That happened in a network that was failing. It was heading only one way—very much downhill. It moved downhill in terms of the amount of freight and the number of passengers that were carried and in terms of its ability to maintain the infrastructure.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that when British Rail handed over the West Coast Main Line in 1994, there was not a single speed restriction on the main line between London and Glasgow? That involves a very different picture from that associated with what has happened under the Railtrack administration.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not know whether that is the case or not and I do not have the time to debate individual lines or individual pieces of infrastructure. The fact is that the rail network was not getting the investment that it required. The privatisation process opened up new avenues for investment. I believe that the noble Lord will accept that.
There has been a turnaround in relation to the privatisation process—new management, new money and new services have come about. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, sent me a memo the other day concerning the increase in the freight that is carried by the rail network. An increase of 40 per cent in freight is an extraordinary statistic. The noble Lord mentioned that that meant that 400 million lorry miles had been taken off the road, which is well worth doing.
I am the first to accept that improvements in services have been slow in coming. There have been real structural problems with the rail network. Railtrack has clearly failed to deliver the improvements to the network that were expected of it. In his statement to the 2001 report, the CEO said:
"In its relatively brief period as a PLC. Railtrack has tended to over-promise and under-deliver to its shareholders".
All parties recognise that although significant flaws resulted from the privatisation process, it also brought significant benefits. There has been much time to put the situation right. The Government have had four and a half years to consider the structure of the railways. The previous Conservative government had very much less time once the privatisation process had begun. The Government have seen fit to overturn their own legislation, passed only two or so years ago, on asylum, but have left the principal structure of the railways untouched. They heavily criticised Railtrack and used it as a whipping boy, but did not have the courage of their earlier convictions to do something about it. They put the rail network into the worst of all worlds, which was to have an ever more intense regulatory regime—putting another layer on top of the Office of the Rail Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority. That created some sort of competition between the regulators to be ever tougher on Railtrack.

1461
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Government's overall strategy for the rail industry, they made a terrible, fundamental and hugely damaging mistake by forcing one of their largest private sector partners out of business. This Administration have made a great deal of capital about their desire to work with the private sector; they have put a lot into their image of being a reliable partner in public/private partnerships. That bond has been shattered. At a stroke, the Government have torpedoed their credibility to operate as a partner to financial institutions and industry.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, there was an alternative. If the Government had sought to bring Railtrack within public hands, they could have pursued an orderly renationalisation; through consultation with the industry, and more widely, they could have pursued an ordered process to fulfil their political and structural aims for the railways. Instead, they pinched the oxygen tube and said, "Oh, the patient has died." They forced Railtrack out of business—we must be clear about that.
The consequence is clear. Future PPP or privatisation initiatives, including setting up the successor body to Railtrack, will be more difficult to execute. A relatively limited band of financial institutions finance PPP projects. They will be more wary. The Government have been prepared to move the goalposts on this occasion; they could well do so in future. The Government's abuse of their authority will have a high and recurring cost.
We must look forward and consider how to proceed. Instead of pursuing a orderly and controlled process, the Government have shot first and asked questions later. Policy is being made on the hoof. The Government currently intend to create a not-for-profit company structure, but the lack of detail about their proposal is of deep concern. We have heard little from the Minister or the Secretary of State about exactly how it will work.
I entirely agree with the second part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay. I did not agree with anything that he said in the first part of his speech, but the second part was excellent. He provided a clinical analysis of the fundamental flaws of the Government's proposed structure. They want to be all things to all men.
We do not know how the company will be structured. The Government have said that about 90 per cent of the company's income would come from long-term contracts. However, predictability of income has not been the issue; the problem has been on the cost side. The lesson of Hatfield and other incidents must be that renewals and maintenance are as able grossly to exceed budget as are major upgrade programmes.
Given that Railtrack's debt is currently trading with junk status, what extra guarantees will the Government consider? What is the timetable for the process? For how long will the interim arrangements continue? When can we expect some detail about the new structure, and when will it be introduced? Will it require further primary legislation?
1462
To return to financing, on 15th October, we were told by the Minister in an incisive remark that
"the new company will be able to raise capital on the bass 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."—[Official Report, 15/10/01; col. 394]
That is a wonderful, insightful statement that tells us little. The Government look to the private sector to provide what they call investment, but if they are to have a true partnership with the private sector, they must give private sector partners the opportunity to gain a proper reward against their risks. The Government have increased the risk; the cost will be therefore be higher. As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, said, £30 billion cannot be raised from the private sector unless guarantees are given, in which case in effect it is government borrowing. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, suggested creating an innovative financial structure; it is called a gilt-edged security. Effectively, it means that the Government can borrow extremely cheaply.
The Government must come clean about what they want. If they want the new body essentially to be Railtrack in the public sector, they should say so. That is called renationalisation. The party opposite argued for that for a while; it has now changed its tune. If the Government want a genuine partnership, the questions of risk, guarantees and reward must be addressed. At present, the Government have sought to portray the investors—the shareholders—as the bogeymen of the story. If they want to raise capital from the private sector, they must look to the financial institutions and smaller investors, who have suffered by the Government's precipitate move of forcing Railtrack into administration.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, this is a timely debate. I am surprised that we have heard from several apologists for the present state of the railways—or, at least, for privatisation. Other noble Lords have given examples of where things have gone wrong. The noble Viscount suggested that the West Coast Main Line is just one line, but it is the single most important main line in the country.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Lord, but only once. A large part of my speech was taken up by admitting that there were flaws in the privatisation process—and, indeed, with elements of the structure. However, better options have never been proposed for a structure that would raise new investment and increase transparency.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I accept that; I was just engaging in some gentle political teasing. After about three and a half hours of debate, a little teasing is in order.
I shall pick up the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland—rail services in the north of England—though I shall consider those services more broadly than he did. First, there is now a great deal of alarm in the north of England—and, I am sure, in

1463
other regions—at the ever-strengthening rumours emanating from the Strategic Rail Authority and other relevant bodies that the great bulk of the £60 million investment promised in the 10-year plan, if it ever comes about, and of rail subsidy will be concentrated in the South East. Those rumours are gathering pace. Will the Minister give a guarantee that what might be thought of as far-away places with strange-sounding names in the north of England and other locations get a fair crack of the whip?
My second point relates to mainline links to the north of England and to the inter-city services which serve the North and which provide vital links south and north. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market referred to reports in today's newspapers that the financing of any further phases of the West Coast Main Line is in doubt and must be renegotiated. The Pendolino trains, which are being designed and paid for to run at 140 miles an hour, will not be able to run faster than the existing services on the line. Further improvements to the line are in doubt and additional paths for freight services, which some of us thought were always in doubt, may no longer exist. That is a matter of concern and I should be grateful if the Minister would comment.
The modernisation of the East Coast Main Line has come and gone, has come again and gone again. There were bids to build a new high-speed line but that proposal disappeared. It seems that all we shall get on that line, if anything, is refurbishment of the existing rolling stock and not much more. The electric trains are more than 10 years old and their refurbishment is becoming urgent. As one who travels on those trains I can say that they are becoming distinctly tatty and sometimes one has to walk down two or three carriages before finding a working WC. They really do need refurbishing and it is time that was done.
The fundamental issue about main railway services from the north of England to the South is that, do what you will with the West and East Coast Main Lines and Midland Main Line, capacity is fast running out. Sooner or later government will have to grasp the nettle which they grasped over 50 years by spending billions of pounds in current terms on the motorway network. The Government must accept that we need a new railway network. Whether it is a new high-speed passenger line or a new freight line are matters for debate. But the existing capacity on railway lines from the north to the south of England is simply not enough to meet the needs of the next 10 or 20 years. That is an important strategic issue and the responsibility cannot be dished out to the train operating companies in the hope that they might build new lines. The Government must grasp it. Although the railways are to some extent in limbo, as several noble Lords have said, this is a time to get a grip on the issue.
My third point about railway services in the north of England relates to local services. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Shutt about Arriva and its franchise in Yorkshire. We are a little better off in the North West. I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Minister recently visited
1464
north-east Lancashire to look at housing. He should be grateful that he did not have to travel on our local branch line. If he had, he might have been sick when he arrived at Accrington, Burnley or Nelson—towns he visited. The trains—technicians know them as Class 142 pacers, originally designed by putting a rail body on top of a Leyland national bus chassis—in addition to running to Colne on the east Lancashire line also run to Blackpool. That is entirely appropriate because travelling on them is like travelling on the big dipper at Blackpool. They are awful. It is no surprise that such trains do not operate in the South East because the people there would not accept them. Sooner or later—and preferably sooner—they will have to be replaced.
The main issue relating to services within my region is the trans-Pennine franchise. The end of October is about the time of year when people in the north of England look out of their windows towards the Pennine hills and discover that they cannot see them because they are covered in hill fog. We shall see that for the next few months. The fog which has surrounded the whole saga of the trans-Pennine express franchise is extraordinary and seems to get worse by the day.
The Strategic Rail Authority recommended to the Government that one of the three selected bidders should be awarded a franchise. It is a general open secret that it was Connex. The Government batted it back to the SRA and told it to begin again. Why they did so—political reluctance to see the Connex bid succeed, part of the process of shortening the franchises, or for other obscure reasons—no one knows because no one has come clean about the matter. My next question to the Minister—and if he wants to write to me I shall be happy—is: why was the SRA recommendation to the Government to award the franchise and get on with it rejected?
There are many concerns about the trans-Pennine franchise, which in many ways is an anomaly. The statutory Section 34 consultations with the passenger transport executives are now taking place. However, substantial areas which are at present covered by trans-Pennine express services are not in PTE areas, particularly in Lancashire and North Yorkshire. There is considerable concern that because of the statutory need to consult the PTEs the other areas are not being properly consulted and are being omitted from the core proposals.
The core franchise is being reconsidered but, again, there are considerable concerns; for example, that the highly successful service from Leeds and Bradford via the Calder Vale route to Burnley and Preston, an innovatory service of the past 20 years carrying two million customers a year, is not part of the core franchise and may be downgraded to a local service.
The SRA press release, issued when the Government batted back the franchise, stated that it would have discussions with the Government as well as with the PTEs. What is the Government's view of that? What will the Government be saying to the SRA about that franchise? For how long will the franchise extend? Will it be short, medium or long? What is the

1465
relationship between such franchises which are currently being discussed on the ground and the SRA's strategic plan? Will they have to be changed to fit in with the strategic plan, if it ever appears?
Finally, as a result of all that and the close integration of the trans-Pennine services with many local services, particularly at the end of services to places such as Hull, Scarborough and Blackpool, why are the Government pressing ahead with a separate trans-Pennine franchise when the SRA is rightly looking at a new north of England franchise under which the whole of the north of England will be put together for local services? If this is a time when people are taking stock and trying to get things right, would it not be more sensible for the trans-Pennine franchise to be abandoned and to be included within the new north of England franchise?
6.9 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on drawing our attention to the problems of the railway industry. He is right to d o so because the problems are enormous. Railtrack has collapsed financially and is in administration, despite the billions of pounds of public money which have been poured into it and in spite of the expert advice that it received from many consultants. The Strategic Rail Authority's plan is more than a year late. Some train operators are struggling economically and the SRA's refranchising policy is incomplete, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
The current chairman of the SRA, Sir Alastair Morton, who will leave at the end of this year, is on record as saying that to sort all this out the industry needs £1 billion more per year than the £3 billion already budgeted.
Despite privatisation, the Government remain closely involved. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, explained that the Government remain the lender of last resort, which is the nature of their involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, also made that point. I congratulate him on quoting from the Labour Party manifesto as, in having read it, he has an advantage over many members of the Labour Party.
It is now apparent that privatisation was just another phase in the relationship between the Government and those who run the railways. The reason for the Government's involvement continues to exist. A successful railway system is central to our quality of life and economic performance. Perhaps that is why there was an impression that Railtrack was too important to fail. Shareholders felt that the company's social role ensured that it would not go bankrupt. Now, of course, we all know differently. In spite of the case for the prosecution argued by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which may or may not be relevant, the Minister should make it absolutely clear to the public and investors that a government guarantee extends only to continuing the service provided and not to the shares of the company providing the service.
1466
Fortunately the Government have been able to find an energetic new chairman to take on the difficult task of getting the industry out of this mess. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate William Bowker on taking on the job, and I wish him every success. I hope that the Government will give him the opportunity to fit everything together. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, the fragmentation of the railway system has caused so much concern.
I also think that the Government must encourage Mr Bowker to recruit top managers and, if necessary, pay them top salaries. Otherwise, he will be forced to subcontract and out-source much of the work of Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority. That practice was identified as a cause of the Hatfield accident.
The out-sourcing approach has a particular appeal. Perhaps its most basic appeal lies in the cost savings achieved by encouraging competitive bidding on contracts. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner explained, this is illusory. Indeed, at the end of the nineties, there was a fashion to out-source thanks to the IT revolution and the creation of virtual companies. I think that that has all become somewhat discredited now. We have learnt that in a crisis, especially after a serious rail accident, or a time of economic change or political uncertainty, those contracts are an unstable basis on which to build a business.
In practice, we now know that such contracts do not really align the interests of those involved. They do not create the trust and common purpose that is built up in a company's own team. Maintaining miles of track and signals may seem a dull task—the unromantic part of running a railway, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said. But we have now learnt that if the owner cannot keep the railway running, he does not have a business, as nobody else can keep it running. That is why I hope that the Government will encourage Mr Bowker to build up his own staff to build up Railtrack's engineering capacity. That is very important, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, may have some expertise that he learnt in his childhood to offer.
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, spoke about the cost of safety and how travel by car is less safe. I do not think that that is relevant. If one cannot run a railway safely, one does not have a business. Mr Bowker's executives must take responsibility for safety if they wish to maintain the confidence of the travelling public.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I hesitate to raise this, but the Government's Law Officers must look very closely at why the Crown Prosecution Service could say last week that
"an over arching problem in the law"
made it impossible to identify anyone employed by Railtrack or Thames Trains who could be held responsible for the 31 passengers who died and the 400 passengers who were injured in the Paddington rail crash. At the same time, the CPS said that there was

1467
history of corporate failings. Certainly prosecutions have been brought successfully by the Health and Safety Executive, but when an inquiry such as that of Lord Cullen identifies a lamentable failure in maintaining signals and the existence of poor driver training, yet no prosecutions are brought, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that nobody is accountable.
Rail passengers are dependent on drivers, signalmen and safety experts. Inevitably it heightens their anxiety that when things go wrong nobody is to blame. For passengers to have confidence, there has to be some responsibility. Only then will they have confidence in the commitment to safety of the railway industry. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell us when that change in the law will take place.
A change at the top is a good moment to make changes in policy and strategy. It is always easier to do it then. The Government have used the opportunity presented by Railtrack's administration to introduce the concept of a non-profit making company into the railway industry, instead of nationalisation. I hope that there will be a change in policy, or will the Government seriously consider offers from consortia in the private sector—the for profit, rather than the not-for-profit organisations?
I ask that because the Government seem to be into policy revisions at present. As other noble Lords have said, perhaps the Government will use this opportunity to review their railway policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, thought that leaving Railtrack in place implied acceptance. Perhaps the real reason for Railtrack being left in place is that the Government wanted to avoid major upheaval. That has now been forced on the Government, so now is the time to do something.
The Government will always be involved as long as they hold the purse strings, but they have an opportunity to take the politics out of the delivery of rail services. That delivery of services should be left to Mr Bowker and his team. The ability to distinguish between government strategic involvement on the one hand and the minutiae of political control on the other is central to the success of running a railway, as it is in all public services.
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, spoke about blame. Eliminating the politics of blame would be a good place to start.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for initiating this important debate. The noble Lord's experience of and commitment to the railway industry were evident in his excellent speech.
My experience of railways is as one of those consultants who are not very highly paid. In the past, I was involved in carrying out efficiency studies of British Rail, to which the answer was "not very". Later, I was involved in privatisation matters, including the formation of the largest of the freight
1468
operators. Other noble Lords are much more experienced than I am on such matters. Indeed, I pay tribute to the powerful speech of my noble friend Lord MacGregor on the background of railway privatisation.
I should like to discuss two areas. First, the "smash-and-grab raid" by the Government on Railtrack; and, secondly, the creation of the new company that the Government intend will be the successor to Railtrack.
A clear consequence of the Government's actions in relation to Railtrack is that shareholders have suffered major losses. One distinguishing feature of old-style Labour nationalisation was that they recompensed those who owned the companies that were nationalised. It seems that the guiding principle of new Labour is expropriation. I have to say I was shocked by the comments of the noble Lord, Faulkner of Worcester—I see he is not in his place—when he tried to equate punting on horse races to investment in financial instruments. It demonstrates the lack of understanding on the Benches opposite of the financial markets. It also ignores the significance of employee ownership of shares, about which the noble Lord, Lord Lea, reminded us.
The shock waves of the Government's action will go beyond the railway industry. As my noble friend Lord Goschen forcefully pointed out, public-private partnerships are bound to be affected. They will be more costly and more difficult to negotiate. The Government have forfeited the trust of capital markets.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, repeated the Statement of the Secretary of State on 15th October, he painted a picture of a government being presented with, a request for a blank cheque by Railtrack. I am not surprised, because it would be difficult to put an exact figure on the amount that Railtrack needed to survive and the duration of that support, especially given the fact that it was the Government who controlled, directly or indirectly, a major part of Railtrack's cash flows.
I would have expected detailed and intensive discussions and investigations to have taken place to find the scale of the problem and provide a financial solution. It seems clear from the statements that have been made, in particular by the chairman and chief executive of Railtrack, that they thought they were dealing with the Government on the basis that a solution involving some form of financial support would be found. Indeed, until 5th October they seemed to have had little or no idea that the Government had been plotting to invoke the administration procedures of the Railways Act.
The noble and learned Lord told the House that Railtrack's own advisers first raised the possibility of what they called "receivership". Can he say whether any detailed discussions were held between his department and Railtrack as to the possibility of seeking an administration order, or whether it was simply brought up as a surprise on 5th October? In the private sector, if a company is in financial difficulties, detailed discussions would be expected to be held

1469
between bankers and debtors in straitened circumstances. They would not expect discussions to be held on one basis while the banker plotted to do something else. Did the Government have open discussions with Railtrack about the options during that period?
I turn from that part of the story to the Government's plans for a new company to run the railway infrastructure. The noble and learned Lord told us that the Government were unwilling to write a blank cheque to Railtrack. But so far they have failed to set out the financial implications of the post-Railtrack regime. They said that they will provide a stand-by, subordinated loan provision which will be capped. But they have not said on what terms it will be made available, nor how much they expect the facility to cost. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify those matters and say, in particular, what estimates the Government make of the amount of the cap to be applied.
Only time will tell whether financial institutions will buy that proposition. But there will be a direct correlation between the kinds of limits and conditions that the Treasury try to write into support for the new company, the willingness of lenders to lend and the price at which they are prepared to lend. The Government may want to avoid guarantees or other forms of blank cheque, but like other noble Lords I believe it is far from clear that they will achieve it.
The Government intend to use a private company limited by guarantee as the successor company. The Government have not yet said who the guarantors will be. Indeed, the Minister said on 17th October, in response to my noble friend Lady Blatch, that there will not be a need for guarantors. I have never heard a company limited by guarantee that does not have guarantors.
In a Written Answer in another place on 23rd October, the Secretary of State said that the Strategic Rail Authority will be a founder member and that the majority of other members will come from the private sector, including individuals from passenger and employee groups, and,
"Individuals drawn from private sector companies with a direct stake in the railways."
Presumably those will he the guarantors.
What evidence do the Government have that private sector individuals, especially from companies with a stake in the railways, will be willing to become members and hence guarantors of this new company? Those guarantees may not be large in financial terms, but for the private sector of much greater significance is the issue of reputation risk in becoming involved in the new company.
The Secretary of State also said that,
"the members would have a governance role equivalent to that of shareholders but would have no additional powers".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/01: col. 196W.]
That is very nice theory. But the Government are creating a forum in which the divergent interests of the members will be played out. Those members do not
1470
have the financial incentives of shareholding to guide their actions. They will be guided by their sectional interests. If there were disagreements, for example, over the appointment of directors, that could easily paralyse the effective operation of the new board.
However hard the Government try to set up a professional PLC-equivalent board, it will be difficult in practice for that to take effect. The disciplines of ownership pressures from shareholders will be replaced by an uncertain regime of stakeholder interests coupled with government involvement, whether direct or through the Strategic Rail Authority. At its highest, it is an experiment in corporate governance and such an experiment is a dangerous thing when we are talking about a business which is significant for our economy.
In the Statement of 15th October it was also said that,
"Performance targets would be set linked to levels of service, safety and value for money".—[Official Report, 15/10/01; col. 386.]
But who will set those targets? How will they be set? And who will take action if the targets are not met? In this world without shareholders that the Government are trying to create, those are important questions in understanding whether the company can in fact operate on a sensible basis.
Finally, I should like to touch on whether the successor company can genuinely be said to be outside the public sector, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. This is not a semantic point as to whether or not the Government have nationalised Railtrack by the back door; it is about whether, going forward, this company is on or off the Government's balance sheet and hence whether the company's borrowings are counted as public debt.
If I understand the doctrine correctly, the Office of National Statistics would count a company as within the public sector if it were de facto controlled by the public sector. So while we can see that in a technical sense it could be said that control was in the private sector if the Government manage to find a majority of the members from the private sector and those members then appoint a majority of the directors; but will not the substance remain that the company is controlled by the Government, either directly or through the SRA? Direct financial support will dominate the company's finances and new loans, whether direct or through special purpose vehicles, will need to be propped up by the financial cushion provided by the Government, and may even require explicit financial guarantees.
The whole world will know that the Government will call the tune for the new company. Is it not the worst form of window dressing to pretend otherwise in the national accounts? I look forward to the remainder of the debate today and to the response of the noble and learned Lord.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I start by apologising for not being in my place for the first half

1471
of the debate. I was attending the Constitution Committee. I shall undertake to read Hansard even more rigorously than usual and the contributions I have missed.
In view of what I want to say, I should perhaps declare one or two interests. My home is set on a hill above the track bed of the proposed Stirling Alloa Kincardine railway. I have outline planning consent for a new suburb of Alloa and, perhaps less related, I am a regular traveller with GNER while coming to this House.
I am pleased that the debate has brought to the House a subject which is relevant to Scotland. Railways are largely a reserved matter, though there is a distinct place for the Scottish Executive in railway matters. That is not a complaint. I believe in Scottish domestic self-government and, possibly perversely, in one railway network for Great Britain.
This morning I received Answers to four Written Questions. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his largely helpful replies. In particular I approve of the placement of responsibility for railway reopening projects with the SRA. I, among others, look forward to the publication of the SRA strategic plan in November.
I cannot avoid mentioning the reopening of the Alloa railway. Under the leadership of the Clackmannanshire Council, that project is nearly ready for the off. A cost-benefit analysis will be available in December confirming both passenger and freight potential. The reopening of the railway from Stirling to Alloa and Kincardine would deliver benefits in four sectors. First, the re-establishment of the 11 or so miles of track would reconnect Stirling with Dunfermline and would bring railways back to several towns and enhance the network. The railway is operational from Kincardine to Dunfermline.
Secondly, Scotrail's proposed hourly passenger service from Alloa to Glasgow and half-hourly service to Stirling puts Alloa, Scotland's largest town, back on to the railway network. It puts Alloa into the Glasgow travel-to-work area, and, for example, would allow Glaswegians to move home to rural Clackmannanshire, with all its leisure and recreational possibilities, while continuing to commute to their jobs in Glasgow.
Thirdly, the railway running through to Kincardine will enable coal trains from Ayrshire to find a shorter route to Longannet Power Station, a major energy source capable of 26 megawatts and with a substantial future. The passenger railway would provide local benefits. However, the freight railway would provide national benefits. Not only would coal trains have a shorter journey; the congestion on the Forth Rail Bridge would be reduced. Hence, more passenger services could be allowed on to the bridge.
Fourthly, the Alloa railway would allow substantial rail access to the proposed Rosyth Europort. The opportunity to export goods by sea to Europe must not be missed. Excellent infrastructure in the hinterland will be essential for us to land the environmental benefits which Rosyth Europort will
1472
make possible. In the light of the lobbying material I received this morning from the Central Railway, I suppose that the Central Railway and Rosyth Europort will be in some form of competition in the Scottish context.
Railway reopenings are complex activities, even when the track bed is still intact. While I praise the project leadership of Clackmannanshire Council, I believe that railway reopenings and new routes should be facilitated by a section of the SRA which will, or jolly well should, become a centre of excellence in that activity. Whatever experience and expertise the Clackmannanshire Council may have gained will be difficult to pass on. An SRA team will take the knowledge from project to project across Great Britain.
I know from the Minister's Answers that the SRA will be able to pay towards the cost of some reopenings, while others will require the awkwardly-named "special purpose vehicles" approach. I hope that the Minister will clarify the scale of projects which will need an SPV. I suppose that the Larkhall project and Edinburgh Crossrail to Penicuik could be SRA-direct projects, while Borders Rail, from Edinburgh to Carlisle on the old Waverley route, will require an SPV.
Finally, I should like to mention a possible experiment in so-called vertical integration: the reconnection of rail and wheel which, it is rumoured, may be visited upon the railway network in Scotland. While it is always flattering for Scotland to test drive United Kingdom government initiatives, I am less than enthusiastic. I see problems with one train operator having charge of the Scottish network. I wonder about the issue of impartiality when there are six major train operators in Scotland, both passenger and freight. In history there always were problems with running power over another company's lines, which were exacerbated whenever there was competition. I see problems with standards if the Great Britain rail network is broken up in any way.
In conclusion, the mnemonic of the Stirling Alloa Dunfermline railway is "the SAD railway". We must keep our eye on the ball to give it a happy beginning and a rosy and substantial future.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he can help the House. He mentioned the cost benefit of the Stirling Alloa Dunfermline line. Is he able to give the House some figures for costs?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I must say honestly that I cannot. However, I can recall that Railtrack, which was happy with £15 million, suddenly decided that it would like a more gold-plated version and demanded £25 million. That was difficult to cope with, particularly as the Scottish Executive had already made a grant of £6.5 million towards the project. Railtrack's sudden change of heart was an unhappy one.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, as a child I was obsessed by railways. I would spend hour after hour sitting by the main line of the London and North Eastern Railway ticking off passing steam engines in my book of numbers. There were the great streamline beauties such as Mallard, Dominion of Canada and Sir Nigel Gresley. Each had a distinctive whistle. At night from my bed I could recognise those whistles and hear the swoosh of water as they dropped their nozzles into the Langley Troughs, the first water pick-up out of Kings Cross.
Indeed, it was my ambition to become an engine driver, one that, happily, I was able to fulfil many years later on a privately-owned two foot narrow gauge steam railway. I have also been a commuter depending on the railways for daily transport to and from work in London. Indeed, in those days when asked casually what I did for exercise, golf or tennis, I would reply, "No, I run for trains". It is with great sadness that I witness the current state of the railways and the demise of Railtrack.
However, I believe that we now have to ask ourselves, perhaps again, whether the age of the railway is over. When it is possible to fly to New York and back for less than the cost of a return rail ticket to Edinburgh. something must be wrong. If travel by train is expensive now, how much more expensive will it be after the £63 billion investment promised in John Prescott's 10-year transport plan?
In his article in the Daily Telegraph on 15th October, Roger Ford, the Editor of Rail Business Intelligence wrote of the expense and muddle of the safety requirements now being imposed on the railways. He says that the cost per life saved of installing the train protection and warning system is now around £10 million, three times the maximum in Railtrack's original safety case and 100 times what the Government spend per life saved on the roads. He adds that British Rail's original electrification of the West Coast Main Line in 1966 averaged £5 million per mile. Now it is more like £15 million per mile. To the layman those figures are horrific.
The solution is not obvious. Noble Lords have made many suggestions about what should be done and the next stages to be undertaken. However, I believe that we taxpayers have to ask ourselves whether we are being blinded by old habits. For example, might not these huge sums be better spent in extending and improving the road network? Are there any more radical alternatives to consider? Could we convert some of the lines to express bus routes?
Clearly, commuter rail services around major conurbations have a continuing vital role to play. However, parking is a regular problem with commuter services. Most stations are in town centres with limited parking areas. Commuter cars fill up the car parks and reduce the spaces available for shoppers during the day. A way out of that difficulty might be to create more edge-of-town parkway stations with ample parking for commuters and good shuttle bus links to the town centre and local residential areas. Problems may arise, of course, if the green belt is involved.
1474
The present plight of our railways is dire and will require some tough decisions. I do not envy the task of those who will have to make them. I only hope that the decisions will be based on a broad and fair assessment of the most efficient and competitive transport modes available in the decades to come and not just on railway nostalgia.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am a professional railwayrnan; I joined the railway at the age of 17. I do not accept the criticisms which have been made generally about British Rail. The infrastructure was not poor. That there was constant interference by Ministers about pay, fares and investment is true, but the railway was handed over in pretty good fettle. Today it is not in good fettle. If one looks out of the carriage window at the wet spots in the rail or broken rails one sees that standards have declined substantially.
I was a railwayman in the west of England division. I was Operating Superintendent from Penzance to Worcester. I went to Liverpool. I went to Crewe. I was responsible for the national timetable. I was Director of Operations for British Rail; and I was General Manager of the Western Region. Therefore I have some background in the railways. At the time, I think that many of us believed that privatisation was a good thing. We were living in the euphoria of the privatisation of water, gas, electricity, telecommunications and B AA. But the model which was adopted for the railways is the wrong model and that is the cause of the trouble that we are now in.
The sudden collapse of Railtrack was a surprise. We expected it gradually and slowly to collapse because it was a thoroughly inefficient company. That is the reason that it has collapsed. From the very beginning it was inefficient and its inefficiency is writ large on almost everything to which it set its hand.
It is not surprising that no off-the-shelf solutions are available for the problems. It was a sudden collapse. It takes time to think about the solutions which will emerge. They cannot emerge immediately. It may be as long as two years before we know the solutions. After all, it took the Conservative Government two years and more to privatise the railway—in fact, almost the whole of a Parliament.
We are now in receivership. I think that we shall emerge into the green fields at some time in the future. I believe that vertical integration is essential. Only one person can control a railway. I have heard the arguments against that from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others and I shall deal with them. Other mechanisms can be tried, but underlying them all is vertical integration of the wheel and the rail. I know that Rail Freight Group is against it. I know that the Association of Train Operating Companies is against it but it is a trade association and unlikely to come forward with any proposals which do not fit the lowest common denominator. That is what trade associations do and that is what they are for.

1475
I believe that freight can be protected in two ways. The paths, at the new price which has been agreed by the Rail Regulator, can be bought by the SRA and investment can be made by the SRA. Freight is important and the SRA has to protect it but there are mechanisms for protection. There are difficulties in financing the 10-year plan but we believe in it. We want train operating companies to be able to invest where they want to invest. Last week I asked Stagecoach where it wanted to invest. It replied, "In car parks". It is often not what one expects. If the companies are in charge they want to invest in small things.
Incremental investment in a long franchise is probably the way forward. We do not believe in a north-south divide. The noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Greaves, spoke of the parlous state of many of the railways in the north of England. It is not good enough that half of the country is being treated as a second-class citizen. We need a new north-south line. That will free up capacity on the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines for freight and other purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, referred to fares regulation. We need to look at the issue again. But some fares need to come down while others increase. The reduction of 1 per cent has not been felt by many users because most train operating companies have another clause by which they can put up fares if quality has increased.
We shall need longer, possibly rolling, franchises. By that I mean a franchise whose end date is moved so that one does not have a hiatus in investment which extends also to training, station refurbishment and many other matters.
We want to see consolidation of franchises. I do not mean that there is no room for small franchises, because some work very well. But there has to be some consolidation; and we have to revisit the issue of running powers where freight trains and cross-country trains can run on the metal of another company. There have been some famous disputes about running powers—the lighting at Carlisle in 1908, and so on. Such disputes are now read for amusement by people who know about railways. Any disputes on running powers were largely settled in brief business before lunch at a monthly luncheon for general managers. That demonstrates how difficult they were to deal with.
We are interested in how the SRA, or its successor, will relate to the DETR. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will make clear how these two bodies will get on together. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that we did not need two people to do one job. The noble Lord also referred to salaries. When I was a railwayman I do not recall ever being highly motivated by the extent of my salary. In a debate in the House last week the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke about public service. That is a motivating feature of which we should not lose sight.
We need to train engineers, drivers and many others. Last year the Stagecoach group managed to recruit four graduates. Many companies recruited none at all.
1476
Stagecoach by its own admission, needs to recruit about 20 graduates. It is very difficult to attract people to an industry which is the butt of people's jokes.
The unions are not in general a force for good and exist in a Victorian world. They try to put the clock back and say that more guards and drivers are required to do the same amount of work. Although operating a train is a skilled job, these days it is not so skilled that it takes two years to train someone to drive a local passenger train. Changes need to be made.
I turn to the West Coast Main Line. Perhaps 125 miles an hour is enough and Virgin should be offered the Silverlink franchise. If so, I am sure that a different railway would emerge. A good deal of the cushion would be squeezed out because one operator would operate the railway.
Regulation was introduced on the railways in part to introduce competition. I remember that many of the early advocates told us that we would turn up at Waterloo and make our choice of the red, yellow or blue train, and that was the reason for regulation. Passengers and customers do not want such regulation; they just want a good, reliable service. We need such economic regulation as complies with EU law, not an all-pervasive regulator.
Although performance regimes generally are very expensive, which is their greatest effect, they have not raised performance. When I was in charge of the West Coast Main Line 90 per cent of services ran on time, not 10 minutes or so late. It has become a lot worse since then. I believe that performance regimes are wasteful and we should find something else to replace them. Obviously, people must pay for short or cancelled trains, and the SRA has a mechanism to deal with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also mentioned safety. Once we have TPWS installed on the system we shall not kill anyone else in collisions. I have just looked at the figures over a 20-year period. In only one year did BR kill a significant number of people in a train accident. It is possible to have safety without an all-pervasive Health and Safety Executive whose costs are so high that it cannot even tell the Library what they are. However, those costs are substantially more than they used to be under the form of regulation to which I was accustomed on the railways.
Therefore, we are on the side of passengers and freight. We are willing to give fair passage to any legislation which in due course comes before this House. If it meets the criteria that I have set out we shall be enthusiastic supporters of it.
6.54 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for giving us the opportunity to put the Government under scrutiny on their rail policy. The Government have tried to shift the blame for the demise of Railtrack by claiming that it is not their fault but that of the previous Conservative government who introduced rail privatisation. The noble and learned Lord levelled that accusation against me last week and I intend to deal with it this evening. I take the House

1477
back to 1993 when the then Conservative government brought the Railways Bill before Parliament. During the passage of the Bill the Labour Party fought privatisation tooth and nail, as was its right. But even after the Bill passed into law the Labour Party did everything that it could to try to wreck the process. I remind noble Lords that Clare Short, then the Labour transport spokesman, threatened that a new Labour government would renationalise the railways without compensation to those who had invested. Despite these threats the privatisation of rail went ahead successfully and raised just under £2 billion for Railtrack. The Labour Party could not prevent privatisation but wanted to see it fail. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of its policy document Consensus for Change published in June 1996:
"A Labour government will use its powers to acquire the ownership of Railtrack".
I believe that privatisation and public/private partnerships work. They bring improved efficiency and better customer service. They work because of good management and the right incentives. We all remember that at the start of the privatisation of the railways it was difficult for train operating companies. All of us must accept that under-investment in the rail system over a very long period meant that a lot of catching up was required. But since 1994 there have been dramatic changes. There are now 30 per cent more passengers using the rail system. In 1994 there were 735 million passenger journeys, and last year 957 million passengers were carried.
At the beginning, the companies had to operate with old rolling stock and it took time before real improvements became apparent. Some operators have been more successful than others. Some of the less successful operators have, quite rightly, lost their franchise. Passengers are still frustrated by delays and cancellations. I do not pretend that there is not a lot more to do and many more improvements to make, but the rail companies have shown a dramatic improvement since the days of BR. I accept that there could have been improvements in the way that incentives were established. Train operators were encouraged to increase revenue and cut costs, while incentives to improve the quality of the services were weak.
The Government now appear to accept the principle of private rail operators, but that is open to question. The Government claim that they want further private sector investment in the network, but some of the rail operators are coming to the end of their 10-year licences. If the Government wanted to sustain levels of investment they would have given out new long-term franchise extensions to those operators who had proved successful. What did they do? They granted only two-year extensions to the operating companies. Like my noble friend Lord Freeman, I ask the Government how they expect the companies to plan and invest for the long term. Will the Minister explain why extensions have been granted for only two years?
1478
As far as I am aware, not even the most fervent Labour revisionist has called for the renationalisation of those train operating companies. There was a slight wobble when John Prescott said in his speech to the Labour Party Conference in 1997:
"I will keep open the option of the public sector running the railway".
Will the Minister give an assurance that those train operating companies will not be brought into the public sector?
I turn to Railtrack. I contend that privatisation was also the right approach. I accept that there are arguments that it could have been done in many different ways. With hindsight, it is easy to put together different scenarios. One alternative which has been mentioned this afternoon would have been the vertical integration of track and train operators, but I remind your Lordships that other similar industries have successful separations. The infrastructure of the electricity industry is owned by the National Grid, not the generators. The posit ion is also similar in the gas industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that rail was different. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, disagreed with him and believed that there should be such separation. There is a difference of view. But it is important to remember that Railtrack is responsible for the timetabling, signalling and priority of train services. If it was the responsibility of, say, local companies, who would decide on the priorities of express services against local services, the Royal Mail or freight?
Another alternative was that Railtrack should have been split into six regional companies, either independent or linked with the operators. That point has been raised. That would have been difficult to operate as many smaller train companies operate part or most of their services on shared tracks. I doubt whether any of those alternatives would have worked better. I believe, however, that there should have been greater incentives for Railtrack to increase the use of its infrastructure.
What I am clear about is that without privatisation there would not have been the money to improve the rail network. Since 1994 about £15 billion of private investment has been put into the railways. How much further behind would the network be without the money spent on safety upgrades and improvements?
The Government contend that privatisation was wrong or was done in the wrong way. If that is so, it is up to the Government to explain why. The Government have had five years to put in place changes if they thought that was the case. They have not done so. My noble friend Lord Goschen reminded us about that matter. They have set up the Strategic Rail Authority but it has yet to produce a strategic rail plan. The Minister accuses us of getting it wrong. I do not claim that we got it 100 per cent right, but I strongly defend the principles of our policy.
However, I must tell the Government—this is perhaps the most important point I want to make on the subject of Railtrack—that if we had been sitting on

1479
their side of the House we would have acted. If the structure had needed to be altered, we would have come back to Parliament. We would have been flexible. If changes had been needed we would have made them. We would have been honest about the problems.
My noble friend Lord MacGregor was absolutely right in his analysis of what has happened. What we would not have done is what the Government have done. They have put in place policies which have meant that Railtrack was bound to come under huge pressure. Because passenger and freight traffic grew so rapidly so did the demands on the infrastructure. The tragedies at Hatfield and Paddington and the subsequent safety improvements increased an already strained budget. Railtrack was caught by the demands of the Rail Regulator, the Health and Safety Executive and the Strategic Rail Authority. It had to carry out necessary and vital safety improvements, maintain the network and deal with an increasing capital expenditure programme.
The Government are responsible because two-thirds of Railtrack's income came from government subsidies. The noble and learned Lord claimed that Railtrack,
"needed a blank cheque from the Government for the next few years and the suspension of all regulatory control".—[Official Report, 15/10/01; col. 390.]
Railtrack strongly disputes that assertion. It disputes that it was insolvent. It further disputes that it ever asked for suspension from regulatory control. John Robinson, chairman of Railtrack, when asked if administration had been included in a presentation to government, said:
"It was always clear that administration was only ever noted for the purpose of ruling it out for compelling reasons. Railtrack was not insolvent at 4.45 pm on Friday October 11th until the Government withdrew its support".
The Secretary of State forced the company into administration by withdrawing government support and withdrawing a binding agreement made in March of £1.5 billion of funding through the Strategic Rail Authority. It is not true that Railtrack ever asked for a blank cheque. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Secretary of State therefore contravened Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. I have given the noble and learned Lord notice of that question and others that I want to ask him this evening.
Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Strategic Rail Authority, which is directly accountable to the Secretary of State and is responsible for planning and supervising the activities of the rail industry, was not consulted? Sir Alastair Morton, its chairman, has questioned why there was not a regulatory review into whether Railtrack was actually insolvent. Why was Sir Alastair not consulted by the Secretary of State before he acted? I can only conclude that the Government wanted Railtrack to fail.
Indeed, we know now that the Secretary of State's spin doctors told him that it was going to be a "good news story". It was going to be the Secretary of State standing out for the taxpayer against an unpopular
1480
company. I am afraid that the Secretary of State forgot that many of those taxpayers were also shareholders. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, they also forget that over 90 per cent of Railtrack employees are shareholders. Many have now lost their savings and are facing redundancy.
Can the Minister explain why the Rail Regulator, Tom Winsor, as early as June was publicly undermining Railtrack? Does the Minister think that that was the correct way for a regulator to behave? Was he acting at the behest of the Government?
The Government will face many claims from shareholders, bondholders and employees of Railtrack. I contend that the Government could have avoided this crisis. The Secretary of State is still running around changing policy almost on a daily basis. Has he finally made up his mind? We look forward to hearing the details of the Government's policy from the noble and learned Lord this evening.
I should like briefly to look at the Government's new proposals and their effect on the rail industry. I realise that I do not have too much time. However, the noble and learned Lord will note that he has, since we started at 3.20 p.m., an hour and a quarter in which to wind up. I am sure that he will not mind if I trespass a couple of minutes into his time, unless of course he wants to speak for an hour and a quarter—in which case I shall immediately sit down.
If we want a better railway the Government must get right the structure, management and incentives. There must be clear objectives, clear performance criteria and clarity of the roles of the different public authorities with—this is important—strong independent regulation. Adequate funding from the Government must be in place before the private sector finance can be raised. A culture of improved service to customers must be imposed from the top of the organisation.
The Minister criticised Railtrack for paying its recent dividend. Does the Minister agree that one can raise private finance only on the basis that there will be some return? Railtrack had been asked by the Government to raise new equity. It would have had no chance if it had passed on its dividend.
If the new company is going to be a non-profit, non-dividend company how will the Government get the £30 billion of private finance required over the next 10 years? Railtrack, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Rail Regulator, the train operating companies and the department all believe that they have an important role in the future. That would not be a problem if they also had clear roles and responsibilities. I believe that there is a muddle.
On Friday, the Minister in another place, David Jamieson, was asked in a Question for Written Answer about an approach from West LB, the German bank. He answered that it was up to the bank to submit its proposals to the railway administrator,
"who is responsible for making proposals on how to move the company out of administration".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/01; col. 425W.]

1481
In another Written Answer he said that the Government,
"intend to enable a proposal to be made to the railway administrators which would, if accepted, result in the transfer of both the business of the company and the debt of the finance creditors participating in the standstill to a new company limited by guarantee".—[col. 425W.]
Since then the Minister has also answered a further Question in another place, saying that any proposal made by the administrator will go to the Secretary of State for consideration and approval. That begs the question: who is making the policy here? Is it the administrator or the Government? Does the administrator therefore not have any form of duty to the shareholders, or will his sole duty be to the Secretary of State?
We are also told that the new company will not be responsible for new track or major upgrades. Those will be left to special purpose vehicles. Therefore, we shall have an extra body working on the railways. That will mean more confusion. It will certainly cost more money. Will these special purpose vehicles be responsible for signalling, safety and ongoing maintenance? How will that work?
Who will he affected in the end? I am afraid that it comes back, as always, to the poor old passengers. The Government's plans will mean delays. They will mean delays on the introduction of new trains, new safety measures, new signalling, new stations and platform upgrades. Again the people who will suffer most are the passengers.
7.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It has been an impressive discussion, although I doubt that anyone needed to call attention to the problems facing the rail industry, since they are plain for all to see, most particularly in the recent failure of Railtrack. The critical issue is how to address those problems now.
I pay special tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said that it was the best speech he had heard in 30 years. I have not been a Member of the House for that long but, although I disagree with several points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I do not think that anyone could deny that it was an incredibly impressive speech. It provided a strong start to the debate.
A number of contributions dealt with issues regarding rail travel in particular parts of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who unfortunately is not in his place, spoke of the problems encountered in the provision of freight services in East Anglia; the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, outlined difficulties in the north of England, as did the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; the noble Lord, Lord Elder, dealt with problems in relation to Scotland; the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also referred to problems
1482
in the north of England; and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, treated the House to the new world of the Alloa railway.
I hope that those noble Lords who referred to specific regions of the country will forgive me if I deal in writing with the particular points that they have raised. However, all noble Lords emphasised with force the considerable problems faced by the rail network. Using graphic descriptions, they have illustrated the need for action, investment and a proper structure that will deliver a rail network that is suitable for the travelling public.
Perhaps I may begin my remarks by turning to rail privatisation and the creation of Railtrack. The previous Tory administration made a mess of restructuring the railway industry, in particular as regards the rushed privatisation of Railtrack. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, who at the time was the Secretary of State for Transport, readily acknowledged the privatisation and in his contribution gave a detailed defence of his actions. He deprecated the blame culture that had taken over since privatisation. He then blamed the current Secretary of State, he blamed the personality of the regulator; he blamed individual decisions reached by the current Secretary of State he blamed the Strategic Rail Authority. He said that all was going well until Paddington and Hatfield, but later in his remarks commented that, after Paddington and Hatfield, things began to go wrong.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, listened to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, during which he quoted passages from the account written by Lord Cullen of what had been taking place in Rail track prior to Paddington. If the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, interpreted that account of the state of affairs in Railtrack as an indication that things were going well, then in my view he was sorely mistaken. Things were not going well. Paddington and Hatfield simply brought to the surface a whole series of real problems.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Transport from 1994 and thus, I assume, not party to the decision to privatise, also vigorously defended rail privatisation. However, he appeared to defend it on two separate bases. He said, first, that the Labour Government had not moved quickly enough to make changes. He then appeared to state that we had moved too quickly to bring Railtrack to an end once the administration had taken place. He commented that we should have allowed the company to continue for longer. The noble Viscount was not clear—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is very good at tempting me to my feet. I do not think that I made any of those comments. I said that the noble and learned Lord's administration had four-and-a-half years in which to look at the structure of Railtrack, but took no positive action to provide a remedy. When the Government did take action, it was

1483
a precipitate move to force the company out of business. That did not form part of a controlled process and thus should be deprecated.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Viscount stated that we were too slow in making changes and too quick in bringing Railtrack to an end. As I said, it is not clear which attack was favoured by the noble Viscount.
When we came to power in 1997, we were pragmatic about the rail industry. We took the view that the right course, given that the clock could not be turned back, was to acknowledge that privatisation had taken place and then to make every effort to ensure that the system which we had inherited worked well. I do not think that there can be any doubt that that is what we tried to do. We most certainly did not seek the demise of Railtrack. I believe that many would share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elder; that is, perhaps we took too long to come to a conclusion about the future of Railtrack.
It has been alleged that the decision to put Railtrack into administration was taken long before 5th October. Some appear to believe that the Government were waiting for an opportunity to step in, wind up Railtrack and get the company on the cheap. That is most certainly not the case. Let me give noble Lords all the facts as they have been detailed both in another place and in this House.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner pointed out that last July, Railtrack approached the department with the news that the company's financial problems were far worse than had been anticipated less than four months earlier. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will recall that, at that time, an agreement had been reached in which the Government would give Railtrack £1.5 billion. However, when Railtrack met with the DTLR on 25th July, it stated that the sum of £1.5 billion was not sufficient to keep the company going. So there is no question of the DTLR reneging on any agreement that had been reached.
As I have said, back in April the Government agreed to a package of funding measures which we understood would stabilise the financial position of Railtrack—that is what we had been told. Suddenly we were then told that, unless the Government put up yet more money, the company would face severe financial difficulties in trying to meet its debt repayments, thereby affecting its ability to declare itself as a going concern when it came to announce interim results in November. Noble Lords will understand that that would have made it impossible for Railtrack to continue to trade. At that stage, in July, receivership was mentioned—although that is the wrong expression.
The Government asked Railtrack to bring forward acceptable restructuring proposals. From late July until early October various iterations were discussed and considered, but ultimately the best that Railtrack and its advisers could come up with was a package that amounted to an open-ended funding request with no
1484
guarantee of improved performance. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, indicated during the course of his remarks that Railtrack was a company that did not know what assets it owned. That was the state of the management of Railtrack by this October. Thus it was not surprising that Railtrack was not in a position to calculate what sums of money, in addition to the £1.5 billion which had been agreed in April, it now required to survive.
The Government were faced with the option of continuing to fund Railtrack. After detailed discussions held through July, August, September and the beginning of October as regards what was required, the Government were faced with giving Railtrack an open-ended guarantee to continue financing the company, with no idea of how much would be required and no idea of how long such uncapped finance would be needed.
As a responsible Government, it was our duty, throughout the period of the detailed discussions, to make contingency plans in the event that Railtrack failed to come up with acceptable proposals. We would rightly have been criticised if we had not done so. We put work in hand to explore other options, including the possibility of administration, if it came to that. On the basis that administration was a possibility, we also commissioned work to consider what might replace Railtrack in that event. Again, we would have been criticised if such work had not been carried out.
There is absolutely no element of subterfuge or plot here. These are simply the actions of a prudent government, seeking to ensure that they are ready for any contingency. As I made clear in the Statement on 15th October, discussion of Railtrack's proposals continued until 3rd October. On 5th October my right honourable friend the Secretary of State reviewed all the relevant papers and considered all the options, including Railtrack's proposed rescue package and the additional funding required. He decided that he could not give Railtrack a blank cheque.
That decision was made during the course of Friday afternoon. At that stage the right action to take was to speak immediately to the board of Railtrack. The Secretary of State asked the chairman of Railtrack to come to see him. The chairman arrived at approximately 5 o'clock that evening, when he was told what the position was. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there was a board meeting of Railtrack at 2 o'clock on Saturday. At that board meeting, the decision was made by the Railtrack board not to oppose the grant of an administration order.
The following day, Mr Justice Lightman, sitting in the Chancery Division, granted an order placing Railtrack in administration. He said that it was urgent and right that such an order should be made. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described the evidence as "quite thin". That is not the view taken by Mr Justice Lightman. He thought that it was a clear and urgent case.
As regards the position of the shareholders, the allegation is that we pulled the rug from under the shareholders "precipitately", to use the word of the

1485
noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. In April, when the agreement which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, wrongly said that we broke was made, we agreed a statement of principle with Railtrack as part of the April settlement. The first point read:
"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 to the Stock Exchange news service.
The message could not have been plainer. Indeed, it was clearly well understood by Railtrack management. In an interview to the Financial Times on 11th April, Railtrack's chief executive, Mr Steve Marshall, said:
"Yes, they [the Government] would allow us to go bust. It's quite clearly item one on the agreement with Government. While the Government stands behind the industry, they don't stand behind any particular company, of course they don't".
The management of Railtrack were perfectly aware of what was the position because it had been spelt out in the agreement published in April 2001.
So it is wrong—it is based on wrong information—to suggest that there was any breach of an agreement; it is wrong to suggest that the position was not made absolutely clear in April; and it is wrong to suggest that that was not made public.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if I may continue with the issue of the shareholders, I shall then let the noble Lord intervene.
I should make it clear that the Government sympathise with Railtrack shareholders, particularly Railtrack employees and other small investors. We are prepared to work with Railtrack Group to assist in realising the value of group assets, but, as we have made clear, the Government cannot justify putting more taxpayers' money into supporting Railtrack's poor performance or shareholders' value.
We have been as open as possible. It is for others to consider whether Railtrack itself has been sufficiently forthcoming in keeping its own shareholders properly informed of its financial position. Our priority has been to ensure the continuing, safe operation of the rail network. The board of Railtrack plainly had obligations to its shareholders which it was obliged to discharge. Railtrack, as the interview with Mr Marshall on 11 th April makes clear, was fully aware of the whole position.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. From what he says now, he is indeed conceding that for some time, as the documents show, the Government had been contingency planning to place Railtrack in administration. He has also explained that the last
1486
minute flurry in evidence was caused by Railtrack refusing to sign its own death warrant, as it had every right to do.
Is the Minister aware that what he has said means that the Secretary of State had made his decision before the Stock Market closed on. Friday, 5th October, and that the Government therefore allowed a false market to take place, at least on Friday, 5th October?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a ridiculous suggestion, if I may say so. I have made clear that during the course of the afternoon the Secretary of State reviewed the papers, made up his mind and called immediately for the chairman of the board of the company—which is precisely the right course—who came at 5 p.m. and was told what the Secretary of State had in mind. The idea that that created a false market is, with respect to the noble Lord, ridiculous.
It is important now to ensure that we do not waste this opportunity to create a better railway system. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have urged us to take that opportunity, and we agree that it is an opportunity that we must take. We all agree that change is required.
We are developing what we regard as an attractive successor vehicle, and we will put a proposal to the administrator for a company limited by guarantee—a "CLG", as I shall call it as time goes on—to take over Railtrack plc's railway assets and its role as a network operator.
As recent press coverage has made clear—the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to this—there is every possibility that there may be more than one transfer proposal before the administrator. We welcome this. It is the administrator's duty to consider all reasonable proposals put to him and, under Schedule 7 to the Railways Act 1993, to make a recommendation to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for his consideration and approval.
To assist potential proposals, guidelines on the principal issues that will need to be satisfied to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State are to be outlined today in response to a Written Question in another place. That Written Question was answered at 3.30 p.m. and set out the principles in relation to other bids.
We remain confident, however, that our proposals for a CLG—to be developed and put to the administrator by a separate bid team—will offer the best solution. Our proposals were outlined in a little more detail last week in response to a Writ ten Question in another place. Some noble Lords may find it helpful if I reiterate the main aspects.
A company limited by guarantee would be a private sector company. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of whether it would be really a private sector company. The Office of National Statistics, an independent body, has to make the decision about that. It has made the decision that it is.

1487
It would not have shareholders and consequently would not have the need to pay dividends in return for equity funding.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain how the Office of National Statistics can make a decision in the absence of a fully worked-out set of proposals being put to the administrators?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously it will have to look at the matter again, but, on the basis of the proposals that have already been outlined, it believes the position would be that the CLG would not be in the public sector; it would be in the private sector.
The CLG would be a private sector company without shareholders and consequently without the need to pay dividends in return for equity funding. Its management would be incentivised on a commercial basis to deliver efficiency and performance improvements. Operating surpluses from the company would be reinvested in the network.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked what would be the management structure and whether it would be sufficiently stable to deliver. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, raised the same point. The board, which we anticipate would comprise between 12 and 15 executive and non-executive directors, would be highly professional. It would be tightly focused on delivering a quality rail network fit for the 21st-century and would be remunerated and incentivised accordingly. Corporate governance structures would be comparable to those of a traditional plc.
As noble Lords know, instead of shareholders, a CLG has members. Those are the people that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly described as the guarantors. The guarantee in a company limited by guarantee is a nominal guarantee, similar to a nominal share value.
The Strategic Rail Authority would be founder member of the CLG and we anticipate that the majority of the other members would come from the private sector. Individuals drawn from private sector companies with a direct stake in the railways, other interests including passenger groups and employees and the SRA or its successor could all be possible members.
The members would have a governance role equivalent to that of shareholders but would have no additional powers. They would be well placed to ensure the high performance and full accountability of the board. In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the company structure would certainly comply with all EU directives.
For funding purposes, the CLG would have the same sources of revenue as Railtrack—property income, track access charges and grant. Some 90 per cent of the company's income would be covered by stable long-term contracts. Revisions to these contracts, for example to reflect any changes to the
1488
regulatory regime, would be subject to independent regulation in respect of the fair price to be paid for the outputs that the Government wish to purchase.
The CLG would be structured to ensure that it was sufficiently financially robust to contribute towards the delivery of our 10-year plan targets for rail, for which we have committed some £30 billion of public expenditure on the railways, with much improved value for money. It would be designed to ensure that it could play its role in levering in the matching £34 billion of private sector investment identified in the plan.
A number of speakers raised this issue. I believe that they have all accepted that a company limited by guarantee could not raise equity; it would have to raise debt finance. It would not need equity to raise debt finance. The company would have the existing debt from Railtrack transferred to it, and it would be able to borrow further from the debt market to the extent necessary.
The Government are confident that the CLG would be able to raise funds—
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend help the House? I believe it to be the case that in the 10-year plan the—34 billion of investment from the private sector includes investment in rolling stock, both passenger and freight. But that has little to do with the CLG; it is investment by the rolling stock leasing companies and other such bodies. That is unaffected by the present change.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is unaffected by it. Indeed, much of the major infrastructure investment will come from special purpose vehicles. The new body will be focused on the maintenance and engineering job that Railtrack has had to undertake. One point is very clear from what happened to Railtrack. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will agree. One of the things that seemed to happen was that the rail engineering abilities of Railtrack—whatever else British Rail's faults were—were not as good as British Rail's had been. The new company will focus on the delivery of that particular function.
The cost of the borrowing would, as speakers on all sides of the House have said, depend on the company's credit rating. Under the proposals that we are currently developing, we should expect it to have a solid investment grade—that is, at least BBB, and potentially higher.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, in a slightly contradictory sequence in his speech, appeared to say on the one hand that the market would regard the standby facility as being something akin to a guarantee, and on the other that nevertheless it would charge high rates of interest. We anticipated that in practice lenders would view the company as a very low credit risk and a sound basis for their investment. The "cushion" between the risk of poor financial performance and debt providers that equity would provide under the standard PLC model would come from two main sources.

1489
First, we should expect to put in place an arrangement by which the company could access a standby, subordinated loan facility. This facility would be enshrined in a contract, providing explicit support in specific circumstances up to a predetermined limit. It would be capped. It would not amount to a government guarantee of debt, but the repayment of this facility would be "last in the queue" as regards creditors for repayment. The possible value of this facility would be determined once the administrator had a better understanding of Railtrack plc's true financial position. So we are talking about a subordinated loan up to a specified amount. That is the first point on which the market will have to judge the proposal. Although I understand people raising issues about this, the ability to judge what credit rating there will be will very much depend, to start with, on the market's view of that facility. So it might be sensible to wait until the market has had an opportunity to make a judgment about that.
Secondly, although the company would not be distributing profits in the form of dividends, it would earn a surplus over direct costs. This would be sufficient over time to build up a significant reserve. So it would be a company with a subordinated loan facility, building up reserves. Can such a company get to a moderately high-level investment grade in the market'? Yes, it can. Whether it does so depends on the detail and the view taken by the market. Together, the company's reserves and the explicit loan facility would mean that the CLG would have access to sufficient funds to cover foreseeable circumstances.
Under the CLG structure revenues would go further than they would have done with Railtrack. The cost of capital would be lower, there would be no dividends and the company would be able to prioritise cashflows in favour of lenders.
In addition, the company would operate with much lower risks than Railtrack, concentrating on operating and maintaining the infrastructure as well as undertaking small-scale renewals. The CLG would not undertake major new projects with all their attendant risks of cost overrun.
As we announced in April this year, we anticipate that projects such as these, like the East Coast Main Line upgrade, will henceforward be undertaken by special purpose vehicles. These are likely to be bespoke joint venture companies financed through a partnership of government support and private sector investment.
A CLG would continue to undertake maintenance and small-scale renewals through contracts with the private sector infrastructure companies. However, it would improve the definition of these contracts, with greater clarity over the allocation of risk, and improve the management and monitoring of the outputs that are delivered.
A CLG company structure could be combined with a different, more streamlined, regulatory regime from the one under which the industry has had to labour to date and this would help to underpin its credit rating. Transparent independent economic regulation would
1490
continue to be an element in the regulatory regime. This will be a key part of our forthcoming consultation process.
In the light of my remarks, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor, Lord Freeman and Lord Oakeshott, to pause before they start to say that it will not be possible to raise debt in the market. Once the scheme is described in more detail, it will be seen as much easier than noble Lords are suggesting.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, we are not saying that it will not be possible to raise debt in the market; we are saying that it will be very expensive to do so in this way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is the noble Lord's view. Other speakers were more sepulchral. I say to the noble Lord, judge what the price may be when you see the details.
We are confident that the CLG that we propose, along with the associated regulatory changes would, among other things, produce a focused, professional, private sector company committed to maintaining and improving the rail network; rid the industry of the previous tensions between the need to generate short-term increases in share price and the long-term needs of the network; give those with a stake in our railway infrastructure an input into how that infrastructure is operated and maintained; and put an end, once and for all, to the divisions that were all too apparent in the industry when the network was under Railtrack's stewardship.
It has been a very difficult period for the railways. That much is obvious. It is obvious from the early speeches to which I referred that a great deal needs to be done. But there is an opportunity here to provide a proper future for the rail industry and to provide arrangements that will deliver for the travelling public. The important thing is that we should all act constructively in an attempt to ensure that we can deliver that.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, it is obvious that by the standards of this House it is in danger of becoming rowdy. It is important that the Cross Benches should intervene in an effort to restore peace and understanding.
It has been a great pleasure and an honour to take part in the debate. I thank all those noble Lords who have produced a classic House of Lords debate. It has been quiet, relevant and informed. It is no criticism to say that such a debate would not have been possible at the other end of the corridor. It has been well worth while and I am grateful to have taken part. Despite the fact that I could speak for at least another three-quarters of an hour, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I have three objectives in presenting this Bill to your Lordships: first, to remove some anomalies in the powers and functions of English Heritage; secondly, to recognise that in 1999 English Heritage merged with the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England and, thirdly, to implement some of the uncontroversial proposals in the 1996 Green Paper, Protecting our heritage, published by the previous Conservative government.
There are three broad policy issues covered in the Bill: underwater archaeology, the trading functions of English Heritage and the delegation of English Heritage functions to other relevant heritage bodies. I shall begin by speaking to Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6 together as the arguments relating to them are to a large extent common. These clauses transfer responsibility for underwater archaeology from the DCMS to English Heritage. Many organisations and professional and amateur practitioners in marine archaeology and associated occupations have asked for that development for many years. It has been a main recommendation of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee and was part of its 1989 Heritage at Sea proposals and the more recent follow-up, Still at Sea. It was universally accepted in the consultation which took place on the 1996 White Paper.
If this Bill is enacted we shall at last see underwater archaeology being dealt with by the most appropriate heritage organisation. The seas around Britain contain an immense wealth of archaeological sites and remains. Indeed, I estimate that the density of wrecks is probably the highest in the world. These include extensive submerged landscapes, mainly prehistoric, and remains from all the history of the British people and their exploitation of, and dependence on, the sea. As a major naval, mercantile and industrial power and as an island experiencing successive waves of settlement, our history is inextricably linked to our surrounding seas. But despite that rich maritime history, and in contrast to the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, English Heritage, the lead agency for managing the physical remains of the historic environment in England, does not have responsibility for marine archaeology. That means that English Heritage is unable to survey underwater sites or fund work on them, give advice relating to them or assist the Secretary of State in the discharge of functions conferred upon her by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.
I believe that we are failing to take the much needed action to protect a significant part of our national heritage. Much of the work that is done, if it is done at all, is undertaken by amateur groups, or relatively poorly resourced non-governmental organisations. That is despite a longstanding government commitment to treat the underwater heritage in a
1492
similar way to that on land. That is not intended as a party political point for it refers to both Conservative and Labour governments. It was indeed a commitment in the Conservative environment White Paper of 1990.
I summarise the problems with the current framework. The Protection of Wrecks Act was never intended as a long-term solution to statutory protection of the underwater heritage. Key problems arising from the Act and the procedures arising from it are as follows: it relates only to wreck sites and not to other forms of underwater site and it does not explicitly recognise the desirability of conserving sites, seeking only to apply appropriate standards of salvage. Unlike the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, it makes no provision for the active care and management of sites. It is concerned only with the problems arising from unregulated diving rather than with the wider range of activity such as aggregate extraction and fishing which, of course, could affect wrecks. Over the past 25 years it has, I am afraid, resulted in the protection of only about 50 sites around the United Kingdom.
Scotland and Wales do not suffer from those drawbacks as they are able to declare wrecks as ancient monuments and fully support their appropriate management and funding. I believe that the sooner English Heritage can operate in a similar fashion the better that will be. I refer, for example, to "Stirling Castle", a sealed 18th century warship, one of four sunk on the Goodwin Sands in the great storm of 1703 and recently partly exposed. At first the site was allowed to degrade through divers' activities and natural causes. Now it has been designated and divers and archaeologists are very aware of the respect due to the wrecks and their contents. There remain real concerns at natural decay caused by erosion, tides and storms. If the "Stirling Castle" were a monument on land, it would receive funds, proper management and continual attention. Maritime archaeology, therefore, languishes and cannot revive except through palliative care from dedicated and largely amateur activity. I believe that government should allow a structure that enables heritage agencies to become fully engaged. The current situation only allows English Heritage to act in an unofficial capacity.
I believe the benefits of my National Heritage Bill will be the following: English Heritage's expertise in site management and preservation can be applied; and the extension of definitions to include vessels, aircraft or other movable structure should take account of future desire to protect anything of archaeological significance. English Heritage should bring its expertise to bear to manage the archaeological diving contractor, providing buoys and providing the secretariat for the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites.
Maritime archaeology and protection of wrecks will benefit from the great advances made in terrestrial archaeology. The extension of English Heritage's remit should result in great endeavour across the whole range of marine archaeology, including

1493
prehistoric and mediaeval submerged sites, scattered debris relating to ships, shipping and coastal activity and seabed emplacements.
Also marine and terrestrial archaeology remains form a seamless physical and intellectual continuum and the extension of English Heritage's remit means that for the first time a framework would exist for a common approach to their study and management. A framework 'will exist which will allow resources to be directed to preservation in situ and active management of marine sites. As regards wrecks, proper management would consider and act on issues of erosion, aggregate extraction, fishing and development, as well as salvage and looting.
Divers are, of course, essential to the exploration and monitoring of wrecks and sites. The Bill is fully supported by associations representing divers and sub-aqua interests, who are committed to conservation and the aims of marine archaeology. They take positive action to educate their members about wreck protection.
I turn to Clauses 4 and 5 which deal with issues regarding the trading functions of English Heritage. Clause 4 enables English Heritage to produce souvenirs relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings which are situated in England and to sell souvenirs. It is important to point out that English Heritage will not be able to act in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in these matters.
Clause 5 amends an anomaly whereby English Heritage may offer its services and expertise in England but not currently outwith the United Kingdom. The National Heritage Act 1983 restricts the activities of English Heritage almost exclusively to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England. But there is a demand for English Heritage expertise, goods and services outside the UK, and the intention is, therefore, to give English Heritage the powers needed to meet that demand. As English Heritage will be able to charge for these services, the Bill will enable it to generate additional income.
I assure the House that English Heritage should not and will not operate in competition with existing commercial concerns. It will complement and not conflict with the services already offered by commercial concerns for operations outwith the UK. By developing relations with overseas bodies English Heritage will help to stimulate the market for UK commercial companies. Overseas agencies look to English Heritage for training and advice. They see English Heritage as at the forefront of heritage development, scientific techniques and environmental policy making. Less experienced agencies would, I believe, welcome its assistance, but will not find themselves subject to interference.
Clause 7 introduces new functions whereby English Heritage can delegate its functions to another person if it has the finance available to do work which is within its own remit but simply does not have available the personnel or the time to do the work itself. That is purely a practical solution to a problem that can arise.
1494
Clause 8, the last clause, covers commencement and extent, taking appropriate account of those matters that are devolved.
The two organisations that are directly affected by the Bill are English Heritage and the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites. Both have signalled their support for the Bill. I am grateful to David Miles, chief archaeologist at English Heritage, and Lady Merrison, who has recently retired as chairman of the advisory committee, for their wise counsel. On a personal note, I particularly thank Lady Merrison, who had the misfortune 36 years ago to teach me history at university. I hope by this Bill to be able to prove that I have not quite let her down yet.
I have received many letters of support from archaeological and heritage organisations and from members of the public. The Delegated Powers Committee has reported on the Bill and said that there is nothing in it to which the committee wishes to draw the attention of the House. However, it made one recommendation in paragraph 5, which says:
"However, we note that the Secretary of State has power by order to define boundaries for the purposes of the Bill. We are conscious of the sensitivity of this matter and would wish to be assured that the devolved authorities were content with the proposed arrangements".
I understand that the Minister has been in contact with the devolved administrations and will be able to give such an assurance tonight. My understanding is that the order referred to in Clause 1(3) will simply reiterate the definitions and co-ordinates of the boundaries published in the devolution legislation and that the co-ordinates will therefore cover remains on the sea-bed. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is her understanding too and that the devolved administrations are content with the order-making power.
Finally, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have put their names down to speak tonight. I hope that they feel able to support the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
7.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, it was unfortunate that the provisions in the Bill were lost with the rest of the Culture and Recreation Bill that was introduced in the last Session of the previous Parliament. The Government still think that t he changes need to be made, so I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, shares my view that the provisions deserve a second chance.
Broadening the powers of English Heritage to allow it to export its goods and services abroad and to take on work associated with underwater archaeology will be of great benefit not just to English Heritage, but to the historic environment and the heritage sector in general. I assure the House that these provisions have been subject to a number of extensive consultations and have received a very positive response from a wide

1495
range of heritage organisations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. I am happy to say that the Government wholeheartedly back the Bill. It is a good example of cross-party support for a Bill, underlining the important role that the historic environment can play in people's lives.
Before I speak more generally about the Government's view of the Bill, I shall deal with the issue raised by the Delegated Powers Committee and mentioned by the noble Baroness. Both wanted to be assured that the devolved administrations were content with Clause 1. I can confirm, as the noble Baroness has asked, that my department has been in contact with the devolved administrations. Both Ministers and officials in the devolved administrations said they were content with the Bill. The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales had originally expressed concerns about the order-making power under Clause 1, but I am pleased to say that we have been able to reassure them. The committee and the House can be assured that the devolved administrations are content with the proposed arrangements.
Perhaps I should briefly explain the need for the power. The Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 gave Her Majesty in Council and the Secretary of State powers to make orders determining territorial sea boundaries between the home countries. Those powers can be used only for the specific purposes of the Scottish and Welsh devolution Acts and in relation to functions dealt with by those Acts. The conferment of these new underwater archaeology functions on English Heritage are not within the scope of those powers, so there is a need for separate and distinct order-making powers. The order under the Bill will reproduce exactly the definitions and co-ordinates of the relevant boundaries that were specified in orders made under the devolution Acts. We have stressed that to the devolved administrations and they are happy with those assurances.
Some noble Lords may prefer to see that stated on the face of the Bill. However, this is the sort of issue that is generally dealt with by order. The Bill adopts the same approach as the devolution legislation and is therefore consistent with that legislation. The House may be assured that when my department comes to prepare the order we will consult colleagues in the devolved administrations on its terms to ensure that consistency is properly reflected. Furthermore, our expert advice is that there is no difference between the co-ordinates at the surface of the water and at the sea bed. The vertical line at a particular point strikes the same place whether it be at the surface or the sea bed; there is no deflection.
It is also important to note that, by mutual agreement, the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis. English Heritage will provide the secretariat, but will consult with the heritage bodies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whose members will attend committee meetings. That consultation and committee will provide a channel in which any issues
1496
and concerns can be raised and discussed. Any wrecks that might straddle boundaries will no doubt be dealt with in that forum.
The overseas trading provisions of the Bill carefully define "foreign" as being outside the United Kingdom, recognising that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own heritage bodies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made very clear.
The National Heritage Act 1983, which established English Heritage, restricts that body's activities exclusively to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England. However, there is a demand from overseas for English Heritage's expertise, goods and services. England is noted for its cultural heritage and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that English Heritage is a leading brand name that is respected throughout the world for its expertise, skills and experience in the management, conservation and restoration of the historic environment. At present English Heritage has to turn away requests to use that expertise in foreign countries. That is very sad.
The overseas trading provisions in the Bill, like those in the Culture and Recreation Bill before it, will make it possible for those skills to be shared with a wider audience. I believe that they will benefit the heritage sector in two ways. First, they will create the opportunity for English Heritage to sell products and services round the world, which will generate additional income to benefit its work in England. We can all be pleased about that. Secondly, they will create export opportunities for other British suppliers and contractors in the heritage field who are keen to benefit from English Heritage's lead. Smaller private sector organisations presently find it difficult to penetrate overseas markets without a leading organisation to gain entry. Consequently, they will not be competing with English Heritage but, rather, benefiting as subcontractors or from follow-up orders. I can confirm to the House that the overseas trading provisions do not give English Heritage powers to undertake such activities in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Those countries, of course, have their own heritage bodies.
I turn to the underwater archaeology provisions of the Bill. These arise from the fact that the National Heritage Act 1983 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 do not give English Heritage powers to act below the mean low water mark. That means that it cannot perform the same functions for underwater archaeology as it can for land-based archaeology. Again, I believe that the noble Baroness made that very clear. It includes activities such as the provision of educational facilities and services, public information and advice, and contributing towards research costs and grants, to name only a few.
Furthermore, it is not possible for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to direct English Heritage to carry out certain administrative functions in relation to underwater archaeology. In particular, I refer to running the secretariat for the Advisory

1497
Committee on Historic Wreck Sites and the management of the contract for the provision of archaeological diving services on designated wreck sites throughout the United Kingdom. DCMS has therefore had to retain those functions. English Heritage's involvement would permit more expertise to enter the decision-making process.
The provisions contained within the noble Baroness's Bill will rectify such anomalies. They will enable underwater archaeology to benefit from English Heritage's services and will allow underwater archaeology projects to benefit from English Heritage grant schemes. There is a broad consensus that those administrative functions would best be carried out by English Heritage. Furthermore, it is accepted by the devolved administrations that those functions should be carried out on a UK-wide basis with English Heritage consulting the heritage bodies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Bill will make that possible.
I know that many in this House have concerns about the effective protection of historic wreck sites and of items found on them. I believe that the Bill put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will make a significant contribution to improving the current regime in England by enabling English Heritage to take responsibility for advising on the management of sites and making grants for their preservation. My department works very closely with the Receiver of Wreck, who is responsible for making decisions on the disposal of material recovered from wrecks in UK waters, to ensure that the best possible home is found for historical material. I am sure that English Heritage will do likewise.
A. final point to mention is that the Government's comprehensive spending review of 1998 recommended the merger of English Heritage with the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in England. The intention was to create a single organisation capable of acting as the lead body for the historic environment in England, covering both terrestrial and marine environments. Although the two bodies have merged in practice, underwater archaeology is one of the two issues that have prevented their full legal amalgamation. The passage of this Bill will take us nearer to completing that very desirable process. Action on the other issue of pension schemes is also in hand.
Before I finish, I should tell the House that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, my department is preparing a regulatory impact assessment for the Bill, which I shall place in the Libraries of both Houses.
In conclusion, the Bill is a valuable and useful piece of legislation, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing it. It will give English Heritage the opportunity to export its expertise and also to generate more income. It will create opportunities for smaller private sector organisations to penetrate the overseas markets. It will place underwater archaeology on the same footing as land-based archaeology and, most importantly, it will
1498
further enhance English Heritage's stratus as the lead body within the sector. Once again, perhaps I may say how pleased I am to be able to offer the support of the Government.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches also support the Bill wholeheartedly. We thank the noble Baroness for introducing this Private Member's Bill. Indeed, as the Minister pointed out, we have already debated these provisions in the Culture and Recreation Bill. But for, perhaps, a failure of this House to reach an agreement, that Bill would have been allowed to pass its further stages. I believe that one issue which was a sticking point—culture on line—is now coming into being without the provision of legislation.
This Bill is limited, as are all Private Members' Bills. It is hoped that the risks to the Bill which would have been introduced by the concerns expressed by the devolved assemblies are now no longer an issue. I very much hope that it is given a fair wind in another place.
However, because archaeological Bills are such rare and precious objects, I believe that it would be unfair to miss the opportunity to lament some of the matters which are not raised in the Bill. That is no indictment of the Bill as drafted by the noble Baroness. One issue that should have been in the Culture and Recreation Bill was to make SMRs statutory. Now I believe that the Government have put forward a proposal that SMRs should be replaced by historic and environmental record centres. But that seems a good deal in the distance, and I believe that we have missed an opportunity to preserve the system that we have at present.
Another area—although it is perhaps even wider of the Culture and Recreation Bill—is reform of the CAP. One major issue affecting archaeology at present is the destruction of sites through ploughing. Another issue that could have been considered is a code of practice to deal with the issues brought about by the Valetta Convention. However, the Minister was kind enough to share her thoughts on that matter last week at the Society of Antiquaries. She indicated that a voluntary code of practice may be the way that the Government are looking forward on this issue. Although I support very much the Institute of Field Archaeologists' code of conduct, I consider that a voluntary code will still have some cost implications. I believe that these matters will be the subject of debate in the future.
Another area which perhaps could have been considered is the vast list of buildings mentioned on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk list. I should also like to have seen a measure to introduce a criminal offence for destroying sites of monuments, a review of PPGs 15 and 16 and a review of the curriculum introducing pre-history. 'Unlike most planners of school education, I believe that most human history took place before the Romans landed. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, whose subject is based firmly in an era which pre-dates the history taught in the curriculum, is nodding in agreement.

1499
All those—I am sorry to have put forward a wish-list of such length—are probably areas that would necessitate the introduction of a fully-fledged archaeological Bill. I hope very much that the Minister will put forward the need for that at the next ministerial Cabinet when DCMS makes its bid for new legislation. However, I digress slightly from the aims of this most sensible Bill.
I want to raise three points about the Bill, although I support its aims and objectives and they are well set out. The first concerns the issue of underwater archaeology. I want to raise the sensible measure of considering not only wrecks. Following the flooding of the North Sea 10,000 years ago, most of Britain would obviously have been counted in the highlands of Europe. The North Sea would have been the most fertile area on which to find Mesolithic sites and, indeed, many Mesolithic artefacts have been recovered. Underwater archaeology has progressed to the extent that digs can be undertaken on sites. I raise that because large funding implications are involved. Underwater archaeology is one of the most expensive forms of excavation. The Culture and Recreation Bill proposed that funding for underwater archaeology would come from the English Heritage emergency fund for rescue archaeology but that fund is already vastly over-stretched. We may introduce provisions relating to underwater archaeology but, without proper funding, we might take away the means to undertake that work.
My second point involves the extent to which English Heritage should work abroad. I can see the appeal of making its well-known and internationally valuable expertise in that field available in other countries—it was previously available until it was realised that that was outside the scope of English Heritage. I am raising a neglected issue. One reason why English Heritage so desperately wishes to work abroad arises from the associated financial implications; it manages to raise money by working abroad. Speaking as an international development spokesman, I have a slight apprehension about the fact that if English Heritage works abroad, it will not, on a financial basis, be able to give its expertise to those countries that most desperately need it—sub-Saharan Africa, African countries and developing countries. I say that because the arrangement might fall outside the criteria in the new International Development Bill, which sets out the criteria for DfID. It might not meet the needs of the poorest.
My third point relates to the sale of souvenirs, which is a valuable area. I must declare an interest because I run a small archaeological reconstruction centre in Northumberland, and I realise that a vast proportion of our revenue comes from the tea shop and the souvenirs that we sell. The secretary-general of the Society of Antiquaries provided me with a particularly fine example of an English Heritage souvenir. It is a snow globe, and if one shakes it, it produces a snowstorm over Stonehenge. It is very fine, especially because it has the word, "Stonehenge" emblazoned on the front in Greek letters. English Heritage obviously
1500
knows something about the construction of Stonehenge that we do not. However, I was told that it would be against the provisions of the Companion to brandish the snow globe in the Chamber this evening! I shall not raise questions of taste about what English Heritage sells.
I finish my rather lengthy remarks by posing a question. Has English Heritage, by selling souvenirs up to this point, been breaking the law, and have those who bought souvenirs been doing likewise? If not, it would be helpful to have that confirmed. That underlines the fact that English Heritage is underfunded with regard to the provision of its services and the sites that it maintains. We shall return to that matter when we discuss the difficulties that it faces concerning its work on buildings at risk.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am bound to say that it is somewhat curious that the Government, having had four years to bring forward these important provisions, gave them such a low priority that they appeared so late in the previous Parliament that the Bill fell. They have failed to reintroduce similar provisions in this Parliament. It has fallen to my noble friend Lady Anelay to attempt, from these Conservative Benches, to do the job for the Government. I congratulate her on her remedy—she is clearly making much progress with the Minister and the House—and I hope that she succeeds. Many people are waiting with impatience for the Bill.
I want to speak only about Clause 1, which relates to underwater archaeology. The aim of that clause is clearly sensible. As it stands, it could be the source of all sorts of trouble, which could easily be avoided if action is taken now. As my noble friend and the Minister have explained, Clause 1(3) will enable the Secretary of State to determine, by order, for the purposes of this Bill,
"the parts of the United Kingdom territorial waters which are to be treated as adjacent to England, and"—
this is the important part—
"those which are not".
Despite the fact care for heritage is a devolved matter, there is nothing in the Bill that will make consultation and agreement with those devolved administrations that are affected by the Bill mandatory. In other words, the Bill states that the Secretary of State—who, by virtue of Clause 8(5), is the Secretary of State for England and Wales—may, in detailing which seas are adjacent to England, also partly determine which seas are adjacent to other parts of the United Kingdom. There is no reference in the Bill to consultation or agreement, which to me is extraordinary.
My noble friend and the Minister mentioned that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, has commented on the matter. My noble friend read out a comment from the report, which pointed out the sensitivity of the issue.

1501
My noble friend and the Minister have responded with several important assurances—the Minister has given some this evening, for which we are grateful. We are told that Ministers of the devolved administrations have been consulted and are happy with the arrangements. Furthermore, in the case of Scotland, which is my particular concern, the Minister said that the boundaries proposed in the legislation will be identical to those that are already agreed, for a different purpose, in the Scottish Adjacent Water Boundaries Order 1999.
I point out that such an order can be varied and that there may be other orders. That is not the only issue with which we are dealing. The assurances may well satisfy the Select Committee and there will no doubt be discussions on the matter. Such is the sensitivity of any definition within United Kingdom waters that the Bill should either make consultation and agreement on the order mandatory or the order should state what the proposed boundaries will be, so that everyone can see that the boundaries are already agreed by the administrations concerned.
If the Minister advises my noble friend that the Bill should be amended in either of those ways, and if my noble friend agrees to table an amendment, I shall not need to take any further action. This is an important matter. I shall read the Minister's remarks again but I do not think that anything that she said will change my view of the matter.
I would also like to ask the Minister two questions. I realise that she is not on the list to speak again, so she may like to write to me or to my noble friend, or if she knows the answers immediately, she may answer before I sit down. First, she said that the definition of a boundary on the surface would continue in a straight line to the sea-bed at the bottom—implying that the definitions were the same. I should point out that, in the case of the Solway Firth, where the north shore lies in Scotland and the south shore in England, as in other inlets, the tides and the work of dredgers cause the seabed constantly to shift and move. One could imagine a wreck moving with the sea-bed. Is her contentment fully justified in the case of such inlets? She should consider the matter, unless she has already done so.
Secondly, if the Bill is enacted, will the Government give an undertaking in Committee that when orders are laid a belt-and-braces statement is made that the boundaries set cannot be used in arguments unrelated to the Bill? On the face of it, the Bill precludes such an argument; but the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when moving the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, said:
"The boundary provided by the draft order has particular significance for sea fisheries. I wish to make it clear—though it should be self-evident—that the boundary has no significance for other matters at sea which are reserved. In particular, it has no relevance to the regulation of oil and gas exploration and production at sea since these are reserved matters".—[Official Report, 23/03/99; col. 1264.]
Devolution had not yet come into effect, but the noble Lord knew how those boundaries might be used in argument. He made the matter clear; it is on the record in Hansard and can be referred to whenever necessary.
1502
It would be good if the Minister could assure us that such a statement will be made when an order is moved under the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness is raising extremely esoteric issues that require expert advice. Experts have been consulted on the matter. I thought that all that I said provided her with adequate reassurance, but I am entirely to happy to write to her on the matters that she raises.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It would be worth doing that, because both questions are important from the Scottish perspective—I know that she appreciates that sea boundaries are slightly more sensitive than they are south of the Border.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it seems strange that the first national heritage Bill to emerge under the present Administration should be a Private Member's Bill proposed by an Opposition Member. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns on her welcome initiative.
It is stranger still that this Bill should be salvaging part of the wreckage—to use a nautical metaphor—of the Government's Culture and Recreation Bill, which sank without trace in the weeks and months before the general election. I remind your Lordships that that Bill received a Second Reading on 18th January—long before the general election. I hoped that the Bill would proceed through the House during the many weeks and months between January and the election. 'The present Bill comprises, almost verbatim, Clauses 19 to 24 of that sunken Culture and Recreation Bill.
I take this opportunity—my first—to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to her new position as Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, responsible for national heritage. With her much respected clarity of mind, she will be able to give us clear answers to heritage questions.
I also pay tribute to her noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who has dealt so effectively and sympathetically with heritage matters in this House. Indeed, only this week he successfully managed to get the Treasury off the hook with its strange proposal to sell off the Privy Council silver collection by recognising its evident heritage importance. I also recognise the progress made by the predecessor of the noble Baroness as a culture Minister, Alan Howarth, who has supported the portable antiquities voluntary recording scheme, and who announced the Government's intention to accede to the 1970 UNESCO convention—something that many of us warmly welcome.
The Bill is especially timely because it is now clear that historic wrecks in our waters are increasingly subject to systematic looting, such as has become familiar off the east coast of the United States where historic wrecks are commonly plundered for their cargoes, which are then offered for sale. Naturally,

1503
such recovery is not conducted to the high standards of underwater archaeology, nor are the results properly published nor the finds lodged in a publicly owned museum. On sea, as on land, the problem is the loss of context, and of the historic information that accompanies such loss. It is vital that we strengthen the procedures by which ancient wrecks are preserved and opened to systematic investigation by competent workers who will publish the data professionally. The Bill goes a long way in that direction.
Just last week, I received a circular from,
"a British based salvage company with an interest in recovering historical as well as commercial shipwrecks. In addition one of the company's aims is to establish a commercial shipwreck Heritage Centre.
The circular offers shares in the company, and states:
"The Directors hope to raise … £750,000 in share capital".
I deplore those who seek to commercialise our heritage in that way and to sell off the evidence of our past. The company announces that it has relocated to the southeast of England on the grounds that,
"there are a number of relatively untouched wrecks off Kent particularly on and around the Goodwin sands".
The circular concludes:
"You should note that an investment … should qualify under the Enterprise Investment Scheme: conferring EIS capital gains tax deferral and EIS income relief."
Something is seriously wrong there, and I hope that the Bill will make it more difficult for the heritage of Britain—with respect to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour—to be exploited inappropriately in such a way.
We need a competent national organisation to deal properly with our historic wrecks and the Bill, which brings such matters within the remit of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England—that is, English Heritage—will be a significant step forward.
To broaden our perspective a little, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale has done, some may feel that national heritage has had a rather low profile under the Labour Government. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has replaced the former Department of National Heritage, and has not produced a single piece of legislation in the field of heritage, other than the ill-starred assortment of items proposed but not passed in the Culture and Recreation Bill.
In the Green Paper, Protecting our Heritage, published in 1996 when we still had a Department of National Heritage, a whole series of recommendations were put forward. Furthermore, the recommendation for statutory sites and monuments records was put forward in the document, Power of Place, which we debated 12 months ago in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. But where are those proposals? And, indeed, where is the Government's response to Power of Place?In another context, I have heard the Minister say that the Government plan to respond soon and that is welcome. But where are the provisions for sites and
1504
monuments records about which there seems to be virtual unanimity in the heritage world and in local government?
I am a little perplexed that the noble Baroness is not expected to reply at the end of the debate because I had a series of further questions. I should be happy to have my questions answered and having asked them would defer at once if she felt inclined to do so. However, I am a little puzzled to know what are the Government's plans in relation to the other provisions of the Culture and Recreation Bill. I have the Explanatory Notes for that Bill before me and note that the structural changes laid out include the establishment of a single body, the Arts Council, to bring together support for arts and crafts; the creation of the commission for architecture and the built environment to promote architecture on a wider basis than the Royal Fine Arts Commission; the establishment of a film council to prepare and implement a strategy to improve access to the moving image; the creation of Resource, the council for museums, archives and libraries, as a new national strategic body for museums; the transformation of the English Tourist Board; and the reconstitution of the Football Licensing Authority as the sports grounds safety authority. The matter of safety on sports grounds is no trivial one.
I was interested to learn from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the Government have other proposals for Culture Online, but I am not aware of an announcement to that effect. I had hoped that a debate on the National Heritage Bill today would afford the noble Baroness the opportunity of indicating the Government's proposals. I am not sure that I have the opportunity to ask those questions and, more exactly, I am not sure that the noble Baroness has the opportunity of replying. That is a matter for disappointment but I await the announcement of the Government's intentions on these matters as soon as conveniently possible.
In conclusion, I want not only to congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay but also to welcome the constructive response which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has given to the proposals. It sounds a fruitful debate and it is satisfactory that the Government have responded in such a constructive and graceful way to the proposals which have been made. From what I have heard I am hopeful that the Bill will have a smooth passage through your Lordships' House and I hope that the same may be said of its passage in another place.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I shall not keep your Lordships very long. First, I want to reiterate everything said by my noble friend Lady Anelay in introducing the Bill. As she said, she has two main objectives: first, to remove some anomalies in the powers and functions of English Heritage; and, secondly, to implement some of the uncontroversial proposals from the 1996 Green Paper, Protecting our Heritage, published by the previous Conservative government.

1505
Among other things, she has made a very strong case for the inclusion of underwater archaeology into the remit of English Heritage. As she said, that problem is not evident in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Historic Scotland and CADW can of course declare wrecks and ancient monuments and where appropriate fully support their management and funding. For instance, in Scapa Flow anchorage lie the seven remaining vessels of the Imperial German High Seas Fleet (four light cruisers and three battleships). Those have been scheduled as ancient monuments. The other vessels of the fleet, which sank in shallower water after scuttling in 1919, have long since been retrieved and broken up. The protection now available in Scotland makes removal of items without permission from a wreck illegal, but allows access by divers as a tourist attraction under the Ancient Monuments Act 1982.
Again, under the 1973 Act, which requires divers on specified wrecks to be licensed, in the Sound of Mull Historic Scotland allows an archaeologist to run a wreck visiting scheme to two wrecks under his supervision due to their precarious position. So both those Acts can be usefully employed to protect heritage as well as allowing and indeed encouraging public access. As has been said by several speakers, there is no reason why English Heritage cannot operate similarly.
It is important to keep in mind war graves. What is a war grave and what is not? For instance, the ships in Scapa Flow, to which I referred, sank without loss of life, in contrast to the battleship "Royal Oak", which was sunk by a German submarine in Scapa Flow in 1939 and is a designated war grave, rightly reflecting that it is the final resting place of more than 1,000 sailors.
Another matter has been drawn to my attention by a Mr Annis concerning the status of historic vessels. Apparently, there is no proper mechanism by which these very important relics of our past can be properly maintained, except by public subscription and occasional and entirely inadequate grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund. I hope to take up that matter with English Heritage, which apparently relinquished its responsibilities for historic ships in 1992, and hope that the best way of resolving the issue may emerge in due course—and, it is to be hoped, before some of the historic ships, which are fast deteriorating, completely disappear.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy is unhappy with boundary designations. I hope it will be possible to resolve that before the Committee stage and I am pleased that the Minister will investigate the matter. My noble friend Lord Renfrew also spoke in support of the Bill and of what should be done to preserve underwater archaeology. He also wondered about other matters lost in the Culture and Recreation Bill earlier this year. I do not know what, if anything, can be done about those.
1506
This is a small Bill but a worthwhile one. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, there should be no need for controversy as both its aims and suggested changes are supported on all sides. Let us give it a fair wind.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening and for the general welcome for the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who has brought her experience of parliamentary scrutiny so carefully to bear on the Bill. I know that she bears the battle scars of the Scotland Act and other debates on devolution, and I very much appreciate the care and attention with which she always alerts me in advance to the concerns that she has on these matters.
I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances that she has given tonight with regard to the order that may be made under the Bill by the Secretary of State. I assure my noble friend Lady Carnegy that after, as I hope, Second Reading has been granted. I shall take up expeditiously the issues that she raised before we reach Committee stage. I want to ensure that my noble friend is content with the reassurances that have been given, and if not, that they may be addressed by amendment. I shall discuss these matters with my noble friend.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for saying that I have not been ambitious enough in the Bill. In the past two or three months there have been times when I have felt that I had over-reached myself. I sympathise with the views expressed by the noble Lord about having an archaeology Bill. He produced an impressive shopping list of his own, which I am sure appealed to your Lordships.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew is concerned about the possibility of commercial exploitation of our heritage. I am sure that all noble Lords present are concerned that no such exploitation should be allowed to imperil what is so important to our country.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that English Heritage's responsibility will run seamlessly from the land to the seabed within the limits of our territorial waters. I appreciate that we shall have to consider carefully those definitions before Committee stage. If the Bill is passed, it will send a message to those inclined towards salvage rather than research and preservation that England places a proper archaeological value on her underwater heritage.
I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Poverty Reduction: EU Aid Programme
  Poverty Reduction: EU Aid Programme
  UK Passports
  UK Passports
  Culture On Line
  Culture On Line
  Red Diesel
  Red Diesel
  War Pensions Agency
  War Pensions Agency
  Interception of Communications Commissioner
  Interception of Communications Commissioner
  Travel and Tourism: Impact of Terrorist Crisis
  Travel and Tourism: Impact of Terrorist Crisis
  Construction
  Construction
  Secondary School Teachers: Subject Qualification
  Secondary School Teachers: Subject Qualification
  Playgroups: Graduate-trained Teachers
  Playgroups: Graduate-trained Teachers
  State Benefits: Hospital Downrating Rule
  State Benefits: Hospital Downrating Rule
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  CAP: Rural Development Plan
  CAP: Rural Development Plan
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
  Food Purchase by Public Bodies
  Food Purchase by Public Bodies
  Medicines for Food-producing Animals
  Medicines for Food-producing Animals
  Arable Sector: Agrimonetary Compensation
  Arable Sector: Agrimonetary Compensation